Nuclear Battleships

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
It is worth noting that the USN launched several classes of nuclear powered cruisers to provide escort for their nuclear carrier force. These ships were withdrawn from service early due to the inability to handle next generation SAM and lack of suitability for conversion to VLS (the same reason the early Ticos suffered a the same fate)

Nuclear power is ideal for virtually every naval vessel starting at around the size of a modern frigate. It is far too expensive to deploy across the entire fleet, this, however, does not reduce the utility of the system.
Nuclear power to power a ship is linked to the sideeffects of this form of energy and propulsion, namely nuclear weapons and capabilities. Therefore a surfaceship, no matter which one, with a nuclear propulsion can be as easily combatted as any other type of surfaceship, especialy by the relatively cheap submarine of the early Cold War period, of which type the USSR possessed quite a number.

Nuclear power is only proffitable in strategically important naval vessels, which are not battleships, but the large CVB's, capable of delivering a nuclear strike themselves, when asked to do so, and the SSBN's, with their equally important SSN's as both escorts and ASW vessels.

The only real drawback of nuclear propulsion is its pricetag. Only the largest surfaceships, which are large aircraft carriers normally, can be so equipped, as the carrier then has more space for storage of Aviation fuel and weapons, in stead of its own fuel.

Nuclear powered surfaceships are to last for many decades, or they will be considered too expensive. This means only the relatively simple large aircraft carrier, which has only a small armament itself and therefore sensor network, can be nuclear powered, as this type of vessel is to last for some 50+ years normally, because its more specialized escorts are to defend it against newer threaths. These are conventionally powered, to reduce their production costs, as they are not expected to last as long as the carriers.
 
I think the day of the nuclear-powered surface navy is coming yet. As Calbear points out, the extra power of nuclear propulsion is very helpful, and will only become more so as time goes on and ship systems consume more and more power.

What is better still is that newer reactor designs are less complicated, difficult to maintain and expensive than previous ones, and they run longer. The S9G reactors of the Virginia class claim to be able to run for 35 years on one fuel load. And when pebble-bed nuclear reactors come into widespread service, that economies of scale are going to get better still.

As far as nuclear battleships go, railguns are the obvious way to get all-gun BBs running all the time, but railguns aren't yet practical and I suspect won't be for some time to come. Could you get a nuclear-fueled BB? Yeah, but it wouldn't be easy. Perhaps USS Kentucky gets converted to a missile battleship like it was planned, and at the same time gets its boilers replaced with the A2W reactors, making her configuration like USS Enterprise.

Or you could go the bit of a cop-out route - Enlarge the CSGN idea and give it the BB hull classification. That's not really a battleship in the traditional sense of the term, however.
 
Technically all ships afloat can have an equivalent with nuclear propulsion. The only problem is the price to pay for such vessels, as these are a bit over most nations defense budgets. Therefore Nuclear power is reserved only for a few large and powerfull nations, with the wish to deliver naval power everywhere in the world.

Type for type, the most logical nuclear propelled warship is the submarine, as this type of vessels is bennefitting most of this type of power, being able to go everywhere submerged, without the need to surface, or schnorkel for air for the backup diesels. Since the submarine it the most powerfull of all warships afloat, it has replaced the Battleship as capital ship in modern times. (SSBN's naturally) Its capability to deliver nuclear strikes on deep inland targets, makes it the most important strategic tool in the few navies possessing this type.

SSN's are as important as well, being more multipurpose and deadly as ASW vessel themselves, to hunt down opposing submarines, especially SSBN's. Secondly its stealth is very important in secret missions, as the submarine can go, where no other warship can undetected.

As for surfaceships, only the strategically important CVB is a good platform to instal nuclear propulsion, as this results in more storagespace for Aviation related stores, which is the primary function of the CVB. Without the need to carry its own large amount of fuel, more is available for its primary weapons, namely its airgroup.

Although experimented with, nuclear power on more traditional surfaceships is less logical, as its livespan exceeds that of the likely lifespan of the vessel as a uselfull fighting vessel. If installed on a cruiser, with a primary mission to escort CVB's and equipped with the most up to date sensors and weapons, the life of the reactor likely will exceed the usefullness of the equipment, as these will steadily become obsolete, normally within a few decades, rather than the half century of the reactor of modern design. When conventionally powered, it won't be such important, as the vessel is easily replaced by a more capable one in the future, without the exceding price associated with nuclear powered vessels.

Finally the day's of the big gunned warship were over with the sinking of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse in dec. 1941. Building this type again is a mistake, as its function is not longer there, namely deterence and fighting against other battleships, to claim command of the seas. Carriers and submarines have replaced the battleships as primary strategic weaponplatforms. Although big guns can sometimes be usefull, especially when using precission ammunitions, the weaponsplatform using it would be more like a monitor in function, namely landattack, rather than anything else. The proposed DDX was one such idea and it might be reclassified as a gunboat or monitor in the future, although this term is a bit oldfashioned. This vessel is conventionally powered, as it is a more specialized vessel, with less roles than strategically important vessels, so nuclear power is not an option here, so its pricetag is less, making it more interesting for its buyers.
 
When has something not being useful stopped people from building it? ;-)

If there'd been no Pearl Harbor, our BB lobby might well be alive and well - see Reagan - despite their inferiority to CVs. They'd probably launch missiles instead firing big guns, and have AEGIS. Yeah, missiles are more expensive than shells, but they sure do ALOT more, more effectively, and aren't so expensive compared to, say, a nuclear battleship.....

Since Pearl Harbor was pretty dumb, it's hardly ASB to imagine such a world; say, if Japan had just taken Dutch Indochina to get at some oil to keep down the chances of an American declaration of war.
 
Finally the day's of the big gunned warship were over with the sinking of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse in dec. 1941. Building this type again is a mistake, as its function is not longer there, namely deterence and fighting against other battleships, to claim command of the seas.

AFAIK, no carrier built after 1945 has been built primarily for task of anti-surface warfare but for land attack. Until recently, when using conventional weapons, airplanes have been more flexible and accurate than missiles. Then again, with more effort put upon missile development they might take at least the deep strike role of aircraft out earlier.

Then again, if a land attack battleships were built during, say, late 1950's, they wouldn't have large guns for which quite many naval enthusiasists have a fixation upon.
 

Bearcat

Banned
A future nuclear-armed "battleship", over 20,000 tons, with an economical reactor plant, electrically powered railguns and a large load of relatively cheap land attack missiles, is not an impossibility. Whether such a ship meets the traditional "BB" definition is arguable - its a bit BB, a bit CGN, a bit Arsenal ship - and would likely not have the traditional large caliber guns and heavy armor. It becomes a matter of semantics. The question is whether rail guns and low-cost missiles can reach a level of potency and range of attack to compare favorably with carrier aviation, or at least to appear a useful adjunct. Maybe, maybe not.
 
The Real Deal Killer

The real reason for the end of the Iowa Class Battleships, Manpower vs cost, (keeping 4500 personal) for Missile Cruiser type Weapon System (Cruise Missile-huge Coastal Fire Support Ship- 16 Inch Battery, just didn't work with limited budgets in the 1990's. Nuclear Power would be more of a problem, Cost, and just look at the current problems with staffing the Nuclear Ships in the US navy today.

There are still projects on paper to start something like a Battleship see:



http://newwars.wordpress.com/2009/10/19/the-last-manned-battleship/


also some discussion about Nuclear Power and with increase Computerization and reducing Staff levels.


Thanks Orion
 
Whether such a ship meets the traditional "BB" definition is arguable - its a bit BB, a bit CGN, a bit Arsenal ship - and would likely not have the traditional large caliber guns and heavy armor.

I don't believe we will see the use of the term battleship since the name 'sends the wrong message'. Its not because of political correctness but the term reflects an offense-oriented mindset. Sort of why there is no longer the US Department of War but now the US Department of Defense. Undoubtedly Hollywood will continue to use it left and right without regard, bringing to mind an episode of The West Wing.
 
A future nuclear-armed "battleship", over 20,000 tons, with an economical reactor plant, electrically powered railguns and a large load of relatively cheap land attack missiles, is not an impossibility. Whether such a ship meets the traditional "BB" definition is arguable - its a bit BB, a bit CGN, a bit Arsenal ship - and would likely not have the traditional large caliber guns and heavy armor. It becomes a matter of semantics. The question is whether rail guns and low-cost missiles can reach a level of potency and range of attack to compare favorably with carrier aviation, or at least to appear a useful adjunct. Maybe, maybe not.


Technically the CGN is a possibbillity, as all needed technology already exists. Point is still the price to pay for such an expensive investment and what bennefit is drawn from it. A cheaper conventionally powered equivalent is therefore much more atractive, which is most likely why the USN abbandoned the older CGN's altogether, besides being unable to be uncompatable with the newer systems. Only Russia still has three CGN's in partial service (two permanently laid up, awaiting refueling and refit.) A fourth has been scrapped, as refill of its reactors was too expensive.

Any navy wants to be cost effective, normally, so the CGN has nothing more than any other simmilar CG, except its theoretical radius, which is compromised by the need of getting supplied still with other than propulsive needs.

Another alternative is the aircraft, especially the strike aircraft. It has at least the same strikingpower of the warship and is much cheaper and more flexible to deploy, especially when operating from an aircraft carrier of foreward base. The development in UAV's is very prommising and offers a much more logical way to go than a manned warship, which always will suffer from the human factor (supplies and vulnerability), while the UAV is to be considdered an expendable tool, iff necessary.
 
Top