Alt 60s US Navy

[PMN1]

Once people figured out submerged launch of missiles, though, it became a lot easier to make an SSGN. The Los Angeles class was originally planned to be SSGNs with roughly A1 sized tubes. 40" diameter or so. That missile program died of bloat, so the LAs were built as pure fast attacks, with the first flight able to carry Tomahawks in the torpedo room and second flight getting 12x21" VLS for Tomahawks.

How different was the original design to what actually ende dup in service?

 

[Scott Kenny]

How different was the original design to what actually ende dup in service?

The original SSGN design was basically a baby Boomer, had a missile compartment amidships with some number of 30-40" tubes. Not sure about the ops compartment setup. Probably somewhat different due to layout efficiency changes. And a much bigger diesel and sail for more airflow. (point of comparison, a 688 or Virginia class has an 18" diameter snorkel mast, an Ohio has a 36" diameter snorkel mast)

 

[Yellow Palace]

How different was the original design to what actually ende dup in service?

That would be APHNAS:

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/us-navy-aphnas-ssn-with-ugm-89-perseus-stam-1971.7192/

Significantly bigger submarine than a LOS ANGELES, or even a SEAWOLF, with twenty 30-inch diameter tubes.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

APHNAS post-dated Los Angeles. Design work the the Los Angeles began in the 1960s, with the design for a submarine with D1G being proposed in 1963, a preliminary design being drawn up in 1966, which changes were made to until 1969. The first three boats were ordered in FY70.

A D1W-propelled submarine was compared with the D1G-propelled Los Angeles and the S5G-propelled CONFORM, however the design would not be ready until 1974-75, and hence could not be ordered until the FY77 Program. APHNAS itself was drawn up in 1971, but very quickly died, as it was believed that the UGM-89 Perseus Cruise missiles were being deliberately designed to be too large for torpedo tubes, hence requiring a new submarine, which would ideally be powered by the D1W reactor that Rickover desired.

Another D1W-powered design described as the "Advanced SSN", was drawn up in 1975 and presented alongside a number of alternatives for a new SSN to be built in FY80. However the reactor intended for this new design was not expected to be ready until FY82.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

My ideal is to have 10 Ethan Allen class built (instead of 5 George Washington class and 5 Ethan Allen class) which would have larger missile tubes so they could have been rearmed with Poseidon missiles too. However, I think that could not have been done because Polaris was a crash programme and they were trying to get as many boats as possible in service as soon as possible.

Remember that Regulus and Polaris were literally a battle for survival for the USN.

I'm having one of my blond moments. I can't tell whether you are opposing my comment or supporting it by providing some background information.

For what it's worth, it's impossible for me to have remembered that "Regulus and Polaris were literally a battle for survival for the USN" in the "Real World" because I didn't know that "Regulus and Polaris were literally a battle for survival for the USN" in the first place.

However, the fact that "Regulus and Polaris were literally a battle for survival for the USN" in the "Real World" is irrelevant to the thread because it is effectively a "United States Navy money no object" thread and therefore the USN wasn't fighting a battle for survival in this "version of history".

Furthermore, even if your comment was relevant to the thread, I don't see how it's relevant to my "ideal" of having the first 5 SSBNs built as additional Ethan Allen class boats instead of as George Washington class boats? That is unless your comment was supporting my final sentence i.e. "However, I think that could not have been done because Polaris was a crash programme and they were trying to get as many boats as possible in service as soon as possible."Part of Post 54.

Part of Post 54.

With hindsight, I would have built Greyback, Growler & Halibut as Attack Submarines and converted 3 additional old submarines to Regulus Boats. Similarly, I would have built Sailfish, Salmon & Triton as Attack Submarines and converted 3 additional old Boats to Radar Picket Submarines (SSR).

This fits better in an ALT-1950s US Navy, but here goes.

Sailfish & Salmon were approved in FY52, Greyback & Growler were approved in FY53 & FY55 respectively. I think they should have been built as submarines of the Tang or Darter classes. The former were approved FY47-49 and the latter in FY54. With hindsight, I also think that the 3 Barracuda class SSK (approved FY48 & 49) should have been additional boats of the Tang class and in their place 3 additional old boats converted to SSKs. That would increase the number of Tang & Darter type submarines from 7 to 14.

Halibut & Triton were approved in FY56 and so were the last pair of Skates, Skipjack & the 3 Barbels. I'd like them to be built as additional Skate class SSN (and as this appears to be a "money no object" thread) have another 3 Skipjacks built instead of the Barbels. That would increase the number of Skipjack class from 6 to 11. I'd also like 4 additional Skipjacks to be built instead of the Skates, but the only way (that I know of) to achieve that is build Albacore at least 2 years earlier and I think that's a "wank" too far.

The one-off SSKN Tulibee was approved in FY58. However, Thresher was approved in FY57 and with hindsight I think she should have been an additional Thresher which would increase that class from 14 to 15 boats.

Again, remember that Regulus was literally existential for the USN at the time. There weren't going to be carriers, because "the USAF does that" and no carrier plane of the early 1950s could drop a 10,000lb nuclear bomb.

Again, I'm having one of my blond moments. I can't tell whether you are opposing my comment or supporting it by providing some background information.

Again, for what it's worth, it's impossible for me to have remembered that "Regulus was literally existential for the USN at the time" in the "Real World" because I didn't know that "Regulus was literally existential for the USN at the time" in the first place.

Again, the fact that "Regulus and Polaris were literally a battle for survival for the USN" in the "Real World" is irrelevant to the thread because it is effectively a "United States Navy money no object" thread and therefore the USN wasn't fighting a battle for survival in this "version of history".

Although, by the time Greyback, Growler & Hallibut were built (i.e. the second half of the 1950s) the USN had won its battle for survival and there were going to be aircraft carriers. Super carriers (i.e. the Forrestal class, Constellation, Kitty Hawk & Enterprise) were being laid down at the rate of one per year, the Midways were being refitted to SCB.110 standard and 15 Essex class were having SCB.27 refits and 14 of them would receive angled flight decks under SCB.125.

Again, even if your comment was relevant to the thread, I don't see why it is relevant to what I wrote, because I was suggesting that with hindsight more Tang & Darter class should have been built instead of the Barracuda class SSK & Sailfish class SSR and that more SSNs should have been built instead of the SSKN, SSRN and Barbel class SS.

That was until I re-read my comment and saw that I'd also suggested building more Tang or Darter class SS instead of the SSGs Greyback & Growler and an additional SSN instead of the SSGN Halibut. So fair enough.

However, there was still a Regulus programme in my Alternative 1950s USN. The difference is that not building new SSKs, SSGs & SSRs (including those that were nuclear powered) and building more SS & SSN was offset by converting more World War II built submarines to SSKs, SSGs & SSRs. Therefore, instead of the 3 new (including one nuclear powered) Regulus submarines and 2 World War II boats that were converted to Regulus submarines in the "Real World" there would have been no new Regulaus submarines and 5 conversions of of World War II boats in this "version of history".

 

[Scott Kenny]

I'm having one of my blond moments. I can't tell whether you are opposing my comment or supporting it by providing some background information.

For what it's worth, it's impossible for me to have remembered that "Regulus and Polaris were literally a battle for survival for the USN" in the "Real World" because I didn't know that "Regulus and Polaris were literally a battle for survival for the USN" in the first place.

However, the fact that "Regulus and Polaris were literally a battle for survival for the USN" in the "Real World" is irrelevant to the thread because it is effectively a "United States Navy money no object" thread and therefore the USN wasn't fighting a battle for survival in this "version of history".

Furthermore, even if your comment was relevant to the thread, I don't see how it's relevant to my "ideal" of having the first 5 SSBNs built as additional Ethan Allen class boats instead of as George Washington class boats? That is unless your comment was supporting my final sentence i.e. "However, I think that could not have been done because Polaris was a crash programme and they were trying to get as many boats as possible in service as soon as possible."

I am supporting that final thought. Could not build the first 5 SSBNs as Ethan Allens, they needed to be in service as fast as possible. Which meant literally cutting a Skipjack in half and installing a missile compartment amidships in the case of GW.

Although, by the time Greyback, Growler & Hallibut were built (i.e. the second half of the 1950s) the USN had won its battle for survival and there were going to be aircraft carriers. Super carriers (i.e. the Forrestal class, Constellation, Kitty Hawk & Enterprise) were being laid down at the rate of one per year, the Midways were being refitted to SCB.110 standard and 15 Essex class were having SCB.27 refits and 14 of them would receive angled flight decks under SCB.125.

Again, even if your comment was relevant to the thread, I don't see why it is relevant to what I wrote, because I was suggesting that with hindsight more Tang & Darter class should have been built instead of the Barracuda class SSK & Sailfish class SSR and that more SSNs should have been built instead of the SSKN, SSRN and Barbel class SS.

That was until I re-read my comment and saw that I'd also suggested building more Tang or Darter class SS instead of the SSGs Greyback & Growler and an additional SSN instead of the SSGN Halibut. So fair enough. However, in my Alternative 1950s USN, not building new SSKs, SSGs & SSRs (including the nuclear powered versions) and building more SS & SSN was offset by converting more World War II built submarines to SSKs, SSGs & SSRs. I specifically wrote so in the case of the Barracuda class SSKs, but not for the SSGs & SSRs, which with hindsight, I should have.

It may be workable to convert more WW2 boats to SSGs than to build a couple new SSG/Ns, though it would have meant something like 6-8 converted boats because they could only carry 2 Regulus instead of the new-build 4. More boats needed to keep the same total number of warheads at sea.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Missile Cruiser Conversions

A third Boston class CAG was tentatively included in the FY55 program, but this was dropped as being a low priority. Galveston was ordered in FY56, and total of three Talos conversions and six Terrier conversions were planned for FY57 (three of the Terrier conversions would be replaced by Terrier Flags).

From May 1956 onwards, it was official SCB policy that all missile ships converted after FY58 should be double-ended, and ion the 12th of October 1957 it was agreed that none of these conversions should have an all-Terrier battery, so whatever was converted after that date would look like an Albany.

In October 1956, tentative plans for the FY58 program were for four Talos conversions (in addition to eight Terrier Frigates, and eight Tartar Guided Missile Destroyers, a second CVAN, two SCB-125A modernisations, four Regulus submarines and one Jupiter submarine, later replaced by a Polaris submarine) and three Talos conversions for FY59 (in addition to six Terrier Frigates, five Tartar destoyers, another CVAN, and four Polaris submarines).

Later plans were for three SCB-173 conversions to be ordered in FY58, followed by another three in FY59, but due to Polaris competing for money this was reduced to three ships, and delayed slightly, with one conversion being ordered in FY58, and the two remaining FY58 ships being delayed to FY59, with the former three FY59 ships being first pushed back to FY60, and then being cancelled altogether.

The fall draft for the FY60 program includes one Talos conversion, and repeat Long Beach with an SCB-173 battery.

The October 1958 summary of the FY61 program includes two Talos conversions, and one new nuclear cruiser (presumably the one dropped from the FY60 program). This FY61 plan also includes one Super Talos (Typhon) DLGN, and twelve Super Tatar (Typhon-MR) DDGs, with seven CGNs being ordered between FY62-66, with one per year being ordered in FY62-64, and two per year being ordered in FY65-66.

In November 1958 the LRO's long range program has three Talos conversion for FY60-62. This plan was deemed unaffordable however, especially when considering it all plans eleven Super-Talos (Typhon) cruisers, six conventional ships, one ordered in FY62, one in FY63, three in FY64, and a final one in FY65, and five nuclear ships, the ordered at a rate of one per year in FY65, 66, 67, 68 and 69. In addition to this eleven nuclear powered and thirty-four conventional Super-Tartar (Typhon-MR) DDGs were to be ordered .

Of course, in a "money is no object world", Typhon should have more more resources thrown at it to ensure it will work, so the first Typhon ships should be ordered from FY63 onwards, FY65 at the latest, although early plans had Typhon ships ordered as early as FY61 and FY62

Perhaps on the repeat Enterprises SCANFAR can be can be replaced by SPG-59, various preliminary designs (both conventional and nuclear) for the Kennedy had this radar, along with Typhon LR or MR launchers (depending on the design study). However SCB-250, a repeat Enterprise hull with four A3W reactors replacing the eight A2Ws, had four Sea Mauler mountings.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Of course, in a "money is no object world", Typhon should have more more resources thrown at it to ensure it will work, so the first Typhon ships should be ordered from FY63 onwards, FY65 at the latest, although early plans had Typhon ships ordered as early as FY61 and FY62

I don't know that there is enough money to get Typhon to work in the 1960s with vacuum tubes. Remember that it took until the 1980s with the Ticonderoga class to get most of what Typhon was supposed to be working!

Perhaps on the repeat Enterprises SCANFAR can be can be replaced by SPG-59, various preliminary designs (both conventional and nuclear) for the Kennedy had this radar, along with Typhon LR or MR launchers (depending on the design study). However SCB-250, a repeat Enterprise hull with four A3W reactors replacing the eight A2Ws, had four Sea Mauler mountings.

Dumping enough money to get Mauler built would have been worth doing.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

I am supporting that final thought. Could not build the first 5 SSBNs as Ethan Allens, they needed to be in service as fast as possible. Which meant literally cutting a Skipjack in half and installing a missile compartment amidships in the case of GW.

Thank you and fair enough. For what it's worth I'm aware that the GW class were Skipjacks with a missile compartment inserted.

The final paragraphs of Post 126 as originally posted (but since amended).

Again, even if your comment was relevant to the thread, I don't see why it is relevant to what I wrote, because I was suggesting that with hindsight more Tang & Darter class should have been built instead of the Barracuda class SSK & Sailfish class SSR and that more SSNs should have been built instead of the SSKN, SSRN and Barbel class SS.

That was until I re-read my comment and saw that I'd also suggested building more Tang or Darter class SS instead of the SSGs Greyback & Growler and an additional SSN instead of the SSGN Halibut. So fair enough. However, in my Alternative 1950s USN, not building new SSKs, SSGs & SSRs (including the nuclear powered versions) and building more SS & SSN was offset by converting more World War II built submarines to SSKs, SSGs & SSRs. I specifically wrote so in the case of the Barracuda class SSKs, but not for the SSGs & SSRs, which with hindsight, I should have.

Actually I did specifically write that building more SS & SSN in the 1950s instead of the 2 SSG, one SSGN, 2 SSR & one SSRN was offset by more conversions of WW2 boats to SSG & SSR. However, the paragraph that said so wasn't carried forward into Post 120 and I didn't notice that until after I uploaded the original version of Post 126, which has since been amended.

It may be workable to convert more WW2 boats to SSGs than to build a couple new SSG/Ns, though it would have meant something like 6-8 converted boats because they could only carry 2 Regulus instead of the new-build 4. More boats needed to keep the same total number of warheads at sea.

For what it's worth I'm aware that the converted boats carried fewer missiles than the new boats. However, as this is a "money no object thread" the extra cost converting 6 WW2 boats instead of 3 to fire Regulus missiles isn't a problem and the extra operating costs aren't a problem either.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

I don't know that there is enough money to get Typhon to work in the 1960s with vacuum tubes. Remember that it took until the 1980s with the Ticonderoga class to get most of what Typhon was supposed to be working!

Typhon was a digital system, not surprising since it post-dated NTDS, which was also a digital system.

Aegis could probably have entered service by the mid-1970s at the latest if there hadn't been a decade of wasted time constantly changing what type of ship it would have been fitted to.

 

[JFC Fuller]

A view of the guided missile ships that would be available to support carrier strike groups in FY61 was given to the Subcommittee on the Air Force of the Senate Committee on Armed Services in May 1956, this plan obviously didn't come to fruition. It takes a bit of unpicking as the original slide being discussed does not appear to be available online. However, I think the below is a fair representation of what is being described in terms of the planned/hoped for availability of guided missile ships, note that I have used financial years rather than calendar years as that is what Rear Admiral John E. Clark states they were and I have plotted ships and/or ship tyeps against some of the proposed units for reference:

Talos Ships:
FY58: 1 (JFC assumes CLG-3 Galveston)
FY59: 2 (JFC assumes CLG-4 Little Rock and CLG-5 Oklahoma City though in reality they didn't commission until FY60)
FY60: 2
FY61: 2

This produces a 1961 total of seven completed conversions but a cumulative total of eight Talos ships is given, which presumably would have included CGN-9 Long Beach.

Terrier Ships:
FY56: 2 x heavy cruiser conversions to CAG (CAG-1 Boston and CAG-2 Canberra)
FY57: 1 x destroyer conversion to DDG (the Gyatt DDG-1 conversion)
FY58: N/A
FY59: 1 x CLG (JFC assumes CLG-6 Providence)
FY60: 3 x CLG (JFC assumes CLG-7 Springfield and CLG-8 Topeka + 1 not pursued) + 6 x DLG (JFC assumes SCB.142 Farragut class)
FY61: 3 x CLG (JFC assumes 3 not pursued) + 6 x DLG (JFC assumes SCB.142 Farragut class)

This produces a cumulative total of 22 consisting of 1 DDG, 2 CAGs, 7 CLGs and 12 DLGs.

Tartar Ships:
FY60: 8 x DDGs (JFC assumes SCB.155 Charles F Adams class)
FY61: 9 x DDGs (JFC assumes SCB.155 Charles F Adams class)

The cumulative 1961 total would be 17 ships. Note that Tartar was stated to be intended as the secondary battery of new construction Talos and Terrier cruisers too.

One way of deploying this force of missile ships is given as dividing them across three carrier strike groups, each with two to four carriers. Each of those three groups would have 16 guided missile escorts consisting of three Talos, seven Terrier and six Tartar ships. However, this requires 48 ships against the 47 expected to be available with the shortfall being one Talos ship.

 

[uk 75]

JFC Fascinating to see such a clear breakdown of the three Ts force.
The Typhon programme then kicks in (SuperTalos). Had it been technically and financially possible, a Typhon DLGN with long and medium range missiles would have been the next step in carrier escort ships.
It is tantalising to imagine the California/Virginia class ships being built as Typhon DLGN and escorting Nimitz and Eisenhower in the 70s.
Sadly it was not possible and we have to wait until the 80s for Aegis. The Aegis nuclear ships are still too expensive and it is a stroke of luck that the Spruance design has an AAW version from the outset which can be expanded to take Aegis.

For me the 60s USN with its mix of converted and new build cruisers is a golden age of excitement. The artwork in books and magazines of the time conveys the bold ships.

As we know, reality was somewhat different and the 3Ts took a lot of money and effort to get working effectively. Only the RN in NATO with the oddly named and Heath Robinson missile and launcher that was Seaslug was able to put a good number of systems to sea in the same timeframe. The elegance and powerful appearance of the County class impressed even US Admirals.

 

[isayyo2]

Wanted to circle back to the 1958 study by Admiral Burke...

The called for "18 Guided Missile Cruisers (12 with Nuclear Power)" were Talos equipped, or did they get muddled by Typhon?

Were there planned sister-ships of Long Beach or something else?

 

[SSgtC]

Wanted to circle back to the 1958 study by Admiral Burke...

The called for "18 Guided Missile Cruisers (12 with Nuclear Power)" were Talos equipped, or did they get muddled by Typhon?

Were there planned sister-ships of Long Beach or something else?

IIRC, the original plan was to build one Long Beach to serve as an escort to each of the Enterprise class nuclear carriers. Since the original plan was to build 5 additional Enterprise class, it follows that 5 additional Long Beach class cruisers would have been built as well. But both ships were so astronomically expensive that they were cut short at a single ship each.

 

[Scott Kenny]

IIRC, the original plan was to build one Long Beach to serve as an escort to each of the Enterprise class nuclear carriers. Since the original plan was to build 5 additional Enterprise class, it follows that 5 additional Long Beach class cruisers would have been built as well. But both ships were so astronomically expensive that they were cut short at a single ship each.

Doesn't help that the first ship of a new class gets stuck with all the development costs for that class. Example: Say we're building a new submarine. The first in class costs $5bn, the second in class costs less than $2bn.

 

[SSgtC]

Doesn't help that the first ship of a new class gets stuck with all the development costs for that class. Example: Say we're building a new submarine. The first in class costs $5bn, the second in class costs less than $2bn.

In this case, it was the fact that Enterprise was projected to cost $150 million dollars, and ended up over $300 million. In today's dollars, that's a projected cost $1.5 billion and an actual cost of $3 billion.

 

[Rule of cool]

The big discrepancy in the 1958 wishlist and the 1977 actual is nuclear carriers; wishlist 6 - actual 2.

However USS America was supposed to be a repeat of Enterpsie and JFK was considered with 4 x A3W reactors, if these 2 ships had been nukes then the gap between wish and actual would have been much smaller.

I don't know enough about USS America, but the Global Security page on the A3W reactor lays out the arguments McNamara had with the Navy. Mac didn't dispute that nuke ships were better, but it appears that the Navy didn't justify the cost properly. I can't help but think that if the Navy had laid out good financial arguments alongside the capability arguments Mac would have supported the $440 million nuke JFK rather than the $280 million conventional JFK.

Projecting this further back to the USS America, without the Enterprise experience that could prove the USN was getting better result for the money it might be difficult to justify the expense. However if the Navy seriously started justifying the cost of nuclear carriers as soon as Enterprise build cost started to blow out, eg by being able to fight for 7 instead of 3.5 days the USN doesn't need to by X number of replenishment ships, they might get America authorised as a nuke.

The big question is what nuclear escorts do these 2 CVNs get?

 

[CV12Hornet]

Probably additional DLGNs of the Bainbridge/Truxtun type. The Californias and Virginias postdate these carriers and new-design efforts were mired in Typhon.

 

[SSgtC]

It's also possible that, if America had been built as a nuclear carrier, that another Long Beach could have been ordered alongside her. Obviously it depends on when the order for America is placed. I think if she had been ordered as a nuclear boat in 58 or 59, a Long Beach would have been ordered alongside her.

 

[Rule of cool]

Probably additional DLGNs of the Bainbridge/Truxtun type. The Californias and Virginias postdate these carriers and new-design efforts were mired in Typhon.

Typhon was cancelled in November 1963, Standard was started in 1963 and became operational in 1968.

JFK was ordered in 1964, by which point the Typhon was cancelled and Standard under development, so presumably something along the lines of the California class could have been built if development started in 1964-65.

 

[Rule of cool]

It's also possible that, if America had been built as a nuclear carrier, that another Long Beach could have been ordered alongside her. Obviously it depends on when the order for America is placed. I think if she had been ordered as a nuclear boat in 58 or 59, a Long Beach would have been ordered alongside her.

USS America was ordered in November 1960, but apparently her story also included her being ordered as a nuke then re-ordered as conventional, so perhaps the nuke was ordered in 1959. The Enterprise was laid on in Feb 58 and launched in Sep 60, so a late 59 order should be late enough for Enterprise's ballooning costs to become apparent.

Long Beach was ordered in Oct 56 and laid down in Dec 57, Bainbridge was ordered in Sep 58 and laid down in May 59. Truxtan was ordered 3 years later, in June 62 and laid down in June 63. Given those dates my guess is a 2nd Bainbridge would be ordered for a nuke USS America.

Would a nuke America have the SCANFAR radar setup?

 

[SSgtC]

Would a nuke America have the SCANFAR radar setup?

That depends on whether she's laid down as an Enterprise class, or as a class of her own

 

[Rule of cool]

That depends on whether she's laid down as an Enterprise class, or as a class of her own

Long Beach and Enterprise were commissioned in 1961, only a year into a nuke America's build and likely over a year before the island was built. I imagine this might be long enough to modify the island to take out the SCANFAR system. That's assuming it wasn't dropped earlier to save money, indeed this might be part of the approval process.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Long Beach and Enterprise were commissioned in 1961, only a year into a nuke America's build and likely over a year before the island was built. I imagine this might be long enough to modify the island to take out the SCANFAR system. That's assuming it wasn't dropped earlier to save money, indeed this might be part of the approval process.

Why would they have to modify the island to take SCANFAR? If America is a repeat Enterprise it already has that from the beginning.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

It's also possible that, if America had been built as a nuclear carrier, that another Long Beach could have been ordered alongside her. Obviously it depends on when the order for America is placed. I think if she had been ordered as a nuclear boat in 58 or 59, a Long Beach would have been ordered alongside her.

A new nuclear cruiser with an Albany battery on a Long Beach hull was intended to be ordered in FY60.

Also initially planned for FY60 were three SCB-173A conversions, improved Albanys with eight Polaris replacing the six Regulus IIs of SCB-173, improved SPG-56 Talos guidance radars, and potentially also SQS-26 in lieu of SQS-23.

 

[Rule of cool]

Why would they have to modify the island to take SCANFAR? If America is a repeat Enterprise it already has that from the beginning.

They'd modify the island to take SCANFAR out, to build America without it.

 

[uk 75]

Some interesting ideas for the Shipbucket artists

America as Enterpriselike CVAN without Scanfar radar

Long Beach 2 with Albany style armament

Albany conversion with Polaris.

 

[SSgtC]

They'd modify the island to take SCANFAR out, to build America without it.

There would be no need to redesign the island for that. The Navy liked the SCANFAR radar, it just wasn't as reliable as they had hoped with all the vacuum tube's in it. Once they switched to solid state electronics, it's reliability went way up. If America is ordered as a repeat Enterprise, she's getting SCANFAR

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

At least one Admiral tried to get SCANFAR added to America when it was ordered as a conventional carrier.

 

[isayyo2]

There would be no need to redesign the island for that. The Navy liked the SCANFAR radar, it just wasn't as reliable as they had hoped with all the vacuum tube's in it. Once they switched to solid state electronics, it's reliability went way up. If America is ordered as a repeat Enterprise, she's getting SCANFAR

I’ve also read, in relation with NTDS, that part of the reliability issue stemmed from a lack of enough qualified/trained personnel. If SCANFAR became less bespoke with additional units in the fleet perhaps reliability would improve with a greater pool of trained personnel?

 

[Scott Kenny]

I’ve also read, in relation with NTDS, that part of the reliability issue stemmed from a lack of enough qualified/trained personnel. If SCANFAR became less bespoke with additional units in the fleet perhaps reliability would improve with a greater pool of trained personnel?

You'd still need to establish the school and run enough bodies through it.

 

[SSgtC]

You'd still need to establish the school and run enough bodies through it.

They probably would have if there had been more than just 2 of the system in the fleet. But since only Enterprise and Long Beach had it, it just made more sense to do on the job training rather than establishing a formal school just for SCANFAR

 

[Rule of cool]

Given the Enterprise was bigger than the Kitty Hawks how big would the nuke JFK have been? Presumably it would have been at least as big as the Enterprise.

 

[SSgtC]

Given the Enterprise was bigger than the Kitty Hawks how big would the nuke JFK have been? Presumably it would have been at least as big as the Enterprise.

Not necessarily. The Nimitz class is 1,092' in length while Enterprise is 1,123'. Even beam is pretty similar: 134' at the waterline and 252' total for the Nimitz, while Enterprise is at 132.8' at the waterline and 257.2' total. Odds are, a nuclear JFK would be much closer in size to a Nimitz than to Enterprise. OTL, the JFK is 1,052' long total (and 990' at the waterline), while being 130' wide at the waterline and 252' total beam.

AIUI, John F Kennedy was laid down as a nuclear carrier, but was reordered immediately after keel laying as a conventionally powered carrier. If that's true, her OTL dimension likely wouldn't change if she had been nuclear

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Given the Enterprise was bigger than the Kitty Hawks how big would the nuke JFK have been? Presumably it would have been at least as big as the Enterprise.

Depends on which design was chosen.

SCB 211A was a small nuclear carrier with some significant from the original SCB 211 (one of the nuclear alternatives to America, as well as the smaller SCB 203). Unfortunately Friedman doesn't give dimensions for SCB 211A, but SCB 211 had a 1020 ft waterline length and 1068 ft length overall, with a 131ft waterline beam, and 238ft extreme beam, compared to Enterprise' 1040ft, 1123ft, 133ft and 255ft respectively.

SCB 250 (which was the nuclear powered contract design for CVAN-67) was an Enterprise hull with four A3Ws, dimensions were identical to that ship.

AIUI, John F Kennedy was laid down as a nuclear carrier, but was reordered immediately after keel laying as a conventionally powered carrier. If that's true, her OTL dimension likely wouldn't change if she had been nuclear

We've discussed this before, she was laid down a conventional carrier, both nuclear options (SCB 211A and 250) died before the ship was ordered. All the major internal changes in the conventional ship design were made in November 1961, hence the differences in machinery layout from the previous CVAs.

 

[Rule of cool]

As I understand it the Enterprise had a 'cruiser style' hull form, presumably that means long and thin (as far as this is possible for a 93,000t nuclear supercarrier) whereas the Nimitz class had a fuller (fatter?) hull form. Enterprise also had 4 rudders when carriers before and after only had 2.

Nuke America would presumably copy the Enterprise, which is fair enough. Nuke JFK also having the same hull form seems a bit odd when only a couple of years later the Nimitz class got a fatter hull form.

This is interesting stuff, I've never really considered it before.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

As I understand it the Enterprise had a 'cruiser style' hull form, presumably that means long and thin (as far as this is possible for a 93,000t nuclear supercarrier) whereas the Nimitz class had a fuller (fatter?) hull form.

Nimitz got a fuller hull-form to increase the amount of volume which could be devoted to fuel and ordnance. The later Kitty Hawks and JFK were at the limits of useable volume, hence the adoption of a new torpedo defense system for JFK to free-up more volume.

Nuke America would presumably copy the Enterprise, which is fair enough.

It depends when the nuclear powered America was ordered. If ordered very early on (in FY59 for example), before Enterprise' horrendous cost increase were fully known, then she may have been built to that design.

However, after that point the USN tried to design smaller aircraft carriers to hold down costs. SCB 203 is too small, to the point that a conventional design derived from SCB 127 was deemed a better choice, and SCB 211 seems to have come at the tail-end of the design process and so wasn't designed in detail in time. It still seems to have been deemed inferior to the Enterprise-derived SCB 250, if not the improved conventional design which was actually built.

 

[Rule of cool]

Correct me if I'm wrong with these:

• SCB 127A Kitty Hawk & Constellation
• SCB 160 Enterprise (presumably America too, until cost became a factor?)
• SCB 203 small nuclear carrier around the time of USS America
• SCB 211 one of the nuclear alternatives to America, a bit smaller than Enterprise
• SCB 211A repackaged version of SCB 211 with Typhon
• SCB 127B conventional America
• SCB 250 nuclear JFK (Enterprise hull & 4 x A3W reactors)
• SCB 127C conventional JFK

Have I missed any new build design proposals?

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Correct me if I'm wrong with these:

• SCB 127A Kitty Hawk & Constellation
• SCB 160 Enterprise (presumably America too, until cost became a factor?)
• SCB 203 small nuclear carrier around the time of USS America
• SCB 211 one of the nuclear alternatives to America, a bit smaller than Enterprise
• SCB 211A smaller version of SCB 211
• SCB 127B conventional America
• SCB 250 nuclear JFK (Enterprise hull & 4 x A3W reactors)
• SCB 127C conventional JFK

Have I missed any new build design proposals?

Mostly correct, but SCB 211A is the same size or larger than SCB 211, given they wanted to add more in the way of aviation fuel, ordnance and even Typhon to the ship.

 

[Rule of cool]

Mostly correct, but SCB 211A is the same size or larger than SCB 211, given they wanted to add more in the way of aviation fuel, ordnance and even Typhon to the ship.

How small was the SCB 203?

If the 211 was only 20' shorter and 2' narrower than the Enterprise at the waterline then the 211A must have come out almost exactly the same size as the Enterprise.

You've said the SCB 211 came alone late in the nuke America's decision process, would than mean the deliberations were

• SCB 160 (too exe)
• SCB 203 (too small, SCB 127B looking good)
• SCB 211 (too vague/immature)
• SCB 127B winner!

That would likely mean the Navy 'finishes' work on the SCB 211, maybe firming the design up a bit then switching to the SCB 211A.

Was the SCB 211A not better than the "SCB 160 with 4 x A3Ws" - SCB 250? Or maybe it was cheaper and easier therefore easier to justify to Mac?