pacino

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
19 December 2009
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
sorry guys did not know where to post this queston ... ! I was wondering if there is any NR-1 replacement project or prototype ?? thanks
 
Not unless Rickover comes back from the grave...

NR-1 has been deactivated for over a year and since it was built there is a lot more ROV deep diving capability both civilian and military.
 
There WAS a proposed NR-2 in the 1970s. But by then Rickover no longer had the clout that he had in the sixties, so it went nowhere.

I believe you can find some information on it in (going from memory vaguely not sure exactly what is in what).

"Dark Waters" -- Definitely information in it; except it says it was to be built with HY-100, not HY-130.

"Running Critical" -- Not Sure yet.

"Rickover" by Polmar, Pages 443-444:

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.
 
I had thought DSRV and the later (now cancelled) ASDS were effectively the supplements and replacements to a certain degree (it was no longer neccessary to be nuclear (since you would piggy-back on a mothership), for some missions you would deploy swimmers, for manipulation - ROV's).

Here's a RAND report where they studied follow on requirements (which they term as 'NR-2', but not related to the actual NR-2 or 'HTV' as described here):

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1395/
 
thanks a lot for your answers guys,very interesting . Is there any Concept of Armed Deep-Diving Submarine ?? DSV with weapons
 
From Jane's fighting ships 1978-79:
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.
<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>
 
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.
... 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.

The NR-1 failed to recover the aircraft, and the USN resorted to a brute-force recovery using trawlers. These days, both manned and unmanned deep sea vessels are commercially available. The only extra a one-off nuclear-powered vessel would bring is endurance. Is that worth the huge cost of such a vessel?
 
Greetings
From reading on the web and other sub people there is a definite need,but, budgets are stretched too thin in the near term for it to happen. Capabilities would be awesome with upgrades in equipment and habitability. I have read two limiting factors for NR-1 Food and the fact they could not pump san-tank overboard due to tank not test depth rated, It had a limit of 30 days I read. Info from past crew and book of plankowner and internet.
Jeff
exstsssbubble-head
 
2IDSGT said:
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.
... and then the Soviets got access to fully-intact planes and missiles just 3 years later anyways.

That's what the article claims, but there's no proof. I don't think that the Soviets were allies of the Iranian revolutionaries either, and the revolutionaries definitely would not have wanted to give away a precious weapon that they needed to defend themselves. Not saying that it did not happen, but I do not think that it is obvious that it did happen.
 
Added an NR-1 article to Covert Shores. http://www.hisutton.com/NR-1.html
rMdHM38.jpg

FbxdKqP.jpg

AS9Yie4.jpg
 
As noted above, the tentative plans for NR-2 never got beyond that stage. Modern UUVs can take on many of the functions that NR-1 performed in the past. Also as mentioned, Lee Vyborny's book "Dark Waters" is an excellent book on the earliest days of the NR-1 by one of the early crew members. He mentions in the book that as far as food on the NR-1, mentioned above, the crew laid in a stock of frozen TV dinners; there was a system to heat those but no other galley facilities. Also, NR-1 had a set of truck tires, filled with cement instead of air, so it could roll along the ocean bottom. Underneath is had viewports (requiring the observer to lay down) and manipulator arms. The small reactor only had lead and plastic shielding forward, to protect the crew; the water acted as the aft shield. The aft reactor and generator spaces were unmanned during operation. The reactor produced electric power via turbogenerators, which also provided power to the two electric propulsion motors. These only allowed top speeds of less than 5 knots. On one occasion, I saw it towed out by it's support ship (at that time, the Carolyn Choest) from the Sub Base down the Thames River. Usually it was towed to its operational area due to the limited self=propulsion speed.

Some photos of NR-1 I took in 2005, at the commissioning of SSN-23, and the current display of NR-1 parts at the Submarine Force Museum in Groton, CT. NR-1 New London Submarine Base 2005.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • NR-1 New London Sub Base Feb., 2005.jpeg
    NR-1 New London Sub Base Feb., 2005.jpeg
    1.5 MB · Views: 12
  • NR-1 @ 2005 SSN-23 commissioning.jpeg
    NR-1 @ 2005 SSN-23 commissioning.jpeg
    1.5 MB · Views: 14
  • NR-1 Sail 2005.jpeg
    NR-1 Sail 2005.jpeg
    1.6 MB · Views: 16
  • NR-1 with SSN-23 in foreground.jpeg
    NR-1 with SSN-23 in foreground.jpeg
    1.3 MB · Views: 18
  • NR-1 sail and aft section at Submarine Force Museum 2022.jpg
    NR-1 sail and aft section at Submarine Force Museum 2022.jpg
    3.7 MB · Views: 18
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom