AHC : Worst possible US Navy

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.
 
I don’t know how an all nuclear navy is bad at all. It’s literally the wet dream of every country.
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.
 
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.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Because Calbear goes into a rant every time the Alaska class is discussed. But yeah, they are a complete waste of steel.
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.

:D
 
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.

:D
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."
 
With a POD of 1945, make the US Navy into the worst possible you can imagine, bad ships, obsolete ships, poor maintenance quality, deteriorating ships, bad officers/sailors. Make the US Navy the absolute joke of first world nations. Make the US Navy like the pre “new navy” era of the 1890s.
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 doubt the USN, or anyone else could recruit/retain enough Nukes to staff an entire 350 ship combat fleet + UNREP. The enlisted training runs at least 14 months, often longer (on an enlistment that only runs 60 months active duty).

Even the non "kettle" personnel in the engineering departments are trained to a level that they can walk out the gates and get a job in a high tech company that pays better (to start) than a 4 Star Admiral.
I just had the greatest idea in human history. Namely nuclear powered coast guard cutters. Or better yet Nuclear Powered Coast Guard Buoy Tenders.
 
I just had the greatest idea in human history. Namely nuclear powered coast guard cutters. Or better yet Nuclear Powered Coast Guard Buoy Tenders.
I remember seeing proposals for nuclear powered bouys to replace lightships and lighthouses. As well as nuclear powered communications satellites.
 
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 ).
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
What do you have against science?


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.
Non stop.

Be handy to be able to tow a CVN with a couple zodiacs, have to admit.
 
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 ).
No the concepts I saw were going to put reactors on them. I think it was called the SNAP program.
 
I just had the greatest idea in human history. Namely nuclear powered coast guard cutters. Or better yet Nuclear Powered Coast Guard Buoy Tenders.
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.
 
I remember seeing proposals for nuclear powered bouys to replace lightships and lighthouses. As well as nuclear powered communications satellites.
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.
 
Top