AHC/WI: Rickover Retires in 1964

Delta Force

Banned
Hyman Rickover was Director of Naval Reactors and a major force in United States nuclear reactor development (both military and commercial) for nearly four decades, profoundly shaping the development of the nuclear navy and commercial power. He personally interviewed every prospective naval nuclear officer and used his bureaucratic powers and political connections to promote pressurized water reactors in the Navy, as well as conservative submarine design. Some experts claim this allowed the Soviets to catch up to the USN in submarine technology, as well as a greater tolerance for risk as accidents among the Soviet Navy.

Interestingly, Rickover was allowed to continue in his position well into his eighties due to l a series of extraordinary appointments to special positions for two years at a time. This extended his service well past 1964, when he ordinarily would have faced mandatory retirement from the Navy.

What impact might there have been for the navy and commercial nuclear power if Rickover had retired in 1964? Also, who might have succeeded him as Director of Naval Reactors?
 
One take is Rickovers insanely devotion to quality performance ensured the USN had no serious submarine accidents or reactors failures. Proponents of this school of thought claim the sinking of the Threasher and the Scorpion somehow gave Rickover the political support he needed to demand and get the maximum & highest quality of performance out of the USN submarine and nuclear programs. If this is correct, and I am inclined to give it some credence, then absent Rickover there is the possibility the same attitudes and standards that led to the loss of the Threasher and Scorpion will lead to the loss of one or more other submarines, and/or a scary reactor failure by the USN.
 

Delta Force

Banned
What if the loss of Thresher or Scorpion had been attributed to a failure of part of the propulsion system? One theory on the loss of Thresher attributes the incident to a failure of the electrical system, leading to a shutdown of the coolant pumps and triggering a reactor SCRAM. There's a similar theory regarding the loss of Scorpion, attributing the incident to battery related hydrogen explosion.

There's also the possibility of something occurring with the S2G sodium cooled reactor originally installed on Seawolf, although Rickover had informed the Atomic Energy Commission of his plans to convert the ship to use a light water reactor very early on. There was still a two year period in which Seawolf was powered by the S2G, with the serious safety risks that involves. Specifically, sodium ignites on contact with the atmosphere and explodes upon contact with water, making it rather dangerous, especially for a ship.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Any suggestions on who might have taken over from Rickover had he retired earlier, or what direction the nuclear Navy may have gone?

Also, I've read allusions to advanced reactor and submarine proposals that Rickover terminated at an early stage, including the possibility of using sodium cooled reactors on new submarines and an advanced alternative to the Los Angeles class nuclear attack submarines. Anyone know anything about those proposals, or were they canceled too early for there to be much specific information?
 

Delta Force

Banned
I imagine this is a rather obscure topic, but this might be a major PoD in a timeline. Were there any prominent rivals to Rickover in the naval nuclear power program? Could someone with a career in naval operations have taken over and emphasized technological superiority over the Soviets over safety to some extents? Given how early 1964 was, could a diesel submariner have taken over? What kind of focus might they have had?
 
AIUI, weren't there theories abounding at the time that both Thresher and Scorpion were lost due to torpedo warhead explosions causing the forward compartments to flood, thereby dooming both subs?:confused:
 
AIUI, weren't there theories abounding at the time that both Thresher and Scorpion were lost due to torpedo warhead explosions causing the forward compartments to flood, thereby dooming both subs?:confused:

Yes there were, and are. Those work best with the Scorpion. The hydrophonic data connected to the Scorpions sinking suggests a torpedo detonation. Not conclusive, but nothing in these two sinkings is. In any case the sound data is of two explosions in swift sequence. Strongest evidence for the Threasher supports a electrical failure leading to a SCRAM & subsequent propulsion loss. Those do not explain why the captain or OD waited too long to blow ballast for positive bouyancy. Assuming the last machinery noises overheard were a attempt to do a emergency ballast blow then something like another emergency or bad judgement or simply stale training interfered with getting to that life saving task. If the ballast was not being ejected then there is the question of what would prevent that?

The Threasher was likely far below estimated crush depth when a detonation was recorded. So, the odds are that noise was the result of hull collapse. I am unsure if the Threaser carried torpedos since this was a sea trial or systems check of the just launched ship. Not even sure if it was actually past final acceptance for service yet.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Some argue that the two submarine incidents helped Rickover solidify his control, because the failure was attributed to the Bureau of Ships/Naval Ship Systems Command. If the submarines hadn't been lost, might that have led to an earlier retirement for Rickover?
 
Yes, as in my first post I'd think it possible. Absent any major accidents/losses Rickovers talent is less necessary. Probably in this situation because the others involved in submarines have resisted pressures to let quality slip. Quality in both training and material standards.

The middle way is if the Threasher & Scorpion do not sink, but some other loss occurs then or later. So, Rickovers attitude towards quality is still required.

Note how the surface fleet, particularly the carrier fleet had to tighten up standards as well. The Forrestal fire and similar incidents on other ships forced the USn to take a hard look at bringing their procedures & standards forward from what had been appropriate for the 1950s or 1940s.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Are there any naval officers who stand out as having the potential to have taken over from Rickover? Of the many categories Wikipedia has, lists of United States Navy nuclear engineers is not one. Of course, it is also possible that the replacement might not be a nuclear engineer, especially since some within the navy criticized the engineering (as opposed to operational) approach adopted by Rickover and Naval Reactors.
 

Puzzle

Donor
Given how early 1964 was, could a diesel submariner have taken over? What kind of focus might they have had?

Would a diesel submarine meet the Navy's needs though? It seems like for a bluewater navy like the U.S. the lower need for refueling and long range would make nuclear power almost mandatory. Can diesel subs keep up with carrier groups the way the Los Angeles class does? The Ethan Allen class was laid down by this point, as well as the Skipjacks.

The nuclear deterrent subs also benefit greatly from nuclear power, with or without Rickover, diesel won't be the major power source for submarines.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Would a diesel submarine meet the Navy's needs though? It seems like for a bluewater navy like the U.S. the lower need for refueling and long range would make nuclear power almost mandatory. Can diesel subs keep up with carrier groups the way the Los Angeles class does? The Ethan Allen class was laid down by this point, as well as the Skipjacks.

I was thinking more about one of the old World War II submariners taking over, such as Maurice H. Rindskopf (youngest submarine commander in American history, later head of Naval Intelligence) or someone else with more of an operational perspective. Rickover and many others at Naval Reactors advocated a conservative approach, while some elsewhere wanted to take more risk with submarines or otherwise incorporate new technologies to keep more of a gap between the Soviet Navy and the USN. The competition between the Los Angeles design that Rickover supported and the CONFORM designs supported by others shows this.

By the time Rickover retired, the Soviet Navy was only a decade or so behind the United States in submarine technologies, and projected to reach parity in the 1990s. The safety culture he established is commendable, as there have been no incidents with American naval reactors and nuclear powered Navy ships sail just about anywhere without usually attracting protest over safety concerns. Still, it seems that in the long run Naval Reactors may have become too conservative, and that advanced technologies, possibly including reactors, might have eventually had to have a crash program to grow the gap between the Soviet and American navies had the Cold War continued.

The nuclear deterrent subs also benefit greatly from nuclear power, with or without Rickover, diesel won't be the major power source for submarines.
That's true, but there was a niche for diesel-electric submarines in intelligence gathering. They could also have been an export for the American shipbuilding industry if developed had continued. Many foreign submarines were derived from the Barbel class, the last USN diesel-electric submarines. That's not in the domain of Naval Reactors though, so it isn't really directly related to this topic.
 
By the time Rickover retired, the Soviet Navy was only a decade or so behind the United States in submarine technologies, and projected to reach parity in the 1990s. The safety culture he established is commendable, as there have been no incidents with American naval reactors and nuclear powered Navy ships sail just about anywhere without usually attracting protest over safety concerns. Still, it seems that in the long run Naval Reactors may have become too conservative, and that advanced technologies, possibly including reactors, might have eventually had to have a crash program to grow the gap between the Soviet and American navies had the Cold War continued.
There's a great quote from the head of one of the Soviet submarine design bureaux, to the effect that Rickover proved the inferiority of Stalinism.

Without Rickover, and I don't know who succeeds him (out of sheer irony I like James E. Carter, USN, but that's not terribly plausible), a less conservative USN approach to nuclear power seems likely. Probably a few more incidents, but not hugely more - the Soviets were renowned for their lax standards, and they only lost a handful of boats. CONFORM probably gets the nod over the Los Angeles class.

There's probably less of a block to Zumwalt, though - it's extremely unlikely that any successor to Rickover would be so uncompromising. That gives the Sea Control Ship a fighting chance - which probably isn't a benefit in the long run, especially if the Falklands War goes off as OTL and 'proves' the ability of the Harrier to stand against land-based fighters. The USN will have to fight to keep big-deck carriers, though it will probably be able to keep mostly free of hydrofoils.
 
I got a replacement for Rickover.. Lets say Jimmy's carter father does not die in 1953 at the age of 58. Then Jimmy does not leave the Navy then.

Carter has said that Rickover was like a second father to him.

So by 64 Carter would of had another ten years to rise the ranks of the nuclear navy. Being based out of Groton.
 

Delta Force

Banned
It looks like many Rickover initiatives in the mid to late 1950s and early 1960s failed to pass. Is there any chance he could have been encouraged to retire around that time, perhaps forced out by McNamara or even other naval officers due to being a major advocate of nuclear propulsion, especially nuclear powered submarines?
 
Top