Sea Control Ship (SCS) and VSTOL Support Ship (VSS)

SCS SWATH design carrier

(Slightly off topic but cool

More SWATHs and VTOLs

-the first image comes from "Armas de Guerra" {Weapons of War} nº46
"Light Carriers" and it is simply marked like a "proposal for the US Navy".

-the second are of an article of an Spanish scientific popularization
magazine of 1989 on "Invisible Ships of War" any information is not
given regarding the same, alone appears illustrating the concept of SWATH

Sea Control Ship (SCS)

Specifications of preliminary design January 1972 from U.S. Aircraft Carriers: an Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman.

Light displacement (tons): 9,773
Full load (tons): 13,736
LOA (ft-in): 610
LWL (ft-in): 585
Beam (WL/EXT): 80
Draft (full load) (ft-in): 21.62-0
Depth (ft-in): 67.5-0
SHP: 45,000
Speed (kts): 26 (24.5 sustained)
CIWS: 2

Aircraft (typical embarked):
3 AV-8A (Hawker Siddeley Harrier)
2 LAMPS (Kaman SH-2 Seasprite)
14 SH-3 (Sikorsky Sea King)

Flight deck dimensions (ft):545x105

Hanger height (ft): 19
Elevators (ft): 1 60 x 30 and 1 35 x 50
Capacity (lbs.): 60,000

JP-5 (tons): 950
AvOrd (tons): 180
LM 2500 GT: 2
SSG (GT): 3 2500

Complement
Ship (officers/ratings): 76/624
Aviation: ?

Some images of model of Sea Control Ship (SCS) from U.S. Aircraft Carriers: an Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman.

Sketch of Sea Control Ship (1974) by AD Baker III from U.S. Aircraft Carriers: an Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman.

Mullane, Paul N. LCdr., "Sea Control", Naval Aviation News March 1972
http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1970s/1972/mar72.pdf

VSTOL Support Ship (VSS) I

Specifications from U.S. Aircraft Carriers: an Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman.

Light displacement (tons): 15,210
Full load (tons): 22,940
LOA (ft-in): ?
LWL (ft-in): 690-0
Beam (WL/EXT): 98.45/133.5
Draft (full load) (ft-in): 23.23-0
Depth (ft-in): 73.50-0
SHP: 90,000
Speed (kts): 28 sustained
CIWS: 2
Harpoon canisters: 2
Aircraft (typical embarked):
4 AV-8A (Hawker Siddeley Harrier)
6 LAMPS (Kaman SH-2 Seasprite)
16 SH-53 (Sikorsky Sea Stallion)

Flight deck dimensions (ft):655 x 133.5

Hanger height (ft): 19.0
Elevators (ft): 1 60 x 30 and 1 35 x 49.3
Capacity (lbs.): 60,000

JP-5 (tons): 1,140
AvOrd (tons): ?
LM 2500 GT: 4
SSG (GT): 5 2500

Complement
Ship (officers/ratings):30/446
Aviation: 79/402

VSTOL Support Ship (VSS) II

Specifications from U.S. Aircraft Carriers: an Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman.

Light displacement (tons): 17,380
Full load (tons): 26,334
LOA (ft-in):717-0
LWL (ft-in): 690-0
Beam (WL/EXT): 105.7/166.5
Draft (full load) (ft-in): 24-5
Depth (ft-in): 77-1
SHP: 90,000
Speed (kts): ?
CIWS: 2
Harpoon canisters: 2
Aircraft (typical embarked):
4 AV-8A (Hawker Siddeley Harrier)
6 LAMPS III
16 SH-53 (Sikorsky Sea Stallion)

Flight deck dimensions (ft):?

Hanger height (ft): 20.1
Elevators (ft): 2 45 x 45
Capacity (lbs.): 85,000

JP-5 (tons): 2,791
AvOrd (tons): 292
LM 2500 GT: 4
SSG (GT): 5 2500

Complement
Ship (officers/ratings):44/636
Aviation: 79/492

VSTOL Support Ship (VSS) III

Specifications from U.S. Aircraft Carriers: an Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman.

Light displacement (tons): 20,116
Full load (tons): 29,130
LOA (ft-in):717-0
LWL (ft-in): 690-0
Beam (WL/EXT): 109.2/178.0
Draft (full load) (ft-in): 25.3-0
Depth (ft-in): 77-1
SHP: 90,000
Speed (kts): ?
CIWS: 2
Harpoon canisters: 2

Aircraft (typical embarked):?


Flight deck dimensions (ft):?

Hanger height (ft): 20.1
Elevators (ft): 2 45 x 45
Capacity (lbs.): 85,000

JP-5 (tons): ?
AvOrd (tons): ?
LM 2500 GT: 4
SSG (GT): 5 2500

Complement
Ship (officers/ratings):49/910
Aviation: 87/541

From U.S. Aircraft Carriers: an Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman.

This 325-ft SWATH ship was proposed by the David W Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center in 1980 to operate short takeoff, vertical landing (STOVL) fighters.

Click to expand...

The caption says 325-ft SWATH ship, but this looks like a larger monohull design.

From Jane's Fighting Ships from the late 1970s


Sea Control Ship (SCS) Design
-----------------------------
Displacement, tons: 14,300 full load
Length, feet (meters): 640 oa (195-1)
Beam, feet (meters): 80 (24-4)
Draught, feet (meters): 30 (9-1)

Aircraft:
3 VSTOL strike aircraft
14 large A/S helicopters
2 LAMPS helicopters

Catapults: none
Elevators: 2
Guns: 2--20mm CIWS
Main engines: 2 gas turbines; 40,000 shp; 1 shaft
Speed knots: approx 26


22,000 ton VSS Design
-----------------------------
Displacement, tons: 22,000 full load
Length, feet (meters): 750 oa (228-6)
Beam, feet (meters): 87 (26-5)
Draught, feet (meters): 24 (7-3)

Aircraft:
4 VSTOL strike aircraft
16 large A/S helicopters
6 LAMPS helicopters

Catapults: none
Elevators: 2
Guns: 2--20mm CIWS
Main engines: 4 gas turbines; 90,000 shp; 2 shaft
Speed knots: approx 28+


33,000 ton VSS Design
-----------------------------
Displacement, tons: 32,800 full load
Length, feet (meters): 780 oa (237-7)
Beam, feet (meters): 100 (30-5)
Draught, feet (meters): 25 (7-6)

Aircraft:

Approx 50+


Catapults: 2 C-13 steam
Elevators: 2
Guns: 2--20mm CIWS
Main engines: steam turbines; 100,000 shp; 2 shaft

Speed knots: approx 26+


The lead ship was planned for the Fiscal Year 1980 shipbuilding program with possibility of a dozen ships being constructed in a ten-year period. Congress refused to fund a VSTOL carrier known as the Sea Control Ship (SCS) that the Navy had planned for the FY 1975 shipbuilding program. This ship was opposed on the basis of limited size, capability, and speed. Accordingly, the Navy examined a number of designs that would provide a more flexible employment of sea-based tactical aircraft in a wide range of "low threat" situations as well as being able to conduct anti-submarine operations.

As of the late 1970s, the 22,000-ton VSS design was the principal candidate for this class of ship. The 33,000-ton VSS would be able to operate fixed-wing aircraft in limited numbers as well as VSTOL aircraft and helicopters.

The VSS configuration was suitable for sea control, amphibious assault, close air support, mine countermeasures, and low-intensity Anti-Air Warfare (AAW) operations. The last would be primarily against long-range reconnaissance and missile guidance aircraft, and not to counter high-performance fighter or attack aircraft. The multi-mission configuration was intended to overcome many of the objections which led to Congressional refusal to fund the smaller Sea Control Ship previously proposed by the Navy. In addition, the VSS would have had sufficient speed (approximately 28-30 knots) to accompany carrier task forces or fast merchant ships.

"Notional" air groups were indicated for the Sea Control Ship and 22,000-ton VSS design.The VSTOL strike aircraft was the AV-8A Harrier. The large ASW helicopter was the SH-3 Sea King or the CH Sea Stallion in an A/S configuration; the LAMPS (Light Airbourne Multipurpose System) was the SH-2 Sea Sprite.

A VSTOL carrier over 25,000 tons could operate a small number of conventional fixed-wing aircraft, particularly the S-3 Viking and A-7 Corsair II. These aircraft require catapults and arresting wires. The 33,000-ton VSS would have had two C-13 steam catapults and could operate an air group of 50 or more fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters.

Several advanced VSTOL aircraft were under development at the time in the United States for ship-based use, with the more promising candidates being the Hawker Siddeley-McDonnell Douglas AV-16 Advanced Harrier, the Rockwell XFV-12 Thrust-Augmented Wing (TAW) aircraft, and the Grumman "Nutcracker" design.

Cost estimates for the 22,000-ton VSS design in FY 1976 dollars averaged $270,000,000 per ship.

Multi-mission features for the VSS included being able to accommodate 500 troops in the amphibious assault contingency role for limited periods with minimum modifications.

Line drawing and specifications of another VSS concept.

Official US Navy photograph of artist's conception of V/STOL Support Ship (VSS) circa 1976.

Source: "On the Navy Horizon:", All Hands, July 1976
http://www.navy.mil/media/allhands/acrobat/ah197607.pdf

Official US Navy artist's concept of a 12,000-ton catamaran-hull Sea Control Ship (SCS) released in 1971. The ship was expected to cost under $100 million.

(I don't know why aircraft that resemble the General Dynamics F-111B appear in this artist's concept.)

Source: "Sea-control ship" Popular Mechanics January 1972

If you look closely, you'll see a jet blast deflector and catapult track on the flight deck. I think this was meant to be a CTOL ship, so F-111B might have seemed plausible.

TomS said:

If you look closely, you'll see a jet blast deflector and catapult track on the flight deck. I think this was meant to be a CTOL ship, so F-111B would have been the "new sexy" aircraft at the time.

Click to expand...

Sounds like the description doesn't belong with the art work, so take this artist's concept with a grain of salt. The article states "...the craft would be capable of handling VSTOL aircraft or helicopters, which require no arresting gear. It would be armed with surface-to-air missiles and its aircraft equipped with sub detection and killing gear." "Sea-control ship" Popular Mechanics January 1972 page 73.

What is strange about the illustration to me is that the non flight deck area, protrudes a considerable distance further forward than the marked flight deck. I've never known of a catamaran with one hull longer than the other?

JohnR said:

What is strange about the illustration to me is that the non flight deck area, protrudes a considerable distance further forward than the marked flight deck. I've never known of a catamaran with one hull longer than the other?

Click to expand...

It doesn't. It just looks that way because there is a deck house along the full length of the starboard side. Since the top of this is higher than the flight deck it looks like it extends forward.

Artist's impression of Sea Control Ship (SCS) from June 1974.

Source:
View: http://www.flickr.com/photos/63014123@N02/5756421941/in/set-72157626674107805/

Artist's impression of SWATH Sea Control Ship (SCS)

Source:
View: http://www.flickr.com/photos/63014123@N02/5756978862/in/set-72157626674107805/

That's pretty confusing. That's a big ship, operating FB-111 aircraft. You could eyeball it and figure out the length, but it's more of a conventional aircraft carrier than the SCS.

blackstar said:

That's pretty confusing. That's a big ship, operating FB-111 aircraft. You could eyeball it and figure out the length, but it's more of a conventional aircraft carrier than the SCS.

Click to expand...

You doubt the accuracy of Popular Mechanics magazine?

Triton said:

You doubt the accuracy of Popular Mechanics magazine?

Click to expand...

Ever since they promised me a personal jetpack in 1978.

blackstar said:

That's pretty confusing. That's a big ship, operating FB-111 aircraft. You could eyeball it and figure out the length, but it's more of a conventional aircraft carrier than the SCS.

Click to expand...

Yes and no, it's big, with a long runway. But it has a smallish hangar forward which could only handle a handful of planes, versus the expansive below-decks hangar of a conventional carrier. Nor elevators, no catapults or possibly just 1, small crew, no big radars, more "airstrip" and less "airbase."It's a kissing cousin to the giant mobile floating airbase concepts which fall in and out of fashion over time, in fact at least a couple of those big concepts used several ships of that sort joined together.

blackstar said:

Triton said:

You doubt the accuracy of Popular Mechanics magazine?

Click to expand...

Ever since they promised me a personal jetpack in 1978.

Click to expand...

Did they actually say when it was due?? ;D

Ryan found that thing in actual US archives, its nothing Popular mechanics made up or exaggerated. A couple F-111Bs of the mythical 60,000lb sort would be pretty useful for wide area Bear eradication fitting with the role of a Sea Control Ship.

Sea Skimmer said:

Ryan found that thing in actual US archives, its nothing Popular mechanics made up or exaggerated. A couple F-111Bs of the mythical 60,000lb sort would be pretty useful for wide area Bear eradication fitting with the role of a Sea Control Ship.

Click to expand...

The Popular Mechanics article was from 1972, so I presumed that the United States Navy had no interest in the General Dynamics-Grumman F-111B around this time. So maybe this artist's impression was painted before May 1968 when Congress decided to defund the F-111B?

I did a rough calculation of the length of that ship in the image. Figuring the F-111B is about 73 feet long, the ship is about seven aircraft-lengths, or about 511 feet. So it's not a supercarrier. Still, I don't know of any SCS proposals to carry such a large aircraft. The SCS was really intended for area control at sea, not power projection ashore. A smaller fighter would make sense. Considering that the A-4 and the F-8 were both on their way out, that wouldn't leave many options ca 1970.

I just haven't found any good, detailed articles on the SCS proposal.

Triton said:

blackstar said:

That's pretty confusing. That's a big ship, operating FB-111 aircraft. You could eyeball it and figure out the length, but it's more of a conventional aircraft carrier than the SCS.

Click to expand...

You doubt the accuracy of Popular Mechanics magazine?

Click to expand...

Sea Skimmer said:

Ryan found that thing in actual US archives, its nothing Popular mechanics made up or exaggerated. A couple F-111Bs of the mythical 60,000lb sort would be pretty useful for wide area Bear eradication fitting with the role of a Sea Control Ship.

Click to expand...

blackstar said:

I did a rough calculation of the length of that ship in the image. Figuring the F-111B is about 73 feet long, the ship is about seven aircraft-lengths, or about 511 feet. So it's not a supercarrier. Still, I don't know of any SCS proposals to carry such a large aircraft. The SCS was really intended for area control at sea, not power projection ashore. A smaller fighter would make sense. Considering that the A-4 and the F-8 were both on their way out, that wouldn't leave many options ca 1970.

I just haven't found any good, detailed articles on the SCS proposal.

Click to expand...

That plane may be actually the USN's 'mini-TFX' proposal, originally from 1963. It's mentioned on page 29 of the June 1977 edition of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Apparently the proposal was for a close support aircraft nearly as capable as the F-111B was (planned to be) but more compact. It was also intended as an escape route for the Navy from the F-111B program, but McNamara and co. weren't having any of it and killed the formal project, although it may have lived on in studies and the like for quite some time afterwards.

EDIT: This might be a related design, although it has top mounted intakes, and Air Force markings (bureaucratic misdirection?). Pictures originally posted by circle-5 in the VFAX (1965) Competition thread.







EDIT3:

overscan said:

circle-5 said:

Here's a Grumman concept model with no reference on the base. I'm guessing VAX or more likely VFAX, though it's a single-seater. Any documentation would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

Observations - it is small, essentially a scaled down TFX. Single seat. The top mounted intakes are F-111 style, putting them on top of the wing appears to have been done to free up the belly for a significant bombload. Clearly primary mission is attack.

These features make me think 1962 VAX (supersonic A-4 replacement) not VFAX. Just my thoughts.

Click to expand...

Since the 'mini-TFX' was most likely a Grumman project, would it have had the Design Number 311, I wonder?

EDIT2: Or maybe even Design Number 310 (G-310)?

Stargazer2006 said:

I have the G-273 and the G-310 both as "TFX projects". I figure your source is reliable enough (!) and so G-273 it must be. Besides, the G-310 is posterior to the F-14 Tomcat (G-303) which indicates it was probably a spin-off of the F-111 but not the original program.

Click to expand...

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a227420.pdf

Related to SCS and VSS here is a proposal studied DTNSRDC.
Source "swath - the vstol aircraft carrier for the post 1990's" Childers, Gloeckler and Stevens, USNEJ February 1977

ford_tempo said:

Related to SCS and VSS here is a proposal studied DTNSRDC.
Source "swath - the vstol aircraft carrier for the post 1990's" Childers, Gloeckler and Stevens, USNEJ February 1977

Click to expand...

thank you for sharing..

TomS said:

If you look closely, you'll see a jet blast deflector and catapult track on the flight deck. I think this was meant to be a CTOL ship, so F-111B might have seemed plausible.

Click to expand...

I think F-111B was long cancelled, and F-14 already flown, by 1972 date of the article.

Hesham has posted this link before elsewhere, but I thought I would repost it here for ease of reference: FINAL REPORT of the DEFENSE SCIENCE BOARD TASK FORCE ON V/STOL AIRCRAFT NOVEMBER 1979

hesham said:

From AW;

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/19720327/7/2

Click to expand...

Source:
http://www.snafu-solomon.com/2015/08/the-f-35mv-22-just-re-imagined-concepts.html

Artist's conception of V/STOL Support Ship (VSS) circa 1976.

Source:

From another thread (h/t Overscan)






EDIT: From the same thread, courtesy of dan_inbox;

Triton said:

Artist's conception of V/STOL Support Ship (VSS) circa 1976.

Source:

The F-35/MV-22 just re-imagined concepts from the Zumwalt era?

www.snafu-solomon.com

Click to expand...

Nice artist impression Triton - thanks!
Just as disappointing that the SCS wasn't utilised by the USN, was the USN's failure to develop and operationally embrace the CL-84 IMO!

P.S. Can anyone denote the ship-building firm that was selected as the winning/favoured SCS design?

Regards
Pioneer

SCS was a US Navy design so there wasn't a winner as such, to my knowledge the construction contract was never competed as Congress refused to fund the programme. However, the class was meant to be budgeted in the following fashion:

FY74: 1 ship
FY75: 3 ships
FY76: 2 ships
FY77: 2 ships

This schedule had slipped back a year (e.g. lead ship to be authorised in FY75) by early 1973. This would have given 8 ships to operate in "low threat" areas (basically Atlantic escorts and ASW barrier operations in the Davis straits and probably the GIUK line) alongside the 50 planned Patrol Frigates (to be FFG-7/Oliver Hazard Perry class). The 12 CVs were to operate in "high threat" areas (essentially anywhere the Soviets could put large numbers of AShMs, so Norwegian, Mediterranean and Bering Seas).

Does anyone know if they were still talking about the SCS concept in the late 80s/early 90s?

Thanks for your reply JCF Fuller!

I hear what you're say re "SCS was a US Navy design so there wasn't a winner as such, to my knowledge the construction contract was never completed as Congress refused to fund the programme.", and I should have probably have worded my question better.

Found the Budgeting of the SCS interesting!

I've been scouring the web since I posted my question, and think it might have been 'Ingalls shipbuilding' (or was it Litton-Ingalls?) design that was favoured (if I can use the term) by the USN. But I'm still keen to have this verified.

Regards
Pioneer