Nuclear power also costs a lot upfront as well. Nuclear cruisers never really happened beyond Long Beach because it never made any sense to have your escorts be 2/3 or more the cost of your carriers. And a Nimitz was judged to be half again as expensive as a repeat Kennedy back in the 70s.
AHC : Worst possible US Navy
- Thread starter Admiral Bloonbeard
- Start date
Nuclear-powered escorts are really expensive, which means that a navy in which all surface combatants are nuclear-powered would be significantly smaller. Then you've got the immense cost of decommissioning all those ships. That means that while nuclear-power might make individual ships might be more capable, the navy as a whole would be a lot less capable.
ETA: Oh, I see that my thinking has already been far more comprehensively explained by others. Props to @CalBear for referencing Arthur C. Clarke's Superiority.
Last edited:
Nuclear-powered escorts are really expensive, which means that a navy in which all surface combatants are nuclear-powered would be significantly smaller. Then you've got the immense cost of decommissioning all those ships. That means that while nuclear-power might make individual ships might be more capable, the navy as a whole would be a lot less capable.
ETA: Oh, I see that my thinking has already been far more comprehensively explained by others. Props to @CalBear for referencing Arthur C. Clarke's Superiority.
Then again an all-nuclear CBG provides also some benefits, such as longer endurance at sea and rapid transit to crisis area thus requiring less CBG's total. And even with all nuclear CGN/DDGN force USN would have numerical and qualitative superiority over any opponent.
I'm not saying that it doesn't have advantages but unless you've got all the money in the world you're not going to be able to afford enough of them to ensure that you'll have enough CBG's available to cover potential crisis areas. If a CBGN is 8,000nmi away how much quicker does it get to a crisis area than a CBG that's 4,000nmi away?
Because Calbear goes into a rant every time the Alaska class is discussed. But yeah, they are a complete waste of steel.
And because they weren't built as oversized Atlantas which was one of the design proposals....if they given them a second rudder I'd imagine such a ship would have an interesting post war life as converting it to a missile/command ship would have very viable and its armament when launched would have proved very useful indeed in actual role in WWII
Pretty much the only scenario I can think of is where the US has a long brutal civil war that impacts the economy to a disasterous level and force the different sides to invest all their military budgets in the air force/ army.
Actually I think more than a couple folks here LIKE the Alaska class, simply because they know I tend to get all Old Testament Wrath anytime they are mentioned.
Actually I think more than a couple folks here LIKE the Alaska class, simply because they know I tend to get all Old Testament Wrath anytime they are mentioned.
Hence my Magnus Opus "Why the Alaska's were the single best warship class not just in the history of Mankind but the best warship class in the history of the universe. And why California should correct it's original typo by changing it's state symbol/ state flag to one celebrating the noble Pear."
Stalin dies in 1945 and the Relationship between the 'East and West' is far better than OTL
Basically everyone is 'nicer' than OTL
Korean War? What Korean war?
The United Nations is a true UN and most wars are nipped in the bud before they can do more than flare up
Decolonisation goes slower but more robustly with proper representations for a given peoples at the UN
Ultimately there is far far less conflict ITTL
Against this backdrop the need for a large US Navy is simply not there.
By 1970 the USN is a glorified 'international coast guard' with a fairly decent expeditionary force core (which is more used for disaster relief than any major combat deployment)
I just had the greatest idea in human history. Namely nuclear powered coast guard cutters. Or better yet Nuclear Powered Coast Guard Buoy Tenders.
Well, that'll show those breakers whose boss.
What do you have against science?
This Nuclear Outboard Motor Was a Really Terrible Idea
Podded atomic propulsion was leaky and noisy
medium.com
The USN did look into what were essentially disposable nuclear outboard motors for a brief period.
Because ya know who hasn't wanted their 12 foot boston whaler to be able to go 35 knots for a few decades in a row.
I remember seeing proposals for nuclear powered bouys to replace lightships and lighthouses. As well as nuclear powered communications satellites.
There are lots of nuclear satellites, they just tend to be using decay batteries not reactors ( they just use natural decay to produce power , there is no chain reaction ).
Non stop.What do you have against science?
This Nuclear Outboard Motor Was a Really Terrible Idea
Podded atomic propulsion was leaky and noisy
The USN did look into what were essentially disposable nuclear outboard motors for a brief period.
Because ya know who hasn't wanted their 12 foot boston whaler to be able to go 35 knots for a few decades in a row.
Be handy to be able to tow a CVN with a couple zodiacs, have to admit.
No the concepts I saw were going to put reactors on them. I think it was called the SNAP program.
USCG decides they want their own version of Lenin and the Arktikas and away they go.
EDIT: Also, "Lenin and the Arktikas" would be a great name for a band.
There was actually at least one nuclear powered lighthouse that was modified as an experiment. I believe that instead of having a traditional nuclear reactor it used an RTG (Radiothermal Generator) device working off the decay of nuclear material. Such devices are pretty commonly used for satellites.
Baltimore Harbor Light - Wikipedia
Just as with every other event or occurrence in history that could be considered scientifically advanced or civilized it occurred in Maryland.