Why no USS Denfeld?

[Triton]

I have been reading about the 1949 "Revolt of the Admirals", Admiral Louis Emil Denfeld had guts to publicly disagree with Secretary of Defense Louis A. Johnson over the doctrine of strategic bombing and the cancellation of USS United States. Did Denfeld, Gallery, and the other Admirals save the Navy and Marine Corps in 1949?

Should a ship be named in his honor and the other Admirals in the "Revolt of the Admirals"?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,853921-1,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_of_the_Admirals

 

[F-14D]

I have been reading about the 1949 "Revolt of the Admirals", Admiral Louis Emil Denfeld had guts to publicly disagree with Secretary of Defense Louis A. Johnson over the doctrine of strategic bombing and the cancellation of USS United States. Did Denfeld, Gallery, and the other Admirals save the Navy and Marine Corps in 1949?

Should a ship be named in his honor and the other Admirals in the "Revolt of the Admirals"?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,853921-1,00.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_of_the_Admirals

Although they did a brave, courageous and patriotic thing, the "Revolt of the Admirals" didn't accomplish that much except to cost them their pensions, which is why you haven't seen anything on that scale since (there was reportedly a mini one in the 1990s involving a few AF generals regarding the lack of maintenance and supplies prevalent then, but nothing like this). What saved carrier air power was North Korea invading the South (we all know how effective the B-36 was during the Korean War--not a slam, making a point).

If anyone deserves to have a carrier named after them it would be Captain Frank Ault. Will never happen, though. Politicians love to celebrate themselves and their "profession". With the exception of the Nimitz, no US carrier since 1960 has been named for anything other than a politician

 

[r16]

can't call myself knowledgeable on carriers but USS Forrestal seems to be more impressive and USN seems satisfied with the eventual outcome .

 

[Abraham Gubler]

can't call myself knowledgeable on carriers but USS Forrestal seems to be more impressive and USN seems satisfied with the eventual outcome .

Ahh yeah... How impressive was the USS Forestall in 1951? In 1953? In 1955? Heah why not compare the USS United States to the USS Ronald Reagan and ask why would the US Navy be upset with the outcome? You know there is a fourth dimension and its called time...

Then of course a carrier isn't just a ship its the air wing as well. As detailed in Jared A. Zichek's excellent "Secret Aerospace Projects of the U.S. Navy: The Incredible Attack Aircraft of the USS United States, 1948-1949" the US Navy was planning on a very impressive and large strike aircraft for the USS US. Because the carrier was canceled this aircraft was delayed and shrunk and later emerged as the A3D Skywarrior.

 

[r16]

ok let me give a try ...

one of the things the layman notices all the time is that militaries are continiously stuck up in the old decisions they have made . An United States build earlier might have eaten those precious funds that allowed Forrestal being build , USAF had much more truth in its claims about its capability in the B-52 and a USN carrier force might have well been done away in a 1950s debate where the instrument in discussion would be the Stratofortress - which is still available in the 21st Century - instead of the B-36 the unvisible bomber of the Admirals' revolt . A very large bomber might have been certainly impressive but how many would have been available to what use , would it win the Vietnam , in case it was winnable ?

should not enter to a wild phantasy discussion of the pruning of certain ranks in a certain service which might well cause me expelled ; ı have other ideas for that to happen . Politics always play an important part in anything and USN has profitted from being the underdog in that case ; a solid lead that USAF is yet to break , though the Airmen have done much lately . And those seasalts deserve our "gratitude" since in so forcefully reminding people that nuking was not an option , they made our world somewhat safer . Think how many stone ages Curtiss Le May would have given us , if allowed free rein . One of the anectodes about the firebreathing general has him aboard a B-29 or 50 and the crew unfortunately drop an hatch or whatever on him . Washington had to rein in his war heroes in peace ; God protect us in war ...

 

[Triton]

There's no reason for having a Navy and Marine Corps. General Bradley tells me that amphibious operations are a thing of the past. We'll never have any more amphibious operations. That does away with the Marine Corps. And the Air Force can do anything the Navy can do nowadays, so that does away with the Navy.

—Secretary of Defense Louis A. Johnson, December 1949 [1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_of_the_Admirals

From comments like this by Secretary of Defense Louis A. Johnson, don't you believe that there was more at stake here than just the USS United States? Wasn't the "Revolt of the Admirals" at its heart a debate over the future of conventional weapons and forces at the beginning of the Atomic Age and a challenge to the idea that all future wars would be decided by nuclear weapons? If Johnson and his supporters had been able to continue unchallenged, would the United States have had a military that could only deliver nuclear weapons?

 

[F-14D]

There's no reason for having a Navy and Marine Corps. General Bradley tells me that amphibious operations are a thing of the past. We'll never have any more amphibious operations. That does away with the Marine Corps. And the Air Force can do anything the Navy can do nowadays, so that does away with the Navy.

—Secretary of Defense Louis A. Johnson, December 1949 [1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_of_the_Admirals

From comments like this by Secretary of Defense Louis A. Johnson, don't you believe that there was more at stake here than just the USS United States? Wasn't the "Revolt of the Admirals" at its heart a debate over the future of conventional weapons and forces at the beginning of the Atomic Age and a challenge to the idea that all future wars would be decided by nuclear weapons? If Johnson and his supporters had been able to continue unchallenged, would the United States have had a military that could only deliver nuclear weapons?

The USS United States was essentially the embodiment of the whole issue. The philosophy that the Air Force can do everything (something they pretty much have felt for their whole existence) was really strong right then, and the world had not yet reached the point where the idea of using nuclear weapons was generally abhorrent. Killing the United States in favor of more B-36s would eventually get the Navy and Marine Corps out of aviation entirely as the Navy would not be able to operate the upcoming larger jets and no more carriers would be built as critical skills would be lost. This was exactly what the Air Force wanted, a desire that continued for decades. With that gone, so the thinking went, most of the surface Navy could be eliminated as the Air Force would cover the skies worldwide. No need for the Marines, and who knows, maybe even eventually do away with most of the Army as well.

The United States was canceled and things went according to plan until those troublesome North Koreans didn't read the playbook and went and invaded the South. USAF wasn't ready, their bases were overrun and the first air response came from carriers, who also handled a lot of the close air support throughout the war. The B-36 wasn't a player and six carriers got ordered in six years.

 

[Deadtroopers]

This conjurs an ATL where the US is no longer able to keep the world safe for Fascism! Seriously a United States with a drastically reduced ability to interfere with the affairs of others wouldn't be a bad idea. Back to the topic, USS America was very specialised and the atom bombers intended for her. But for North Korea, both the Navy vision and the Air Force visions would have led to grave reductions in conventional warfare abilities and made for a much more dangerous world.

 

[F-14D]

This conjurs an ATL where the US is no longer able to keep the world safe for Fascism! Seriously a United States with a drastically reduced ability to interfere with the affairs of others wouldn't be a bad idea. Back to the topic, USS America was very specialised and the atom bombers intended for her. But for North Korea, both the Navy vision and the Air Force visions would have led to grave reductions in conventional warfare abilities and made for a much more dangerous world.

Hmm.

Well, ignoring the first two sentences, a few points might be in order.

1. The name of the cancelled ship was USS United States, not USS America (although two subsequent ships have been named America).

2. The United States was not specialized for the nuclear mission, although one of the reasons for her design was to be able to handle the larger jet aircraft expected to be introduced in the future, among them nuclear capable bombers, but also the normal tactical attack and fighter aircraft. In fact, the design of the Forestall owes much to the work done for the United States.

3. The Navy got its vision, delayed a few years, in CVA-59 and her successors. Not sure what grave reductions conventional warfare were experienced there.