Pre Enterprise and Long Beach Nuclear Surface Combatants?

[Tzoli]

I've recently found this document:
https://lynceans.org/wp-content/upl...Power-1939-2018_Part-2B_USA_surface-ships.pdf
Marine Nuclear Power: 1939-2018 - Part 2B United States - Surface Ships by Peter Lobner

It is basically a data sheet and some extra info on the USN's Surface ships both Nuclear and-Non nuclear despite what the title implies though it mostly revolves around nuclear power, in the first part it mentions a Nucelar Reactor design not yet heard of and which predates both the C1W used on Long Beach and the D1G on Bainbridge and A2W on Enterprise:
The LSR/CVR (Large Ship Reactor/Carrier Vessel Reactor)
The document has some info about it: (Compare it C1W,A1W and A2W)

Reactor​	Estimated Reactor Power (MWt)​	Estimated Propulsion Power per Reactor (shp)​	Initial ops	Application
CVR​	390​	75,000​	Not built	Proposed land-based prototype PWR for a single propulsion train rated at about 75,000 shp. Authorized in 1952 & cancelled in 1953. Became the basis for the design of the 1st full-scale US commercial nuclear power plant at Shippingport, PA.
C1W​	200​	40,000​	1961​	2 x C1W used only on USS Long Beach (CGN-9), yielding 80,000 shp total propulsion power. Reportedly derived from A1W.

A1W, A2W​

165​

35,000​

1958​

2 x A1W at the prototype at NRF Idaho (A1W-A & A1W-B) 8 x A2W on USS Enterprise (CVN-65), yielding a total reactor power output of about 1,320 MWt and propulsion power of 280,000 shp

Westinghouse CVR
Large ship reactor (LSR) / carrier vessel reactor (CVR)
- “This project, known as the CVR, was instituted on the basis of a military requirement set up by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. That requirement stated that the CVR was to be a shore-based prototype of a single shaft for a large naval vessel such as an aircraft carrier, and to be used after completion to produce power and plutonium.” *
- CVR was a light-water cooled and moderated pressurized water reactor (PWR) design with an expected propulsion output of 75,000 shp (56 MW). Reactor power would have been about 390 MWt.
- CVR was authorized in 1952.
- April 1953: The CVR was eliminated from the FY 1954 defense budget.
- “Cancellation of the aircraft carrier reactor resulted in a letter appeal from the (Atomic Energy) Commission to the President (Eisenhower) and a special appearance before the Joint Committee (of Congress). As a result, a completely civilian version of the aircraft carrier reactor was put back in the fiscal 1954 budget…..” *
- The AEC transferred the entire development team to the new civilian project, while maintaining Naval Reactors is a leadership role.
- In their testimony before Congress, the AEC noted, “We are convinced that substantial delays would result if an attempt were made to develop some other reactor system for this first civilian powerplant.” *

Now question is did any large surface combatant, Cruiser or carrier design existed before Long Beach and Enterprise which was destined to use this reactor? It predates the first naval surface reactors by a decade which brings us to the design and construction of the Forrestals.

Sidenote:
I do found two early nuclear carrier designs predating Enterprise:
Study CVAN 4/53 and Study CVAN 9/5

 

[M. A. Rozon]

Sidenote:
I do found two early nuclear carrier designs predating Enterprise:
Study CVAN 4/53 and Study CVAN 9/5

What information is there? From where?

 

[Tzoli]

Norman Friedman US Carriers:
Study CVAN 4/53: Basically no info, Friedman only mentions it as a small Nuclear Carrier Study done in 1953, before the development of Enterprise begun.

Once the LSR project had been approved, a nuclear carrier (CVAN) design could begin. ln fact a small nuclear carrier (CVAN 4/53) was studied in 1953, but the Enterprise (CVAN 65, SCB 160 design), the first American nuclear carrier, began with tentative characteristics set forth in a 16 February 1954 BuShips memorandum.

- Aviation features primary
- To be built and serviced in existing U.S. facilities (maximum dimensions 1080 LWL x 130 x 36 feet)
- Protection at least equal to that of Forrestal
- Strength deck at the top of the gallery deck (for the proposed new catapult arrangement)
- Canted flight deck
- Capable of operating 100,000 lb aircraft
- At least eight 5-in/54
- 2,000 tons of aviation ordnance
- Best speed
- 4 elevators and 4 steam catapults, two of the latter to launch 100,000 lb aircraft
- 3 million gallons of aviation fuel

Study CVAN 9/55

None of them progressed very far. On 14 September the SCB 153 project was stopped in view of the progress of the nuclear-carrier studies: there was little point in a new carrier design if only one ship was to be built to it. Preliminary Design carrier personnel were reassigned to the nuclear project (CVA 9/55, which became SCB 160 and then the USS Enterprise ), and CVA 63, the Kitty Hawk , not yet much advanced, was modified to incorporate the new flight-deck features. ln addition, as a matter of urgency, i ts elevators were enlarged by the addition of pie-shaped segments on their outboard edges. This solved the elevator size problem, and the solution was applied to CVA 64, the USS Constellation, as well. As completed, both ships were designated SCB 127A.

and a third, Self-pretecting CVAN Study:

https://imgur.com/iD7v6he

View: https://i.imgur.com/iD7v6he.png

 

[Tzoli]

Also I did found a mention in the US Carrier book about this reactor:

One of the earliest indications of navy interest in a nuclear carrier was a 1 August 1950 request by the CN 0, Admiral Forrest Sherman, for a BuShips study of the feasibility of such a ship. Captain H. G. Rick over proposed completion in 1953 of a land-based prototype, the large ship reactor (LSR), and in 1955 of a shipboard plant. So large a plant would have com peted directly with the nuclear weapons program, which used the same highly enriched uranium, so a design study was ordered but no prototype built. However, the Joint Chiefs of Staff did establish a formal requirement for a carrier reactor in Novem ber 1951. At this time the only other naval reactor design in progress was the submarine type that ulti mately powered the Nautilus. A carrier required a very different design, which was assigned in such a way as to preclude merely scaling up the submarine reactor for it. By 1952 the estimated cost of the land based prototype was about $150 million, that is, almost as much as a conventional carrier itself. Given such a high cost, the Joint Chiefs sought to combine in a single plant a prototype land-based power reactor, a plutonium-making reactor, and the naval pro totype.

The new Eisenhower administration was deter mined to cut military costs, just as authorization for the LSR was due. Question was raised within the navy as to the value of a carrier plant. Nuclear power was far easier to justify for a submarine or even for a short-range destroyer; carriers were so large that they could transport a sufficient amount of fuel with them. Moreover, there was some question as to whether the navy could obtain enough nuclear fuel for both a large fleet of submarines and surface ships, a fear particularly legitimate at a time of rapid nu clear-weapon production, with its great drain on national nuclear · resources. Too, there was fear within OPNAV that support for a future nuclear car rier would undermine the existing (and urgent) pro gram of conventional-carrier construction. Admiral Sherman appears to have been the only major naval exponent of the carrier project, and he died in July 1951. Therefore in the summer of 1953 the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) cancelled the carrier reactor project in favor of one for a land-based power station.
However, the carrier-reactor project did not die. ln May 1954 Rickover proposed a program of five reac tor prototypes, ranging from an attack-submarine power plant up through destroyer, cruiser, and car rier prototypes. The administration approved, and research and development of the carrier-reactor land-based prototype was approved by the AEC in August 1954. By the end of 1955 a land-based pro totype, the Al W, consisting of two reactors driving a simulated single propeller shaft of a carrier, was planned. A frigate reactor, the Fl W, was to use the same core in a somewhat larger reactor, and there was also to be a cruiser plant, the Cl W, using four Al W reactors rather than the eight of the carrier plant. ln these designations the first letter indicated the type of ship, the second the manufacturer (W for Westinghouse and G for General Electric). A two reactor variant of the Cl W powered the nuclear cruiser Lang Beach. ln fact, the Lang Beach plant was used as a seagoing test version of that planned for the Enterprise. No Fl W entered service; instead there were the DI G and D2G destroyer (frigate) reactors. As for carriers, the operational version of the Al W was the A2W; eight reactors of this type powered the first

Both the A2W and Cl W produced similar levels of power. The 280,000 SHP for the Enterprise equates to 35,000 SHP per reactor; the reported 80,000 SHP of the Lang Beach equates to about 40,000 SHP per reactor. The destroyer reactors were somewhat smaller, the Bainbridge showing 60,000 SHPwith two D2Gs, or 30,000 SHP each. By the late fifties indi vidual reactor power was rising, since it appeared that the fewer reactors per ship, the lower the cost per ship would be. An abortive A3W was designed for the four-reactor attack carrier proposed under the FY 61 and FY 63 programs. Since these ships were slower than the Enterprise, one can conclude that the A3W came well short of a quarter of the 280,000-SHP plant, probably about 45,000 to 50,000 SHP. How ever, the pressure for more powerful reactors con tinued strong. ln the early sixties there were attempts to design a single reactor that might replace the 60,000-SHP D2G plant. Although it was not built, experience in its design led directly to the huge A4W, the N imitz plant, which reportedly produces 260,000 SHP (130,000 SHPper reactor). At each level of power some upgrading was possible, but not very much, given the delicacy of reactor design. Thus, for exam ple, any attempt to design a range of nuclear aircraft carriers was very strictly constrained by the range of available reactors. The original Al W/A2W was sized on the hasis of contemporary conventional-carrier power plants, the four-reactor Cl W originally being intended to produce a level of power comparable with that of a Des M aines-class heavy cruiser capable of 120,000 SHP. Ultimately it did rather better on two reactors, which gives some indication of the range of reactor-design flexibility, before details had been fixed.

 

[M. A. Rozon]

Thanks. I have the book and remember the self protecting CVAN but had forgotten about the other two projects.

 

[Dilandu]

and a third, Self-pretecting CVAN Study:

Must admit, I'm particularly fond of this project) It may not be practical, but still pretty cool)

 

[MihoshiK]

Must admit, I'm particularly fond of this project) It may not be practical, but still pretty cool)

Yeah, that was a LOT of space eaten by missile launchers.

 

[Tzoli]

Well 2 Talos and 4 Terrier are indeed a heavy missile armament though the the single SPQ-5 / SPG-55 directors for the twin Terrier launchers seems reduce their effectiveness (I know the official sketch too shows single radars for them) but there seems to be enough space for two radar installations near the launchers or even on the bridge sides.

 

[Dilandu]

Well 2 Talos and 4 Terrier are indeed a heavy missile armament though the the single SPQ-5 / SPG-55 directors for the twin Terrier launchers seems reduce their effectiveness (I know the official sketch too shows single radars for them) but there seems to be enough space for two radar installations near the launchers or even on the bridge sides.

Well, if we assume that this ship would be build in late 1950s - which seems logical - then RIM-2 Terriers would most likely be replaced with RIM-24 Tartars, following the Albany pattern of long-range and short-range weaponry?

 

[Tzoli]

Well, if we assume that this ship would be build in late 1950s - which seems logical - then RIM-2 Terriers would most likely be replaced with RIM-24 Tartars, following the Albany pattern of long-range and short-range weaponry?

Why? Sure that would provide an LR/SR mix but sacrafice the MR. Long Beach too had only Talos-Terrier mix. Also the Tartar to my knowledge was always vertically loaded and you need considerable space beneath tge launcher for the missile drums see the aft platform on the Enterprise.

 

[Dilandu]

Why? Sure that would provide an LR/SR mix but sacrafice the MR. Long Beach too had only Talos-Terrier mix. Also the Tartar to my knowledge was always vertically loaded and you need considerable space beneath tge launcher for the missile drums see the aft platform on the Enterprise.

Mostly because they would be smaller and lighter - more compact, easier to fit, and, let's be frank - more suitable for self-protection. And they seems to fit:

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Mostly because they would be smaller and lighter - more compact, easier to fit, and, let's be frank - more suitable for self-protection. And they seems to fit:

View attachment 715435

Would also be better for ASW protection, you could move the sponsons higher, away from the waterline, and make them considerably smaller, reducing slamming and meaning that the carrier could maintain higher speeds in bad weather, thus providing greater safety from submarine attack.

 

[Dilandu]

Would also be better for ASW protection, you could move the sponsons higher, away from the waterline, and make them considerably smaller, reducing slamming and meaning that the carrier could maintain higher speeds in bad weather, thus providing greater safety from submarine attack.

True. And their illuminators are much lighter and more compact. Could have two illuminator for each Mark-11 launcher.

 

[drwells42]

Of course, Kitty Hawk and Constellation both had Terrier launchers early on. It seemed to be a relatively compact arrangement compared to that on the Self-Protecting CVAN proposal.

DRW

 

[Cjc]

My personal favorite from freedmonds destroyer book was the plan to put a first generation sub reactor on a forest Sherman hull.

I always wondered how small you could make a ship with the ARE type reactor. Friedman mentioned how the navy wanted to decrease the size of the skate class subs to below 2000 tons useing that reactor (before it floped obviously).