CV-9 question

[lancer21]

As you know, the Second Vinson Act of 1938 provided for 40,000 tons of CVs, namely CV-8 and CV-9. The first, CV-8 Hornet, was laid down late 1939, but CV-9 was delayed until spring 1941 and built to a new design.

For this ATL, let's suppose they build CV-9 roughly the same time as CV-8 (to the Hornet design), i'm looking at laying down dates from late 1939 to first part of 1940. My question is where could CV-9 potentially be built, what shipyard? I wouldn't want to assume this ATL on thin air ("they just build it somewhere"), i'm after a reasonably plausible location.

There is of course the very useful chart of IJN shipyards large slipways and what is built on them which is so fun to play with, and i DO have printed (thankfully, as i have never been able to relocate that file online since, neither on my computer yet, it was on a forum somewhere) a similar document compiled by someone showing the major US shipyards, slipways and their lengths and major warships built on each down to CLs, but unfortunately it starts only from June 1940. Is there such a compilation showing US major ships, shipyards and slipways before 1940?

It looks like CV-9 would need at least a 900ft slipway/building dock, in the timeframe i'm looking for according to the file i have there are two 900ft ways at Fore River (CL-53, 54) and 3 at NY Shipbuilding (CL-55,56,57), as seen they are merely building CLs, and the last 3 are quite late for what i'm after (CLs were started after middle of 1940), but i guess one of the CLs can be postponed to build CV-9 instead.

I know that the massive US shipbuilding capacity is always mentioned, but even they were not a bottomless pit, besides the massive shipyard expansion has not started yet, it did after the Two Ocean Act. So my question is, is there some idle 900ft slipway somewhere that can be used to build CV-9 starting late 1939 (if so, where, though seems unlikely), or it is reasonable to assume CV-9 has to displace another ship being built on a 900ft slipway, either a BB or more likely one of those CLs i mentioned?

The third option is to assume they will build a new slipway somewhere for CV-9 (like they did for the Essexes after 1940), though probably that's unrealistic for a 1939 timeframe?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

If I were you I'd call the fourth Yorktown CV8A USS Constellation and still build CV9 as the "Real World" USS Essex.

What's your information on Newport News? They built Ranger and all 3 Yorktowns.

Fore River (also known as Bethlehem Steel) built CV-7 Wasp which was laid down in April 1936 and launched in April 1939. BB-59 Massachusetts was laid down at Fore River in July 1939 so my guess is that she took one of the two 900ft slipways that you mention. If the other slipway was vacant CV8A Constellation could have been laid down in September 1939 and launched in December 1940 which are the months in which Hornet was laid down and launched.

Fore River also built the cruisers CA-38 Quincy launched in June 1935 and CA-44 Vincennes was launched in May 1936 and the next cruisers built there were CL-53 San Diego & CL-54 San Juan laid down in March & April 1940. I've no idea whether any of these four ships was built on the two 900ft slips. However, if building Constellation at Fore River does mean it can't build San Diego or San Juan it may be possible to have one of those cruisers built elsewhere rather than delaying it.

Although you're reluctant to have a new 900ft slipway built if none existed, how difficult (and expensive) would it be to build a new one or extend one of the existing ones? It has the bonus of giving the USA an extra slipway capable of building aircraft carriers and battleships during World War II.

 

[Archibald]

Of course OTL CV-9 was first of the prolific Essex class - 24 build, 32 planned. Simple question: the alternate Essex class would thus start at CV-10 and get that carrier name ?
(was it USS Intrepid ? Drats, I can't remember its name, only that CV-12 was Hornet, because of Apollo 11 recovery in 1969).

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Of course OTL CV-9 was first of the prolific Essex class - 24 build, 32 planned. Simple question: the alternate Essex class would thus start at CV-10 and get that carrier name ?
(was it USS Intrepid ? Drats, I can't remember its name, only that CV-12 was Hornet, because of Apollo 11 recovery in 1969).

CV-10 was the second USS Yorktown.

It's easier to give the fourth Yorktown class ship a name that wasn't used. In part because Lexington, Yorktown, Wasp & Hornet might not have been sunk as a consequence of it being built and therefore their names would not be available for Essex class. I chose Constellation because one of the Lexington class battle cruisers was to be called Constellation. There is a precedent for this because another Lexington class battle cruiser was to have been named Ranger and that name was re-used for CV-4. Plus CV-64 was called Constellation.

It's also easier to make it CV-8A rather than re-number CV-9 to CVN-82 as CV-10 to CVN-83. As you've mentioned the Apollo programme think of CV-8A as Apollo 8 flying the C-Prime mission because it's the same idea.

 

[Archibald]

Thank you ! So - the Yorktown class ? now that would be peculiar and powerful symbol, since of course the original USS Yorktown kicked the bucket at Midway, early June 1942.

Talk about a giant middle finger to the Japanese. "So you sunk one Yorktown ? aaaall right, look, not only will we build another Yorktown; but it will bigger and better aaaaand... it will have 31 clones. Yes, 31 more Yorktowns. Total 32. Still thinking you gonna win that Pacific war ?"

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Except the CV-5 Yorktown may not kick the bucket at Midway if CV-8A is there. That is assuming that her air group doesn't follow the flight to nowhere.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Thank you ! So - the Yorktown class ? now that would be peculiar and powerful symbol, since of course the original USS Yorktown kicked the bucket at Midway, early June 1942.

"It's Midway Jim, but not as we know it!"

If the Fourth Yorktown is at the Coral Sea instead of accompanying Enterprise and Hornet the result of that battle might be very different. The most extreme version being all 3 Japanese aircraft carriers sunk and all 3 American ships survived unscathed. If the Japanese think they're going to be fighting 5 aircraft carriers instead of 2 would Midway have happened in the first place?

 

[EwenS]

Of course OTL CV-9 was first of the prolific Essex class - 24 build, 32 planned. Simple question: the alternate Essex class would thus start at CV-10 and get that carrier name ?
(was it USS Intrepid ? Drats, I can't remember its name, only that CV-12 was Hornet, because of Apollo 11 recovery in 1969).

CV-10 was the second USS Yorktown.

It's easier to give the fourth Yorktown class ship a name that wasn't used. In part because Lexington, Yorktown, Wasp & Hornet might not have been sunk as a consequence of it being built and therefore their names would not be available for Essex class. I chose Constellation because one of the Lexington class battle cruisers was to be called Constellation. There is a precedent for this because another Lexington class battle cruiser was to have been named Ranger and that name was re-used for CV-4. Plus CV-64 was called Constellation.

It's also easier to make it CV-8A rather than re-number CV-9 to CVN-82 as CV-10 to CVN-83. As you've mentioned the Apollo programme think of CV-8A as Apollo 8 flying the C-Prime mission because it's the same idea.

The original names for the Essex class were as follows:-

CV-9 Essex
CV-10 Bon Homme Richard renamed Yorktown 26 Sept 1942, 4 months before launch
CV-11 Intrepid
CV-12 Kearsarge renamed Hornet late 1942
CV-13 Franklin
CV-14 Hancock renamed Ticonderoga (swap with CV-19)
CV-15 Randolph
CV-16 Cabot renamed Lexington 16 June 1942, 3 months before launch
CV-17 Bunker Hill
CV-18 Oriskany renamed Wasp, renamed 13 Nov 1942, 9 months before launch
CV-19 Ticonderoga renamed Hancock (swap with CV-14)


The names Bon Homme Richard, Kearsarge, and Oriskany were later reused for the Essex class CV-31, CV-33 & CV-34 ordered in Aug 1942. Cabot was used for CVL-28 which had been laid down as the cruiser CL-79 Wilmington. Her name was changed 23 June 1942.

 

[lancer21]

If I were you I'd call the fourth Yorktown CV8A USS Constellation and still build CV9 as the "Real World" USS Essex.

What's your information on Newport News? They built Ranger and all 3 Yorktowns.

Fore River (also known as Bethlehem Steel) built CV-7 Wasp which was laid down in April 1936 and launched in April 1939. BB-59 Massachusetts was laid down at Fore River in July 1939 so my guess is that she took one of the two 900ft slipways that you mention. If the other slipway was vacant CV8A Constellation could have been laid down in September 1939 and launched in December 1940 which are the months in which Hornet was laid down and launched.

Fore River also built the cruisers CA-38 Quincy launched in June 1935 and CA-44 Vincennes was launched in May 1936 and the next cruisers built there were CL-53 San Diego & CL-54 San Juan laid down in March & April 1940. I've no idea whether any of these four ships was built on the two 900ft slips. However, if building Constellation at Fore River does mean it can't build San Diego or San Juan it may be possible to have one of those cruisers built elsewhere rather than delaying it.

Although you're reluctant to have a new 900ft slipway built if none existed, how difficult (and expensive) would it be to build a new one or extend one of the existing ones? It has the bonus of giving the USA an extra slipway capable of building aircraft carriers and battleships during World War II.

NOMISYRRUC your input is very much welcome!

I have just found this Hyperwar page which could contain some very useful info (haven't read any of it yet, need to tend to my horses now)

HyperWar: Building the Navy's Bases in World War II [Chapter 8]

I had in my mind that i read somewhere regarding slipway capacity that US could build 13 capital ships simultaneously, UK 8 and Japan 4, but darn if i can find that info again. I also seem to recall a figure of 21 US slipways capable of capital ship construction, almost certainly for WW2 after the massive shipyard expansion.

I guess can try to go backwards and see if all 13 slipways (if they were still in operation before WW2) were busy in late 1939/early 1940, i can already count 7 busy at the same time (the treaty BBs and CV-8), and according to my info AV-5 tender is being build on a 900ft slip at Camden. They also build AV-4 too, if this was also on a 900ft slip it's 9 busy slips.

But as in don't have enough info before June 1940 i don't know what was build before CL-53 and 54 (which, if they were build on a 900ft slip, we get to 11 large slips occupied) for instance at Fore River (there seems a large gap between them and the CA-38/44s).

For Newport News i have CV-8 and BB-58 being built (2 more large slips were ready late 1941 for CV-11/12 but this is outside my ATL).

I also seems to have conflicting info as to slipways length at various yards, i'll get to that and some other details later.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

You're welcome.

As the objective of building Hornet as a repeat Yorktown was to have it built as soon as possible I suggest that you have Constellation built in a shipyard with recent experience of building aircraft carriers which limits you to Fore River or Newport News.

If you can't build Constellation at Fore River without sacrificing one of the real wold ships I suggest that you lay CV8A there in July 1939 and move Massachusetts to another yard.

I haven't looked at what was being built at Newport News.

 

[EwenS]

Don't forget the merchant marine.

Newport News had the 26,000 GRT liner SS America (723 feet long) on the slip between Aug 1938 & Aug 1939. That is the month before Hornet was laid down seemingly on the same slip.

https://www.navsource.org/archives/09/22/092202362.jpg

Indiana went onto the other slip under the gantry in Nov 1939 (note the space to the rhs for the plates).

http://navsource.org/archives/01/058/015864.jpg

 

[lancer21]

You're welcome.

As the objective of building Hornet as a repeat Yorktown was to have it built as soon as possible I suggest that you have Constellation built in a shipyard with recent experience of building aircraft carriers which limits you to Fore River or Newport News.

If you can't build Constellation at Fore River without sacrificing one of the real wold ships I suggest that you lay CV8A there in July 1939 and move Massachusetts to another yard.

I haven't looked at what was being built at Newport News.

I'm sure you must already knows this, but here's the list of ships built at NN according to wiki. Interestingly, i strongly suspect the DDs Russell and Mustin must have been built simultaneously in one of the big docks?

Newport News Shipbuilding - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[lancer21]

For what's it worth here's a so far incomplete compilation of info from wiki regarding US shipyards slip lengths.

 

[EwenS]

You're welcome.

As the objective of building Hornet as a repeat Yorktown was to have it built as soon as possible I suggest that you have Constellation built in a shipyard with recent experience of building aircraft carriers which limits you to Fore River or Newport News.

If you can't build Constellation at Fore River without sacrificing one of the real wold ships I suggest that you lay CV8A there in July 1939 and move Massachusetts to another yard.

I haven't looked at what was being built at Newport News.

I'm sure you must already knows this, but here's the list of ships built at NN saccording to wiki. Interestly, i strongly suspect the DDs Russell and Mustin must have been built simultaneously in one of the big docks?

Newport News Shipbuilding - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It doesn't automatically follow that they were built in a dry dock. Vickers Armstrong Tyne laid down two pairs of Tribal class which had the same lay down & launch dates and came off traditional slipways:-

Afridi & Cossack laid down 9 June 1936, launched 8 June 1937. They were built right next to each other. I have a photo of launch day in a book. It is possible that they were built each side of a slip that could accomodate a single much larger vessel.

Eskimo & Mashona laid down 5 Aug 1936 and launched 3 September 1937