1980's 600 Ship Navy Essex Class Reactivation Plan

[Ironmiked]

During the 1980's, several Essex Class carriers remained in mothballs for potential reactivation. Does anyone know what the reactivation proposals were during the 600 Ship Navy fleet expansion period? The goal was 15 deployable carrier battle groups. Included in that number were maintenance and availability periods plus the SLEP's for the conventional Super Carriers. Beyond the then still serving USS Lexington (CV-16), the Oriskany, Intrepid, Hornet, Bennington, and Bon Homme Richard were all still in storage. I understand even modernized, these ships would not have had viable air wings for high threat environments. However, they could have operated in low threat areas, freeing-up Forrestal, Kittyhawk and Nimitz Class for other operations. Was F/A-18 small enough to operate from their decks? Was the S-3 Viking an option? I understand it would have expensive to reactive the ships and the Nimitz Class were being ordered two at a time. However, I'm curious to see everyones thoughts on how much additional life the ships had and how their air wings might have evolved into the 90's, had the Cold War not ended.

(Wikipedia) USS Oriskany (CV/CVA-34) was decommissioned on 30 September 1976, and laid up for long-term storage in Bremerton, Washington, to be maintained as a mobilization asset. Reagan Administration proposals to reactivate Oriskany were rejected by the United States Congress on the basis of her poor material condition and limited air wing capability. The cost of reactivation was estimated at $520 million for FY 1982 ($1.58 billion in 2022). At the end of the Cold War and the subsequent reduction of the U.S. Navy's active force, Oriskany was recognized as being obsolete and was struck from the Naval Vessel Register in 1989.

 

[that_person]

Her proposed airwing would be 48 A-4Ms. Sufficient funds where not provided in order to navalize the aircraft.

 

[Tzoli]

And the Australians were interested in her and a possible modernization but thst may had been in the 1970's after her deactivation? Or was it just an Oriskany Type? Eg an Essex modernized to Oriskany standards?

 

[Tzoli]

Her proposed airwing would be 48 A-4Ms. Sufficient funds where not provided in order to navalize the aircraft.

Erm... the A-4 was a carrier attack aircraft to begin with...

 

[TomS]

To judge from Oriskany, which was supposedly the best of the bunch, they were utterly clapped out.

Heres an article supposedly advocating FOR this idea that does an excellent job of laying out all the arguments AGAINST it.

A Blue-Green Opportunity: Carrier-Based Marine Air Wings

The Essex-class carrier

www.usni.org

 

[TomS]

Erm... the A-4 was a carrier attack aircraft to begin with...

Yes, but the M had gained a lot of weight for Marine Corps land-based roles and was not strengthened enough for max gross weight operations from carriers.

 

[CV12Hornet]

And the Australians were interested in her and a possible modernization but thst may had been in the 1970's after her deactivation? Or was it just an Oriskany Type? Eg an Essex modernized to Oriskany standards?

Australian proposals for an Essex were from the early 60s and did not include Oriskany; they would've more likely gotten one of the low-mileage active ships, or possibly one of Bunker Hill or Franklin.

Was F/A-18 small enough to operate from their decks? Was the S-3 Viking an option?

Neither was seriously considered but theoretically they may have been operable. Hornets are more forgiving than Phantoms and IIRC the S-3 was designed to be operated off the Essexes.

However, I'm curious to see everyones thoughts on how much additional life the ships had and how their air wings might have evolved into the 90's, had the Cold War not ended.

There is no way possible an Essex is lasting in active service into the 1990s. The absolute latest an Essex can be justified in service, for the purposes of keeping carrier numbers up, is 1987, when Theodore Roosevelt is ready for deployment. At that point the Navy has its desired 15-carrier fleet without the Essexes.

 

[uk 75]

The most useful role for the Essex class would have been to take the S3 Viking and Seaking helos off the decks of bigger carriers so they could operate more F14s etc.
In that role the Essexes would have needed a small number of anti-snooper fighters like the A4 or AV8.

 

[Ironmiked]

US Carrier strength in 1991. 15 carriers still didn't translate into 15 deployable strike groups. You need at least 16, if not 17, flight decks to have fifteen truly deployable strike groups: during peacetime operations, ships are going through work-up cycles, deployments and maintenance as normal operations. This is also the time when carriers would be surged to form temporary, multi-career task forces. The In wartime, the goal was to have 15 combat ready carrier battle groups. I saw a study which stated the real operational need was actually 23 carriers, but the idea was beyond affordable. 1968 was the last year the Navy had 23 operational carriers.

U.S. Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1986-1992​

DATE	9/30/86	9/30/87	9/30/88	9/30/89	9/30/90	9/30/91	9/30/92
BATTLESHIPS	3	3	3	4	4	1	-
CARRIERS	14	14	14	14	13	15	14
CRUISERS	32	36	38	40	43	47	49
DESTROYERS	69	69	69	68	57	47	40
FRIGATES	113	115	107	100	99	93	67
SUBMARINES	101	102	100	99	93	87	85
SSBNS	39	37	37	36	33	34	30
COMMAND SHIPS	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
MINE WARFARE	21	22	22	23	22	22	16
PATROL	6	6	6	6	6	6	6
AMPHIBIOUS	58	59	59	61	59	61	58
AUXILIARY	123	127	114	137	137	112	102
SURFACE WARSHIPS	217	223^	217	212	203	188	156
TOTAL ACTIVE	583	594*	573	592	570	529	471

 

[BlackBat242]

While the initial Essex reactivation scenario called for A-4Ms, in reality it would likely end up with an A-7 air wing once USN squadrons began transitioning to F/A-18As.

The 12th edition of Polmar's Ships & Aircraft of the US Fleet (early 1981 publication, I bought mine in August 1981, and it refers to Reagan having won the 11/80 election) mentions that there had been a proposal for the AV-8B (then just finishing testing and entering initial production) to be fitted with the AN/APG-65 radar (with a smaller radar antenna)* - something that was finally done in the 1990s.

So, if we put what is basically a US Sea Harrier II alongside A-7s and SH-3s we have a nice light strike wing... 24 AV-8B + 24 A-7 + 8 SH-3.

The S-3 would likely would be operable from any Essex-mod, the likely reason for never having done so was that by the time the last S-2 squadrons were ready to change over, the ships had been decommissioned. However, the limited hangar and deck space must be taken into account... 10 S-3 + 24 A-7 + 12 AV-8B + 6 SH-3 would likely fill one right up.


* AV-8B+ APG-65 antenna diameter = 22.8" vs 26.625" in the F/A-18A/B
Source: The Naval Institute Guide to World Naval Weapons Systems, 1997-1998

Here is the paragraph from Polmar:

 

[Archibald]

A pity they scrapped Franklin and Bunker hill before Reagan & Lehman time. Wonder if they would have rebuild a pair of Essex, by the 1980's... the 22-something operational ones had been worn out to the bones, but these two - they had not.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The S-3 would likely would be operable from any Essex-mod, the likely reason for never having done so was that by the time the last S-2 squadrons were ready to change over, the ships had been decommissioned. However, the limited hangar and deck space must be taken into account... 10 S-3 + 24 A-7 + 12 AV-8B + 6 SH-3 would likely fill one right up.

For what it's worth the S-3 was designed to be operable from Essex class ships operating in the CVS role. However, as you wrote the Essex CVS were retired before the Viking came into service.

The most useful role for the Essex class would have been to take the S3 Viking and Seaking helos off the decks of bigger carriers so they could operate more F14s etc.

That's reversing what happened in the middle 1970s.

That is, the plan in the middle 1960s was that the USN of the middle 1970s would have had 15 CVA, 6 CVS and a training carrier.

• The 15 CVA would have been the 3 Midway class, the 9 existing Super Carriers & the first 3 of what became the Nimitz class.
• The 6 CVS would have been SCB-27C Essex class, which in the longer term would have been replaced by new ships of the SCB.100 type.

The CVS were there to protect the CVA from attack by Soviet nuclear powered submarines and 6 ships were required so that 2 could be forward deployed at all times. That is, one to support the 3 Attack Carriers in the Western Pacific and one to support the 2 Attack Carriers in the Mediterranean.

Each of the 6 CVS would have an air group that included 20 S-3 Vikings (2 squadrons of 10) and 16 SH-3 Sea Kings (all in one squadron). This part of the plan was carried out because there were already enough Sea Kings to form 6 squadrons of 16 aircraft and enough S-3s were bought to form 12 squadrons of 10 aircraft.

However, the rest of the plan wasn't carried out because the 9 Essex class CVA (mainly SCB.27A ships) in the middle 1960s were retired (without replacement) by 1975.

Furthermore, the CVA force (not counting the Essex class that were about to be decommissioned) only had 13 ships in 1975 instead of 15. (That is, Nimitz, the 9 older Super Carriers and 3 Midway class). Plus there were only 12 attack carrier air wings in 1975 instead of the 15 that existed in the middle 1960s.

Therefore, each of the Super Carriers had to embark one squadron of 10 Vikings & a squadron of 6 Sea Kings because they were still needed to counter the Soviet nuclear-powered submarines and the number of attack aircraft was reduced to make room. Don't quote me on this, but I think they lost a full squadron of 12 A-7s and the number of A-6s was reduced from 12 per squadron to 10.

In that role the Essexes would have needed a small number of anti-snooper fighters like the A4 or AV8.

For what it's worth the SCB-27A Essex class operating in the CVS role in the 1960s and 1970s did carry a flight of A-4s as anti-snooper fighters.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The S-3 would likely would be operable from any Essex-mod, the likely reason for never having done so was that by the time the last S-2 squadrons were ready to change over, the ships had been decommissioned. However, the limited hangar and deck space must be taken into account... 10 S-3 + 24 A-7 + 12 AV-8B + 6 SH-3 would likely fill one right up.

Not necessarily. In the early 1970s Oriskany was operating 86 aircraft, including 4 EKA-3Bs, 42 A7A/B and 3 SH-3G.

See below.

​

 

[MadRat]

What if, instead of being focused on CATOBAR operations they instead focused converting them to logistical helicopter carriers and act as spare VLS container ships? May draw fire because the enemy might mistake them for a CVN. (But of course you would still have modern defenses protecting them.) Use the ship to carry part of a large group of Rangers or Marines for rapid transfers. More space to operate from than a Tarawa for humanitarian efforts. Could still maintain limited CATOBAR without focus on pointy noses. And keep a catapult or two for fixed wing cargo transfers. Could even operate Hawkeye because of commonality between C-2. You can always use spare decks for diverted flights when pointy jets have emergencies. Gives you a lot of flexibility with missions.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

The Essex class couldn't operate Hawkeye, the hangar wasn't tall enough.

 

[TomS]

The Essex class couldn't operate Hawkeye, the hangar wasn't tall enough.

I'm not sure this is true. They never did, but I believe the E-2 design was sized to fit the "high hat" area of the Essex hangar.

 

[Archibald]

I have stuck in my mind for a very long time the E-1B Turbotracer. All in the name: a turboprop "stoof with a roof" for the navies with carriers too small for the E-2 yet in search of AEW...

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The Essex class couldn't operate Hawkeye, the hangar wasn't tall enough.

According to the January 1970 Standard Aircraft Characteristics book about the E-2C Hawkeye a total of 47 could be accommodated on the flight and hangar decks of a CVA-19 class angled deck carrier.

Page 3 of the book (and Page 5 of the PDF) said the height with the Rotodome retracted was 16ft 5.5in.

 

[Foo Fighter]

There were several carriers converted to rotary wing operation, could the younger two or three (Or whatever) be so converted to allow (Minus a few airguard airframes) a completely fixed wing air group for and maximise the larger carriers for strike ops?

 

[Archibald]

Antietam maybe ? after pioneering the angled deck, poor thing was left a bastard, standalone standard.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The Essex class couldn't operate Hawkeye, the hangar wasn't tall enough.

More info on the Hawkeye. The January 1970 Standard Aircraft Characteristics for the E-2C says it was operable from CVA-19 and superior class aircraft carriers in the Mission and Description section.

I've found the January 1970 Standard Aircraft Characteristics for the C-2A Greyhound in the American Aviation Historical Society Archives. It says that the C-2A was operable from CVS-10, CVA-19 and superior class aircraft carriers in the Mission and Description section. It also says that a total of 45 C-2s can be accommodated on the flight and hangar decks of a CVS-10 class angled deck carrier.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The January 1973 Standard Aircraft Characteristics book for the S-3A Viking says it was capable of operating from CVS-11 or better aircraft carriers. Unfortunately, the book doesn't say how many Vikings could be accommodated on an Essex class aircraft carrier.

CVS-11 was Intrepid, one of the Essex class that was refitted to SCB.27C standard. She became a CVS on 31.03.62 and was paid off on 30.03.74.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

There were several carriers converted to rotary wing operation, could the younger two or three (Or whatever) be so converted to allow (Minus a few airguard airframes) a completely fixed wing air group for and maximise the larger carriers for strike ops?

Are you referring to the 3 that were converted to LPHs? They were struck from the Naval Register between 01.12.69 & 30.01.70 and therefore weren't available for reactivation in the 1980s.

Antietam maybe? after pioneering the angled deck, poor thing was left a bastard, standalone standard.

Antietam was struck from the Naval Register on 01.05.73 and therefore wasn't available for reactivation in the 1980s.

The ships available in 1981 were:

Bennington (CVS) struck 1989.​

Bon Homme Richard (CVA) struck 1989.​

Hornet (CVS) struck struck 1989.​

Intrepid (CVS) struck 1982.​

Oriskany (CVA) struck 1989.​

Shangri-La (CVS) struck 1982.​

Bennington and Hornet were SCB.27A ships so they had hydraulic instead of steam catapults.

The ship that I feel sorry for is Lake Champlain. She was the only SCB.27A Essex that didn't receive an angled flight deck. She was due to get one (and steam catapults) in a SCB.125A refit in FY57, but it was cancelled. As a result she was the first SCB.27 Essex to be paid off (02.05.66) and the first SCB.27 Essex to be struck (01.12.69).

Meanwhile, Oriskany did have an SCB.125A refit in FY57 served as an Attack Carrier until paying off on 15.05.76 and was the last operational Essex class ship (because Lexington (which paid off on 08.11.91) had been a training carrier since 1962).

I suspect that Lake Champlain would have had remained in service as an Attack Carrier until 1976 had she been refitted to SCB.125A standard.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[EwenS]

The Essex class couldn't operate Hawkeye, the hangar wasn't tall enough.

The E-2A-C variants had a pylon supporting the radome could be shortened by 2 feet to allow it to fit the 17.5ft hangar height in the Essex & Midway class carriers. Later carrier classes had greater hangar height that didn't require use of the facility.

 

[EwenS]

There were several carriers converted to rotary wing operation, could the younger two or three (Or whatever) be so converted to allow (Minus a few airguard airframes) a completely fixed wing air group for and maximise the larger carriers for strike ops?

The 3 straight deck Essex converted as interim LPH, Boxer, Princeton & Valley Forge, had half their boilers deactivated as well as losing most of their armament and radars. All arrester gear, catapults etc were also removed. Troop berthing and vehicle storage had been fitted. Ultimately they were not very succesfulmin the role as the Marines had to be split amongst too many relatively small compartments while they were costly for the USN to man at a time when recruitment was becoming difficult.

So a lot of work to make them useful as fixed wing carriers and doesn't sort the manning issue.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Therefore, each of the Super Carriers had to embark one squadron of 10 Vikings & a squadron of 6 Sea Kings because they were still needed to counter the Soviet nuclear-powered submarines and the number of attack aircraft was reduced to make room. Don't quote me on this, but I think they lost a full squadron of 12 A-7s and the number of A-6s was reduced from 12 per squadron to 10.

The reduction in the number of attack squadrons predates the transition to the Viking - the transition to the Intruder saw the the Skywarrior and Skyraider squadrons on the supercarriers consolidated into a single Intruder squadrons. In fact, there's no real evidence the supercarriers lost any attack aircraft to the Viking squadron. Enterprise had to land the 6 Skywarriors she operated well into the late 1960s, and Forrestal's 1967 and 1973 air wings had the same number of fighter and attack aircraft, 60, despite the latter air wing including the Viking squadron.

 

[Foo Fighter]

The 3 straight deck Essex converted as interim LPH, Boxer, Princeton & Valley Forge, had half their boilers deactivated as well as losing most of their armament and radars. All arrester gear, catapults etc were also removed. Troop berthing and vehicle storage had been fitted. Ultimately they were not very succesfulmin the role as the Marines had to be split amongst too many relatively small compartments while they were costly for the USN to man at a time when recruitment was becoming difficult.

So a lot of work to make them useful as fixed wing carriers and doesn't sort the manning issue.

What I tried to say was to restrict the available Essex types to rotary assets and remove these from the newer and larger carriers for pure strike roles. Removing the rotary assets minus skyguard cover for ditching fixed wing crews COULD allow them to be more focussed and effective on strike missions.

