Alternate Sea Control Ship

[SSgtC]

If you were designing an alternate sea control ship in the late 60s/early 70s, what would you consider essential in the design? For myself, I would like to see a design somewhere between 680' and 750' long with a waterline beam of around 110', total displacement of around 40,000 tons full load, angled deck, cats and traps, and as much automation to reduce crew size as I can reasonably get away with. I'd want the ship to be able to support two squadrons of S-3 Vikings, an AEW squadron, one helicopter squadron and at least a flight of fighters for self defense.

 

[JohnR]

Just to clarify how many aircraft are in your squadrons and what fighters do you propose? The most suitable one is the F8 Crusader in your timeframe.

 

[isayyo2]

If you were designing an alternate sea control ship in the late 60s/early 70s, what would you consider essential in the design? For myself, I would like to see a design somewhere between 680' and 750' long with a waterline beam of around 110', total displacement of around 40,000 tons full load, angled deck, cats and traps, and as much automation to reduce crew size as I can reasonably get away with. I'd want the ship to be able to support two squadrons of S-3 Vikings, an AEW squadron, one helicopter squadron and at least a flight of fighters for self defense.

I think you're describing the SCB 100.68 Studies as a "High-End" option for CVS replacement.

Personally, I'd follow ADM. Zumwalt's tenets more closely. More or less a diesel/gas-turbine powered Iwo Jima Class; SH-3s and DASH drones a-plenty! I would splurge on a full SPS-48/49 setup with a Mk 13 or two, and I'd retain the Mk 33 3"/50 as well until Phalanx or RAM came into service. Harriers are a big maybe, but AH-1s and RH-53s would be a semi-common sight for littoral operations like Market Time and Praying Mantis.
Alternatively, I am very partial to the DDH Hayler concept of the DX Spruance class. Build them up at Bath Maine or really anywhere besides Ingalls to spread the work around.

 

[zen]

110ft beam implies two outcomes. Either the lifts are inboard or there is no full gallery deck over the hanger.

 

[Archibald]

If you were designing an alternate sea control ship in the late 60s/early 70s, what would you consider essential in the design? For myself, I would like to see a design somewhere between 680' and 750' long with a waterline beam of around 110', total displacement of around 40,000 tons full load, angled deck, cats and traps, and as much automation to reduce crew size as I can reasonably get away with. I'd want the ship to be able to support two squadrons of S-3 Vikings, an AEW squadron, one helicopter squadron and at least a flight of fighters for self defense.

I think you're describing the SCB 100.68 Studies as a "High-End" option for CVS replacement.

Personally, I'd follow ADM. Zumwalt's tenets more closely. More or less a diesel/gas-turbine powered Iwo Jima Class; SH-3s and DASH drones a-plenty! I would splurge on a full SPS-48/49 setup with a Mk 13 or two, and I'd retain the Mk 33 3"/50 as well until Phalanx or RAM came into service. Harriers are a big maybe, but AH-1s and RH-53s would be a semi-common sight for littoral operations like Market Time and Praying Mantis.
Alternatively, I am very partial to the DDH Hayler concept of the DX Spruance class. Build them up at Bath Maine or really anywhere besides Ingalls to spread the work around.

The USN disdain for smaller carriers was really an embrassment of riches, if not of spoiled child. I mean, the RN, French Navy and many others would have *killed* to get all these smaller carrier designs in their inventory. At least the Spanish navy was clever enough to grab the SCS design and turn it into the Asturias. Shame the other designs couldn't follow a smilar path...

 

[SSgtC]

Just to clarify how many aircraft are in your squadrons and what fighters do you propose? The most suitable one is the F8 Crusader in your timeframe.

I'm thinking 10 aircraft in each VS squadron, 4 in the VAW squadron and 6 in the HS squadron. So a max of around 40 aircraft.

 

[SSgtC]

If you were designing an alternate sea control ship in the late 60s/early 70s, what would you consider essential in the design? For myself, I would like to see a design somewhere between 680' and 750' long with a waterline beam of around 110', total displacement of around 40,000 tons full load, angled deck, cats and traps, and as much automation to reduce crew size as I can reasonably get away with. I'd want the ship to be able to support two squadrons of S-3 Vikings, an AEW squadron, one helicopter squadron and at least a flight of fighters for self defense.

I think you're describing the SCB 100.68 Studies as a "High-End" option for CVS replacement.

Personally, I'd follow ADM. Zumwalt's tenets more closely. More or less a diesel/gas-turbine powered Iwo Jima Class; SH-3s and DASH drones a-plenty! I would splurge on a full SPS-48/49 setup with a Mk 13 or two, and I'd retain the Mk 33 3"/50 as well until Phalanx or RAM came into service. Harriers are a big maybe, but AH-1s and RH-53s would be a semi-common sight for littoral operations like Market Time and Praying Mantis.
Alternatively, I am very partial to the DDH Hayler concept of the DX Spruance class. Build them up at Bath Maine or really anywhere besides Ingalls to spread the work around.

Similar to that, but I think 53,000 tons is a bit too big. I'd prefer a smaller design of around 40,000 tons. I want the angled deck to operate fixed wing ASW like the Tracker and Viking. Plus, it would be ideal to spread the work out and have multiple yards be able to build them instead of only one or two.

 

[SSgtC]

110ft beam implies two outcomes. Either the lifts are inboard or there is no full gallery deck over the hanger.

Waterline beam, not maximum beam. That's actually broader than the Essex class by about 7 feet. I figure the maximum beam at the flight deck would be somewhere around 150-160 feet.

 

[zen]

Waterline indeed.
I doubt the USN would want to repeat the Essex hull.
Width of flightdeck sounds about right at 150ft to 160ft.
Angled recovery at 10 or more degrees.
Chief issue might be the limitations on pull out length and thus force at landing.
And distance from bow of the main overhang either side.

 

[SSgtC]

Waterline indeed.
I doubt the USN would want to repeat the Essex hull.
Width of flightdeck sounds about right at 150ft to 160ft.
Angled recovery at 10 or more degrees.
Chief issue might be the limitations on pull out length and thus force at landing.
And distance from bow of the main overhang either side.

Pretty much. I'm thinking a carrier just big enough to operate Vikings and maybe eventually A/B model Hornets.

 

[sferrin]

If you were designing an alternate sea control ship in the late 60s/early 70s, what would you consider essential in the design? For myself, I would like to see a design somewhere between 680' and 750' long with a waterline beam of around 110', total displacement of around 40,000 tons full load, angled deck, cats and traps, and as much automation to reduce crew size as I can reasonably get away with. I'd want the ship to be able to support two squadrons of S-3 Vikings, an AEW squadron, one helicopter squadron and at least a flight of fighters for self defense.

"support two squadrons of S-3 Vikings, an AEW squadron, one helicopter squadron and at least a flight of fighters for self defense"

On 40,000 tons? Good luck.

 

[uk 75]

The US Navy put its ASW capability on its big carriers as CVS rather than replacing the Essex class. But it also put the SH60 on Spruance/Perry.
Convoy escort (the main role of Sea Control ships) across the Atlantic (less in the Pacific where Japan provided a land carrier) had long range maritime patrol aircraft in large quantities either side of the Atlantic.
The RN effectively provided SCS in the Eastern Atlantic (much like US F111s in UK replaced cancelled UK ones).
The French could add a carrier and escorts. Spain in the 80s provided an SCS.
In the Med Italy had helicopter cruisers and eventually its own SCS.
Japan had 4 helicopter destroyers and large numbers of ASW escorts, subs and planes.
Only the US could provide the big carriers needed to tackle Backfires and take the fight to the Norwegian Sea and Vladivostock. So the alternate SCS fell to their allies.
That said, which was the best:
Invincible (UK) Unbuilt PH75 (France) Asturias (Spain) or Garibaldi (Italy)?
They were all designed to fit in with national systems and needs.

