Zumwalt "borrows" (and adapts) European carrier designs...

[zen]

On the other hand Clemenceau's hangar clearance was 23ft and CVA.01's was 18ft. Assuming that Verdun's was the same or greater that might cancel out the advantage of not having a gallery deck.

It's unclear from resources I have, where the arresting engines were located. But we know from RN designs that systems protruded under the ceiling of the hanger. This is why Victorious with her Gallery Deck was such an improvement. No vlsmbering up ladders to precariously maintain equipment some above a hanger floor.
So in those designs it was offset by higher ceilings.
The good news was Clemenceau had her catapults located such they didn't impact ceiling height in the hanger.

Yet for the likes of the later F14, 25ft height was needed.

Intriguingly when looking at the figures for the 1960 trade off studies, it's apparent that ship hull height carries implications for having a gallery deck or deck edge lifts.
120ft beam and 85ft height equates to both.
112ft beam and 76.5ft height implies a choice.

 

[TomS]

The Haruna and Shirane can be lumped with the Vittorio and Andrea Doria classes. Built for ASW warfare but with hefty SAM defences - only the Japanese DDH had ASROC.

Haruna and Shirane did not have "hefty SAM defenses." They had Sea Sparrow. (Eventually. the Harunas didn't have any SAMs until their mid 1980s refits.)

In the early 1980s, the JMSDF had assets for basically 4 ASW hunting groups, each centered on one DDH with three Sea King, one Tartar/Standard-MR DDG, and a few DDs. The DDs had DASH until it retired in the late 1970a and then had no aviation at all. Those Sea King DDs (the Hatsuyukis) only began arriving in 1982 and didn't displace the ex-DASH destroyers completely until the end of the Cold War.

 

[Hood]

Sorry yes for some reason I imagined they had a Tachikaze bow layout, forgot they had two 5in guns!

Invincible of course was the resulting of avoiding just such a result for the RN.
Actually, one day I stumbled on the realisation that if you removed the Sea Dart and Limbo from the Type 82 the result flight deck would be as large as the Tiger conversions. You'd have to reroute the aft funnel uptakes/downtakes to fit in a hangar for 3-4 Sea Kings but it would just be doable I think (two would certainly fit).

 

[TomS]

Sorry yes for some reason I imagined they had a Tachikaze bow layout, forgot they had two 5in guns!

They certainly would have been better ships if they had. But also more expensive.

 

[uk 75]

The navy that did embrace the SCS concept fully was Spain. Under the Franco regime it operated an old US escort carrier and purchased US AV8s for it.
They replaced it with a Spanish built vessel using a US SCS design.
The Spanish have gone on to refine the concept and sold the design to Australia as well.
Spain has focussed on getting a small number of very effective vessels in its navy.

 

[Archibald]

It was called "Dedalo" (= Daedalus) and was a sistership of France Lafayette and Bois Belleau: one of the nine Independance class carriers.

Then some misechievous minds called it "Pedalo" : "pedal boat".

With Lafayette & Bois Belleau, versus Arromanches, the French navy ended screwed both ways - as far as naval jets were concerned. Independance class carriers were fast enoughat 31 kt - but had too short a deck, less than 200 m.
And Colossus were reversed: longer deck ( 210 m) but too slow, 24 kt.
End result: none of the three could safely operates Aquilons - licence-build DH Venoms by SNCASE. So good old F4U Corsairs soldiered on, from Indochina (1952) to Suez (1956) to Crusaders (1963 !)

I often think a Jean Bart carrier, despite a flawed battleship hull, still would have a 250 m length and 31 kt...

 

[H_K]

For comparison the early 1980s air group of a Midway was 70 aircraft (24 F-4J, 24 A-7E, 10 A-6E, 4 KA-6D, 4 EA-6B and 4 E-2C) and the "Supers" had air groups of 86 aircraft (24 F-14A or F-4J, 24 A-7E, 10 A-6E, 4 KA-6D, 4 EA-6B. 4 E-2C, 10 S-3A and 6 SH-3H).

Focusing on the attack carrier mission, I’ve been idly wondering if a smaller carrier than CVV might have worked.

CVV was in some ways too big - too close in size to a CVN, but sacrificed too much capability so was never going to compare well to a Nimitz. But perhaps if one could build an attack carrier half the size of a CVN at half the cost, things would be different?

To test this out, I’m playing around with my 45,000 ton medium carrier. Half the propulsion of a CVN, no expensive nuke plant, half the catapults, half the elevators, half the manpower…

Looks like it could take approx. 52 aircraft: 30 F/A-18, 10 A-6E, 4 KA-6D, 4 EA-6B and 4 E-2C.

I’ll have to draw it up.

Of course might be tough to build for half of what a CVN cost…

 

[SSgtC]

For comparison the early 1980s air group of a Midway was 70 aircraft (24 F-4J, 24 A-7E, 10 A-6E, 4 KA-6D, 4 EA-6B and 4 E-2C) and the "Supers" had air groups of 86 aircraft (24 F-14A or F-4J, 24 A-7E, 10 A-6E, 4 KA-6D, 4 EA-6B. 4 E-2C, 10 S-3A and 6 SH-3H).

Focusing on the attack carrier mission, I’ve been idly wondering if a smaller carrier than CVV might have worked.

CVV was in some ways too big - too close in size to a CVN, but sacrificed too much capability so was never going to compare well to a Nimitz. But perhaps if one could build an attack carrier half the size of a CVN at half the cost, things would be different?

To test this out, I’m playing around with my 45,000 ton medium carrier. Half the propulsion of a CVN, no expensive nuke plant, half the catapults, half the elevators, half the manpower…

Looks like it could take approx. 52 aircraft: 30 F/A-18, 10 A-6E, 4 KA-6D, 4 EA-6B and 4 E-2C.

I’ll have to draw it up.

Of course might be tough to build for half of what a CVN cost…

The thing that killed the CVV wasn't the comparison to a Nimitz. It was the fact that you could build a repeat JFK, a full sized conventionally powered super carrier, for less than $100 million more. CVV cost 90% of what a super carrier did while only delivering 65% of its capabilities.

 

[CV12Hornet]

I've unfortunately not been able to find the budget documents again, but when the time came to actually order the CVV, the cost worked out to $1.6 billion for a CVV - and $2 billion for another Nimitz. Now, that's with first-of-class costs for the CVV, but it illustrates just how little money was saved with the design.

 

[bobtdwarf]

... instead of re-inventing the wheel in the 70's.

The idea is to blend together, Zumwalt "cheaper decks" (SCS / VSS / CVV) and the too few carrier designs from Europe. To bolster NATO fleets on one side, and the USN on the other - more flattops on both sides of the Atlantic.

That is, adapting...
- Invincible-class for SCS (20 000 tons)
- Clemenceau / Verdun class for the VSS - VSTOL Support Ship (30 000 tons)
- CVA-01 for CVV (55 000 tons + )

With some serious VSTOL aircraft pornfest on the ships - CL-84 AEW, naval AH-56 Cheyenne, Harriers and Convair 200.

Thoughts?

Your analogues are skew-whiff.

• Garibaldi is the closest to a European equivalent to the SCS.
• Invincible is closer to the VSS than the SCS.
• I think some "creative accounting" was employed when the French DNC calculated the displacement of PA58 because it's dimensions are similar to CVA.01 and the CVV. If not that, it would have been "lightly built".

This is arranged by waterline length. The shortest ships are at the top and longest are at the bottom.

View attachment 684968​

If you see any silly mistakes please inform me via a PM and I will make the necessary corrections.

I remember reading that the RN looked at using cheaper steel in CVA01 instead of the new light weight stuff and it would have added about 5000 tons... so perhaps some of the difference is different steel specifications and that extra 10-14 feet of beam is going to push a lot of water; but I suspect that at least part of it is going to be being built a bit lighter. One of the things that bit Clem in the butt down the road was as I recall her flight deck was stressed for 35,000 pound aircraft when first constructed not the 45,000 of Victorious. Crusaders really beat the snot out of her.