 

[Scott Kenny]

What I tried to say was to restrict the available Essex types to rotary assets and remove these from the newer and larger carriers for pure strike roles. Removing the rotary assets minus skyguard cover for ditching fixed wing crews COULD allow them to be more focussed and effective on strike missions.

I think that's a bad idea, on the grounds that every carrier should have both CAP and ASW capabilities, if only to protect the carrier proper. Nevermind anything else in the area.

 

[Foo Fighter]

I think that's a bad idea, on the grounds that every carrier should have both CAP and ASW capabilities, if only to protect the carrier proper. Nevermind anything else in the area.

Mea culpa, thinking of what they COULD be used for rather than what roles they would NEED to be used for.

 

[BlackBat242]

Therefore, each of the Super Carriers had to embark one squadron of 10 Vikings & a squadron of 6 Sea Kings because they were still needed to counter the Soviet nuclear-powered submarines and the number of attack aircraft was reduced to make room. Don't quote me on this, but I think they lost a full squadron of 12 A-7s and the number of A-6s was reduced from 12 per squadron to 10.

The reduction in the number of attack squadrons predates the transition to the Viking - the transition to the Intruder saw the the Skywarrior and Skyraider squadrons on the supercarriers consolidated into a single Intruder squadrons. In fact, there's no real evidence the supercarriers lost any attack aircraft to the Viking squadron. Enterprise had to land the 6 Skywarriors she operated well into the late 1960s, and Forrestal's 1967 and 1973 air wings had the same number of fighter and attack aircraft, 60, despite the latter air wing including the Viking squadron.

But I am quoting you, NOMISYRRUC.

Deployments of USS RANGER (CV 61)

Here is the squadron roster for CV-61 Ranger for her October 27, 1970 - June 17, 1971 Vietnam cruise:
VF-21 (F-4J)
VF-154 (F-4J)
VA-25 (A-7E)
VA-113 (A-7E)
VA-145 (A-6A/C)
RVAH-1 (RA-5C)
VAQ-134 (KA-3B/EKA-3B)
VAW-111 Det 7 (E-1B)
HC-1 Det 1 (SH-3G)
HC-7 Det 110 (SH-3A)*
total: I don't have numbers for this time period

January 30, 1976 - September 7, 1976 cruise:
VF-154 (F-4J) [12]
VF-21 (F-4J) [12]
VA-113 (A-7E) [12]
VA-25 (A-7E) [12]
VA-145 (A-6A and KA-6D) [12+4]
RVAH-5 (RA-5C) [4]
VAQ-135 (EA-6B) [4]
VAW-112 (E-2B) [4]
HS-4 (SH-3) [4]
VQ-1 Det. (EA-3B) [1]
total: 81

Here is the squadron roster for CV-61 Ranger for her February 21, 1979 - September 22, 1979 cruise:
VF-21 (F-4J) [12]
VF-154 (F-4J) [12]
VA-25 (A-7E) [12]
VA-113 (A-7E) [12]
VA-145 (A-6E and KA-6D) [12+4] {reduced to 10+4 in the early 1980s, and A-6Es became fitted for buddy refueling*}
RVAH-7 (RA-5C) [4]
VS-29 (S-3A) [8] {planned for 10 but I doubt they reached that - Ranger had only 8 aboard in 1985-87}
VAW-117 (E-2B) [4]
VAQ-137 (EA-6B) [4]
HS-4 (SH-3H) [6]
VQ-1 Det. C (EA-3B) [1]
total: 91

Yes... an increase of 10 aircraft with no decrease in numbers of squadrons or aircraft per squadron.

I know that the A-7 squadrons aboard the smaller carriers had 14 per squadron... but those were the less-capable A-7A/B models... apparently the USN felt the more advanced capabilities of the A-7E meant they didn't need as many aboard.
As well, this was after the end of Vietnam, and peacetime drawdowns always reduce numbers.


* Fitted with reverse pumps for the centerline fuselage pylon to carry a drop tank with a hose reel in the aft portion.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Mea culpa, thinking of what they COULD be used for rather than what roles they would NEED to be used for.

No worries!

Bouncing ideas off each other is how we find holes in the plans.

 

[carvalho2008]

I have stuck in my mind for a very long time the E-1B Turbotracer. All in the name: a turboprop "stoof with a roof" for the navies with carriers too small for the E-2 yet in search of AEW...