Pre-Enterprise Nuclear Powered Warships?

[Delta Force]

The first commercial nuclear reactor in the United States, Shippingport, was derived from a reactor originally designed for a cancelled nuclear powered aircraft carrier. I haven't been able to find any information on this aircraft carrier, and I don't think the Shippingport reactor is related to the A1W/A2W series reactors that went on to power Enterprise. Does anyone have any information on the cancelled aircraft carrier and its power plants, as well as their relationship with Shippingport, the A1W/A2W series reactors, and the Enterprise? Were there any other plans for nuclear powered warships prior to Enterprise?

 

[Moose]

Technically Long Beach beat the Big E by a hair, and if we're talking "warships" the submarine force had a healthy head start.

The original nuke Carrier program was in 1952-53. I don't know how much documentation is out there but the intention seems to have been to use the then in-development Forrestal class as a base, and work from that ultimately contributed to the Kitty Hawk subclass. Rickover was championing it but when Ike killed the flattop in 1953, Rickover put his energy behind what became the Shippingport reactor. It was important to Rickover that as there be high-profile and well-performing nuclear programs, and he apparently hoped that work on the large mobile reactor would be useful for developing large reactors for warships down the road. But in 1954 Korea resulted in what became the Enterprise being greenlit so the warship reactor program could kick right back into gear. "Related" can have a lot of meanings, they don't share hardware but the Shippingport reactor certainly shares an ancestry with the Navy programs.

 

[Delta Force]

Thanks for the reply. I thought Long Beach was after Enterprise, and I didn't know submarines were technically considered warships too.

It sounds like the original nuclear powered aircraft carrier program would have been similar to the later nuclear powered cruiser programs, which were essentially nuclear powered variants of a conventional base design. Was that the case?

 

[Tzoli]

The Navypedia site mentions that the later units of the United States class carriers would be Nuclear powered:
http://www.navypedia.org/ships/usa/us_cv_united_states.htm

It appears that four ships in all were contemplated, and that later units might have had nuclear power. Certainly smoke disposal from a large flush deck carrier was considered a major and intractable issue.

I do not know exactly from where he got that info but I could try to ask.
Maybe this corresponds to your reply of a Nuclear powered Forrestal sublcass as the early Forrestal designs were very similar flush deck carriers similar to the United States class.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

JFK (CV-67) was laid down as a CVN with four A3W reactors. Which is why she has the unique angled stack. Also she was the fastest conventional carrier despite being shorter. But Big John is mos def post Enterprise.

 

[sferrin]

JFK (CV-67) was laid down as a CVN with four A3W reactors. Which is why she has the unique angled stack. Also she was the fastest conventional carrier despite being shorter. But Big John is mos def post Enterprise.

Interesting. I did not know that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A3W_reactor

 

[Yellow Palace]

The idea that the plans were changed early enough to fundamentally redesign the engine rooms (and in fact most of the ship) as would be required to accommodate a change from nuclear to conventional power, but so late as to make adding a conventional stack, strains credulity somewhat. For one thing, the uptakes run most of the height of the island - they'd have had to have done all the difficult work and decided not to bother with the last part!

CV-67 was programmed for a CVAN to SCB-212, with the four A3W reactors, but reordered as an improved KITTY HAWK design to SCB-127C. The angled stack was intended to direct exhaust gases away from the flight deck.

 

[TomS]

Quite the blow-by-blow account of CVA-67's propulsion debate here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cv-67-nuke.htm

Excerpted from Rickover and the Nuclear Navy (Page 129 ff), here:

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/08/f2/DuncanRickoverandtheNuclearNavyComplete.pdf

Rickover's plan was to replace the oil-fired Forrestal-based design for CVA-67 (which became Kennedy) with a nuclear design based on Enterprise but with the 4-reactor A3W plant instead of Enterprise's 8 reactor A2W plant. That's not the same as swapping in nuke reactors for the conventional oil-fired plant in a ship already under construction.

 

[JFC Fuller]

Thanks TomS, I would also add the following:

'Deciding to Buy: Civil-military Relations and Major Weapons Programs' by Quentin E. Hodgson

None of the sources suggest that CV-67's design as built was in anyway affected by the deliberations over nuclear power; she was authorised as a conventionally powered ship then designed and built as one. The slanted stack only actually seems to slant above the flight deck; there is no reason I can see why this would be driven by a shift in propulsion type. Additionally, a number of books state that the reason for Kennedy's angled stack was an attempt to keep exhaust gases away from the flight deck (as RLBH said)

The four reactor Enterprise concept is interesting, essentially the missing link between Enterprise herself and the two reactor Nimitz class.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The above are right. Friedmann makes quite clear that CV-67 was ordered as a conventional ship by McNamara instead of the Navy's preferred second CVN. I was mislead by Wikipeadia. Ohh the embarrassment.

 

[SlickDriver]

I was mislead by Wikipeadia. Ohh the embarrassment.

- if that were the only time you are far ahead of me. I still am fooled.