Even as the NR-1 went to sea Rickover was laying the groundwork for the second nuclear research vehicle in his "fleet." By 1972, Rickover had the Naval Ship Systems Command officially supporting his efforts to build an NR-2. This would have the same small reactor as the NR-1, but would be built of HY-130 steel, which had at one time been intended for the Los Angeles (SSN-688) class of combat submarines, but was not ready. By using HY-130 in the NR-2, Rickover felt that the submarine could operate significantly deeper than her predecessor.
.....
In late 1976—almost simultaneously with the election of President Carter—Rickover formally asked Congress for $130 million to build the NR-2. The Navy, interested in the vehicle from the viewpoint of using the HY-130 steel, wanted the small submarine to provide important fabrication and operational information. To make this point, the Navy began referring to the NR-2 as a Hull Test Vehicle (HTV), which subsequently became its formal designation. But opponents—some in the Navy—felt that there were cheaper and easier methods of testing the steel than building a nuclear NR-2.
No NR-2—or Hull Test Vehicle—was funded by Congress either in 1976 or since then. Plans have been discussed to build such a craft in the late 1980s. American interest in deep submergence had dissipated.
<edit>I've read it again, and it really says "General Electric" in Jane's. Should be "General Dynamics"; only goes to show even Jane's sometimes gets it wrong.</edit>NUCLEAR POWERED RESEARCH VEHICLE: PROPOSED ("NR-2" Class)
A second nuclear-powered submersible research vehicle has been proposed by Admiral H.G. Rickover, Deputy Commander for Nuclear Propulsion, Naval Sea Systems Command. The craft would have a greater depth capability than the NR-1 [...] and would employ a nuclear plant similar to that of the earlier craft. The vehicle would have a pressure hull of HY-130 steel.
Reportedly, Admiral Rickover began development of the so-called "NR-2" in 1971. The term HTV for Hull Test Vehicle also has been used for this vehicle, reportedly to avoid critical association with the NR-1 programme.
Estimated construction time would be 2½ years; however, construction has not yet been approved. To be built of HY 130 steel reportedly at General Electric, Electric Boat Division. Unofficial estimates of construction costs ranged to more than $300 million in the Fiscal Year 1975 funding. At the beginning of 1978 construction had been stalled owing to financial problems.
... and then the Soviets got access to fully-intact planes and missiles just 3 years later anyways.Grey Havoc said:One of the highlights of the NR-1's career: http://fly.historicwings.com/2012/09/tomcat-deep/
A very good example of why a replacement should have been proceeded with.
Grey Havoc said:One of the highlights of the NR-1's career: http://fly.historicwings.com/2012/09/tomcat-deep/
A very good example of why a replacement should have been proceeded with.
2IDSGT said:... and then the Soviets got access to fully-intact planes and missiles just 3 years later anyways.Grey Havoc said:One of the highlights of the NR-1's career: http://fly.historicwings.com/2012/09/tomcat-deep/
A very good example of why a replacement should have been proceeded with.
Much appreciated, thank you!Some photos of NR-1 I took in 2005
Also, a lot of the tasks the NR-1 was designed for in the mid 1960's can now be accomplished with autonomous UUVs. These can be set to scan a seabed area and be controlled by sonar modem.There's not an easy way to make an NR-2.
NR-1 could get made because the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (one Admiral Rickover) could give orders to Naval Reactors (also one Admiral Rickover), to make a small long-endurance research submersible. Because it was not armed, it did not come out of the Naval Construction Budget, or fall under any operational command's orders.
It'd take a lot more work now to make such a beast, with the AEC now the Department of Energy and not having the head of Naval Reactors as the Cabinet Secretary.
They can't stay down as long, but with autonomous UUVs you can use multiple of them to search an area in a few days instead of one minisub down there for a month.Also, a lot of the tasks the NR-1 was designed for in the mid 1960's can now be accomplished with autonomous UUVs. These can be set to scan a seabed area and be controlled by sonar modem.
And with the reduction in size of the UUVs, they are much easier to deploy and recover. Not at all like the larger towed camera and sonar bodies employed by Halibut and Seawolf (SSN 575) described in the Blind Man's Bluff bookThey can't stay down as long, but with autonomous UUVs you can use multiple of them to search an area in a few days instead of one minisub down there for a month.
I think cameras or side-scan sonar would still take a relatively large vehicle due to the range/depths of operations, but Definitely something smaller than Alvin or the DSRVs. I'm guessing something a bit bigger than a torpedo, however.And with the reduction in size of the UUVs, they are much easier to deploy and recover. Not at all like the larger towed camera and sonar bodies employed by Halibut and Seawolf (SSN 575) described in the Blind Man's Bluff book
But can they go as deep as the NR-1 could?Ahh, no. There are several UUVs that are either the same size or considerably smaller than a standard Mark 48 (5.8 meters-19 feet long) and 3700 lbs.
See this for an example: UUV Remus 600 and also this: Submarine launch test
Note the line in the article: The Remus 600 is a 500-pound, 3.25-meter long UUV equipped with dual-frequency side-scanning sonar technology, synthetic aperture sonar, acoustic imaging, video cameras and GPS devices, according to information from its maker, Hyrdoid.
Here's another examples with another UUV: Yellow Moray UUV
And an article on UUVs from Undersea Warfare magazine: UUV article
The Bluefin 21 is another UUV which derives the 21 designation from it's diameter, 21 inches. That is the size of the US standard torpedo tube.
Here is an older patent (2003) for a UUV recovery system through a submarine 21 inch diameter torpedo tube:UUV Recovery System Patent
But can they go as deep as the NR-1 could?
The published NR-1 test depth (probably can go 500-1000 feet deeper) is 3000 feet, not meters. This is the same test depth for the US experimental submarine SS555 Dolphin, now retired and a museum.Commercial pipeline survey drones can dive to 3000m, the stated max for NR1.
For example, the Exail 18D has an endurance of 24 hours and can dive to 3000m, in a package about the size of a 21-inch torp. It's been tasted for a bunch of military applications in addition to it's commercial uses.
The published NR-1 test depth (probably can go 500-1000 feet deeper) is 3000 feet, not meters.
been there...Ugh. I blame lack of caffeine.