Cold Warriors: The Essex Class in the Cold War

November 10, 1957
Jakarta, Java, Indonesia

CIA Officer Allen Pope is put on trial for the murder of nearly a dozen civilians and military personnel in a military court. The four officer panel hears evidence from both sides before passing their verdict. In a display of showmanship and astute diplomatic sense, Indonesia provided Allen Pope with one of the best defense lawyers in Indonesia, Adnan Buyung Nasution. In daylong arguments, Mr Nasution argues that his client had never attacked any civilian target and thus, the charges against him regarding the civilian deaths should be dropped. The prosecution, having entered Mr Pope's flight log into evidence, pointed to the target list maintained by Mr Pope and argued that those deaths should remain.

By the end of the day, all the charges against Allen Pope were found to be true and he was found guilty of murder. Before passing sentence on Mr Pope, the military court offered him the chance to plead for mercy. Mister Pope declined, instead maintaining that he was innocent of the charges. The words of the Presiding Officer of the Court echoed through the court after Pope's refusal:

"Allen Pope, this court finds you guilty of murder. You are hereby sentenced to death and remanded to Cipinang Penitentiary until such time as your sentence may be carried out."
 
November 15, 1957
Washington, DC, USA

Following Congressional authorization in 1954, the contract for USS Enterprise CVA(N)-65 is finally awarded to Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia. At the same time, following the loss of Independence, a second contract is awarded to Newport News for USS America CVA(N)-66, the second of the planned six Enterprise class carriers. Originally programed to be laid down in 1961 following the launch of Enterprise, America's contract was modified for the ship to be laid down in late 1958 instead.

America is to be laid down nearly one year after Enterprise. The Navy had argued to have both ships laid down within a few months of each other, but Congress insisted on the delay between the ships as laying them both down nearly simultaneously would necessitate one ship being built by Newport News and the other being built by either the New York or Philadelphia Naval Shipyards, almost entirely negating the projected cost savings of the two carrier buy. By delaying the construction of America, Newport News will be able to prepare a second building slip for CVA(N)-66. Unlike her older sister that will be constructed on a traditional inclined shipway, America will be built in dry dock and floated out instead of launched.

Following the contract awards, long lead-time items were ordered for the two ships. In particular, the sixteen reactors that were needed for both ships were ordered into production. Westinghouse begins fabrication of the A2W reactors immediately.
 
Last edited:
SSgtC said:
November 6, 1957
Sulawesi, Indonesia

Loyal units of the Indonesian Army launch an attack on the Permesta rebels with heavy support provided by the Indonesian Air Force flying B-25 Mitchel and Ilyushin Il-28 bombers, P-51 Mustang and MiG-17 fighters. In a coordinated assault, the Army rolls over the main Permesta base, scattering the rebels into the jungle.
Click to expand...
So there are none loyal army units then also.
 
lordroel said:
SSgtC said:
November 6, 1957
Sulawesi, Indonesia

Loyal units of the Indonesian Army launch an attack on the Permesta rebels with heavy support provided by the Indonesian Air Force flying B-25 Mitchel and Ilyushin Il-28 bombers, P-51 Mustang and MiG-17 fighters. In a coordinated assault, the Army rolls over the main Permesta base, scattering the rebels into the jungle.
Click to expand...
So there are none loyal army units then also.
Click to expand...
The rebellion was led by several Field Grade officers. They basically led their units into rebellion.
 
There are also the long-term consequences of an Enterprise fleet, even far smaller than OTL Nimitz one. Look at it this way. Since 2014 the USN is living its dream: a 100% Nimitz carrier fleet. All 10 of them. No other nuclear carrier (Enterprise, the irony) and no oil-fueled carriers anymore (since JFK has gone).
Except that
a) midlife refueling of reactors is no easy task
b) only 10 carriers could be build over 40 years - at the expense of all other preceeding classes, so the fleet shrunk below the sacred 12 - 15 treshold.
c) it took so much time to build only 10, Nimitz is already in need to be replaced in the next decade.
d) How can you improve such monster ? Ford-class, obviously. But the cost is... scary.

An Enterprise fleet makes some of these issues even worse, if only because it needs 8 reactors per ship instead of 2.

Frack, if as many Enterprise were build as Nimitz, then that 10 ship class all by itself would have more freakkin' reactors - 80 - that France own nuclear power grid ! o_Oo_O
 
Archibald said:
There are also the long-term consequences of an Enterprise fleet, even far smaller than OTL Nimitz one. Look at it this way. Since 2014 the USN is living its dream: a 100% Nimitz carrier fleet. All 10 of them. No other nuclear carrier (Enterprise, the irony) and no oil-fueled carriers anymore (since JFK has gone).
Except that
a) midlife refueling of reactors is no easy task
b) only 10 carriers could be build over 40 years - at the expense of all other preceeding classes, so the fleet shrunk below the sacred 12 - 15 treshold.
c) it took so much time to build only 10, Nimitz is already in need to be replaced in the next decade.
d) How can you improve such monster ? Ford-class, obviously. But the cost is... scary.

An Enterprise fleet makes some of these issues even worse, if only because it needs 8 reactors per ship instead of 2.

Frack, if as many Enterprise were build as Nimitz, then that 10 ship class all by itself would have more freakkin' reactors - 80 - that France own nuclear power grid ! o_Oo_O
Click to expand...
And don't forget, the reactors on the Enterprise required more frequent refueling. Conversely, maintenence is likely to be cheaper than in OTL since they're building more than just a one off. On the flip side, the ship building budget is screwed even worse than you realize. The Navy is going to want a second Long Beach class cruiser to escort America.
 
Last edited:
Oh gosh, more CGNs ? those ships were top notch but also insanely expensive... ah and more refuelings also for Enterprise. Geez.
 
Archibald said:
How about more "nuclear Belknaps" instead of more Long Beach ?
Click to expand...
Time frame. The Navy is getting a second nuclear carrier years earlier than they planned. They need a ready to go design that they can get into the water in time to escort America
 
lordroel said:
Archibald said:
Make sense. Except for the budget, of course.
Click to expand...
Budget depends on the mood of Congress.
Click to expand...
Considering that the Navy will be asking for a lot, don't count on Congress being very happy. This is the same time frame that the Navy is asking Congress to fund 41 SSBNs, a bunch of SSNs, new classes of destroyers and nuclear powered cruisers out the ass. In addition to wanting Congress to buy them tons of new aircraft.
 
If you can get the A2W related powerplant to standardize your nuclear surface fleet for a generation with a C2W variant, and go ahead with the S2W variant for the submarine fleet, you might be able to leverage the numbers into a savings of sorts.
Two A2W driving a shaft for surface combatants would be the same powerplant as the BigE. You could have perfectly uniform training and maintenance. The same second generation Westinghouse core for the sub fleet means substantial overlap there.
All the cores would have standardized yard procedures for refueling which if there's only one or two dedicated yards on each coast means you're not constantly re-training and setting up to accommodate ad hoc.

You'd have to weigh outlay costs against the lessened fleet reliance on oilers and operational advantages. The negative on a substantial nuclear fleet is obviously high acquisition and maintenance costs. But if you can offset some of this with a bulk buy of standardized reactor cores maybe there is some cost-benefit discussion to be had. Since you're "stuck" with two Enterprise -class carriers and 16 second generation Westinghouse cores (plus spares), maybe you try to make the most of it.
 
I'll need to dig more into the Nuclear Navy to give a definitive answer, but a lot will depend on timing combined with the size and power output of the A2W. The Long Beach is already building using the C1W reactor. So those are set. But I don't know when the design of Bainbridge was finalized to use the D2G reactor.

I'm on the road, so don't have any reference material i can look at to check the power rating on the A2W, but the D2G put out 148 megawatts of power. So it would have to develop at least that much to be viable. I don't think there's enough room in the hull for 4 reactors in the DLGNs. As it is, Bainbridge had to split the plant with one forward and one aft. And obviously, size will be a huge factor in whether you can shrink the A2W core enough to fit in a sub.
 
I know the A4W was developed with an eye towards using it across multiple platforms (later cancelled). I was thinking more of a backwards kludge "solution" where the Navy finds itself with two ships using the A2W and decides to design the future cruisers with the A2W. You're not going to be able to drop them into another design, but I don't think (would have to dig into it) that the new cruisers are ordered yet. Long Beach class is the only thing committed to (and that commitment was short-lived).

It's certainly not the ideal path to take, but would be worth exploring in light of the commitment to the Enterprise class.
 
_Del_ said:
I know the A4W was developed with an eye towards using it across multiple platforms (later cancelled). I was thinking more of a backwards kludge "solution" where the Navy finds itself with two ships using the A2W and decides to design the future cruisers with the A2W. You're not going to be able to drop them into another design, but I don't think (would have to dig into it) that the new cruisers are ordered yet. Long Beach class is the only thing committed to (and that commitment was short-lived).

It's certainly not the ideal path to take, but would be worth exploring in light of the commitment to the Enterprise class.
Click to expand...
No, Bainbridge was ordered in September 1958 IIRC. So a little under a year from now in story. I'm not sure if the design is too far along too go with the A2W. My gut feeling, is that the schedule doesn't line up to get the Navy to go with a common reactor core. Mainly because the budget on Enterprise and America won't have completely blown up yet, forcing the Navy to look for cost saving measures
 
In hindsight (and probably even with foresight) you're better off waiting for the next generation of reactors for everything anyway. But if Bainbridge hasn't been ordered yet, and you're looking to build with what you've got available (which is an unexpected order of an extra 8 reactors and spares), it'd be something I'd probably start looking at evaluating.

I think experience says we saw "nuclear navy" costs soar high enough that you end up waiting apart from a few that survived cancellation. But at the time, it's something that would have gotten a serious look, imo.
 
_Del_ said:
In hindsight (and probably even with foresight) you're better off waiting for the next generation of reactors for everything anyway. But if Bainbridge hasn't been ordered yet, and you're looking to build with what you've got available (which is an unexpected order of an extra 8 reactors and spares), it'd be something I'd probably start looking at evaluating.

I think experience says we saw "nuclear navy" costs soar high enough that you end up waiting apart from a few that survived cancellation. But at the time, it's something that would have gotten a serious look, imo.
Click to expand...
That last part is especially true. The Navy is about to have massive cost overruns on their nuclear ships. The two Enterprise class will end up about $300 million over budget combined, the Long Beach was about $70 million over IIRC, so figure $140 or so for her and any sister. According to the originally proposed budget, the overrun alone is enough to build another 1.5 Enterprise class carriers. Maybe even enough to build two given series production would have driven down costs.
 
Well, one advantage of second -in-class ships is the surprises that caused the massive overruns have already been found. You might still end up with costs higher than originally projected, but with the second and subsequent ships you don't have to work your way backward while the ship's on the ways, nor duplicate the delays in time and costs for engineering work or time wasted waiting for unplanned acquisitions from sub-contractors. Instead you're just working according to the new blueprint. The engineering costs are amoritized. Many or most of the initial delays and disruption to the shipyard are largely avoided in the second-of-class, unless they are completely concurrent in construction.
Again, building the second ship to the revised blueprint may still result in higher costs than projected with the original blueprint, but the overrun should not be another $160 million overrun for CVN-66. Some of that $160 is completely avoided, and the Enterprise itself (or program amoritization, if you prefer) took a large chunk of engineering costs that is solely non-recurring. Same would hold to a second Long Beach -class construction.
Instead of the Big E costing $472 million and being ~$160M over budget, you may well end up getting two in the ship building program for $820 total, which is ~$200 over budget (or amortized for the program $100M over budget per ship. If you build three, the "above projection" (for the total program) looks even better.
You'd have to dive deep and see where the overruns actually occurred and when.

The political capital spent by the Navy to broker that sort of build-up through Congress's wallet, is probably it's own discussion haha
 
AIUI, most of the overruns were in severely underestimating the cost of the plant. Though I'm going off memory and could very well be wrong. Some of it was also that she was originally intended to use the new C14 catapult, and the system was even partially installed, before it was canceled and standard C13 cats were installed instead. I'm not sure how much of that development cost was tacked onto the Big E, but I'm sure some was.
 
Yeah, I don't pretend to know the exact figures, but things like ripping out the cats while she's mid -construction in the ways and engineering work on adapting the new (old) cats in their place is a perfect example of non-recurring cost avoided by follow ons. CVN -66 (even if she's already under constriction) isn't going to incur the costs of installing the cats, ripping them out again, engineering the new fit, etc. You're just paying for the cost of building with the new (old) cats. You also don't face that time delay, and time is money.
Depending on the causes for the power plant overruns, some of that is going to be amortized over the program, as well. By the time you're producing the eighth power plant, you should be having a pretty good go of it. It's all the one -time costs before that as you fiddle with hiccups in design, production methods, etc
 
Last edited:
*Inspects fingernails and whistles innocently*
Click to expand...

ROTFL. Never quite understood, why did they build these three "one-shot" instead of focusing on a class. They did it later on with Californias and Virginias, so WTH ? As if CGNs weren't expensive enough, they ended with FIVE different types (see the Wikipedia list). One-shot, another one-shot, a third one-shot, and then Californias and Virginias.

This looks like a pretty expensive way of learning "how to design a nuclear cruiser", really.

It also remind me of those France battleship classes doomed by the Jeune Ecole criminal siliness. "La flotte d'échantillons" "the sample fleet" , kind of.

The Long beach was ugly (nice hull, but the brick-shaped massive thing completely ruins it). It was nonetheless an awesome ship. A second one will be pretty cool - except for budget, except for Congress, of course.

Also - how about an "Operation twin orbit" with Enterprise + Long Beach and America+Long beach-twin ?
 
Archibald said:
*Inspects fingernails and whistles innocently*
Click to expand...

ROTFL. Never quite understood, why did they build these three "one-shot" instead of focusing on a class. They did it later on with Californias and Virginias, so WTH ? As if CGNs weren't expensive enough, they ended with FIVE different types (see the Wikipedia list). One-shot, another one-shot, a third one-shot, and then Californias and Virginias.

This looks like a pretty expensive way of learning "how to design a nuclear cruiser", really.

It also remind me of those France battleship classes doomed by the Jeune Ecole criminal siliness. "La flotte d'échantillons" "the sample fleet" , kind of.

The Long beach was ugly (nice hull, but the brick-shaped massive thing completely ruins it). It was nonetheless an awesome ship. A second one will be pretty cool - except for budget, except for Congress, of course.

Also - how about an "Operation twin orbit" with Enterprise + Long Beach and America+Long beach-twin ?
Click to expand...
Keep in mind the time frame we're talking about here. The Navy was experimenting with a bunch of different technologies and designs. They were literally trying to see what worked and what didn't with a nuclear powered cruiser. And in the case of Long Beach, she was meant to be a test bed for the SCANFAR radar with one of the first Electronically Scanned Array.
 
SSgtC said:
Keep in mind the time frame we're talking about here. The Navy was experimenting with a bunch of different technologies and designs. They were literally trying to see what worked and what didn't with a nuclear powered cruiser. And in the case of Long Beach, she was meant to be a test bed for the SCANFAR radar with one of the first Electronically Scanned Array.
Click to expand...
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
In October 1957 there was an SCB request for a new Missile Cruiser for FY60 incorporating the missile battery of an Albany in a Long Beach hull. The battery would only fit if either the Regulus or Tartar battery was deleted. To accommodate the full battery the hull would have to be lengthened to 720ft and Displacement increased to 16,700 tons. The new ship was not built due to the increasing cost of both converted and new-build missile ships, and the further added cost of the Polaris program
Click to expand...
 
_Del_ said:
Yeah, I don't pretend to know the exact figures, but things like ripping out the cats while she's mid -construction in the ways and engineering work on adapting the new (old) cats in their place is a perfect example of non-recurring cost avoided by follow ons. CVN -66 (even if she's already under constriction) isn't going to incur the costs of installing the cats, ripping them out again, engineering the new fit, etc. You're just paying for the cost of building with the new (old) cats. You also don't face that time delay, and time is money.
Depending on the causes for the power plant overruns, some of that is going to be amortized over the program, as well. By the time you're producing the eighth power plant, you should be having a pretty good go of it. It's all the one -time costs before that as you fiddle with hiccups in design, production methods, etc
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm sure that played a huge part.
 
B-25 Mitchel and Ilyushin Il-28 bombers, P-51 Mustang and MiG-17 fighters
Click to expand...

In 1940 French MS-406 "escorts" had difficulties keeping pace with ultra-fast Breguet 693, Bloch 174, Leo-451 and Amiot 350s.
...now imagine the difficulty in coordinating attacks or escorts with such an heteregenous mix of WWII props with fast jets. Sic transit gloria mundi, for the P-51...
 
Archibald said:
B-25 Mitchel and Ilyushin Il-28 bombers, P-51 Mustang and MiG-17 fighters
Click to expand...

In 1940 French MS-406 "escorts" had difficulties keeping pace with ultra-fast Breguet 693, Bloch 174, Leo-451 and Amiot 350s.
...now imagine the difficulty in coordinating attacks or escorts with such an heteregenous mix of WWII props with fast jets. Sic transit gloria mundi, for the P-51...
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair, the P-51s were tasked almost entirely with ground attack and CAS alongside the B-25. The Il-28s hit airfields and command bunkers while the MiG-17s flew top cover and shot down anything that managed to get into the air.

The Indonesian Air Force lost three P-51s shot down, one was bounced by a P-47, the other two were lost to ground fire. Another 5 were damaged by ground fire, with 2 being so heavily damaged they were written off and striped for parts. They also lost three B-25s to ground fire, one crashed enroute back to base, the other two were written off on landing and stripped. The Beagle and Fresco forces suffered no losses with one MiG and one Beagle lightly damaged by ground fire.

The CIA planned to supply about 40 aircraft, mostly from the boneyard in AZ. They had only sent about 20 by the time of the attack. Of those 20, six were shot down, another eight were destroyed on the ground, two were captured intact and the remaining 4 ran for the Philippines. Two made it.
 
December 15, 1957
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

Following a month of informal discussions within the Defense Ministry and exploratory discussions with the military attaches of the United States, France and the United Kingdom two formal Requests for Proposals are issued by the Royal Australian Air Force. The first proposal is for a new general purpose fighter to replace their existing CAC Sabres. The minimum requirements are Mach 2 speed, infrared and/or radar guided missiles and a combat radius of at least three hundred nautical miles on internal fuel, with the ability to extend their range to at least five hundred nautical miles with drop tanks and/or midair refueling.

The second proposal issued is for a long range bomber to supplement and eventually replace the existing Canberra force. The proposal contained the requirement that any aircraft offered be capable of Mach 1 at low level and Mach 2 at high altitude, have an unrefueled combat radius of two thousand miles, be capable of carrying a bomb load of at least ten thousand pounds and be able to operate from existing air bases.

To be considered, all proposals must be tendered by February 1, 1958.
 
January 5, 1958
Washington, DC, USA

Vice Admiral W. V. Davis Jr, the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Air, arrives at the Argentine Embassy on New Hampshire Ave for a ten AM meeting with the Argentine Ambassador and Naval Attaché. When scheduling the meeting with the DNO(Air)'s office, the Ambassador stated that Argentina was considering the purchase of an aircraft carrier and wished to inquire about the possibility of acquiring either an Essex or Independence class carrier from surplus US Navy stocks. With that in mind, Vice Admiral Davis came prepared with information on possibly transferring USS Leyte to Argentina, providing Argentina was willing to pay to upgrade Leyte to the same standard as Oriskany and that Congressional approval could be obtained. In that regard, he assured the Ambassador of Admiral Burke's support for the transfer of an aircraft carrier.

It is a long meeting and Admiral Davis spends most of the day with the Ambassador discussing the pros and cons of operating a full sized fleet carrier verses the light carriers they were considering from the British Colossus and American Independence classes. As the meeting drew to a close, the Ambassador promised to forward the information to his Government for consideration. In a shrewd move by Admiral Davis, he offered to have USS Intrepid call at Buenos Aires in the summer during her Summer Midshipmen cruise to allow the Argentine Navy and Government to see first hand what they could acquire.
 
SSgtC said:
December 15, 1957
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia

Following a month of informal discussions within the Defense Ministry and exploratory discussions with the military attaches of the United States, France and the United Kingdom two formal Requests for Proposals are issued by the Royal Australian Air Force. The first proposal is for a new general purpose fighter to replace their existing CAC Sabres. The minimum requirements are Mach 2 speed, infrared and/or radar guided missiles and a combat radius of at least three hundred nautical miles on internal fuel, with the ability to extend their range to at least five hundred nautical miles with drop tanks and/or midair refueling.

The second proposal issued is for a long range bomber to supplement and eventually replace the existing Canberra force. The proposal contained the requirement that any aircraft offered be capable of Mach 1 at low level and Mach 2 at high altitude, have an unrefueled combat radius of two thousand miles, be capable of carrying a bomb load of at least ten thousand pounds and be able to operate from existing air bases.

To be considered, all proposals must be tendered by February 1, 1958.
Click to expand...
Might the English Electric Lightning be a contender, because it looks good..

VnNorrcHzeG_OxknxRPe_UYuFWU97ZEzDXM3UDX8Lfw8VeR9-aTBC4tKtwdUf2J5LioYzgdbuWQK7obgpQgpWK3gR3nzPtfOEOrIoRewBaROtV7TbLw-OVhRE6xYgnTu6BM2XtrZaOUCCDQ
 
Looking at the fighter requirement, you have the following contenders:

EE. Lightning - possible too short on range on internal fuel only
F-106 - too specialised maybe?
F-104 - definite contender
Mirage III - definite contender
Saab Draken - definite contender
SR.177 - too specialised and too short on range?
Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger - definite contender

Looking at the bomber, you really only have the following:

TSR.2 - obvious but would have to be ordered off drawing board
B-58A - possible though would it be available?
Dassault Mirage IV - possible
A-5 Vigilante - possible
F-111 - again, like TSR.2 would need to be ordered off drawing board
F-105 - possible in timeframe
F-4 - again possible in timeframe

Perhaps the biggest issue for both requirements will be when they want them able to enter service by.
 
GTX said:
Looking at the fighter requirement, you have the following contenders:

EE. Lightning - possible too short on range on internal fuel only
F-106 - too specialised maybe?
F-104 - definite contender
Mirage III - definite contender
Saab Draken - definite contender
SR.177 - too specialised and too short on range?
Grumman F11F-1F Super Tiger - definite contender

Looking at the bomber, you really only have the following:

TSR.2 - obvious but would have to be ordered off drawing board
B-58A - possible though would it be available?
Dassault Mirage IV - possible
A-5 Vigilante - possible
F-111 - again, like TSR.2 would need to be ordered off drawing board
F-105 - possible in timeframe
F-4 - again possible in timeframe

Perhaps the biggest issue for both requirements will be when they want them able to enter service by.
Click to expand...
Some good options there. As far as timeline, right now, they're trying to get a feel for what is flying right now and what may be coming. So this is more an exploratory specification than the final request. The RAAF made the fighter specification intentionally easy to meet to ensure the greatest possible number of entrants so they could choose the best one for Australia
 
Grabs popcorn and enjoy the coming aircraft pornfest... How about F-8 Crusader and F-5D Skylancer ?
 
Archibald said:
Grabs popcorn and enjoy the coming aircraft pornfest... How about F-8 Crusader and F-5D Skylancer ?
Click to expand...

Neither would satisfy the Mach 2 speed minimum requirement:
  • F-5D Skylancer: Maximum speed: Mach 1.48
  • F-8 Crusader: Maximum speed: Mach 1.86
Though both would look fantastic in RAAF or even RAN markings ;)
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom