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:
2IDSGT said:... and then the Soviets got access to fully-intact planes and missiles just 3 years later anyways.Grey Havoc said: