Nuclear Powered Battleships

[Archibald]

Well battleship were withdrawn after WWII while first nuclear surface ship - Enterprise- entered service in 1961.
so there was no nuclear battleships...

Found this, here
http://www.kbismarck.org/forum/viewtopic.p...576ff85bf3e986d

As a former US Navy Nuclear Officer I can say the Iowas could have probaly fit 4 A1W (Enterprise) reactors in the boiler room spaces. The Enterprise used 6 for propulsion and 2 to supply steam for catapults during flight operations (at least according to Nukes I know who were on the Big E). One of the major problems to install the reactor plants in Iowa class ships ithe the cut that would re reqired though the armored decks to install the reactor vessels and then for refuelings later. A CVN doesn't have near as much interference in the way because they were designed with the refuelling in mind. If you have seen any of the photos of the California class CGN's after decomissioning you will have an idea od what I mean. To refuel one of those CGN's you had to remove most of the superstructure to perfom the refuelling. The old fuel goes up and out and the new fuel goes down in into the reactor vessel. It is easier to refuel a submarine but you make a large hull cut while it sits in drydock. I did a SSBN refueling overhaul at Newport News in the early 1980's while the Vinson was being finished.
Oh the one easy thing about putting 4 A1W plants into an Iowa would be the secondary steam plant is the right design for it since it was a 600 pound steam plant, compared to the later 1200 psig steam plants of the late 1950's and 1960. All the early USN nuclear plants operated at 600 psi steam side.

The last Iowa were never finished. And there was also the Montana class (alas cancelled in 1943).

Now, whatif some of these unfinished ships stayed mothballed until the late 50's. Then, finish these battleships (last two Iowas and some Montanas) with 4 A1W reactors... and if this is too costly, wait until the early 80's and the "600 ships navy" program (add Harpoons, tomahawks and phalanx).
Maybe giving the Montanas nuclear power could help rising their speed to 32 knots (instead of the planned 28 kt).

What do you think about that ?

[Hobbes]

With their huge power requirements, battleships would be a natural candidate for nuclear power. It's a pity the USN stopped building nuclear-powered escorts after the Thruxtun, Bainbridge etc. A battle group consisting entirely of nuclear-powered vessels would have been an asset. Certainly the Ticonderoga, Spruance and Arleigh Burke are large enough to accomodate a reactor.  

[Archibald]

More precisely, I think about the last to Iowas and the first two Montana. I have yet to imagine an alt history in which these four battleships would be started but left unfinished
- enough to allow set up of nuclear reactor in the mid-60's, but not too much, in order to have the huge turrets   -

Maybe carriers sunk at Pearl Harbor and more devastation spread by both Japanese battleships Yamato and its sibling (can't remember the exact name).

Had Japanese super- battleships been a TRUE threat for american task forces, be sure that at least two Montanas would have been started... maybe a longer pacific campaign could help, too...

Even if the battleship was outclassed by aircraft carrier, I think we missed a formidable warship. When one see how usefull were the last four Iowas in the 80's... (despite beeing old ships build with guns only).

Hmmm... Illinois and Kentucky achieved in the mid-60's with Enterprise reactor. Program so successfull that the two Montana are also transformed. Upgrade in the 80's...

[Tornado]

Its certainly an interesting idea and the battleship would have been a good candidate for nuclear power. Would have saved some manpower and provided enough power for a full suite of radars etc. Terrier SAMs could have replaced some of the 5in twins too.

Would look much sleeker without funnels too.  

[Archibald]

Tornado I know you're a specialist of Naval profiles.. it's up to ypu    

Glad you're interested in the concept (but what the hell is a funnel ?   )

hope to see profiles soon...

[Son of Damian]

After WW2 we put the Iowas into mothballs, then took them out for Korea, put them back into mothballs, took them out again for Vietnam, again into mothballs, taking them back out again in the 80s. During anyone of those restoration they could have been modified, the likelyist one being the 80's during the Reagan years.

If the Montanas continued to be built as battleships at a slow pace until 43-44 and then were switched to carriers, the hulls only partially completed at the end of the war. Then maybe some of the weird postwar ideas (a new Panama canal built with nuclear power, ie nuclear weapons) could have seen them built as nuclear powered battleships. Say the Navy argues that the battleship could deliver numerious nuclear weapons via it's large caliber guns, it's heavy armor would protect it from all but a direct hit with a nuke, and a nuclear reactor would allow sustained periods of high speed.  