 

[SSgtC]

If you were designing an alternate sea control ship in the late 60s/early 70s, what would you consider essential in the design? For myself, I would like to see a design somewhere between 680' and 750' long with a waterline beam of around 110', total displacement of around 40,000 tons full load, angled deck, cats and traps, and as much automation to reduce crew size as I can reasonably get away with. I'd want the ship to be able to support two squadrons of S-3 Vikings, an AEW squadron, one helicopter squadron and at least a flight of fighters for self defense.

"support two squadrons of S-3 Vikings, an AEW squadron, one helicopter squadron and at least a flight of fighters for self defense"

On 40,000 tons? Good luck.

I don't see why you couldn't. The USN S-2/S-3 squadrons were only 10 aircraft each, the E-1/E-2 squadrons are only 4 aircraft each, the helicopter squadrons are, I think, 6-8 aircraft each and the fighter detachment would only be 4-8 aircraft. The Essex class CVS carriers carried a few more aircraft than that on about 40,000 tons.

 

[SSgtC]

The US Navy put its ASW capability on its big carriers as CVS rather than replacing the Essex class. But it also put the SH60 on Spruance/Perry.
Convoy escort (the main role of Sea Control ships) across the Atlantic (less in the Pacific where Japan provided a land carrier) had long range maritime patrol aircraft in large quantities either side of the Atlantic.
The RN effectively provided SCS in the Eastern Atlantic (much like US F111s in UK replaced cancelled UK ones).
The French could add a carrier and escorts. Spain in the 80s provided an SCS.
In the Med Italy had helicopter cruisers and eventually its own SCS.
Japan had 4 helicopter destroyers and large numbers of ASW escorts, subs and planes.
Only the US could provide the big carriers needed to tackle Backfires and take the fight to the Norwegian Sea and Vladivostock. So the alternate SCS fell to their allies.
That said, which was the best:
Invincible (UK) Unbuilt PH75 (France) Asturias (Spain) or Garibaldi (Italy)?
They were all designed to fit in with national systems and needs.

AIUI, the SCS was canceled as a result of Vietnam and the money being needed there instead of for new construction. The ended up putting the Vikings on the big decks after they retired the Essex class, but had to sacrifice an attack squadron to do it. If they had their way, I think they would have far preferred keeping them off those ships

 

[sferrin]

If you were designing an alternate sea control ship in the late 60s/early 70s, what would you consider essential in the design? For myself, I would like to see a design somewhere between 680' and 750' long with a waterline beam of around 110', total displacement of around 40,000 tons full load, angled deck, cats and traps, and as much automation to reduce crew size as I can reasonably get away with. I'd want the ship to be able to support two squadrons of S-3 Vikings, an AEW squadron, one helicopter squadron and at least a flight of fighters for self defense.

"support two squadrons of S-3 Vikings, an AEW squadron, one helicopter squadron and at least a flight of fighters for self defense"

On 40,000 tons? Good luck.

I don't see why you couldn't. The USN S-2/S-3 squadrons were only 10 aircraft each, the E-1/E-2 squadrons are only 4 aircraft each, the helicopter squadrons are, I think, 6-8 aircraft each and the fighter detachment would only be 4-8 aircraft. The Essex class CVS carriers carried a few more aircraft than that on about 40,000 tons.

How big were their aircraft? Huh, did not realize the Essex class had angled flight decks. Thought the Midways were the first US carrier to get those. Still, I'd probably ditch CATOBAR and go with the Convair 200 and one or two of the numerous designs for ASW/AEW for the SCS. And base it on the Tarawa class.

 

[SSgtC]

If you were designing an alternate sea control ship in the late 60s/early 70s, what would you consider essential in the design? For myself, I would like to see a design somewhere between 680' and 750' long with a waterline beam of around 110', total displacement of around 40,000 tons full load, angled deck, cats and traps, and as much automation to reduce crew size as I can reasonably get away with. I'd want the ship to be able to support two squadrons of S-3 Vikings, an AEW squadron, one helicopter squadron and at least a flight of fighters for self defense.

"support two squadrons of S-3 Vikings, an AEW squadron, one helicopter squadron and at least a flight of fighters for self defense"

On 40,000 tons? Good luck.

I don't see why you couldn't. The USN S-2/S-3 squadrons were only 10 aircraft each, the E-1/E-2 squadrons are only 4 aircraft each, the helicopter squadrons are, I think, 6-8 aircraft each and the fighter detachment would only be 4-8 aircraft. The Essex class CVS carriers carried a few more aircraft than that on about 40,000 tons.

How big were their aircraft? Huh, did not realize the Essex class had angled flight decks. Thought the Midways were the first US carrier to get those. Still, I'd probably ditch CATOBAR and go with the Convair 200 and one or two of the numerous designs for ASW/AEW for the SCS. And base it on the Tarawa class.

Nope, the Essex class recieved the SCB-125 modernization in the mid 50s which gave them angled decks. The reason I like the CATOBAR design is because the Navy already had the aircraft and they wouldn't have to develop a entirely new air wing. Plus, they could serve as a light attack carrier in a pinch with either two or three Corsair or Hornet squadrons embarked, though obviously there would be some pretty harsh trade offs in terms of aviation stores compared to a dedicated attack carrier

 

[isayyo2]

Waterline indeed.
I doubt the USN would want to repeat the Essex hull.
Width of flightdeck sounds about right at 150ft to 160ft.
Angled recovery at 10 or more degrees.
Chief issue might be the limitations on pull out length and thus force at landing.
And distance from bow of the main overhang either side.

Pretty much. I'm thinking a carrier just big enough to operate Vikings and maybe eventually A/B model Hornets.

Would a Charles de Gaulle variation work? Sort of like the NFR-90 program, but with light-ish aircraft carriers?

 

[SSgtC]

Waterline indeed.
I doubt the USN would want to repeat the Essex hull.
Width of flightdeck sounds about right at 150ft to 160ft.
Angled recovery at 10 or more degrees.
Chief issue might be the limitations on pull out length and thus force at landing.
And distance from bow of the main overhang either side.

Pretty much. I'm thinking a carrier just big enough to operate Vikings and maybe eventually A/B model Hornets.

Would a Charles de Gaulle variation work? Sort of like the NFR-90 program, but with light-ish aircraft carriers?

Size wise, I think it could. I think nuclear might be overkill for the intended mission though

 

[isayyo2]

Waterline indeed.
I doubt the USN would want to repeat the Essex hull.
Width of flightdeck sounds about right at 150ft to 160ft.
Angled recovery at 10 or more degrees.
Chief issue might be the limitations on pull out length and thus force at landing.
And distance from bow of the main overhang either side.

Pretty much. I'm thinking a carrier just big enough to operate Vikings and maybe eventually A/B model Hornets.

Would a Charles de Gaulle variation work? Sort of like the NFR-90 program, but with light-ish aircraft carriers?

Size wise, I think it could. I think nuclear might be overkill for the intended mission though

Yep, it really depends on how nuclear propulsion is viewed during the procurement. If JFK stayed as a CVN maybe Rickover would have enough pull to keep all future carriers as nukes? This Essex replacement, CVS(N), would use two D2G derivatives like the Virginia and Strike Cruiser. Ideally, the Royal Navy and Marine Nationale would collaborate instead of pursuing CVA-01 and the many PH75 derivatives.
Though if Elmo is your CNO those reactors would get tossed out quick and substituted with steam or gas turbines. Which would hurt Rickover’s ego, but more countries like Australia might buy in. There’s still plenty of Essex hulls to refurb, which has been discussed many many times over many many years on a number of forums we’ve all participated in.

 

[SSgtC]

Waterline indeed.
I doubt the USN would want to repeat the Essex hull.
Width of flightdeck sounds about right at 150ft to 160ft.
Angled recovery at 10 or more degrees.
Chief issue might be the limitations on pull out length and thus force at landing.
And distance from bow of the main overhang either side.

Pretty much. I'm thinking a carrier just big enough to operate Vikings and maybe eventually A/B model Hornets.

Would a Charles de Gaulle variation work? Sort of like the NFR-90 program, but with light-ish aircraft carriers?

Size wise, I think it could. I think nuclear might be overkill for the intended mission though

Yep, it really depends on how nuclear propulsion is viewed during the procurement. If JFK stayed as a CVN maybe Rickover would have enough pull to keep all future carriers as nukes? This Essex replacement, CVS(N), would use two D2G derivatives like the Virginia and Strike Cruiser. Ideally, the Royal Navy and Marine Nationale would collaborate instead of pursuing CVA-01 and the many PH75 derivatives.
Though if Elmo is your CNO those reactors would get tossed out quick and substituted with steam or gas turbines. Which would hurt Rickover’s ego, but more countries like Australia might buy in. There’s still plenty of Essex hulls to refurb, which has been discussed many many times over many many years on a number of forums we’ve all participated in.

Not to mention my own timeline on this very forum.

As for the rest, well, I think it really depends on what's going on in the rest of the world. If the USN is at a high operational tempo (but lower than OTL Vietnam) you're likely to see them opt for the lowest cost possible that still meets their design requirements. But if they have cash to spare, you could see nuclear get explored. Though I think it would be ruled out given the expected mission of the ships.

 

[isayyo2]

Ok I got a wild thought here.

How about a light carrier built on a Long Beach hull? It would be a continuation of the Baltimore/Saipan classes and should have a decent economy of scale, though we’d have to build more Long Beaches too

I believe there were six Enterprise classes originally planned? They’d need one CGN-9 a piece and if the shipbuilding pork got spread around then many shipyards could be building nuclear powered hulls. So 6 CLGNs + 6 or so CVLNs?

Or even weirder, use the Sacramento Class as a baseline.

 

[SSgtC]

Ok I got a wild thought here.

How about a light carrier built on a Long Beach hull? It would be a continuation of the Baltimore/Saipan classes and should have a decent economy of scale, though we’d have to build more Long Beaches too

I believe there were six Enterprise classes originally planned? They’d need one CGN-9 a piece and if the shipbuilding pork got spread around then many shipyards could be building nuclear powered hulls. So 6 CLGNs + 6 or so CVLNs?

Or even weirder, use the Sacramento Class as a baseline.

You'd have a very compromised carrier IMO. The Independence class displaced over 15,000 tons at full load and could only manage 33 aircraft. So a ship a little less than half the size of an Essex, but only able to carry 1/3 of the aircraft. Much better off going with a ship designed as a carrier from the keel up

 

[zen]

How about.....the 42,000ton CVA-01 tradeoff study? Circa 1960.
BWL 112ft
WOA 170ft
LWL 720ft
LOA 770ft
H 76.5ft
135,000shp for 32kts
Deck able to handle aircraft individual weights of 70,000lb
31 Buccaneer sized aircraft or 18 OR.346 type aircraft (think F111 or Vigilante).

Clearly a 25ft high hanger deck, but with catapult and arrestors protruding into the ceiling.

 

[SSgtC]

How about.....the 42,000ton CVA-01 tradeoff study? Circa 1960.
BWL 112ft
WOA 170ft
LWL 720ft
LOA 770ft
H 76.5ft
135,000shp for 32kts
Deck able to handle aircraft individual weights of 70,000lb
31 Buccaneer sized aircraft or 18 OR.346 type aircraft (think F111 or Vigilante).

Clearly a 25ft high hanger deck, but with catapult and arrestors protruding into the ceiling.

That's actually not a bad design. You could probably even reduce the engine power a bit for 27-28 knots as you really don't need more than that for an ASW carrier and save some money on the design.

 

[H_K]

Clemenceau carried 35-40 aircraft all the time, so I think that would be a fairly good benchmark in terms of size.

In terms of deck configuration, I would go with the VSS’s reverse angled deck in order to enable longer catapults and arrestor gear pull outs for the heavier S-3 Vikings.

Basically picture a slightly enlarged VSS III:

A drawing by Shiplover on Keypublishing forum:

And my own slightly modified rendition... I think with a small hull plug this could accommodate ~30 fixed wing (12 on deck and 18 in the hangar) plus half a dozen helos.

Propulsion wise, a lot of people in the past have suggested COSAG (steam boilers for cruise and to feed the catapults + 2 LM2500 gas turbines for boost)... as that would free up internal volume and would be less manpower- and maintenance-intensive than an all-steam plant.

 

[isayyo2]

Now that's a Shipbucket throw-back. In addition to VSS, wasn't there an export carrier designed to support the Hornet at an absolute minimum hull size? I'm combing through drawings now.

 

[Archibald]

Folks, you are talking straight to my heart here.

Please note that, if you need a non-nuclear CdG decades earlier, PA-58 Verdun just screams for it - from 1957 to 1962 at the latest. And of course the idea remain available after 1962.

PH-75 started in 1972 with the overambitious "Plan Bleu" . It was abandonned for PA75 by Président Giscard in September 1980, but cdG proper funding and construction did not started before 1986.

Arromanches played the role of a "third carrier" (and a tons of other roles) for the French Navy as long as possible, but its 24 kt speed was annoying. It was finally retired in 1974.

 

[Archibald]

Hell, yes - let's go for a mix of PA-58 Verdun; that CVA-01 42 000 tons thing; with a touch of the later CVV or (alternatively) VSS which is closer in tonnage (well CVV is too large, 55 000 tons while VSS was only 30 000 tons - so they *bracket* 40 000 tons and their timing is all wrong, a decade too late: Zumwalt was CNO in the first half of the 70's)

I kind of like the ideas in this thread.

I've long pushed for a 45 000 tons "tri-partite carrier" - a mix of CVV, Verdun, and CVA-01 because those three are one the very few, if not only, large carrier designs by a *NATO nation* - either USA, UK, or France.

 

[Archibald]

Post Clemenceau & Foch IOC in 1964 and for a decade afterwards Arromanches played a large number of roles
- training carrier with naval Fouga Magisters (Zephyrs) and Alizes
- ASW helicopter carrier with Lynx
- ASW carrier with Breguet Alizes
- Assault carrier with Army Pumas and the Navy own Super Frelons
- Hospital ship in case of natural disaster

PH75 was to take over many of these missions - minus of course the Alizes and Zephyrs since no catapults.

Nuclear propulsion was to give it electrical power and endurance aplenty.

PH75 would do
- ASW helicopter carrier with Lynx
- Assault carrier with Army Pumas and the Navy own Super Frelons
- Hospital ship in case of natural disaster

 

[Archibald]

Something a little different... two Essex badly crippled in WWII (Franklin and another one) were repaired and then stayed in reserve for twenty years before being scrapped. Whatif Zumwalt had them rebuild as VSS demonstrators ? just like Iwo Jima class LPH Guam was turned into a temporary SCS demonstrator...

Bunker Hill and Franklin were the only Essex-class ships never recommissioned after World War II.
Stricken from the Naval Vessel Register in 1966, Bunker Hill served as an electronics test platform for many years in San Diego Bay, and was sold for scrap in 1973. An effort to save her as a museum ship in 1972 was unsuccessful.

Drat, Franklin was gone before CNO Zumwalt days. But Bunker Hill maybe... the museum effort would come at the right time.

 

[SSgtC]

Something a little different... two Essex badly crippled in WWII (Franklin and another one) were repaired and then stayed in reserve for twenty years before being scrapped. Whatif Zumwalt had them rebuild as VSS demonstrators ? just like Iwo Jima class LPH Guam was turned into a temporary SCS demonstrator...

I think that would cause problems with Congress. They would be asking, "if you needed new ASW carriers so badly, why didn't you just give them the full carrier treatment?"

Plus, I think the island is really badly placed for a reversed angled deck. It's pretty far forward, only about 300 feet give or take from the bow.

 

[Archibald]

Ok. And it is way too small for CVV... maybe some kind of intermediate carrier between the two (CVVSS rotlf)

Turning the question on its head: what could Zumwalt do of Bunker Hill ? if somebody brought it to his attention, say, in 1970 ? plus Franklin, had it survived longer ?

 

[SSgtC]

Yeah, I think CVV was supposed to be something like 62,000 tons full load. Even Oriskany, which got the most thorough modernisation of the class was only about 47,000 tons full load.

 

[Archibald]

Started a separate thread, just for the fun of it. One never get enough Essex carriers alt history TLs.

 

[uk 75]

I take the point that the CVS move traded an attack squadron for an S3 squadron.
However, even without Vietnam and the 1973 Oil crisis I think the USN would have prefered an extra Nimitz to a new design conventional carrier.
That said, the choice of the F18 as a fighter/attacker would have made the conventional carrier option with 2F/A18 sqns 2S3 sqns plus helos and AEW/COD a possible bonus under a Reagan style big Navy programne, as long as 2 could be built quicker and for the same price as one Nimitz.

 

[JohnR]

If CATOBAR is used with a gas turbine, how would steam be provided for the cats. I've wondered about a composite powerplant provide gas turbine with electric final drives; but also provide a reactor to provide the required steam but also have it connected to a generator and use the power for cruising if flight ops are

 

[SSgtC]

If CATOBAR is used with a gas turbine, how would steam be provided for the cats. I've wondered about a composite powerplant provide gas turbine with electric final drives; but also provide a reactor to provide the required steam but also have it connected to a generator and use the power for cruising if flight ops are

In the 50s, the Navy was developing an internal combustion catapult that used a fuel/air mixture to launch aircraft. It got to the full scale mockup stage and actually launched aircraft at Lakewood, NJ and was intended to be installed on the Enterprise class carriers. But it never was because the Navy could never regulate the pressure in it properly and couldn't get a consistent shuttle end run speed.

From what I've read, the system was controlled by a series of servo-mechanical regulators that were supposed to keep the pressure constant in the tube. But they couldn't react fast enough. By the 70s, computers were small enough and fast enough that they could probably make the C14 work, thus eliminating the need for steam at all.

 

[SSgtC]

I take the point that the CVS move traded an attack squadron for an S3 squadron.
However, even without Vietnam and the 1973 Oil crisis I think the USN would have prefered an extra Nimitz to a new design conventional carrier.
That said, the choice of the F18 as a fighter/attacker would have made the conventional carrier option with 2F/A18 sqns 2S3 sqns plus helos and AEW/COD a possible bonus under a Reagan style big Navy programne, as long as 2 could be built quicker and for the same price as one Nimitz.

Yeah, I don't disagree with this at all. If given the choice of a new Nimitz class or two SCS ships, the Navy is going say "Nimitz" before the person making the offer finishes speaking. The only way the Navy will be cool with smaller carriers like the SCS is if they don't affect the construction of new Super Carriers.

 

[uk 75]

We have raised the issue of a NATO ASW carrier design in other threads. Shipbucket over the years have posted designs which would have replaced the following:
Canada: Bonaventure
France: Arromanches and Jd'Arc
Netherlands: Karel Doorman
Spain: Dedalo

added to these you have:

West Germany: not very likely but possible for Eastlant
Italy: long experience with helo cruisers that led to Garibaldi
UK: The Escort Cruiser programme evolves into the Invincibles
Australia: Sydney

 

[isayyo2]

Combined Gas with Steam “COGAS” may provide a solution for the catapults. Waste heat from the gas turbines is recovered and used for the catapults and water distillation. No need for a new catapult design.