Nuclear powered Iowas - BB-65 and BB-66

Archibald

Banned
Whatif the two uncompleted Iowas BB-65 Illinois and BB-66 Kentucky were not scrapped by 1960, and then in 1980 they were completed with Nimitz nuclear machinery ? Instead of re-activation of the four others. Could they be in service today ? having Nimitz power plant may help.

I wonder how hard it would be to get nuclear reactors into the battleship hulls, whether it would save some space for more weaponry (Tomahawks, Harpoons).
 

RamscoopRaider

Donor
Archibald said:
Whatif the two uncompleted Iowas BB-65 Illinois and BB-66 Kentucky were not scrapped by 1960, and then in 1980 they were completed with Nimitz nuclear machinery ? Instead of re-activation of the four others. Could they be in service today ? having Nimitz power plant may help.

I wonder how hard it would be to get nuclear reactors into the battleship hulls, whether it would save some space for more weaponry (Tomahawks, Harpoons).
Click to expand...
Can't do it that late, machinery for making armor, 16" guns and turrets no longer exists in the 80's

Even if it did, putting in a reactor and shielding would unbalance the ship, due to the installation being denser than the boilers it would replace, and would not save weight as you still need to carry the fuel as ballast. In fact I've heard it claimed it would add several thousand tons of weight
 

Archibald

Banned
Interesting, that was the kind of technical considerations I hoped for. You're right about armor / guns / turrets not existing in the 80's, d'oh. Maybe it could be stripped out of the non nuclear Iowas (since they are not re-activated).

I do know it would be mostly an expensive folly, I'm more interested in technical matters.
 

RamscoopRaider

Donor
Archibald said:
Interesting, that was the kind of technical considerations I hoped for. You're right about armor / guns / turrets not existing in the 80's, d'oh. Maybe it could be stripped out of the non nuclear Iowas (since they are not re-activated).

I do know it would be mostly an expensive folly, I'm more interested in technical matters.
Click to expand...
Stripping the existing Iowa's to that degree would be sacrilege. Plus they might have, I've heard conflicting stories about this, lost the ability to weld steel plate that thick
 

Cockroach

Maybe an earlier conversion makes more sense? Take the hulls in hand in the mid-1950s to be fitted out with 16in turrets forward (possibly recycled off 16in/45s off either North Carolina or South Dakota class ships?) and a launch system for Regulus cruise missiles aft. Use reactors similar to the A2Ws on Enterprise... probably less difficult weight distribution-wise (though total weight and volume may still be a problem) to use four of 'em rather than the one A4W implied by a 1980s conversion.
 

Archibald

Banned
Do you think USS Enterprise A2W reactors would be easier to place into the hulls ? that's counter intuitive, I thought Nimitz was better than Enterprise.
If Enterprise A2W can do the job, I can see BB-65 and BB-66 finished by the late 60's.
 
Last edited:
Simon

Simon

CV12Hornet said:
Besides the technical issues... why? Why would the Navy want to do this?
Click to expand...
Why have nuclear powered aircraft carriers? The navy, or politicians, feels that they need that kind of vessel and nuclear power gives it effectively unlimited range between refuelling and overhauls which helps simplify logistics.

Aside from the question of whether the US Navy ever really needed to reactivate the battleships or nuclear ones at that I wouldn't mind if the USS Illinois had been completed so that it could be preserved alongside Navy Pier in Chicago as a museum ship. :)
 
SsgtC

SsgtC

Banned
Except she could never make it there. She's about 30' too wide for the locks on the St Lawrence Seaway.

Simon said:
I wouldn't mind if the USS Illinois had been completed so that it could be preserved alongside Navy Pier in Chicago as a museum ship.
Click to expand...
 
Simon

Simon

SsgtC said:
Don't give up hope yet. They are planning to widen them from their current 78' max beam to 110' max.
Click to expand...
May well have been what I was hazily remembering although it still doesn't leave much space. The other major problem would be one of the bridges that's lower than the height of an Iowa-class ship, IIRC would require temporarily cutting off some of the masts to get under and reattach them at the end.
 

Musketeer513

When did we lose the ability to make the armor and guns? It's a shame that we can no longer make things that made us great in the past.
 

DemonicToaster

Why have nuclear powered battleships.


I am willing to bet someone has being playing HoI2 (which game is the one with nuclear battleships as an option).
 
SsgtC

SsgtC

Banned
Right around there time we stopped building them. We didn't have a need to. The Navy does maintain a stock of 16" barrels and shells, but barring a massive war, what we have is all we'll ever have

Musketeer513 said:
When did we lose the ability to make the armor and guns? It's a shame that we can no longer make things that made us great in the past.
Click to expand...
 

DemonicToaster

Lost Freeway said:
Can you tell us more about this country called Why?
Click to expand...
I thought I put a question mark at the end.

Anyways... A nuclear battleship has the disadvantage that any weapon system to protect it such as lasers are not matured enough. And honestly you could just go the Russian approach of AsHM. And no mass drivers/EM guns won't help hitting a farther target, like a carrier, because the planet ain't flat. Also there probably be system to try to intercept shells probably at some point in the future.

I also stated it in another thread... Are the BBs in service to wreck 3rd countries? What use (purpose and is it worth the their cost?) is there for them?

Otherwise I don't really see a point to them. It would be better for more nuclear subs or one more nuclear carrier being ordered to replace an older carrier (or to have an extra carrier). Also they would probably need some form of escort, since they are an expensive investment and escorts are limited as well.
 
EverKing

EverKing

I think a future nuclear powered armored crusier is far more likely than any WI Nuclear BB. With the US Navy developing railguns for long range inert shore bombardment, etc, they will need a power source for these guns, especially if they want to put more than one or two per vessel. A fission reactor or two can generate plenty of power but the problem is that to be precise at hitting targets 100+ miles away with kinetic rounds you don't want to be moving too fast, which makes you vulnerable--not a good feeling when you're worried about radiation leakage and meltdown--so, you would want to armor the ship, at least in the reactor areas, against most common threats. What do you end up with? An fast well armored warship with fairly large guns powered by nuclear reactors... An Crusier, Armored, Nuclear (CAN).
 

Carl Schwamberger

Musketeer513 said:
When did we lose the ability to make the armor and guns? It's a shame that we can no longer make things that made us great in the past.
Click to expand...

When the need went away. It's a highly specialized one trick pony, armour plate construction. Strictly speaking the engineering knowledge still exists, so forges/rolling mills, & cutting/welding tools could be built. But why & at what cost? If you wanted to build a 21st Century BB it would be protected with composites & active features, not antique steel alloys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top