SCB.100 class cvs

C

Cjc

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
15 October 2021
Messages
361
Reaction score
308
I was curious to see if there had been any drawings of this paper ship plan.

Basically a anti sub/ trade lane protector ship for th usn, 20 s-3 in 2 squadrons plus 4-8 small anti snuper aircraft (presumably a-4 but no design specified) and 16 sea kings, to be biult in the 70's to replace the Essex class carriers in the roll. 6-9 carriers planned, about $500 million per ship I believe (it's been a while and I don't have my Friedman book with me).
 
Last edited:
That number can't be right -- SCB-101.66 was a Midway modernization completed in 1970.

Friedman talks about a couple of CVS designs intended for production in the late 1960s or early 1970s -- SCB-100.68 and SCB-100.71 (from 1964) and then very briefly two 1967 CVS alternative designs with no SCB number. Both versions of the 1967 carrier had two 250-ft C-13 cats (sufficient for F-4s), 22-ft hangars (for E-2A), 1 million gallons of jet fuel, 600 tons of ordnance, and a total airwing of 42-52 aircraft. They really differ only in their speed -- one was 30 knots, the other 28 knots. These were 56k-57k ton ships, substantially larger than SCB-100, and roughly the same length as the Essex class (but much wider). No drawings, though, and no real details of their airwings. They were probably based on VSX (later S-3) since they had no AvGas stowage, but that's slightly speculative.

Friedman also talks about the planned CVS airwing from when the VSX was approved in 1967 -- 24 VSX, 8 SH-3 and 4 fighters. But I think this was an anticipated SCB-27C conversion to the CVS role.
 
Last edited:
Indeed there were a number of ASW carrier designs from the 1960's
I have data for these:

CVS Scheme 60 - 1960
Dimensions: 259,08(wl) x 274,32(oa) x 51,81 x 9,29m
Displacement: 35.250tons (standard) 46.500tons (Full Load)
Engines: 180.000shp Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armaments:
Unknown,
50x aircrafts

CVS Scheme 62A - 1962
Dimensions: 259,1(wl) x 274,32(oa) x 60,96m
Displacement: 38.500tons (standard) 53.170tons (Full Load)
Engines: 150.000shp Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Range: 14.800km (8.000nm)
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armaments:
2x4 RGM-27 Polaris
2x2 RIM-2 Terrier
60x aircrafts (Likely 20x F-4 Phantom II, 20x S-2 Tracker 4x E-1 Tracer 16x SH-34)

CVS Scheme 62B - 1962
Dimensions: 259,1(wl) x 274,32(oa) x 60,96m
Displacement: 39.550tons (standard) 54.250tons (Full Load)
Engines: 212.000shp Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Range: 14.800km (8.000nm)
Speed: 58km/h (31,5knots)
Armaments:
2x4 RGM-27 Polaris
2x2 RIM-2 Terrier
60x aircrafts (Likely 20x F-4 Phantom II, 20x S-2 Tracker 4x E-1 Tracer 16x SH-34)

CVS Scheme 62N - 1962
Dimensions: 274,32(wl) x 289,56(oa) x 60,96 x 9,75m
Displacement: 42.600tons (standard) 54.000tons (Full Load)
Engines: 135.000shp Nuclear Reactors, I think A3W and 3 shafts
Speed: 55km/h (29,5knots)
Armaments:
2x4 RGM-27 Polaris
2x2 RIM-2 Terrier
60x aircrafts (Likely 20x F-4 Phantom II, 20x S-2 Tracker 4x E-1 Tracer 16x SH-34)

CVS Scheme 62P - 1962
Dimensions: 274,32(wl) x 289,56(oa) x 60,96 x 9,75m
Displacement: 47.300tons (standard) 58.600tons (Full Load)
Engines: 180.000shp Nuclear Reactors, I think A3W and 4 shafts
Speed: 58km/h (31,5knots)
Armaments:
2x4 RGM-27 Polaris
2x2 RIM-2 Terrier
60x aircrafts (Likely 20x F-4 Phantom II, 20x S-2 Tracker 4x E-1 Tracer 16x SH-34)

CVS Design 1963
Dimensions: 243,84(wl) x 259,08(oa) x 51,81 x 10,3m
Displacement: 41.953tons (standard) 52.700tons (Full Load)
Engines: 140.000shp Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Range: 14.800km (8.000nm)
Speed: 52km/h (28knots)
Armaments:
2x9 RIM-46 Sea Mauler
50x aircrafts

CVS Design 1964 Scheme K - SCB-100.71
Dimensions: 234,69(wl) x 248,12(oa) x width unknown x 9,75m
Displacement: 39.360tons (standard) 50.000tons (Full Load)
Engines: 140.000shp Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Range: 14.800km (8.000nm)
Speed: 52km/h (28knots)
Armaments:
2x2 RIM-24 Tartar
47x aircrafts

CVS Design 1966
Dimensions: 250(wl) x width unknown x 10,36m
Displacement: 43.030tons (standard) 57.497tons (Full Load)
Engines: 190.000shp Steam Turbines, 4 shafts
Range: 22.200km (12.000nm)
Speed: 56km/h (30knots)
Armaments:
Unknown,
52x aircrafts

CVS Design 1968 - SCB-100.68
Dimensions: 252,98(wl) x 262,13(oa) x 57,91 x 9,02m
Displacement: 43.400tons (standard) 53.622tons (Full Load)
Engines: 135.000shp Steam Turbines, Likely 3 shafts
Range: 14.800km (8.000nm)
Speed: 52km/h (28knots)
Armaments:
2x2 RIM-24 Tartar
63x aircrafts (Likely 20x F-4 Phantom II, 20x S-2 Tracker 4x E-2 Hawkeye, 1x C-2 Greyhound, 16x SH-34, 2x UH-2)
 
Very interesting. But WDF - Polaris on an ASW carrier ? I don't see the point...
[unless they wanted to nuke the Soviet subs while at their piers at Severomorsk or Murmansk: after all that would be the ultimate ASW, Ellen Ripley style - "nuke the subs from afar: it's the only way to be sure."]
 
Archibald said:
Very interesting. But WDF - Polaris on an ASW carrier ? I don't see the point...
[unless they wanted to nuke the Soviet subs while at their piers at Severomorsk or Murmansk: after all that would be the ultimate ASW, Ellen Ripley style - "nuke the subs from afar: it's the only way to be sure."]
Click to expand...
Here:
1696840292439.png
 
@Tzoli just to clear any misunderstanding: I didn't expressed doubt about what you wrote. Only about Polaris usefulness on these ships. Terrier, Mauler, Tartar make sense for air defense of the ship (Clems had Crotales while CdG has Aster).

But Polaris makes no sense whatsoever. Weird.
 
Archibald said:
@Tzoli just to clear any misunderstanding: I didn't expressed doubt about what you wrote. Only about Polaris usefulness on these ships. Terrier, Mauler, Tartar make sense for air defense of the ship (Clems had Crotales while CdG has Aster).

But Polaris makes no sense whatsoever. Weird.
Click to expand...
Early 1960s, every ship was looked at for Polaris. No matter how little sense it made to fit an IRBM onboard.
 
Tzoli said:
CVS Design 1964 Scheme K - SCB-100.71
Click to expand...

Tzoli said:
CVS Design 1968 - SCB-100.68
Click to expand...

One quick note: as the table you posted shows, SCB.100.68 was actually sketched in September 1963, before SCB-100.71.

In this iteration of SCB numbering, the figures after the decimal point indicate the budget year in which the design was intended to be funded. So, the evolution from SCB-100.68 to SCB-100.71 shows how the CVS procurement was getting pushed later and later. It was delayed three years in just a few months.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Early 1960s, every ship was looked at for Polaris. No matter how little sense it made to fit an IRBM onboard.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling that Polaris was being viewed in the early 1960s in a similar way to how Tomahawk was being viewed in the early 1980s - a way of dispersing nuclear strike around the fleet for (relatively) modest ship impact. Even the performance figures are pretty comparable.
 
Last edited:
Archibald said:
Very interesting. But WDF - Polaris on an ASW carrier ? I don't see the point...
[unless they wanted to nuke the Soviet subs while at their piers at Severomorsk or Murmansk: after all that would be the ultimate ASW, Ellen Ripley style - "nuke the subs from afar: it's the only way to be sure."]
Click to expand...

I could see it as a complement to SOSUS. A CVS could receive SOSUS tracking data on Soviet subs (especially SSBNS, before they could just hang out in the Barents Sea bastion). In a conventional war, they'd have to rely on their hunter-killer aircraft to localize and then kill the subs. But if the war was going nuclear, they could use the aircraft just to quickly confirm the SOSUS track and then drop a Polaris on it. Thinking of it as a super-ASROC in this context, much like the sub force's SUBROC.
 
Archibald said:
just to clear any misunderstanding: I didn't expressed doubt about what you wrote. Only about Polaris usefulness on these ships. Terrier, Mauler, Tartar make sense for air defense of the ship (Clems had Crotales while CdG has Aster).

But Polaris makes no sense whatsoever. Weird.
Click to expand...
The idea was to put as many Polaris in sea as possible. Nuclear submarines were costly to build, and Polaris deployment - at least as capability - on surface ships was viewed as cheaper way to increase the total number of missiles.
 
TomS said:
But if the war was going nuclear, they could use the aircraft just to quickly confirm the SOSUS track and then drop a Polaris on it
Click to expand...
Considering how unreliable was early Polaris (and inaccurate, too), submarine have little to fear. No, it wasn't for ASW role. The idea was simply to get more Polaris in sea on anything that could carry them.
 
Dilandu said:
Considering how unreliable was early Polaris (and inaccurate, too), submarine have little to fear. No, it wasn't for ASW role. The idea was simply to get more Polaris in sea on anything that could carry them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is probably accurate.
 
Ok thank you folks. I thought Kennedy reserved the MLF siliness (Polaris on any large surface platform that floats) to European navies; but it seems the USN was also contaminated by the "Polaris madness, MLF siliness".
While boomers obviously were completely unaffordable to NATO navies, Polaris on surface ships was an aberration during WWIII: they would be giant cannon fodder for the Soviets. But now I see that this peculiar siliness had root in the USN itself.
 
Archibald said:
Ok thank you folks. I thought Kennedy reserved the MLF siliness (Polaris on any large surface platform that floats) to European navies; but it seems the USN was also contaminated by the "Polaris madness, MLF siliness".
While boomers obviously were completely unaffordable to NATO navies, Polaris on surface ships was an aberration during WWIII: they would be giant cannon fodder for the Soviets. But now I see that this peculiar siliness had root in the USN itself.
Click to expand...
Well, let's not overestimate the Soviet Navy too; yes, we have great strike capabilities in out missile-carrying bombers and missile-armed submarines, but they could not strike everywhere simultaneously. The idea of putting Polaris on surface units was, that there would be many of them in sea at any given time, so a significant number of them would survive any pre-emptive strikes.

Also, the theather role. Polaris missiles were viewed (at least initially) not only as strategic deterrence, but also as warfignthing capability. They were supposed to be used against airfields, radar installations, SAM sites, "softening the way" to carrier bombers.
 
apparition13 said:
Long Beach had space reserved for 8 Polaris.
Click to expand...

The FY60 follow-on to Long Beach was supposed to carry an SCB-173 armament on a Long Beach hull along with Polaris, but this could could only be achieved on a lengthened hull, on the standard Long Beach hull it was either Polaris or Tartar.

Edit: Correction the FY60 Nuclear Cruiser was supposed to carry Regulus.

The later planned Albany-class, SCB-173A were intended to carry Polaris and improved SPG-56 guidance radars (not to be confused with SPG-59).
 
Last edited:
Tzoli said:
Not necessary:
www.deviantart.com

USS Long Beach Polaris Armed Proposal by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com www.deviantart.com
Remember there was penty of space between the reactor and the Talos magazine due to being the original as laid down armament conisted of a single launcher for 5-6 RGM-15 Regulus II missiles
Click to expand...
Source please?

Especially since the Regulus II launcher was an on-deck launcher, and I am not 100% sure where the reloads would go but unless they would go below the launcher it seems unlikely that they could just fit a lot of large missiles without issues.

I also think 8 Polaris in itself would already weigh twice as much as 6 regulus II.

I am not saying it is impossible, but the "due to the original layout there consisting of an regulus launcher" is not a train of thought that makes any sense here.
 
A Tentative Fleet Plan said:
The FY60 follow-on to Long Beach was supposed to carry an SCB-173 armament on a Long Beach hull along with Polaris, but this could could only be achieved on a lengthened hull, on the standard Long Beach hull it was either Polaris or Tartar.
Click to expand...
This sounds interesting, any idea where I could find more information on these plans?
 
acelanceloet said:
Source please?

Especially since the Regulus II launcher was an on-deck launcher, and I am not 100% sure where the reloads would go but unless they would go below the launcher it seems unlikely that they could just fit a lot of large missiles without issues.

I also think 8 Polaris in itself would already weigh twice as much as 6 regulus II.

I am not saying it is impossible, but the "due to the original layout there consisting of an regulus launcher" is not a train of thought that makes any sense here.
Click to expand...
Based on the various preliminaries featuring the RGM-6 Regulus I here is the layout I've envisioned for the original layout:
www.deviantart.com

USS Long Beach as Laid Down by Tzoli on DeviantArt

www.deviantart.com www.deviantart.com

As for the Polaris armed version most sources state it would carry and the link provides description and a link to an artist impression of the Polaris armed Long Beach
 
Dilandu said:
Considering how unreliable was early Polaris (and inaccurate, too), submarine have little to fear. No, it wasn't for ASW role. The idea was simply to get more Polaris in sea on anything that could carry them.
Click to expand...
910m CEP with a 600kt or 1.2mt warhead. It'd land close enough.

But yes, the idea was to get as many Polaris at sea as possible, not to use the Polaris as a giant ASROC.
 
Scott Kenny said:
910m CEP with a 600kt or 1.2mt warhead. It'd land close enough.
Click to expand...
Erm. Those are numbers for Polaris A-3. The original Polaris have a CEP about 1800 meters. And considering that the probability of missile working right was pretty low (W47 warhead have only about 30% chance not to be a dud)...
 
Cjc said:
I was curious to see if there had been any drawings of this paper ship plan.

Basically a anti sub/ trade lane protector ship for th usn, 20 s-3 in 2 squadrons plus 4-8 small anti snuper aircraft (presumably a-4 but no design specified) and 16 sea kings, to be biult in the 70's to replace the Essex class carriers in the roll. 6-9 carriers planned, about $500 million per ship I believe (it's been a while and I don't have my Friedman book with me).
Click to expand...

IMG_1103.jpeg

"... they had far less stowage for ammunition and hence could not have functioned effectively as attack carriers ", according to Norman Friedman.
 
Cjc said:
Reminds me a lot of the pa.58/medium aircraft carrier proposals in the althistory section. Thank you.
Click to expand...

D'oh, didn't connected the dots. Now that would be interesting: merging PA.58, Medium Fleet Carrier, and that SCB.100 design. NATO medium carrier anybody ?
But speculation does not belongs to this thread.
 
Tzoli said:
CVS Design 1968 - SCB-100.68
Dimensions: 252,98(wl) x 262,13(oa) x 57,91 x 9,02m
Displacement: 43.400tons (standard) 53.622tons (Full Load)
Engines: 135.000shp Steam Turbines, Likely 3 shafts
Range: 14.800km (8.000nm)
Speed: 52km/h (28knots)
Armaments:
2x2 RIM-24 Tartar
63x aircrafts (Likely 20x F-4 Phantom II, 20x S-2 Tracker 4x E-2 Hawkeye, 1x C-2 Greyhound, 16x SH-34, 2x UH-2)
Click to expand...
Your data for SCB 100.68 is at odds with Friedman’s data table. Friedman lists 43,400 tons as the full load displacement but doesn’t list a standard displacement. Friedman also lists a waterline beam of 101 feet, which would lend credence to the full load displacement 43,400 tons. However, this makes 100.68 something of an outlier as every other proposal is much beamier. Your full load displacement figure of 53,623 tons only makes sense if Friedman is wrong about the beam. What is your source? Is it something that wasn’t available to Friedman in 1982?
 
datafuser said:
View attachment 709543

"... they had far less stowage for ammunition and hence could not have functioned effectively as attack carriers ", according to Norman Friedman.
Click to expand...
Does the drawing depict a full height gallery deck above the hangar? I’m asking the question because of all of the closely and evenly spaced vertical lines through what would appear to be the gallery deck. Does this indicate a non-occupiable space? It makes a difference because of the variance between Friedman’s and Tzoli’s displacement numbers. Would a 43,400 ton carrier on a 101 foot waterline beam accommodate a full gallery deck with a 22 foot high hanger? Or is Friedman’s beam figure erroneous and it’s really a 53622 ton full load carrier with a much larger beam?
 
Tzoli said:
I've yet to re-found my source for that displacement value. But it is likely realistic because the CV-TCBL design study with similar dimensions had similar displacement values:
View attachment 732062
Click to expand...
CV-TCBL most likely was influenced by the various CVS studies. However, it had a much wider flight deck that 100.68 - 221’ vs 190’ and drew a great deal more water 34’ vs 29.6’. And there is also the issue of waterline beam - 120.5’ for TCBL falls in line with all of the CVS studies except 100.68 at 101’ according to Friedman.

Of course, Friedman’s drawing of 100.68 is a little odd in that it shows 3 side elevators and the dashed lines for a possible 4th centerline elevator that fouls the forward catapult - something that only makes sense if this CVS design was also going to replace the Essex class LPH conversions. Overall, 100.68 looks like a very direct Essex class replacement while TCBL was Midway replacement. Friedman also has a personal sketch of TCBL as I recollect.
 
TinWing said:
Does the drawing depict a full height gallery deck above the hangar? I’m asking the question because of all of the closely and evenly spaced vertical lines through what would appear to be the gallery deck. Does this indicate a non-occupiable space? It makes a difference because of the variance between Friedman’s and Tzoli’s displacement numbers. Would a 43,400 ton carrier on a 101 foot waterline beam accommodate a full gallery deck with a 22 foot high hanger? Or is Friedman’s beam figure erroneous and it’s really a 53622 ton full load carrier with a much larger beam?
Click to expand...

That's something I really don't know...
 
TinWing said:
Does the drawing depict a full height gallery deck above the hangar? I’m asking the question because of all of the closely and evenly spaced vertical lines through what would appear to be the gallery deck. Does this indicate a non-occupiable space? It makes a difference because of the variance between Friedman’s and Tzoli’s displacement numbers. Would a 43,400 ton carrier on a 101 foot waterline beam accommodate a full gallery deck with a 22 foot high hanger? Or is Friedman’s beam figure erroneous and it’s really a 53622 ton full load carrier with a much larger beam?
Click to expand...

Those vertical lines would be between 20' and 30' apart on the actual ship... which works fine for what is normally on the gallery deck - officers' staterooms, offices, workshops, etc.

The arresting gear engines' rooms are a bit wider, but not a lot.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom