Alt 60s US Navy

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

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.

Rechecking the book, 211A should be the same size as 211, with increases in personnel and aviation fuel being paid for by a reduction in habitability standards and escort fuel.

SCB 250 got around these problems by being larger.

 

[Rule of cool]

Did the SCB 211/211A have 8 x A2W reactors like the Enterprise, or was the A3W in the mix?

Edit, found this: https://www.shipscribe.com/navyrefs/scb/scb46-64.html

SCB #

1st FY

Type

N C

SCB Dir.

Initial approval

Funded: Qty (FY)

Remarks (in N-C column: N=new, C=conv.)

203

59

CVAN

N

-

-

-

Austere CVAN with 4 reactors for FY59 (the FY58 CVAN was a repeat SCB 160). Was in a FY60 list of 7/58. BS reported its design study for a 4-reactor carrier in May 1959 for FY60, then FY61. (Friedman p.317.)

211

-

CVAN

N

-

-

-

Austere CVAN with 4 reactors, rejected for low speed and smaller deck angle: Friedman p.317.

250

63

CVAN

N

203

16.7.63

-

Attack Aircraft Carrier, CVA(N) 67. Full-sized CVAN with 4 reactors for FY63. McNamara chose CVA 67 instead.

The Global Security article on the A2W hints (the Wiki article states it outright) that 4 reactors could run Enterprise to almost full speed, but all 8 reactors were needed to run at full speed and launch planes. By that measure the smaller SCB203/211 could run at full speed with 4 A2W reactors but much like conventional carriers would need to compromise on speed to launch planes.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

SCB 203, 211 and 250 all had four A3W reactors.

 

[Rule of cool]

SCB 203, 211 and 250 all had four A3W reactors.

With A3Ws the SCB203 wouldn't be a total mistake, sure it wouldn't be as good as Enterprise or SCB 250, but it would likely prove to be better than conventional America and JFK.

 

[Yellow Palace]

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

One of the things that comes out when you start looking at the timelines is that the USN ordered a new supercarrier every fiscal year between 1952 and 1958. After that, it slowed to one every three years through to the end of the Nixon administration, when things get screwy.

The reason for the slowing is, I'm sure, the dash for Polaris. But, in an imagined scenario where funding is available, it's not hard to imagine instead shifting to one carrier every two years (which was, IIRC, the planning figure for a while). That gets you six carriers ordered between 1960 and 1970, rather than the four of OTL, and the 15th supercarrier is ordered in 1974 if the drumbeat is maintained.

If you want to go completely madcap, stick to one a year and skip the FY59 SCB 160 sister to ENTERPRISE. Order three SCB 127B in 1960-1962, then switch to SCB 250 for FY63-66. NIMITZ in 1967 is your fifteenth carrier, with six nuclear. Convert the MIDWAYs to interim CVS, order six SCB 100.68 in 1968-1972, and you've got a lovely shiny carrier fleet. Just need to keep those pesky submarines from eating up all the money.

 

[Yellow Palace]

With A3Ws the SCB203 wouldn't be a total mistake, sure it wouldn't be as good as Enterprise or SCB 250, but it would likely prove to be better than conventional America and JFK.

SCB 203 was notably smaller than SCB 211 - just 950 feet on the waterline rather than the 1020 feet of SCB 211 or 1040 feet of SCB 160, SCB 250 and SCB 102.67.

 

[Rule of cool]

SCB 203 was notably smaller than SCB 211 - just 950 feet on the waterline rather than the 1020 feet of SCB 211 or 1040 feet of SCB 160, SCB 250 and SCB 102.67.

950' at the waterline is 40' shorter than the Kitty Hawks, what were the other stats of the SCB 203?

Why so small? Obviously the SCB203 was austere to make it cheaper than the SCB160, but were the earliest A3Ws not powerful enough to propel a bigger ship. Why did the 203 get dropped for the 211?

What little info I've found on the 'austere' SCB 211/221A was that it was too slow and had a reduced landing deck angle. By the time the 211A was maturing it had a crew of over 5100, which is why the Navy dropped it for the full-size SCB250 for the JFK option.

