• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Albany Class Cruiser

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,887
Reaction score
1,240
This is just a quick question in relation to a thread on another forum. A reference book I own seems to claim that the Albany Class was a nuclear powered conversion of the Baltimore Class hull (3 in class) with a conventional backup powerplant. Other sources insist that they were strictly conventional.

Now what I'm wondering is if there was a misprint in the entry and what it should have said was that the Albany class was originally intended to be converted nuclear powered guided missile cruisers?

Thanks in advance.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,896
Reaction score
970
The Albany class was not nuclear powered. It likely carried nuclear warhead versions of Talos but that's it.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,887
Reaction score
1,240
Was the plan at one stage to make the class a nuclear conversion?
 

RLBH

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
243
Reaction score
64
Grey Havoc said:
Was the plan at one stage to make the class a nuclear conversion?
I seriously doubt that it was - the demands of a nuclear plant are completely different from a steam plant, so almost the entire ship would be replaced. It would amount to lifting up the ship's bell and inserting a new ship underneath. Not that the US Navy hasn't done that before.
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,887
Reaction score
1,240
Thanks. While we're on the subject of naval reactors, what would have been the most compact USN reactor design successfully developed but not necessarily deployed?
 

funkychinaman

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
Given the ship's age and cost of conversion, you'd think it'd just be cheaper and easier to build a new nuclear powered ship from the keel up.

And the NR-1 is nuclear powered, and it's a research ship, so I don't know if I'd call it "deployed."
 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,887
Reaction score
1,240
What may be a possible explanation:
In October 1957 there was an SCB request for a new Missile Cruiser for FY60 incorporating the missile battery of an Albany in a Long Beach hull. The battery would only fit if either the Regulus or Tartar battery was deleted. To accommodate the full battery the hull would have to be lengthened to 720ft and Displacement increased to 16,700 tons. The new ship was not built due to the increasing cost of both converted and new-build missile ships, and the further added cost of the Polaris program
 
Top