US Navy nuclear powered surface combatants (non-carrier)

Often on SD, in various Chinese and World Navy threads, the topic of nuclear powered surface combatants come up.

Many people on the forum are too young to remember, or are not familiar with the fact that the US Navy operated numerous surface combatants that were not carriers for almost 40 years. I figured that in dicussing nuclear powered surface combatants outside of carriers, that it would be worhtwhile to have these vessels to reference in our future duscissions. This would be a good thread to hold such discussions.

The US Navy nuclear powered surface combatants ranged in displacement from 8,100 tons, up to 15,600 tons. They were very successful.

The Nuclear carriers (which came along with the Nimitz class in the 1970s), and the nuclear submarine force, have many more vessels in them, but these surface combatants were valuable escorts for US capital vessels and important center pieces themselves for Surface Action groups.

Here's all of them, with pictures, names, designations, their commissioning and decomissioning dates, as well as their displacement:


So, the US operated a total of nine nuclear powered surface combatants ranging in displacement from 8,100 tons up to 15,500 tons, for a total of 39 years. None of them had any helo hanger, just a landing deck.

The later Virginia Class would still be operating today, but it was too costly to upgrade their double arm launchers and missle stores along with their sensors to the VLS AEGIS standard, so they were decommissioned early and replaced by conventionally powered AEGIS cruisers (and now detroyers) all of which carried two helicopters.

Do you think it would be effective if China goes nuclear on her supposed Type 055? It could seriously speed up the development of other reactors for any future carrier, and rumors indicate that they are testing a new submarine borne reactor as well.

It would be costly though but it would provide early assessment into the feasibility and cost of a future CVN.

SinoSoldier said:

Do you think it would be effective if China goes nuclear on her supposed Type 055? It could seriously speed up the development of other reactors for any future carrier, and rumors indicate that they are testing a new submarine borne reactor as well.

It would be costly though but it would provide early assessment into the feasibility and cost of a future CVN.

Click to expand...

Just depends on how strongly the PLAN emphasizes nuclear power. They have several nuclear powered subs now, with increasing displacments. Depends on how reliable they are and where they feel they are with the technology, as well as what their operational requirements are.

By the early 1960s the US felt it's nuclear powerplants for naval vessels were advanced enough to do so. So they built the Long Beach cruiser, followed by the USS Enterprise carrier, followed by the Bainbrdige and Truxton which were destroyer sized nuclear combatants.

The US nuclear power plants have continued to develop significantly ever since. Smaller, and much more powerful...and surely operating those earlier reactors taught them a lot in terms of improving the designs. The Enterprise had eight nuclear power plants. the Nimitz have two. the new Fords still have two, but each is twice as powerful and efficient as those that were on the Nimitz class.

But, remember, US has a naval force that literally is expected to sail the seven seas. World-wide with very long transits on occassion. For subs and carriers, and their escortts this can be a very good thing to have that nuclear power and not have to use so much bunkerage space for fuel for the vessel itself.

Are those types of long deployments and voyages in the PLAN's future? If they think they are, then it would add more reason for the nuclear power. But only if they feel their technology is ready for it.

The US decommissioned all of its nuclear powered escorts between 1993 and 1999. This was primarily because the AEGIS vessels (which had gas turbine power) were so much more effective in terms of air and submarine defense and it was too costly to upgrade the nuclear vessels to those standards.

There is fairly regular talk aorund the US Navy about the potential for next nuclear powered escorts. It was considered for the Zumwalts. It is still talked about for the next generation cruisers, the CGX or whatever its designation will be. But that will not be until after the Burke Flight IIIs now.

I had not forgotten the nuclear powered USN surface combatants, just some of the later ones. But the weight of the power plants of these ships, including their shielding, must have exceeded the weight of a conventional steam plant and its filled bunkers, not to mention gas turbines. And then there is the cost of maintenance.

The reason these ships were taken out of service is multiple.

1) Expensive upgrades were need.
....VLS, Aegis etc..etc
2) They were due for their mid life refueling.
3) the cost of these two needs was considered prohibitive.
4) High cost of maintenance.
5) Lack of nuclear trained personnel.

bd popeye said:

The reason these ships were taken out of service is multiple.

1) Expensive upgrades were need.
....VLS, Aegis etc..etc
2) They were due for their mid life refueling.
3) the cost of these two needs was considered prohibitive.
4) High cost of maintenance.
5) Lack of nuclear trained personnel.

Click to expand...

Amen to every bit of that, popeye.

Those mid-life refuels are also very expensive for nuclear vessels of any type. If you have other vessels coming on line in numbers that can do the same job better, no sense in going through that expense either.

As to the future, I still think a nuclear CGX is possible...but it's a long ways off now with the Burke Flight IIIs planned to fill the gap.

I know one that would be good...if they build that larger radar ships for the CSGs that would be a good candidate...but since they are planned to be a takeoff of the San Antonio LPD hull, I doubt that will occur either. Still, plenty of subs and carriers to build.

Someone also asked in the ther thread if there away a chance for 055 to be nuclear powered, which I think is unlikely, and that is because it is "only"

The benefit of nuclear power for surface combatants in the 21st century is more the electricity they can provide, rather than the fact that they do not require constant fuelling. I think only surface ships 20,000 tons and over will be considered for nuclear propulsion, part of that is because only ships of that size can accommodate the massive APARs you'd expect, or rail guns, DEWs, etc, whereas smaller ships (even like zumwalt) can rely on gas turbine derived IEP for less powerful radars and less DEWs or rail guns.

What was the autonomy of these nuclear-powered ships ?

FORBIN said:

What was the autonomy of these nuclear-powered ships ?

Click to expand...

Do you mean why there are several types of these ships and no single class.?

The USN was not sure which way to go with large surface combatants. Conventional or nuke powered. Finally a decision was made to build the California class CGN.. But it was too little to late and very costly.

bd popeye said:

Do you mean why there are several types of these ships and no single class.?

The USN was not sure which way to go with large surface combatants. Conventional or nuke powered. Finally a decision was made to build the California class CGN.. But it was too little to late and very costly.

Click to expand...

Really. the two California class, followed by the four Virginia class were all very closely related...and good vessels.

Their Achilles heel was that they had those side arm launchers with their magazines below decks and the older sensors. Even with the NTU (New Threat Upgrade) they simply were not as good, or ever would be as good as the AEGIS vessels. And it was impractical and too expensive to retrofit the VLS cells and the AEGIS system onto them.

And, as you say, with mid-life refueling coming up, that sealed their fates.

Too bad. It became a pretty costly error, particularly for the Virginias because the USS Texas only had 15 years use, and the longest, the Mississippi, only had 19. They were built for 35-40.