USN Aviation Cruiser Concepts (CGV & MEU Studies)

[Firefinder]

Honestly it doesn't matter how good you tech is if the crew is untrain on it.

Thisgoes for all branches.

If the bridge crew doesn't know their rear from their mouths, or just so over worked where that may as well be the case...

*look at 2017 crashes*

Everyone is buying good but EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE GEAR and cutting training to pay for it. Then for the USN you have ships coming apart cause they cant get basic maintenance due to being over worked.

The USN been on war time tempo for nearly 20 years and is on a peacetime budget.

That is leading to lost of people and increasing accidents.

Some of it can be solve done by the Admirals telling congress no we cant do it instead of we can. The navy spread too thin as is and they want to do more. There are limits people.

Other can be done by redoinv the budget.

Another thing is culture. All branches have toxic cultures/mafias that need to die. Seriously half the burkes have no antiship ability because why?

Oh eyeah thats the carrier job. What can go wrong?

*think of the number of times a carrier got hit or missile kill itself to fuck ups*

Or how many burkes are operating alone.

The fact that the navy had to be forced to get the LRASM is something stupid.

But eyeah things need to change.

 

[jsport]

Honestly it doesn't matter how good you tech is if the crew is untrain on it.

yes

Thisgoes for all branches.

If the bridge crew doesn't know their rear from their mouths, or just so over worked where that may as well be the case...
[/QUOTE]
training and retention are as stated from the beginiing. (get America back at sea again)

*look at 2017 crashes*

Everyone is buying good but EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE GEAR and cutting training to pay for it. Then for the USN you have ships coming apart cause they cant get basic maintenance due to being over worked.
[/QUOTE]
yes

The USN been on war time tempo for nearly 20 years and is on a peacetime budget.
[/QUOTE]
yes

That is leading to lost of people and increasing accidents.
[/QUOTE]
yes

Some of it can be solve done by the Admirals telling congress no we cant do it instead of we can. The navy spread too thin as is and they want to do more. There are limits people.
[/QUOTE]
yes

Other can be done by redoinv the budget.
[/QUOTE]
as stated yes

Another thing is culture. All branches have toxic cultures/mafias that need to die. Seriously half the burkes have no antiship ability because why?
[/QUOTE]
The Army is starting boards to evaluate before BDE cmd and discussing this moving down to SGTs.. USN needs to do the same or a hollow force will result. No bigger a ego on the planet than a USN ship Capt. and the ones on the way there have even worse egos. (Toxic)

Oh eyeah thats the carrier job. What can go wrong?
[/QUOTE]
(?)
*think of the number of times a carrier got hit or missile kill itself to fuck ups*

Or how many burkes are operating alone.
[/QUOTE]

A Burke operating alone in the coming environment is corral bait

The fact that the navy had to be forced to get the LRASM is something stupid.
[/QUOTE]
?
But eyeah things need to change.
[/QUOTE]

 

[TomS]

None of this is relevant to the MEU concept design ( or anything else really).

 

[jsport]

Is this an open forum about capabilities or not?

 

[Jemiba]

Posts after this discussion were moved to a topic on its own here

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/usmc-doctrine-changes.32998/

Please stay with the original topic here.

 

[jsport]

Mission Essential Unit (MEU)
is the type of ship needed to fullfill the goals of the Marines new doctrine. The USN needs troops, ground vehicles and aircraft available on a single ship w/ logistics to support a new land base (call it expeditionary or not) need ship that support building/ protecting etc a ground base and fight as a surface combatant, not a traditional slow, barely protected 'sea basing concept' currently used.
No one cares what a Marine Expeditionary Unit is or is not.

 

[Jemiba]

Posts about the SR hovercraft carrier were split and moved to its own topic here:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/saunders-roe-hovercraft-aircraft-carrier.33630/

 

[PMN1]

Do you mean something like this?

 

[Tzoli]

Idea is the same but the era is different that is from the late 1970's (I pretty like that design, will draw it sometime! )

 

[Firefinder]

I do believe that this is the one.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/mission-essential-unit-meu-or-cg-v-stol.6416/

The MISSION ESSENTIAL UNIT (MEU) or also known as the CGV. There more information and pictures in link thread.

 

[Bgray]

Does anyone know if thre were any plans or art of them other than the single image we've seen? It looks to me as they never made it to the stage of "preliminary modeling" which makes sense when you consider that even a quick glance lets you know that a ship like that would be pretty close to the cost of a full up CV and far less effective in, well any role.

 

[Grey Havoc]

I do believe that this is the one.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/mission-essential-unit-meu-or-cg-v-stol.6416/

The MISSION ESSENTIAL UNIT (MEU) or also known as the CGV. There more information and pictures in link thread.

Sorry, I should have thought to link that myself.

 

[that_person]

This project has always interested me. It's a case of the idea being so ridiculous that I naturally gravitate toward it. With that being said, I do have some new information on the project.

I did some digging today, and came across a mention of the MEU on a Congressional Budget Request from 1989, with the money intended to be used in FY 1990/1991. It can be accessed here: https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA210490/page/360/mode/2up?q=meu&view=theater . On pages 361 and 362, the Navy is making a request for funds to be allocated to "Ship Development (Advance), which seems to include among other things, initial MEU drafts.

The official description for Ship Development (Advanced) is as follows:
"This project performs the first three phases of design (Advanced Concept Studies, Feasibility and Preliminary Design) for all new surface ships (excluding aircraft carriers) in the Navy's Shipbuilding Program. Completion of these phases allows OPNAV to review and approve transfer of a ship to the Ship Contract Design Program, PE 0604567N. Develops and evaluates unconventional hull form concepts suitable for future acquisition. The Navy has benefited from the research, development, design and deployment of the air cushion vehicle (ACV) LCAC landing craft. Presently under acquisition is the SWATH TAGOS, a promising hull form well suited for North Atlantic operations. Performs impact studies of warfare, hull, machinery and electrical subsystems on advanced ship designs. Develops the initial documentation and the design methodology required by government for the design of surface ships in the Shipbuilding Program."

Further, another Congressional Budget document, this time a report on how the money was spent (I think), dated FY 1990/1991, also makes mention of the MEU. That can be found here: https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA220013/page/271/mode/1up?q=meu&view=theater , on pages 271 and 272.

The excerpts on the first documents tells us that the MEU study began in at least FY 1988, although I think it may of started earlier, as it says that 1988 involved "advanced concept studies". The latest mention from either of the 2 documents comes for Doc 2, with a request that money be allocated in FY 1991. With that, the following timeline can be assembled:

(Doc 1) FY 1988 Program- "Performed advanced concept studies for the... Mission Essential Unit..."
(Doc 1) FY 1989 Program - "Develop baseline designs for the... Mission Essential Unit..."
(Doc 2) FY 1989 Program - "Investigated design concepts for... Mission Essential Unit (MEU)..."
(Doc 2) FY 1990 Program - "Perform HM&E system assessments of MEU" *Quick Google search says this is some kind of electrical stuff
(Doc 2) FY 1991 Program (Unclear if this was actually carried out) - "Perform HM&E and combat systems assessment for.. MEU..."

Also, the 2 documents label each event with a "(U)" with is later explained as being:
"Program to Completion: This is a continuing program to replace ships in the force levels with new technology to reduce cost, manning, weight, volume and to maximize ordnance carried."

The one other thing I want to touch on is it gives us a hint as to who carried out the study. It lists the following:
Program Element: 0603564N
Program Element Title: Ship Development (Advanced)
Project Number: S0408
Project Title: Ship Development (Advanced)

It's not much to go off of, but when I Google "0603564N", I get a bunch of stuff related to the current DDG(X) program, specifically budget stuff, all attributed to "PE 0603564N: Ship Prel Design & Feasibility Studies". I assume they're apart of NAVSEA, but I have no way to confirm this. Regardless, it might help in narrowing the search.

 

[TomS]

Also, the 2 documents label each event with a "(U)" with is later explained as being:
"Program to Completion: This is a continuing program to replace ships in the force levels with new technology to reduce cost, manning, weight, volume and to maximize ordnance carried."

The (U) at the beginning of each line is a portion marking, which is the classification level for that specific paragraph or bullet item. In this case, it just means that the text of that portion is Unclassified.

 

[TomS]

This project has always interested me. It's a case of the idea being so ridiculous that I naturally gravitate toward it. With that being said, I do have some new information on the project.

I did some digging today, and came across a mention of the MEU on a Congressional Budget Request from 1989, with the money intended to be used in FY 1990/1991. It can be accessed here: https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA210490/page/360/mode/2up?q=meu&view=theater . On pages 361 and 362, the Navy is making a request for funds to be allocated to "Ship Development (Advance), which seems to include among other things, initial MEU drafts.

The official description for Ship Development (Advanced) is as follows:
"This project performs the first three phases of design (Advanced Concept Studies, Feasibility and Preliminary Design) for all new surface ships (excluding aircraft carriers) in the Navy's Shipbuilding Program. Completion of these phases allows OPNAV to review and approve transfer of a ship to the Ship Contract Design Program, PE 0604567N. Develops and evaluates unconventional hull form concepts suitable for future acquisition. The Navy has benefited from the research, development, design and deployment of the air cushion vehicle (ACV) LCAC landing craft. Presently under acquisition is the SWATH TAGOS, a promising hull form well suited for North Atlantic operations. Performs impact studies of warfare, hull, machinery and electrical subsystems on advanced ship designs. Develops the initial documentation and the design methodology required by government for the design of surface ships in the Shipbuilding Program."

Further, another Congressional Budget document, this time a report on how the money was spent (I think), dated FY 1990/1991, also makes mention of the MEU. That can be found here: https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA220013/page/271/mode/1up?q=meu&view=theater , on pages 271 and 272.

The excerpts on the first documents tells us that the MEU study began in at least FY 1988, although I think it may of started earlier, as it says that 1988 involved "advanced concept studies". The latest mention from either of the 2 documents comes for Doc 2, with a request that money be allocated in FY 1991. With that, the following timeline can be assembled:

(Doc 1) FY 1988 Program- "Performed advanced concept studies for the... Mission Essential Unit..."
(Doc 1) FY 1989 Program - "Develop baseline designs for the... Mission Essential Unit..."
(Doc 2) FY 1989 Program - "Investigated design concepts for... Mission Essential Unit (MEU)..."
(Doc 2) FY 1990 Program - "Perform HM&E system assessments of MEU" *Quick Google search says this is some kind of electrical stuff
(Doc 2) FY 1991 Program (Unclear if this was actually carried out) - "Perform HM&E and combat systems assessment for.. MEU..."

Also, the 2 documents label each event with a "(U)" with is later explained as being:
"Program to Completion: This is a continuing program to replace ships in the force levels with new technology to reduce cost, manning, weight, volume and to maximize ordnance carried."

The one other thing I want to touch on is it gives us a hint as to who carried out the study. It lists the following:
Program Element: 0603564N
Program Element Title: Ship Development (Advanced)
Project Number: S0408
Project Title: Ship Development (Advanced)

It's not much to go off of, but when I Google "0603564N", I get a bunch of stuff related to the current DDG(X) program, specifically budget stuff, all attributed to "PE 0603564N: Ship Prel Design & Feasibility Studies". I assume they're apart of NAVSEA, but I have no way to confirm this. Regardless, it might help in narrowing the search.

So, a bit more on all of this:

The Program Element numbers encode a lot of information about the nature of the work being done and who is doing it. The first two digits indicate the general class of program (06 = Research and development). For R&D PEs, the next two digits indicate what kind of R&D (03=Advanced Development). The next three digits indicate the specific program (which may contain multiple projects, as seen here). And the final digit indicates who "owns" this program element (N=Navy).

Here is a document at an unexpected source that breaks down PEs (and their relationship to the Future Years Defense Plan): https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/dodd/corres/pdf/70457h_1100/70457h.pdf

In this case, the Navy lumps all of its concept design work into a single PE. Over the years PE 0603564N has included DDG-51 modifications, LX(R), LCS, DDG(X), etc. Basically, any early stage surface ship design work other than aircraft carriers happens under this PE. But this code doesn't mean a design was destined for production, it can just be concept exploration.

"Program to Completion" -- You'll see this section under every PE. It's basically asking "what's the plan for finishing this program?" In this case, they basically say that this process of looking at new and different types of ships is a never-ending process.

HM&E means "Hull, Mechanical, and Electrical," which is naval architect lingo for all the stuff that makes a ship float (hull), move (mechanical), or power things (electrical). Broadly speaking, HM&E is the "boring" stuff that isn't combat systems (weapons, sensors, etc.). But things like new propulsion technologies or new hull shapes are HM&E developments, so it isn't always just routine.

 

[that_person]

This project has always interested me. It's a case of the idea being so ridiculous that I naturally gravitate toward it. With that being said, I do have some new information on the project.

I did some digging today, and came across a mention of the MEU on a Congressional Budget Request from 1989, with the money intended to be used in FY 1990/1991. It can be accessed here: https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA210490/page/360/mode/2up?q=meu&view=theater . On pages 361 and 362, the Navy is making a request for funds to be allocated to "Ship Development (Advance), which seems to include among other things, initial MEU drafts.

The official description for Ship Development (Advanced) is as follows:
"This project performs the first three phases of design (Advanced Concept Studies, Feasibility and Preliminary Design) for all new surface ships (excluding aircraft carriers) in the Navy's Shipbuilding Program. Completion of these phases allows OPNAV to review and approve transfer of a ship to the Ship Contract Design Program, PE 0604567N. Develops and evaluates unconventional hull form concepts suitable for future acquisition. The Navy has benefited from the research, development, design and deployment of the air cushion vehicle (ACV) LCAC landing craft. Presently under acquisition is the SWATH TAGOS, a promising hull form well suited for North Atlantic operations. Performs impact studies of warfare, hull, machinery and electrical subsystems on advanced ship designs. Develops the initial documentation and the design methodology required by government for the design of surface ships in the Shipbuilding Program."

Further, another Congressional Budget document, this time a report on how the money was spent (I think), dated FY 1990/1991, also makes mention of the MEU. That can be found here: https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA220013/page/271/mode/1up?q=meu&view=theater , on pages 271 and 272.

The excerpts on the first documents tells us that the MEU study began in at least FY 1988, although I think it may of started earlier, as it says that 1988 involved "advanced concept studies". The latest mention from either of the 2 documents comes for Doc 2, with a request that money be allocated in FY 1991. With that, the following timeline can be assembled:

(Doc 1) FY 1988 Program- "Performed advanced concept studies for the... Mission Essential Unit..."
(Doc 1) FY 1989 Program - "Develop baseline designs for the... Mission Essential Unit..."
(Doc 2) FY 1989 Program - "Investigated design concepts for... Mission Essential Unit (MEU)..."
(Doc 2) FY 1990 Program - "Perform HM&E system assessments of MEU" *Quick Google search says this is some kind of electrical stuff
(Doc 2) FY 1991 Program (Unclear if this was actually carried out) - "Perform HM&E and combat systems assessment for.. MEU..."

Also, the 2 documents label each event with a "(U)" with is later explained as being:
"Program to Completion: This is a continuing program to replace ships in the force levels with new technology to reduce cost, manning, weight, volume and to maximize ordnance carried."

The one other thing I want to touch on is it gives us a hint as to who carried out the study. It lists the following:
Program Element: 0603564N
Program Element Title: Ship Development (Advanced)
Project Number: S0408
Project Title: Ship Development (Advanced)

It's not much to go off of, but when I Google "0603564N", I get a bunch of stuff related to the current DDG(X) program, specifically budget stuff, all attributed to "PE 0603564N: Ship Prel Design & Feasibility Studies". I assume they're apart of NAVSEA, but I have no way to confirm this. Regardless, it might help in narrowing the search.

So, a bit more on all of this:

The Program Element numbers encode a lot of information about the nature of the work being done and who is doing it. The first two digits indicate the general class of program (06 = Reserch and development). For R&D PEs, the next two digits indicate what kind of R&D (03=Advanced Development). The next three digits indicate the specific program (which may contina multiple projects, as seen here). And the final digit indicates who "owns" this program element (N=Navy).

Here is a document at an unexpected source that breaks down PEs (and their relationship to the Future Years Defense Plan): https://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/dodd/corres/pdf/70457h_1100/70457h.pdf

In this case, the Navy lumps all of it's concept design work into a single PE, Over the years PE 0603564N has included DDG-51 modifications, LX(R), LCS, DDG(X), etc. Basically, any early stage surface ship design work other than aircraft carriers happens under this PE. But this code doesn't mean a design was destined for production, it can just be concept exploration.

"Program to Completion" -- You'll see this section under every PE. It's basically asking "what's the plan for finishing this program?" In this case, they basically say that this process of looking at new and different types of ships is a never-ending process.

HM&E means "Hull, Mechanical, and Electrical," which is naval architect lingo for all the stuff that makes a ship float (hull), move (mechanical) or power things (electrical). Broadly speaking, HM&E is the "boring" stuff that isn't combat systems (weapons, sensors, etc.). But things like new propulsion technologies or new hull shapes are HM&E developments, so it isn't always just routine.

That makes a lot more sense. Thanks. I'm trying to figure out what PE 0603564N actually is, by shifting through a bunch of old budget documents. Most of them are related to Burke or DDG(X) production. I may end up filing a FOIA, but I want to track down who actually did the study first. Do you have any idea what PE 0603564N actually is, or who they report to?

 

[TomS]

Do you have any idea what PE 0603564N actually is, or who they report to?

A PE is not an office, it's a type of activity. If you look further down in that section, you'll see a paragraph listing which offices and contractors are doing work under this PE. They would also have work under other PEs, for different types of work. PEs just help group similar types of work for budgeting purposes.

WORK PERFORMED BY: IN-HOUSE: NCSC, Panama City, FL; DTRC, Bethesda, MD; NSVC, White Oak, MD; NOSC, San Diego, CA. CONTRACTOR: John J. McMullen Associates Inc., Arlington, VA; Gibbs and Cox, Arlington, VA; Bath Iron Works, Bath, Me.

• NCSC Panama City is Naval Coastal Systems Center (later Naval Surface Warfare Center), who I usually associate with mine warfare and special warfare support but maybe also survey ships
• DTRC, Bethesda is the David Taylor Research Center, which does most of the Navy's hydrodynamics research.
• NSVC White Oak is a typo--it should be NSWC for Naval Surface Warfare Center. It was originally the Naval Ordnance Laboratory and did a lot of work on naval weapons and sensors.
• NOSC San Diego was Naval Ocean Systems Center, which worked on deep water projects (probably including SURTASS and survey ships).
• John J. McMullen Associates was one of the major US naval architecture companies (it became part of Alion for a while and what's left is now owned by SERCO)
• Gibbs and Cox is the other major US naval architecture firm and was the lead on DDG-51 and probably a bunch of other programs
• Bath Iron Works of course is the shipbuilder and, I assume ,the lead yard on DDG51 Flight III.

I don't think there's enough info to tell who was working specifically on MEU vs the other projects. There are quite a few listed here:

• DDG-51 Flight III: the old Flight III, not the new one.
• AR(X): a repair ship that was never actually pursued.
• BFC (Battleforce-Capable Combatant): basically a destroyer/cruiser successor that probably became DD-21.
• MEU (Mission Essential Unit): obviously.
• LCMC (Large Missile Carrying Combatant): a sort of proto-Arsenal Ship)\.
• LHD-5 GT Plug: the project that resulted in the gas turbine-powered LHD-8 version of the Wasp class.
• TAGSO(ICE) -- probably a typo for T-AGS (ICE), which I guess was an ice-capable survey ship. I'd never heard of this one.
• AOE (Variant) -- probably some evolution of the AOE-6 supply ships.
• L(X) -- the next generation amphibious ship that became LPD-17.

 

[that_person]

Do you have any idea what PE 0603564N actually is, or who they report to?

A PE is not an office, it's a type of activity. If you look further down in that section, you'll see a paragraph listing which offices and contractors are doing work under this PE. They would also have work under other PEs, for different types of work. PEs just help group similar types of work for budgeting purposes.

WORK PERFORMED BY: IN-HOUSE: NCSC, Panama City, FL; DTRC, Bethesda, MD; NSVC, White Oak, MD; NOSC, San Diego, CA. CONTRACTOR: John J. McMullen Associates Inc., Arlington, VA; Gibbs and Cox, Arlington, VA; Bath Iron Works, Bath, Me.

• NCSC Panama City is Naval Coastal Systems Center (later Naval Surface Warfare Center), who I usually associate with mine warfare and special warfare support but maybe also survey ships
• DTRC, Bethesda is the David Taylor Research Center, which does most of the Navy's hydrodynamics research.
• NSVC White Oak is a typo--it should be NSWC for Naval Surface Warfare Center. It was originally the Naval Ordnance Laboratory and did a lot of work on naval weapons and sensors.
• NOSC San Diego was Naval Ocean Systems Center, which worked on deep water projects (probably including SURTASS and survey ships).
• John J. McMullen Associates was one of the major US naval architecture companies (it became part of Alion for a while and what's left is now owned by SERCO)
• Gibbs and Cox is the other major US naval architecture firm and was the lead on DDG-51 and probably a bunch of other programs
• Bath Iron Works of course is the shipbuilder and, I assume ,the lead yard on DDG51 Flight III.

I don't think there's enough info to tell who was working specifically on MEU vs the other projects. There are quite a few listed here:

• DDG-51 Flight III: the old Flight III, not the new one.
• AR(X): a repair ship that was never actually pursued.
• BFC (Battleforce-Capable Combatant): basically a destroyer/cruiser successor that probably became DD-21.
• MEU (Mission Essential Unit): obviously.
• LCMC (Large Missile Carrying Combatant): a sort of proto-Arsenal Ship)\.
• LHD-5 GT Plug: the project that resulted in the gas turbine-powered LHD-8 version of the Wasp class.
• TAGSO(ICE) -- probably a typo for T-AGS (ICE), which I guess was an ice-capable survey ship. I'd never heard of this one.
• AOE (Variant) -- probably some evolution of the AOE-6 supply ships.
• L(X) -- the next generation amphibious ship that became LPD-17.

It at least narrows down the search, presuming nothing closed after the collapse of the Soviet Union. One other thing to keep in mind, I think the MEU may be a Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) capstone project. I have 2 reasons for this.
1. The CGBL study, which was painted by the same artist, I could've sworn was a Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) study. I don't have anything to prove it, but I swear it was
2. I found something called the "Large Capacity Missile Carrier" online, which was an NPS study, done in 1993, only slightly after this
Would you agree with my assessment?

 

[TomS]

It at least narrows down the search, presuming nothing closed after the collapse of the Soviet Union. One other thing to keep in mind, I think the MEU may be a Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) capstone project. I have 2 reasons for this.
1. The CGBL study, which was painted by the same artist, I could've sworn was a Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) study. I don't have anything to prove it, but I swear it was
2. I found something called the "Large Capacity Missile Carrier" online, which was an NPS study, done in 1993, only slightly after this
Would you agree with my assessment?

Bad news -- NSWC White Oak closed in 1998 and NOSC San Diego got completely reorganized in the early 2000s, losing its ASW role among other things. Their records presumably went somewhere, but lord only knows where.

I would have to disagree with the NPS angle. The Naval Postgraduate School is just that, a school for mid-grade officers. The Capstone products written there are not official projects, though they may be based on work the officers were involved in before they went to NPS.

 

[that_person]

It at least narrows down the search, presuming nothing closed after the collapse of the Soviet Union. One other thing to keep in mind, I think the MEU may be a Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) capstone project. I have 2 reasons for this.
1. The CGBL study, which was painted by the same artist, I could've sworn was a Naval Postgraduate School (NPS) study. I don't have anything to prove it, but I swear it was
2. I found something called the "Large Capacity Missile Carrier" online, which was an NPS study, done in 1993, only slightly after this
Would you agree with my assessment?

Bad news -- NSWC White Oak closed in 1998 and NOSC San Diego got completely reorganized in the early 2000s, losing its ASW role among other things. Their records presumably went somewhere, but lord only knows where.

I would have to disagree with the NPS angle. The Naval Postgraduate School is just that, a school for mid-grade officers. The Capstone products written there are not official projects, though they may be based on work the officers were involved in before they went to NPS.

That's unfortunate, it would definitely complicate further research.

But in summary, we know the MEU was a NAVSEA study from the 1988-91 time period, as part of the "Ship Development (Advanced), S0408" program. The study fell under PE 0603564N: Ship Prel Design & Feasibility Studies, simply meaning it was concept exploration, conducted by the Navy. The study was presumably carried out at one of the following locations: NCSC, Panama City, FL; DTRC, Bethesda, MD; NSVC, White Oak, MD; NOSC, San Diego, CA. CONTRACTOR: John J. McMullen Associates Inc., Arlington, VA; Gibbs and Cox, Arlington, VA; Bath Iron Works, Bath, Me. Am I interpreting that all correctly?

 

[TomS]

Sounds about right.

If I was guessing, I'd say that this was probably DTRC work with Gibbs & Cox as the contractor supporting. The painting has a distinct G&C style to me and DTRC had a track record of tinkering with offbeat ideas. They also did the Carrier of Large Objects studies, for example.

 

[that_person]

Speed can also be useful for ASW, especially for the variants without helicopter facilities. These ships would probably be depending on sprint-and-drift tactics to pace fast submarines. The faster the sprint, the longer the drift and the more time you can spend listening. (Think about Bras d'Or, for another example of this concept.)

Friedman mentions that CONFORM had been looking at several fast ASW ships in the run-up to the PXM. There was a Hydrofoil Corvette (1984), the Developmental Big Hydrofoil (1974), Grumman's HYD-2 (and some related designs), etc.

One of the PDFs you posted lead me down a rabbit hole, and I somehow stumbled across a list of nearly all the CONFORM studies. https://foils.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/AMV-INDEX-BILIOGRAPHY-9408.pdf
Of particular note is the Heavy Combatant (which for some god forsaken reason had a few variants based on the SL-7 hull), the High Survivability Corvette, Mobilization Frigate, and CGBL. There’s also numerous studies into alternative hull forms and aviation cruisers. Also, seeing as the CGBL is in here, I think it’s safe to rule the MEU was a CONFORM study.

 

[TomS]

Of particular note is the Heavy Combatant (which for some god forsaken reason had a few variants based on the SL-7 hull),

The SL-7 was seen as some magical technology for a while in the 1970s/80s. They were huge, and exceptionally fast for a merchant ship (and pretty fast even for naval vessels). They were also maintenance and fuel hogs, as one might expect of a 120,000 shp steam plant.

As fast sealift ships, they were valuable. As the basis of a warship, they'd have been awful.

 

[H_K]

Of particular note is the Heavy Combatant (which for some god forsaken reason had a few variants based on the SL-7 hull), the High Survivability Corvette, Mobilization Frigate, and CGBL. There’s also numerous studies into alternative hull forms and aviation cruisers.

The “battle group escort” (CGV) with CTOL or VTOL aircraft seems interesting… any more info anywhere on that design?

Concept level study of two Variants for a Battle Group Escort (CGV) (p.40)
The purpose of the study was to generate two near-term, low first-cost small carrier designs - a STOAL, Short Takeoff/Arrested Landing and a CTOAL, Catapult Takeoff/Arrested Landing. Some of the requirements include: cruiser variant with aircraft plus missile capability, ability to carry multiple CTOL aircraft, radar, missile banks, enhanced survivablljty, minimum detectability, minimum cost per aircraft based, determination of reprogrammlng of battle group assets necessary to provide CGV.

A study matrix is included for each concept which shows the effect on displacement of ten alternative designs. Variables include diesels. gas turbine and steam turbine generators; diesel gas turbine and nuclear/gas turbine propulsion and variations of armor, arresting gear and catapult types. The resulting differences in displacement among the alternatives and the selected propulsion plants for both concepts is discussed. Additional considerations addressed in a cursory manner are: aircraft spotting, combat system suite, manning requirements, electric load, energy consumption (including trail shaft operation) and survivability, detectability (noise signature and radar cross section) and asset analyses.

(…) p.79 The concept and requirements for the CGV were developed as part of the OP-36 Afternative Battle Group Concept Study (ABGCS). The stimulus for the VSTOL CGV was a set of studies that showed the need for future battle groups to deploy large numbers of extremely long range offensive and defensive missiles in concert with high endurance surveillance and targeting VSTOL aircraft. A unique aspect of this particular CONFORM study was to develop candidate designs using three diverse hull forms, namely a conventional monohull, a Small Waterplane Area Twin-hull (SWATH), and a Surface Effect Ship (SES).

Battle Group Escort (CGV) - CTOL Variant
12/01/82 (p.48)
This report describes the results of a CONFORM feasibility study of a Battle Group Escort (CGV): an AEGIS cruiser with the capacity of supporting a limited number of conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) aircraft. Four CGV versions are developed and ship characteristics such as hull form and arrangements, weights, manning, stability, structures, seakeeping, powering and combat system arrangements are determined and discussed.

Among the appendices included are the CONFORM level requirements, general arrangements, weight and space estimates, combat system performance, reliability measures and VLS-air operations interaction. There are figures for each CGV version illustrating a simplified flight and hangar deck; combaf system arrangements; flight deck configuration; simplified inboard profile; body plan; general configuration sketches; midship sections; and, proposed uptake routing schemes. Also presented graphically are the magazine protection scheme; baseline system machinery arrangements and schematic; waterjet propulsion system; torpedo defense system; and a schematic of the weapon ‘suite’ consisting of torpedo launcher and anti-torpedo rocket sketches and the launcher stations and acoustic apertures positioning

 

[TomS]

Of particular note is the Heavy Combatant (which for some god forsaken reason had a few variants based on the SL-7 hull), the High Survivability Corvette, Mobilization Frigate, and CGBL. There’s also numerous studies into alternative hull forms and aviation cruisers.

The “battle group escort” (CGV) with CTOL or VTOL aircraft seems interesting… any more info anywhere on that design?

Concept level study of two Variants for a Battle Group Escort (CGV) (p.40)
The purpose of the study was to generate two near-term, low first-cost small carrier designs - a STOAL, Short Takeoff/Arrested Landing and a CTOAL, Catapult Takeoff/Arrested Landing. Some of the requirements include: cruiser variant with aircraft plus missile capability, ability to carry multiple CTOL aircraft, radar, missile banks, enhanced survivablljty, minimum detectability, minimum cost per aircraft based, determination of reprogrammlng of battle group assets necessary to provide CGV.

A study matrix is included for each concept which shows the effect on displacement of ten alternative designs. Variables include diesels. gas turbine and steam turbine generators; diesel gas turbine and nuclear/gas turbine propulsion and variations of armor, arresting gear and catapult types. The resulting differences in displacement among the alternatives and the selected propulsion plants for both concepts is discussed. Additional considerations addressed in a cursory manner are: aircraft spotting, combat system suite, manning requirements, electric load, energy consumption (including trail shaft operation) and survivability, detectability (noise signature and radar cross section) and asset analyses.

(…) p.79 The concept and requirements for the CGV were developed as part of the OP-36 Afternative Battle Group Concept Study (ABGCS). The stimulus for the VSTOL CGV was a set of studies that showed the need for future battle groups to deploy large numbers of extremely long range offensive and defensive missiles in concert with high endurance surveillance and targeting VSTOL aircraft. A unique aspect of this particular CONFORM study was to develop candidate designs using three diverse hull forms, namely a conventional monohull, a Small Waterplane Area Twin-hull (SWATH), and a Surface Effect Ship (SES).

Battle Group Escort (CGV) - CTOL Variant
12/01/82 (p.48)
This report describes the results of a CONFORM feasibility study of a Battle Group Escort (CGV): an AEGIS cruiser with the capacity of supporting a limited number of conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) aircraft. Four CGV versions are developed and ship characteristics such as hull form and arrangements, weights, manning, stability, structures, seakeeping, powering and combat system arrangements are determined and discussed.

Among the appendices included are the CONFORM level requirements, general arrangements, weight and space estimates, combat system performance, reliability measures and VLS-air operations interaction. There are figures for each CGV version illustrating a simplified flight and hangar deck; combaf system arrangements; flight deck configuration; simplified inboard profile; body plan; general configuration sketches; midship sections; and, proposed uptake routing schemes. Also presented graphically are the magazine protection scheme; baseline system machinery arrangements and schematic; waterjet propulsion system; torpedo defense system; and a schematic of the weapon ‘suite’ consisting of torpedo launcher and anti-torpedo rocket sketches and the launcher stations and acoustic apertures positioning

Sounds like maybe a predecessor to the Carrier of Large Objects CV-Long design, which could carry a few CTOL aircraft.

 

[that_person]

I have this here, found it on NARA, dated 1986 iirc. It might be the CGV, although NARA called it “CGH-67 battlecruiser”. Also have found mention in several places about an SWATH aviation cruiser with the combat suite of a Burke. While I can’t tell you for sure which concept the image represents, it’s a fairly good representation of the general ideas from the time.

 

[TomS]

I have this here, found it on NARA, dated 1986 iirc. It might be the CGV, although NARA called it “CGH-67 battlecruiser”. Also have found mention in several places about an SWATH aviation cruiser with the combat suite of a Burke. While I can’t tell you for sure which concept the image represents, it’s a fairly good representation of the general ideas from the time.

Dated March 1, 1986, but then so are a bunch of other similar images. I suspect that is just the accession date to NARA or DVIDS.

Context clues say it's after 1978 (when the SH-60B was selected for LAMPS III) but almost certainly before 1986. In 1981, the USN tested the EX-83 mount with the Mk 86 gun fire control system, so I'd guess it was around that timeframe, when Phalanx looked like it might still be an interim solution.

NARA has another painting, looking very much like the same artist, showing a SWATH ocean surveillance ship (AGOS) with a 76mm gun, Penguin missiles, and LAMPS III helicopter with hangar. This also is dated March 1, 1986, but probably comes from around 1982-3, when the Navy was planning to operate the SWATH AGOS ships as naval vessels rather than MSC ships.

Tomorrow's Fleet

This html arti

www.usni.org

As a follow-on to these, the Navy requested but was denied advance funding for a small waterplane area twin hull (SWATH)-type AGOS class, to start in fiscal year 1984 and ultimately consist of six units. These SWATH ships are intended to operate in more remote waters and under rougher sea conditions than the civilian-manned Stalwart class. For this reason, the Navy wants to commission them as regular naval vessels.

Also Tom, sorry to hijack your thread. Your research into the PXM is very insightful

No worries. We do have that CGH-67 photo on the site a couple of times, so I'll talk to the mods about consolidating some stuff into a separate thread somewhere.

 

[that_person]

I believe the TAGOS picture is mislabeled, the armament and general arrangement looks closer to the information we have on the SWATH FFX. As for a date on the CGH-67, no objections from me on the 1982-3 estimate.

 

[TomS]

I believe the TAGOS picture is mislabeled, the armament and general arrangement looks closer to the information we have on the SWATH FFX. As for a date on the CGH-67, no objections from me on the 1982-3 estimate.

Oh, yeah, you're right. It's probably some variation of FFX.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/ffx-carter-era.24805/

 

[that_person]

Just as I suspected, the MEU was a CONFORM study ran in the late 80s and early 90s. Specifying a total of 4 hulls supports the idea of it being an Iowa replacement

 

[TomS]

Just as I suspected, the MEU was a CONFORM study ran in the late 80s and early 90s. Specifying a total of 4 hulls supports the idea of it being an Iowa replacement

The description of the MEU being intended to relieve the big-deck carriers of the ASW mission argues another direction, as though the MEU was a successor to SCS/VSS. But the plan to have only four is odd if that were the case; you'd really expect about one per two CVs. And the little art we have for MEU suggests something more like a strike cruiser, which would be a legit battleship replacement as the center of a Surface Action Group. Feels like it was a concept in search of a mission.

 

[that_person]

Just as I suspected, the MEU was a CONFORM study ran in the late 80s and early 90s. Specifying a total of 4 hulls supports the idea of it being an Iowa replacement

The description of the MEU being intended to relieve the big-deck carriers of the ASW mission argues another direction, as though the MEU was a successor to SCS/VSS. But the plan to have only four is odd if that were the case; you'd really expect about one per two CVs. And the little art we have for MEU suggests something more like a strike cruiser, which would be a legit battleship replacement as the center of a Surface Action Group. Feels like it was a concept in search of a mission.

I wouldn’t read to much into the ASW mission. The fact the painting has Harriers suggests there was more than just the ASW mission, they seem to be oversized SAG leaders more than anything, picking up the slack when carriers aren’t available. Don’t have anything concrete to support that of course, it’s just a hunch.

 

[TomS]

I wouldn’t read to much into the ASW mission. The fact the painting has Harriers suggests there was more than just the ASW mission, they seem to be oversized SAG leaders more than anything, picking up the slack when carriers aren’t available. Don’t have anything concrete to support that of course, it’s just a hunch.

In other research, you've said that the airwing was primarily SV-22, which jibes with the ASW mission. But 200 VLS cells does not. OTOH, absent any sort of guns or fire support capacity, it would lack the Marine Corps support that made the battleships viable budgetarily.

Tangentially, it's not the first time this basic idea bubbled up, though. Here's an interesting 1982 article about a similar idea -- a through-deck aviation ship with a complement of 12 aircraft (V/STOL Type A at this point in time) and 160 VLS cells for land attack, anti-ship, long-range AAW, and ASW missiles. There are two departures from the more traditional strike cruiser model, though:

1) It is a SWATH design for maximum seakeeping ability. The early 1980s was rife with these advanced marine vehicle ideas, most of which proved useful only for very niche applications.

2) It has minimal active onboard sensors (CIWS and nav radars, mainly) and is heavily dependent on offboard remote sensors and self-guided missiles.

2a) it is also supposed to be designed for reduced signatures, though we know now that the actual design drawn here would be sub-optimal from an RCS perspective.

The Offensive-Passive Ship

This html arti

www.usni.org

This seems to be an antecedent to Admiral Joseph Metcalf's Group Mike/Revolution at Sea concepts for the 1988 SCFRS/SOCS study process. From the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, the Navy had been percolating concepts around the ability to fire extremely long-range missiles and guide them using offboard networked sensors (including space-based sensors). It didn't quite jell at the time -- the technology for the networks just wasn't ready for prime time -- but this was the genesis of Arsenal Ship, Cooperative Engagement Capability, and Forward Pass, among others. We finally seem to be getting to the point where it could work, 40 years later.

 

[apparition13]

Just as I suspected, the MEU was a CONFORM study ran in the late 80s and early 90s. Specifying a total of 4 hulls supports the idea of it being an Iowa replacement

What is the source for table 5?

And what do they have in mind for the 80 BFCs?

 

[that_person]

Just as I suspected, the MEU was a CONFORM study ran in the late 80s and early 90s. Specifying a total of 4 hulls supports the idea of it being an Iowa replacement

What is the source for table 5?

And what do they have in mind for the 80 BFCs?

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1559-3584.1991.tb00940.x

The screenshots come from this paper here. No further context is provided to either the MEU or BFCs. I do find the numbers odd though.

 

[isayyo2]

Just as I suspected, the MEU was a CONFORM study ran in the late 80s and early 90s. Specifying a total of 4 hulls supports the idea of it being an Iowa replacement

Interesting to see only four MEUs considered, when at one time 12 CGVs were a possible route from the 1982 CBO Study.

https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/cbo/doc13b-entire.pdf

 

[Hood]

The MEU may well of been searching for a mission or intended to replace the Iowa-centred SAG flagship. Certainly it seems very similar in concept to the various hybrid conversions of the Iowas that cropped up earlier in the 1980s. Those too had AV-8s/helicopters (they pre-dated the Osprey programme) as well as VLS but with the added fun of 16in guns.

As TomS says, the 1980s were littered with these kind of hybrid crusiers combining V/STOL with traditional CG capabilities. Some were industry proposals, some were published ideas of naval officers and others were official studies. They all seem to get tangled up together - some veer into the SWATH/SES fetish of the 1980s and others were full up super-Ticos with flightdecks. Whether there was ever a sound reason to build them is less clear. Maybe the Harrier and Osprey inspired some blue-sky thinking, though its interesting to note that from today's perspective the F-35B has actually driven things the other way - the DDGH being expanded out into a proper aircraft carrier.

 

[jsport]

"Whether there was ever a sound reason to build them" they are the best multi capability ship affording the cdr's the most options and counters necessary while presenting an adversary w/ too many potentials to manage.

but too many miracles had to align where too many competitive interests prevailed w/sad compromises and 'oh' aircraft companies have never created a multi-purpose, high performance aircraft worth building a ship to magnify the capability.

 

[jsport]

"Whether there was ever a sound reason to build them" they are the best multi capability ship affording the cdr's the most options and counters necessary while presenting an adversary w/ too many potentials to manage.

but too many miracles had to align where too many competitive interests prevailed w/sad compromises and 'oh' aircraft companies have never created a multi-purpose, high performance aircraft worth building a ship to magnify the capability.

'oh' and SES are not a fetish.

 

[johnpjones1775]

I cross-posted this at the Warships Projects Board....


The 16th edition Norman Polmars' Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet (pp89-90) mentions a number of unusual carrier proposals being looked at at by the bottom up review at the time of publishing (1997).

They range from an "ultra large STOAL concept of 214,000tons (no angled deck apparant) to some "minimum capability carriers" both SWATH and monohull.

Most interesting to me were the CGV designs which don't seem to be strictly carriers at all but rather a revival of the old flight deck cruiser from the 30s, or the unnofficial proposals by Leopold for the Strike Cruiser.

Ranging from 26-43,000 tons and carrying 12-22 aircraft they had batteries of up to 192 missiles. The aircraft complements seem far too low for an actual carrier and the missile battery is 50% more than even a Ticonderoga.

A few were equipped for CTOL operations with angled deck.

The smallest of the airwings of the air wings was described as 2 helicopters 8 F14s an 2 Hawkeys.

This seems strange, but presumably was intended to provide a minimum Phoenix armed CAP to augment the missiles.

It seems to me ( a layman in these maters) that the small air groups would be a very poor substitute for a carrier. 4 would be needed to replace even a Midway in numbers (but not variety) of aircraft. However, as cruisers, particularly if S-3s and ASW helicopters were substituted for the fighters, the vessels might have been really formidable escorts.


Does anybody have any info or pics on these or any insight into what the designers were thinking?

well if this was a mid-late 90's idea, massive airwings wouldn't have necessarily been needed. there were no near peer threats to the USN in the late 90s or early 00s, and a CVL with an air wing of 22 aircraft would have done just fine launching aircraft to attack terrorists in iraq and afghanistan (though obviously at the time they couldn't know about those wars.) substituting them in for CVNs would have saved a lot of wear and tear on the bigger carriers potentially prolonging their life spans.