 

[Rule of cool]

One of the things that comes out when you start looking at the timelines is that the USN ordered a new supercarrier every fiscal year between 1952 and 1958. After that, it slowed to one every three years through to the end of the Nixon administration, when things get screwy.

The reason for the slowing is, I'm sure, the dash for Polaris. But, in an imagined scenario where funding is available, it's not hard to imagine instead shifting to one carrier every two years (which was, IIRC, the planning figure for a while). That gets you six carriers ordered between 1960 and 1970, rather than the four of OTL, and the 15th supercarrier is ordered in 1974 if the drumbeat is maintained.

If you want to go completely madcap, stick to one a year and skip the FY59 SCB 160 sister to ENTERPRISE. Order three SCB 127B in 1960-1962, then switch to SCB 250 for FY63-66. NIMITZ in 1967 is your fifteenth carrier, with six nuclear. Convert the MIDWAYs to interim CVS, order six SCB 100.68 in 1968-1972, and you've got a lovely shiny carrier fleet. Just need to keep those pesky submarines from eating up all the money.

I'm not one for going nuts. I've been doing what little reading I can and the cost blowout for the Long Beach and Enterprise really shook the Navy and Rickover was very concerned at the quality control of building ships with this new technology. Changing this is a hard sell to decision makers

IIUC Mac was open to being convinced about a nuke JFK, but the USN wasn't organised to argue cogently on budgetary grounds so he went SCB127C. That makes me think that if the Navy started getting its budget arguments in place for nuke carriers back with the SCB203 then they could have had a nuke America and JFK. That's good enough for me, assuming the Midway and FDR conversions were more reasonable.

 

[SSgtC]

Why so small? Obviously the SCB203 was austere to make it cheaper than the SCB160, but were the earliest A3Ws not powerful enough to propel a bigger ship.

No. Extra length makes it easier to go fast, not harder. For example, look at the North Carolina and South Dakota class battleships. Both classes were 35,000 tons, both had similar beams of roughly 108'. But the North Carolina class was some 48' longer. To make 27 knots, the North Carolina class needed 121,000 shp. But to reach that same 27 knots, the South Dakota class needed 130,000 shp. The fatter hull form means you need to brute force your way to the higher speed.

 

[Rule of cool]

No. Extra length makes it easier to go fast, not harder. For example, look at the North Carolina and South Dakota class battleships. Both classes were 35,000 tons, both had similar beams of roughly 108'. But the North Carolina class was some 48' longer. To make 27 knots, the North Carolina class needed 121,000 shp. But to reach that same 27 knots, the South Dakota class needed 130,000 shp. The fatter hull form means you need to brute force your way to the higher speed.

I assume that the SCB 203 would have been a smaller ship overall, with less beam than the Kitty Hawk class to go along with the reduced length.

IIUC the A3W only matured in late 1961, in July 1958 when the SCB 203 was first mooted the advances of the prototype A1W reactor promised to make possible a 4 reactor power plant that would produce 'about as much power' as the 8 reactor plant in the Enterprise.

My guess (it's only a guess, I don't know nearly enough) is that this proposed power plant could only power an ~80,000t full load ship. This small ship would likely have been considerably cheaper than Enterprise, which was the point of the design.

The 203 gave way to the 211 in about 1960 which was 1020' long and 131' beam at the waterline (but still considered an austere design?). I suspect that the advances in the A3W as it reached maturity would have allowed this increase in ship size.

 

[Rule of cool]

The Midway’s SCB101 refit was overcooked, it cost way too much and made the ship much worse. As a result the FDRs SCB103 was undercooked which drastically reduced her service life.

What would be the happy medium, bearing in mind that from 1962 to 1968 the future of the USN CVWs was the F111B?

My initial thoughts are to give Midway/FDR a deck layout the same as Coral Sea SCB110A, and replace the short C11-2 waist catapult with the powerful C13, plus other cats and dogs as (strictly) needed. Would that be sufficient, assuming it’s possible?

Presumably the F111B requires the C13 catapult for ‘coffin corner’ conditions launches, but could the full-length C11-1 catapults launch F111Bs most of the time therefore you can get away with a single C13?

Does the F111B need the extra deck angle for clearance? Does the F111B require bigger lifts? The F111B did sea trials on Coral Sea but this is different from regular operations with a full CVW

 

[SSgtC]

The Midway’s SCB101 refit was overcooked, it cost way too much and made the ship much worse. As a result the FDRs SCB103 was undercooked which drastically reduced her service life.

What would be the happy medium, bearing in mind that from 1962 to 1968 the future of the USN CVWs was the F111B?

My initial thoughts are to give Midway/FDR a deck layout the same as Coral Sea SCB110A, and replace the short C11-2 waist catapult with the powerful C13, plus other cats and dogs as (strictly) needed. Would that be sufficient, assuming it’s possible?

Presumably the F111B requires the C13 catapult for ‘coffin corner’ conditions launches, but could the full-length C11-1 catapults launch F111Bs most of the time therefore you can get away with a single C13?

Does the F111B need the extra deck angle for clearance? Does the F111B require bigger lifts? The F111B did sea trials on Coral Sea but this is different from regular operations with a full CVW

Swapping to C13 cats from the C11 is honestly the least expensive upgrade you could do. Since all the steam piping from the boilers is already there, it's pretty straight forward to install the better cats. The bigger issue, at least going off off memory, is reinforcing the decks to handle the Vark. And right alongside that, is the size of the damn thing. The Aardvark is something like 3/4 the size of a damn Skywarrior. Giving Midway a bigger deck was seen as a necessity for safe aircraft handling.

Edit: No, the C11 could not reliably launch the F-111. Even the C7 required a minimum of 10.6 knots of wind over the deck to launch a fully loaded Vark. I'm doubtful that the C11 has enough oomph to get one into the air in anything but the most ideal conditions

 

[Scott Kenny]

The Midway’s SCB101 refit was overcooked, it cost way too much and made the ship much worse. As a result the FDRs SCB103 was undercooked which drastically reduced her service life.

What would be the happy medium, bearing in mind that from 1962 to 1968 the future of the USN CVWs was the F111B?

My initial thoughts are to give Midway/FDR a deck layout the same as Coral Sea SCB110A, and replace the short C11-2 waist catapult with the powerful C13, plus other cats and dogs as (strictly) needed. Would that be sufficient, assuming it’s possible?

Presumably the F111B requires the C13 catapult for ‘coffin corner’ conditions launches, but could the full-length C11-1 catapults launch F111Bs most of the time therefore you can get away with a single C13?

Does the F111B need the extra deck angle for clearance? Does the F111B require bigger lifts? The F111B did sea trials on Coral Sea but this is different from regular operations with a full CVW

Coral Sea flat out has the best "small carrier angled deck" arrangement.

The rest of the Midways needed the SCB110A refit plus C-13 cats and deck reinforcements to be able to safely run F111Bs. Stupid pigs have an 88klb MTOW and a max landing weight of at least 55klbs (that's 46,100lb empty weight plus 6000lbs of Phoenix and 2900lbs of fuel, and I might have to give 9000lbs for the Phoenixes).

I think the elevators are okay as is, the F111B (barely) fits into a 35x70ft box (with 6" of clearance on each side). How big are the elevators on the Coral Sea, @BlackBat242 ?

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

SCB 203 was 1000ft long overall, had 950ft waterline length, 230ft extreme beam and 125ft waterline beam.

Full load displacement was 66,000 tons.

 

[BlackBat242]

I have the elevators on Midway-uber as 63' fore-aft x 52' port-starboard, 130,000 lb capacity.
Coral Sea and FDR's were 56' fore-aft and 44' port-starboard, 74,000 lb capacity.

This is from Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet 12th Edition* (1981) by Norman Polmar.