[RLBH]

[JMN=on]Hate to say this, but nuclear reactors and battleships are not a happy combination. The last place you want nuclear reactors is on something that is almost certain to be shot at, regardless of armour protection. It would also make them cost even more, and the refits (if you want to go that way) would be a nightmare.

Also, I doubt that you'd be able to get Montana to 30+ knots using nuclear power unless you replaced the turbines too. There's usually excess steam capacity in a marine plant (it leaks, and the leaks get worse as the ship ages), so the turbines are usually the limiting factor.[JMN=off]

It is a very interesting idea, though. I'd be tempted to go with completing Illinois and Kentucky as BBGNs in the early 1960s, with Talos aft, the 16" guns forward, four - maybe six - 5" Mk 42 amidships and Tartar on either beam. With luck you might be able to fit Terrier somewhere, too. Because the ships were fairly incomplete, if you start design work early it should be possible to arrange things so the refuelling isn't too much of a problem - making sure there isn't too much superstructure in the way of the reactors, and such. There'll be trim issues, of course, but because we're almost building a whole new ship, they can be solved fairly readily.

[B777LR]

'The 4 russian navy Kirov class ships are often reffered to as battleships, and are nuclear powered. They are however more a kind of Super Heavy missile cruiser...

[B777LR]

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/kirov/

[CanisD]

Something I drew a couple years ago, based roughly on the hull of Enterprise.

[ysi_maniac]

^^^
A beauty really.
I would put bigger turrets like Richelieu's, for instance.
   

[proditor]

You're going to have a lot of problems getting any more speed period.

The USS Iowa, conventionally, generates 212,000 SHP on 6 boilers.

The USS Enterprise generates 280,000 shp on 8 reactors (6 if we take what that guy said as fact) and we want to cut that down to 4....

All of that aside, the main limiting factoer here for speed is hull form.

A lot of reminiscing about battleships and battlecruisers, especially the really fast ones, always includes phrases like, "You need to almost double SHP to get just 2 more knots for that hull" and "The cost of that extra 3 knots of speed was to remove a turret and strip out most of the armor"....

In all things, it's a trade off.  212000 shp is most definitely nothing to sneeze at, and even if we threw in all (I'll assume the guy is right) 6 reactors, we'd probably be looking at a half knot increase in speed on an Iowa style hull.  At best.

All of that aside, neat idea, and it's nice to see CanisD's work again,  Love the stuff from your page and the Warships 3.0 site.  

[Ocean]

The USN did do a Nuclear Powered Battleship, or rather a ship to take over the Battleships puepose in a Carrier Battlrgroup. That was the USS Long Beach, she had nuclear power, fore and aft SAM batteries and close range ones on either beam, plus she was intended to carry Polaris for the mighty punch. She had a long streamlined hull as she didn't need the broad beam associated with battle wagons as no large guns to compensate for.

In the 50's and early 60's the Battleship was a dinosoar, its offensive firepower replaced by aircraft, its AA capability replaced by guided missiles and its armour negated by the nuclear tipped weapons expected to be used in any naval engagements.

The Battleships have only been used since WW2 as off shore Gun platforms in conflict zones where allied forces have Air Supperiority. Without it they stay in port as rather large mobile gun platform.

[Ocean]

^^^
A beauty really.
I would put bigger turrets like Richelieu's, for instance.
 

Nope Canis has the right idea, two semi automated guns are more more efective than 3 or four manually operated guns.

To be honest i could see the updated Nelson class concept or rather the original St Andrew class with the three turrets all mounted fwd then all the superstucture together with Radars, missile systems etc and then an aft flight deck area.

[B777LR]

I think a modern battleship wont happen. I do however believe that we might someday see a heavy gun platform, consisting of some converted freighter or similar, fitted with a large caliber gun* for use during landings. This ship could be able of transporting troops as well. Guns should have a range of 100-150 km, and shells fitted with guidance. This is more likely than a battleship. Could also be used for more roles than a battleship. And with all the NATO countries building assault ships made for invading some third world country with a dictator, this could be a very effective ship to go alongside with it. Cost of shells and firing them isnt as high as launching a fighter either i think

*probably not more than 8 inches