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.