This is an extract from a document titled TFX Contract Investigation which is the minutes etc of a congressional panel meeting with Secretary of the Navy Frederick Korth (held that office 4 Jan. 1962 - 1 Nov. 1963). This is from the section titled Carrier Characteristics (these 3 pages are all I have):




* This volume lists the elevators on the SCB-125 Essex class ships as:
centerline 48 or 70' x 44' (46,000 lb) (70' includes the pointed end)
port deck-edge 56' x 44' (46,000 lb)
starboard deck-edge 56' x 44' (56,500 lb)
The specs as built were: centerline 2 - 48' x 44' (28,000 lb), port deck-edge 60' x 34' (18,000 lb)

Midway class as built: C/L 2 - 56' x 44' (? lb); D/E 56' x 34' (? lb)
SCB-110 CV-41, 42: C/L 70' x 44'; D/E 2 - 56' x 44' (all 74,000 lb) (70' includes the pointed end)
SCB-110A CV-43: D/E 3 - 56' x 44' (all 74,000 lb)
SCB-101.66 CV-41: D/E 3 - 63' x 52' (all 130,000 lb)
SCB-103.68 CV-42: D/E 3 - 56' x 44' (all 74,000 lb)

The Forrestal class elevators were: deck-edge 4 - 63' x 52', (80,000 lb)

The Kitty Hawk/America/JFK class were: deck-edge 4 - 85' x 52', (130,000 lb) (length includes the extended tip).

Enterprise specs were: deck-edge 4 - 85' x 52', (130,000 lb) (length includes the extended tip).

The Nimitz class are: deck-edge 4 - 85' x 52', (130,000 lb) (length includes the extended tip).

 

[Rule of cool]

SCB 203 was 1000ft long overall, had 950ft waterline length, 230ft extreme beam and 125ft waterline beam.

Full load displacement was 66,000 tons.

Wow, that's getting down to CVA01 size.

 

[Yellow Palace]

No. Extra length makes it easier to go fast, not harder. For example, look at the North Carolina and South Dakota class battleships. Both classes were 35,000 tons, both had similar beams of roughly 108'. But the North Carolina class was some 48' longer. To make 27 knots, the North Carolina class needed 121,000 shp. But to reach that same 27 knots, the South Dakota class needed 130,000 shp. The fatter hull form means you need to brute force your way to the higher speed.

This is one of those 'yes, but' scenarios. Increased length will (usually) reduce wavemaking resistance, but increases frictional resistance even at constant displacement. You also get increased frictional and increased wavemaking resistance from higher displacement - a longer ship will be heavier for the same useful load.

It often works out that way for high-speed ships, but it's not guaranteed, and at low speeds frictional resistance dominates so short and tubby is the way to go.

Then hullform considerations come into it: SCB 211 had finer ends than SCB 203 to try and improve speed, which meant a new torpedo defence system had to be developed to fit into the space available.

I assume that the SCB 203 would have been a smaller ship overall, with less beam than the Kitty Hawk class to go along with the reduced length.

SCB 203 was 950 x 125 feet on the waterline, and 66,000 tons full load. At this point, the A3W plant seems to have been expected to put out only 180,000 shp, resulting in an unacceptably slow ship. It also had a considerably smaller air wing than the KITTY HAWK class, and a smaller flight deck angle giving less deck space.

SCB 211 was 1,020 x 131 feet on the waterline, and 76,600 tons full load. It was supposed to offer aviation facilities equivalent to the KITTY HAWK class, though still inferior to the ENTERPRISE. It was still considered too slow, despite having grown to 200,000 hp. Growing the ship by 2,000 tons to add Typhon in SCB 211A cost another half knot.

SCB 250 was 1,040 x 133 feet on the waterline, and 87,400 tons full load, giving aviation facilities equivalent to the ENTERPRISE. The A3W finally put out enough power for an acceptable speed, meaning it was satisfactory to the Navy, but cost was too high for the FY63 program.

Friedman doesn't give actual speeds for any of the nuclear carrier designs, but SCB 203 is in a similar size and power category to the larger CVA-01 preliminary options. Based on that, my guess is that both it and SCB 211 were doing about 30 knots with a clean hull, losing about a knot dirty.

This is why, even in my 'completely ignore reality' scenarios, I don't have nuclear carriers in FY60-62. SCB 203 and SCB 211 weren't acceptable to the US Navy. You might be able to get a repeat SCB 160 in FY59, before the budget implications are fully appreciated, but even that is probably a hard sell.

 

[Rule of cool]

Looks like the navy was right to go with the conventional scb127b for America once the scb160 was found to be too expensive. The 203 and 211/a look like duds, driven by the lack of power of the earliest A3Ws.

The scb250 looks like a real loss.

 

[Rule of cool]

So is Midway's SCB101 the minimum required refit? Surely they could walk back on some deck space and other cats and dogs to make it somewhat less onerous therefore cheaper and less detrimental to the ship overall.

Does a CVW with a single F111B sqn need 2 x C13s, our would a single C13 be enough?

Were there plans to update the C11 and C7 cats on the Forestalls?

 

[Rule of cool]

If SCB250 was an Enterprise hull with 4 x A3W why was it 87,400t FL when the Enterprise was 93,284t FL? Was it because 4 A3Ws are much lighter than 8 x A2Ws?

 

[CV12Hornet]

If SCB250 was an Enterprise hull with 4 x A3W why was it 87,400t FL when the Enterprise was 93,284t FL? Was it because 4 A3Ws are much lighter than 8 x A2Ws?

Partially because Enterprise grew heavier over her service life and that 93,000-ton number is from late in her career. In 1968 her full-load displacement was 89,000 tons.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I have the elevators on Midway-uber as 63' fore-aft x 52' port-starboard, 130,000 lb capacity.
Coral Sea and FDR's were 56' fore-aft and 44' port-starboard, 74,000 lb capacity.

Bugger, too small to take an F111B unless you got creative and hung most of the plane over the edge. Pretty sure the MLG are more than 25ft from the tip of the tail.

IIRC the Navy hates hanging planes over the side like that.

So is Midway's SCB101 the minimum required refit? Surely they could walk back on some deck space and other cats and dogs to make it somewhat less onerous therefore cheaper and less detrimental to the ship overall.

Elevators are still too small for F111Bs, you need a triangle ~72ft long and ~40ft wide to move them around.

Does a CVW with a single F111B sqn need 2 x C13s, our would a single C13 be enough?

You always want 2 cats of the same power, just in case one goes down for some reason you still have the other. And honestly, the saying is "3 is 2 and 1 is None," so you want 3x C-13 cats.

 

[Rule of cool]

Could the Midway's steam plant run 3 x C13s?

The real problem is the lack of options for the F111B. If the VFAX was mooted in 1965 or even 64 instead of 1966 then the Midways could likely forego the F111b and accept a lesser role. IIUC wasn't one of the wishlists having 12 full sized carrier and 3 training carriers?

 

[Yellow Palace]

Partially because Enterprise grew heavier over her service life and that 93,000-ton number is from late in her career. In 1968 her full-load displacement was 89,000 tons.

Also comparing design to actual figures. Almost every ship enters service heavier than what the designers allowed for. If the designers were good, it stayed inside the margins.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Could the Midway's steam plant run 3 x C13s?

The real problem is the lack of options for the F111B. If the VFAX was mooted in 1965 or even 64 instead of 1966 then the Midways could likely forego the F111b and accept a lesser role. IIUC wasn't one of the wishlists having 12 full sized carrier and 3 training carriers?

That was the plan back in the late 50s, yeah.

 

[SSgtC]

Could the Midway's steam plant run 3 x C13s?

Short version? Yes. As equipped, Midway would drop to about 23 knots during flight operations (with 2xC13s). Assuming you need to use all 3 cats simultaneously, she's probably gonna drop somewhere down between 19 and 21 knots. That's still acceptable for flight operations.

 

[Rule of cool]

3 x C13s would probably make the scb101 even worse.

 

[Scott Kenny]

3 x C13s would probably make the scb101 even worse.

Good thing we're using the SCB110A (Coral Sea) flight deck design, then, isn't it?

 

[Rule of cool]

Would it be possible to make a cheaper SCB160, or is the 8 reactor design so inherently expensive that any effort to make it cheaper would be just tickling the edges?

Were there cost estimates for the SCB 203 & 211?

 

[Rule of cool]

Good thing we're using the SCB110A (Coral Sea) flight deck design, then, isn't it?

I've been making a list of the nuclear carriers, the stats in order to figure out whats what. It looks like I'll have to do one for the Midways, starting with Coral Sea's SCB11A as the baseline.

This is an interesting topic, complex and difficult.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I've been making a list of the nuclear carriers, the stats in order to figure out whats what. It looks like I'll have to do one for the Midways, starting with Coral Sea's SCB11A as the baseline.

This is an interesting topic, complex and difficult.

Note that the Midway got two refits, one in 1955-1957 and one in 1966-70.

• The 1955 refit left the port side elevator at the front end of the angled deck and in front of the waist catapult, and left the forward deck elevator in the flight deck between the catapults.
• The 1966 refit ended up going way over budget ($200mil spent, USS JFK only cost $280mil!), and took away the waist catapult entirely. It did install two longer catapults forward, however, and fixed the location of the port deck elevator by moving it well aft and out of the angled deck.

The Coral Sea's SCB-110A refit in 1957-1960 completely reshaped the flight deck and gave it nearly twice the area. In addition, it moved the port deck edge elevator well aft to feed the waist catapult.

The only change I'd want to make to the Coral Sea's flight deck is longer catapults as used on the Midway's second refit, I believe those are C-13 cats. However, the hulls of the Midway class left the flight decks a bit too close to the water compared to the Forrestal class, and attempting to fix that with bulges left Midway with a very fast roll that made operating aircraft dangerous in heavy weather!

 

[Rule of cool]

The Midway's scb101 added huge acreage to the flight deck as well as strengthening for F111b. How much did this weigh, was it the reason for the too low freeboard? If so would duplicating coral seas deck size solve this?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Would it be possible to make a cheaper SCB160, or is the 8 reactor design so inherently expensive that any effort to make it cheaper would be just tickling the edges?

Were there cost estimates for the SCB 203 & 211?

Maybe economies of scale would have come into play.

If 6 SCB.160 aircraft carriers had been built instead of one that's 48 reactors built instead of 8 and if 6 Long Beach class had been built instead of one that's 12 (AFIAK) similar C1W reactors instead of 2. If I'm right about the cruiser reactors being similar then it's a total of 60 built ITTL instead of 10 IOTL.

It might also help with the cost of the SCANFAR radar as they'd make 12 instead of 2.

Similarly for the D2G reactors for the nuclear powered frigates (DLGN) that were reclassified nuclear powered cruisers (CGN) in 1975. At one point 16 were required to form 4 all-nuclear carrier task groups, which were intended to be Bainbridge, Truxtun, California, South Carolina and 12 DXGN (which became the Virginia class) but in the end only 8 were built consisting of Bainbridge, Truxton, California, South Carolina and 4 Virginia class.

If 6 SCB.160 were laid down 1958-63 at the rate of one per year and completed 1961-67 the USN would have had 15 attack carriers consisting of the 6 nuclear powered SCB.160s, 6 fossil fuelled super carriers and the Midway class. If the first 3 Nimitz class was still built ITTL (to replace the Midway class) then the there'd be a requirement for 36 DLGN to form 9 all-nuclear carrier task groups and with 2 D2G reactors per frigate that would make a total of 72 reactors instead of 16.

 

[JFC Fuller]

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?

I have seen this somewhere too, two operational sets resulted in significant underinvestment in training and support infrastructure.

Perhaps an interesting what-if is BuOrd taking a different path with Typhon. @RyanC posted these documents showing early Typhon ship concepts back in 2009. There are a number of interesting aspects:

1. They show the AN/SPG-59 solely as a fire-control radar, search and target acquisition was to be provided by the AN/SPS-32/33 combination; that would have made for a simpler AN/SPG-59 development
2. These documents also state that "there is a considerable body of opinion which doubts that such a combination can be accomplished" in relation to combining search and acquisition with designation and fire-control as was ultimately attempted in the AN/SPG-59
3. For the DDG, an "advanced dish type radar with suitable fire control" is shown. No more information is provided, beyond it being able to guide two missiles against a single target simultaneously. Presumably such a set would have provided the uplink/downlink functionality required by the Typhon system, as well as basic illumination

All this suggests that as of April 1959 no final decision had been made on whether to develop the AN/SPG-59 system as a fully integrated system and that a dish type illuminator was still on the table. In turn, that suggests that a different path, one that avoids the AN/SPG-59 could have been taken. Perhaps this could have given the USN a Mach 4.25 missile with a 200nm range by the late 1960s. The documents describe the AN/SPG-59, as then conceived, being able to handle ten intercepts simultaneously, I suspect a Long Beach size hull could have accommodated sufficient "advanced dish type radars" to deliver a similar capability.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The Midway's scb101 added huge acreage to the flight deck as well as strengthening for F111b. How much did this weigh, was it the reason for the too low freeboard? If so would duplicating coral seas deck size solve this?

That's a question for @BlackBat242 , I don't have that level of information.

I'm honestly not sure how much smaller the Coral Sea's flight deck was than the Midway's, the differences in overall shape are pretty subtle.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Would it be possible to make a cheaper SCB160, or is the 8 reactor design so inherently expensive that any effort to make it cheaper would be just tickling the edges?

You'd get some economies of scale, since you'd have 16+ A2W reactors plus however many C1W from the Long Beach classes to escort them.

But it's still going to be expensive, due to all the support systems each reactor needs. And all the crew 8 reactors end up needing under Rickover's crewing model.

 

[Rule of cool]

I can't imagine there would ever be 6 x A2W (35,000hp) powered carriers, reactor technology was advancing too fast. The 4 reactor SCB203 was mooted as early as 1959, when the A3W was only making 45,000hp but by 1960 for the SCB211 it was making 50,000hp and by 1962 it was making ~65,000hp which was enough to propel an Enterprise-sized SCB250 to full speed.

At most I could imagine a 2nd SCB160, the nuclear America. The Enterprise cost $451 million whereas the Indy and America cost ~$200 million, no amount of economy of scale is going to bridge that gap, which would be why the Navy was willing to examine the tiny SCB203. Even if the Navy could build the nuclear America 10% cheaper than the Enterprise it would still cost double the conventional ship.

 

[Rule of cool]

That's a question for @BlackBat242 , I don't have that level of information.

I'm honestly not sure how much smaller the Coral Sea's flight deck was than the Midway's, the differences in overall shape are pretty subtle.

This site has scale drawings of the SCB 100/100A/101 and 103 deck layouts, although the Midway's SCB101 lacks detail.

The Coral Sea 110A landing on deck area is much longer than the FDRs 110, the former extending level with the bow cats and lacking the deck edge lift at it's forward end. The FDR (and presumably the Midway which had the same 110 rebuild) landing on area only extends level with the island, then has the deck edge lift at it's forward end.

The biggest difference between the Coral Sea and Midway post SCB101 is beam overall at the flight deck, the Coral Sea is ~232' while the Midway is ~260'. By the drawings it looks like the Midway's landing on deck angle was increased of Coral Sea and FDR. I suspect that this increase in deck area over the Coral Sea is the bridge too far that ruined Midway.

 

[isayyo2]

Something else to consider is the modernization of Boston and Canberra under "SCB-003.68" which would have greatly enhanced their utility with NTDS, SPS-48, and SPG-55 allowing for full SM-1 use. Friedman also alludes that their Mk 4 launchers would accommodate the LFSW weapon: Sea Lance or Taurus for shore bombardment/strike. I wonder if ASROC could be carried in the Mk 4 as well?

Spitballing an idea...

Had a Terrier launcher compatible land-attack missile like RGM-59 Taurus entered service, could said missile be modified with the seeker of the RGM-66D/F? Creating a supersonic anti-shipping missile for Terrier ships?

 

[Yellow Palace]

Had a Terrier launcher compatible land-attack missile like RGM-59 Taurus entered service, could said missile be modified with the seeker of the RGM-66D/F? Creating a supersonic anti-shipping missile for Terrier ships?

There's no obvious reason why it couldn't be done. Either as a single-stage missile, like Taurus, or a two-stage missile by putting an alternative seeker on a Terrier. The Terrier form factor lends the launcher to all sorts of interesting things - IIRC one of the early studies that became Tomahawk assumed a slightly larger missile compatible with the Mk 10 GMLS.