AHC: Nuclear powered Battleship

[DougM]

How about this? At the end of WW2 the US has a partially finished battle ship sitting around. Ideally a Montana class. Meanwhile the engineering group is looking to try out a nuclear powered vessel but they are not sure they want to put it inside a submarine with the added complications that a vessel designed to “sink” is not ideal for a nuclear test.
Congress agrees to budget the experiment but only if they get a “functional” ship out of it.
Looking around the engineering boys see the hulk of the Montana and figure it is a good chance to build a functional test vessel. To test a LOT of new systems. So the leave the from turrets. Pull off everything else but the AA guns and use the rear deck to test out every new concept for the next decade.
(Humm seams someone had the same basic idea as I was typing this)

 

[AdA]

Battleships are usually protected against their own main weapons. Battlecruiser aren't.
The Kirovs were not protected against their own missiles. Given the size and terminal speed of even a non nuclear warhead SSN-19, nothing was.
Once in a discussion on another site, someone mentioned that large SAM like Talos, if used in an antiship role, could do enormous damage even to a WW2 BB.

 

[Dilvish]

One thought is to use an old battleship as a testbed for a nuclear powerplant. This battleship might also be in use for other kinds of experiments, like the USS Mississippi. Or have an incomplete battleship be converted; say Kentucky, an alt-Shinano, an alt-Lion or Vanguard/Vanguard sister. *

Another idea is to have the technology for nuclear powerplants appear earlier, and have battleship construction last longer.

*HMS Hood, crippled by several 8" and 18" shell hits and a Long Lance torpedo, was selected to be the testbed for the RN's nuclear propulsion program. The converted Hood also saw action with at least three different Doctors in the long-running BBC show.

 

[anotherlurker]

One thought is to use an old battleship as a testbed for a nuclear powerplant. This battleship might also be in use for other kinds of experiments, like the USS Mississippi. Or have an incomplete battleship be converted; say Kentucky, an alt-Shinano, an alt-Lion or Vanguard/Vanguard sister. *

Another idea is to have the technology for nuclear powerplants appear earlier, and have battleship construction last longer.

*HMS Hood, crippled by several 8" and 18" shell hits and a Long Lance torpedo, was selected to be the testbed for the RN's nuclear propulsion program. The converted Hood also saw action with at least three different Doctors in the long-running BBC show.

No WW1, the Brit/US/German/French/Russian/Japanese naval one-upmanship continues. Soon 100kt monster battleships are build and the hard limits, if there are any, are reached and any improvement has to come from smaller changes to subsytems instead of piling up more armor plates and inch to the guns. By the 30s the internationally cooperating physics community (something that was virtually eliminated following the world wars!) is advanced enough in their science to propose energy generation through fission and some design teams are going to listen to them to one-up the other side.

Without a major naval war the carrier will not prove itself as the primary weapon on the seas, and without a major war time project rockets should develop slower and on a smaller scale than OTL (though i could be wrong on this because one-upmanship is there on land as well!), that's the two reasons why BBs were abandoned taken care off.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Keeping up with the Joneses.

Uncle Joe says he wants a nuclear powered Icebreaker/Battleship for Polar Dominance in 1952. Building starts soon after, even before there is a Marine reactor design

U-2 Overflights discover the Lenin being completed, and suddenly, the USN needs one too

USS Alaska is ready for her conversion.

Eh... more likely the Navy just develops a missile that can punch through heavy armor. Probably nuclear. It's what the Brits did when confronted with lots of Sverdlovs and oh hey the US Navy has this nice long-range all-weather strike aircraft about to hit the carrier decks called the Intruder.

 

[MatthewB]

I think the only plausible POD is a replacement for the Iowa class.

No, since our nuclear ship has no ability to engage other ships other than deploying the same active distance defence systems any large warship has, the better analog is a faster Erebus class monitor.

What we’re seeking it seems is a big gun ship in the era of missiles.

 

[Thane of Fife]

How about something like this:

1. Nuclear fission is discovered in 1936/1937 rather than 1938/1939. Ida Noddack proposed it around 1934. George Gamow developed the liquid drop model around 1935. It's plausible to get nuclear fission a few years earlier.
2. Earlier discovery of fission leads to greater international cooperation as war is not yet so close. We can potentially have theory advance a bit faster even with an earlier discovery.
3. Because the war is farther away, early applications are aimed more at power generation, especially for naval use. I believe that the earliest US nuclear project was aimed at naval propulsion (it was eventually subsumed into the Manhattan Project).
4. We could have development toward a nuclear battleship starting before or during the war. I think it is unlikely that a battleship would be chosen over a cruiser or submarine, but it's possible.

If the war is delayed or extended a bit, the ship could conceivably be launched during the war; otherwise, we can presume that it is finished afterward as a prestige project or through inertia.

 

[marathag]

Eh... more likely the Navy just develops a missile that can punch through heavy armor. Probably nuclear. It's what the Brits did when confronted with lots of Sverdlovs and oh hey the US Navy has this nice long-range all-weather strike aircraft about to hit the carrier decks called the Intruder.

Navy already has Multi-Megaton Weapons that could take care of anything that floats

That doesn't solve the PR problems of the Soviets having something the US does not.
There's a Nuclear powered Battleship Gap!
Kennedy would be pounding the Eisenhower administration on how this could have happened, even though everyone knows that Battleships are of even of less use than they were in WWII

It's about appearances. Optics of the US turning old battleships into razorblades while the USSR has a fearsome new battleship powered by the Atom

 

[Blue cat]

That’s a cruiser, not a battleship.

To answer the OP’s question, you need to give a country a reason to build an all-new BB in the 1960s. That might be outright ASB.

Build a similar vessel to the Kirov and call it a battle ship

 

[Johnrankins]

Navy already has Multi-Megaton Weapons that could take care of anything that floats

That doesn't solve the PR problems of the Soviets having something the US does not.
There's a Nuclear powered Battleship Gap!
Kennedy would be pounding the Eisenhower administration on how this could have happened, even though everyone knows that Battleships are of even of less use than they were in WWII

It's about appearances. Optics of the US turning old battleships into razorblades while the USSR has a fearsome new battleship powered by the Atom

This is about the only realistic way to do this that I have seen posted yet.

 

[TerenceofGod]

The only POD I can see is the Pacific War. The instance where a Japanese carrier's planes provides recon and air screen for a battle ship force, that successfully enters gun range and decimates the carrier force.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

This is about the only realistic way to do this that I have seen posted yet.

So to make this a bit more specific, lets try this:

-BB-65 and 66 are never re-ordered as Iowa Class ships, both are laid down as USS Montana and USS Ohio but cancelled at wars end somwhere short of where Illinois and Kentucky were OTL
-Iowas are withdrawn from service on schedule in the late 50s following the Korean war
-Stalin survives about a decade longer with the result that around 1960 the Sovetsky Soyuz is completed as the first Soviet nuclear surface vessel, this apparent gap prevents scrapping of the BB-65 and 66 hulls (they lasted until 58/59 OTL, so not a huge stretch)
-Kennedy makes light of the "Battleship Gap" and commits to closing it with the Montana Class
-Montana and Ohio are heavily redesigned with nuclear propulsion, likely losing at least one, possibly both rear turret(s) in favour of helicopter and missile (Talos probably?) capabilities
-Both commission in 65-67 with guns canabalized from the Iowa class (which are never re-activated) and serve in Vietnam (not sure if any of the four survive as museum ships, but I suspect not if we're re-using turrets, one might get some form of BBG conversion for a while, but that's likely more a part of (nuclear) Montana development in much the role of Missippi in the 50s than a combat unit - if this happens I suppose this unit has a fighting chance)
-Sovetsky Soyuz retires at some point in the late 70s or early 80s being a one (or at most two) off ship with little real purpose and very much a Stalin era showpiece more than useful capability (I'd bet that OTL's Ulyanovsk is designated Sovetsky Soyuz TTL)
-Reagan's naval program gives both ships a refit in the 80s, upgrading them with some reasonable number of VLS cells and possibly AEGIS as a quasi prototype for the Strike Cruiser concept, being both more in need of refit and less size limited (if carrying fewer missiles) than the Virginia Class
-Retire either with the rest of the nuclear surface fleet at the end of the 90s, or if still in service in September 2001 (I'm thinking that while retiring alongside the Virginia's is likely policy the presence of AEGIS on a very capable gunfire and command platform might cause them to be the last ships pulled, keeping them around a few years longer) shortly after participating in the invasion of Iraq
-Probably both still in the reserve fleet today between the naval gunfire advocates politcal pressure and demands (with plenty of funding) for preseveration combined with the difficutlies in making museum ships of nuclear units

 

[marathag]

(Talos probably?)

For proper Cold War madness, you need Typhon, aka 'Super Talos'

and the Phase Array Radar to go with it.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

For proper Cold War madness, you need Typhon, aka 'Super Talos'
and the Phase Array Radar to go with it.

I like. The timing even works for it to be rush deployed on the Montana's, and then the weirdo overpriced system helps justify the level of rebuild needed to move to VLS and Standard the 80s.

 

[Jellico]

Build a similar vessel to the Kirov and call it a battle ship

Reclassify an existing class and call it a battleship. It is what they did for the cruiser gap.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

No, since our nuclear ship has no ability to engage other ships other than deploying the same active distance defence systems any large warship has, the better analog is a faster Erebus class monitor.

What we’re seeking it seems is a big gun ship in the era of missiles.

Yes, since IOTL the Iowas were refitted and re-commissioned in the 1980s as the cores of four surface action groups. They would have worn our eventually and the USN may well have considered building nuclear powered replacements had the Cold War continued for longer than it did. Perhaps the replacement would be along the lines of the CSGN of the 1970s, but with at least one heavy calibre gun and more protection.

Though on the subject of a faster Erebus class monitor the USN wanted to build an inshore fire support ship to replace the surviving gun cruisers in the shore bombardment role. This was in the 1960s and IIRC it was to be armed with a few 8" MCLWGs. ITTL the USN might also want some armed with 12" or 16" guns and nuclear propulsion.

 

[Barry Bull]

Eh... more likely the Navy just develops a missile that can punch through heavy armor. Probably nuclear. It's what the Brits did when confronted with lots of Sverdlovs and oh hey the US Navy has this nice long-range all-weather strike aircraft about to hit the carrier decks called the Intruder.

One cannot cover up all the antennas and radars with armor. And modern SSM or ASuM, even if unable to punch through, is more than sufficient to mission kill the BB by destroying or damaging the unarmored sensor systems.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Reclassify an existing class and call it a battleship. It is what they did for the cruiser gap.

Are you referring to 1975 when the USN's frigates were reclassified as cruisers or destroyers? At the same time the destroyer escorts were re-classified as frigates.

However, I think the real reason was because it was confusing that the recently completed USS California and NATO warships like the British Type 14 were both frigates.

 

[sts-200]

Without resorting to re-defining the accepted meaning of the word "battleship" - i.e. a line-of-battle ship; a large warship, usually protected or armoured, and armed with large-calibre guns - I can't see any practical advantage in using nuclear power.

-During any engagement, a nuclear reactor would be an appalling safety hazard, when faced with weapons specifically designed to go through large thicknesses of steel and then explode. Hits, or even the shock of hits could also render the ship useless even if it wasn't heavily damaged (e.g. steam leaks, power losses are potentially much more of problem than on a conventional ship).

-The only advantage of nuclear power is long range.
Battleships already had the ability to be sent anywhere in world, while their combat missions in contested waters were typically relatively short (i.e. go out, fight, return home for repairs).
In their other role as deterrent weapons, rather than fighting ships, they didn't need to go anywhere.
In a vessel with a patrolling mission (e.g. ASW, an AA cruiser or a submarine), there is a clear advantage to being able to stay on-station for a long time, hence nuclear ships of these types have been built. Obviously there are further advantages with subs.


If you want to redefine the word "battleship" - I'll give you a strong argument that today's aircraft carriers are in fact battlecruisers (per the definition of the man who invented them), but there we could easily start arguing about the meaning of the word "word", the meaning of the word "the" and the meaning of the word "meaning"

 

[TheMann]

I assume when we talk about battleships here we are referring to something with big guns and heavy armor, and not a missile monster like the Kirovs? If so, I can only think of the idea of having the two Montanas started and then completed with nuclear propulsion as a rival to what the Soviets have built is the most logical one.

My only disagreement with it is on construction. I would imagine it would make more sense to take the main guns from the South Dakota class BBs than the Iowas, because the Navy will NOT want to see the Iowas head for scrap - they were the only battleships capable of keeping up with USN carriers, don't forget.

I would also expect these monsters to use Talos and Tartar missile systems and probably to equipped for Polaris missiles. Whether they keep any 5" secondaries I'm not sure, but using the 16" turrets from the South Dakotas saves the Iowas from the scrap heap, and means the USN probably has a formidable gun fleet in the 1980s after the Iowas are called back to the colours. On the subject of the actual rebuilds, I can see the Montanas being designed in a similar manner to USS Enterprise (the CV-65 one, that is) in the design simply replaces the eight boilers with eight reactors (assuming it fits of course) thus giving it a similar power plant to the carrier.