 

[bobtdwarf]

On the other hand Clemenceau's hangar clearance was 23ft and CVA.01's was 18ft. Assuming that Verdun's was the same or greater that might cancel out the advantage of not having a gallery deck.

It's unclear from resources I have, where the arresting engines were located. But we know from RN designs that systems protruded under the ceiling of the hanger. This is why Victorious with her Gallery Deck was such an improvement. No vlsmbering up ladders to precariously maintain equipment some above a hanger floor.
So in those designs it was offset by higher ceilings.
The good news was Clemenceau had her catapults located such they didn't impact ceiling height in the hanger.

Yet for the likes of the later F14, 25ft height was needed.

Intriguingly when looking at the figures for the 1960 trade off studies, it's apparent that ship hull height carries implications for having a gallery deck or deck edge lifts.
120ft beam and 85ft height equates to both.
112ft beam and 76.5ft height implies a choice.

as I recall you only really need that 25 feet if you want to do some maintenance... I want to say to the ejection seat but my memory is fuzzy on that. Just bring this up in case someone wants to in an emergency use some of the shorter height carriers that could otherwise handle the weights to deploy Tomcats

 

[apparition13]

For comparison the early 1980s air group of a Midway was 70 aircraft (24 F-4J, 24 A-7E, 10 A-6E, 4 KA-6D, 4 EA-6B and 4 E-2C) and the "Supers" had air groups of 86 aircraft (24 F-14A or F-4J, 24 A-7E, 10 A-6E, 4 KA-6D, 4 EA-6B. 4 E-2C, 10 S-3A and 6 SH-3H).

Focusing on the attack carrier mission, I’ve been idly wondering if a smaller carrier than CVV might have worked.

CVV was in some ways too big - too close in size to a CVN, but sacrificed too much capability so was never going to compare well to a Nimitz. But perhaps if one could build an attack carrier half the size of a CVN at half the cost, things would be different?

To test this out, I’m playing around with my 45,000 ton medium carrier. Half the propulsion of a CVN, no expensive nuke plant, half the catapults, half the elevators, half the manpower…

Looks like it could take approx. 52 aircraft: 30 F/A-18, 10 A-6E, 4 KA-6D, 4 EA-6B and 4 E-2C.

I’ll have to draw it up.

Of course might be tough to build for half of what a CVN cost…

That wasn't the role of the CVV. It was to do the fleet escort and sea control role freeing the big carriers for strike. That's why they dropped the attack aircraft and kept the fighters and all the support aircraft in the wing. Would Congress have used it to attack the CVNs? Yes. Would I have rather had more Kennedys? Yes. But the stated purpose was to free up the CVAs from doing things like escorting REFORGER so they could focus on attack missions against the Soviets and WP in event of war.

 

[bobtdwarf]

I've unfortunately not been able to find the budget documents again, but when the time came to actually order the CVV, the cost worked out to $1.6 billion for a CVV - and $2 billion for another Nimitz. Now, that's with first-of-class costs for the CVV, but it illustrates just how little money was saved with the design.

As a wise man once said: "Steel is cheap and air is free".. what kills you here is actually labor costs. Remember when they were thinking about reactivating Oriskany? A welder makes the same amount per hour whether they are torching on a CVN or CVA.

Where a 45-50-ish thousand ton CV makes sense for the US is if you can convince the UK and France to come along so they can each get one or two decent sized ships and the USN gets one or two to use as training carriers replacing the Lex and fill in for escort duties in time of war

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

On the other hand Clemenceau's hangar clearance was 23ft and CVA.01's was 18ft. Assuming that Verdun's was the same or greater that might cancel out the advantage of not having a gallery deck.

It's unclear from resources I have, where the arresting engines were located. But we know from RN designs that systems protruded under the ceiling of the hanger. This is why Victorious with her Gallery Deck was such an improvement. No vlsmbering up ladders to precariously maintain equipment some above a hanger floor.
So in those designs it was offset by higher ceilings.
The good news was Clemenceau had her catapults located such they didn't impact ceiling height in the hanger.

Yet for the likes of the later F14, 25ft height was needed.

Intriguingly when looking at the figures for the 1960 trade off studies, it's apparent that ship hull height carries implications for having a gallery deck or deck edge lifts.
120ft beam and 85ft height equates to both.
112ft beam and 76.5ft height implies a choice.

as I recall you only really need that 25 feet if you want to do some maintenance... I want to say to the ejection seat but my memory is fuzzy on that. Just bring this up in case someone wants to in an emergency use some of the shorter height carriers that could otherwise handle the weights to deploy Tomcats

Re the hangar clearances. For what it's worth.

Appendix E of Friedman's U.S. Aircraft Carriers said.

• CVV's clear hangar height was 24ft 6in and the hull depth was 87ft 6in.
• For comparison Nimitz had a clear hangar height was 26ft 6in and a hull depth of 100ft 6in.

All the statistics for CVV in Post 24 were taken from Conway's 1947-1995 and are the same as the statistics for CVV in Appendix E of Friedman. However...

• Conway's and Friedman wrote that the overall length of CVV was 912ft 0in, but Friedman also wrote that it was 923ft 0in over the booms.
• Conway's and Friedman wrote that the extreme beam of CVV was 256ft 6in, but Friedman also wrote that it included a removable extension of 14.6ft (fourteen-point-six feet, not fourteen feet six inches).
• Conway's and Friedman wrote that CVV's light displacement was 45,192 tons (like Conway's) and its designed full load displacement was 59,794 tons.
• However, Friedman also wrote that they were the designed displacements at August 1977. His weight data was from the Spring of 1979. At that date the light displacement was 47,055 tons and the full load displacement was 62,427 tons.
• Conway's and Friedman wrote that CVV had a crew of 4,024 men. However, according to Friedman this was the capacity of its accommodation.
• For comparison Conway's and Friedman said Nimitz had a crew of 5,621 men. According to Conway's this was for the ship plus air group. According to Friedman it was 439 officers and 5,182 other ranks for a total of 5,621 all ranks.

Friedman also wrote that the...

• The dimensions of It's flight deck were 912ft x 256ft 6in.
• The dimensions of it's elevators were 70ft x 52ft and they had a capacity of 110,000lbs.
• Two C 13-1 catapults.

 

[bobtdwarf]

sorry if you got tagged here was only trying to ask Zen a question

Intriguingly when looking at the figures for the 1960 trade off studies, it's apparent that ship hull height carries implications for having a gallery deck or deck edge lifts.
120ft beam and 85ft height equates to both.
112ft beam and 76.5ft height implies a choice.

I wonder if the 120 x 85 is the minimum or if something like 118 x 78-80 could also get you both? I once thought I was so clever figuring out it must be a top weight issue and that simply using aluminum to lower the weight would be the solution...yeah right up until the point I realized a decent jet fuel fire would burn hot enough to melt the aluminum in the gallery deck and make a real mess of things. lol

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Post 14 with some parts emboldened and underlined by me.

folks,
Just wanted you to know that all these carrier threads I started (or posted in) are related to some kind of "meta timeline" in the making.

The pitch (not entirely serious, and very much a pretext for a carrier wank TBFH) have some nazis adding Kockums-like AIP to Type XXI submarines in 1945, and then going into hiding for a decade. Preparing the "revenge".
Then a day of 1956 all hell breaks lose.

Basically their AIP submarines start playing havoc with international maritime traffic, paralyzing it.
They also have limited SAM capability to screw air traffic over the Atlantic. Perhaps with evolved Me-163 or Bachem Natters launched from ramps and recovered... by parachutes.

Only AIP or nuclear submarines could run after them, but by 1956 there are not many of them except Nautilus.

As I said, this is a pretext for a "carrier wank".

In phase 1, the USN, RN and their allies makes an all-out, huge effort to get as many carrier decks as feasible. Meanwhile any available battleship and cruiser is given heavy SAM (for air defense) and cruise missiles (Regulus).

Phase 1 manages to get 72 decks & carriers in three categories - small, medium, and large
10 000 to 25 000 tons
> 25000 to 45 000 tons
> above 50 000 tons.
The small ones reveive N-156N for limited air defense.
The medium ones have Crusader, Skylancer, and Super Tiger
The heaviest have Crusader III and Phantom.

In Phase 2 (late 60's) because of the losses and because the old decks are badly aging...
Zumwalt steps in, with the following merge-ups
- Small > SCS & Invincible / Asturias / Doria
- Medium > Verdun & VSS
- Heavy: CVA-01 / CVV

The USN was "doing one" in 1956 in the "real world".

According to Jane's Fighting Ships 1956-57

• The USN had 37 aircraft carriers, 66 escort carriers, 15 battleships, 2 large cruisers, 29 heavy cruisers, 43 light cruisers, 5 frigates of the DL variety, 367 destroyers, 10 destroyer minelayers, 267 destroyer escorts, 92 destroyer escort transports (APD), 204 submarines, 25 escorts, 310 mine craft, 116 patrol vessels, 562 amphibious ships & craft, 550 fleet auxiliaries and 1,800 service craft, which adds to exactly 4,500 ships & craft.
• The book said 1,000 were active and were 1,500 in reserve, excluding service craft, which adds to 4,300 instead of 4,500.
• The regular personnel strength at 30th June 1956 was 863,774 of which 662,774 were USN and 201,000 were USMC.
• Appropriations for 1956-57 were $10,478,000,000.

Active Warships at 30.06.56

I've got another document that shows 973 warships and auxiliaries active at 30th June 1956. That consists of 24 aircraft carriers (including 2 escort carriers), 339 surface warships (3 battleships, 16 cruisers, 250 destroyers and 70 destroyer escorts, 110 submarines (including 2 SSG), one command ship (presumably Norfolk), 113 mine warfare vessels, 11 patrol vessels, 139 amphibious ships and 236 auxiliaries.

However, Appendix 3 Aviation Ships of United States Naval Aviation 1910–1995 says that a day later (1st July 1956) the USN had 30 active aircraft carriers, comprising 19 CVA, 7 CVS, one CVL and 3 CVE. This source also says that the USN had 14 other active aviation ships, comprising 5 AV, 7 AVP, one AVM and one AVS.

U.S. Aircraft Carriers at 30.06.56

• The 37 aircraft carriers comprised 2 Forrestals, 3 Midways, 24 Essexes, Enterprise, 2 Saipans and 5 Independence class.
  • Of the Forrestal and Kitty Hawk classes.
    • Forrestal and Saratoga had been completed by the middle of 1956
    • Ranger was laid down in August 1954 and would complete in August 1957
    • Independence was laid down in July 1955 and would complete in January 1959
    • Kitty Hawk was on order. She would be laid down in December 1956 and be completed in April 1961.
    • Constellation would be ordered in the FY1957, laid down in September 1957 and completed in October 1961.
    • At this time there were three shipyards building "supers" namely, Newport News, New York Naval Shipyard and New York Shipbuilding Corporation.
    • The first nine super carriers (Forrestal to John F. Kennedy) were built in an average of 3½ years.
  • Of the 3 Midway class.
    • Franklin D. Roosevelt had her SCB.110 refit from April 1954 to April 1956.
    • Midway started her SCB.110 refit in June 1955 and it would be completed in October 1957.
    • Coral Sea would have her SCB.110A refit from May 1957 to January 1960.
  • 15 out of 24 Essexes had been refitted to SCB.27 standard by the middle of 1956.
    • 9 to SCB.27A standard.
      • Bennington, Essex, Randolph, Wasp and Yorktown (5 ships) had completed their SCB.125 refits by the middle of 1956.
      • 2 were having their SCB.125 refits.
        • Hornet started hers in August 1955 and it would be completed in August 1956
        • Kearsarge started hers in January 1956 and it would be completed in January 1957.
      • 2 were to have SCB.125A refits, which were funded under the FY1957 programme.
        • Oriskany had her refit from January 1957 to February 1959.
        • Lake Champlain's refit was cancelled. She was the only SCB.27 Essex that didn't receive an angled flight deck.
    • 6 to SCB.27C standard.
      • Bon Homme Richard, Lexington and Shangri-La had their SCB.125 refits while they were having their SCB.27C refit.
      • Hancock started her SCB.125 refit in April 1956 and it would be completed in November 1956.
      • Tinconderoga would have her SCB.125 refit from August 1956 to October 1957.
      • Intrepid would have her SCB.125 refit from September 1956 to May 1957.
• The 66 escort carriers comprised 10 Bogues, 34 Cassablancas, 19 Commencement Bays and 3 Sangamons.
  • 30 ships were reclassified "Escort Helicopter Aircraft Carriers" (CVHE) on 12th June 1955. That is 10 Bogues, 10 Cassablancas, 7 Commencement Bays and all 3 Sangamons.
  • 23 ships were reclassified "Utility Aircraft Carriers" (CVU) on 12th June 1955. They were all Cassablancas.
  • The 34th Cassablanca was Thetis Bay. She was reclassified "Assault Helicopter Aircraft Carrier-One" (CVHE-1) on 1st July 1955.
  • 12 Commencement Bays retained the "Escort Aircraft Carrier" (CVE) classification.
  • The USN's CVE strength had been 66 ships since the late 1940s and the Service wouldn't discard any until 1959.

Part of Post 14 again

Phase 1 manages to get 72 decks & carriers in three categories - small, medium, and large

10 000 to 25 000 tons
> 25000 to 45 000 tons
> above 50 000 tons.
The small ones reveive N-156N for limited air defense.
The medium ones have Crusader, Skylancer, and Super Tiger
The heaviest have Crusader III and Phantom.

The USN alone had 103 aircraft carriers of all types at at 30th June 1956 in the "real world" plus another 4 building, on order or projected.

 

[bobtdwarf]

so what I hear you saying is the real world timeline was already a USN 'carrier" wank?

I will see myself out lol

 

[BlackBat242]

The difference is PA 58 is a scaled up Clemenceau, mostly length wise. Very similar to the modernised Essex class in terms of overall dimensions. (Might be useful in fact to add Oriskany to your table)

PA 58’s flight deck remained much smaller than CVA-01 or CVV, which had much beamier hulls to support the larger deck.

View attachment 684969

Where did you get that drawing of PA-58 Verdun?

Here is the one in Conway's:



Also note that none of this discussion covers draft (hull depth below waterline), which is an important factor in displacement.

I haven't seen anything giving PA-58"s draft (normal or full-load), but CVV's was 34' (presumably full-load), and CVA-01's was 33.5'.
The Clemenceaus' was 28' 3".

{edit: I have since found a listing that PA-58 Verdun's planned full-load draft was to be 32'... so definitely less than either CVV or CVA-01.}

 

[BlackBat242]

Yet for the likes of the later F14, 25ft height was needed.

as I recall you only really need that 25 feet if you want to do some maintenance... I want to say to the ejection seat but my memory is fuzzy on that. Just bring this up in case someone wants to in an emergency use some of the shorter height carriers that could otherwise handle the weights to deploy Tomcats

Re the hangar clearances. For what it's worth.

Appendix E of Friedman's U.S. Aircraft Carriers said.

• CVV's clear hangar height was 24ft 6in and the hull depth was 87ft 6in.
• For comparison Nimitz had a clear hangar height was 26ft 6in and a hull depth of 100ft 6in.

The issue was with the 17' 6" clear hangar height of the Midway class, which would prevent ejection seat removal and landing gear drop checks with F-14s.

Presumably, since the Clemenceaus had a 22' 7" clear hangar height, that of PA-58 Verdun would be at least the same if not higher.

 

[bobtdwarf]

The difference is PA 58 is a scaled up Clemenceau, mostly length wise. Very similar to the modernised Essex class in terms of overall dimensions. (Might be useful in fact to add Oriskany to your table)

PA 58’s flight deck remained much smaller than CVA-01 or CVV, which had much beamier hulls to support the larger deck.

View attachment 684969

Where did you get that drawing of PA-58 Verdun?

Here is the one in Conway's:

View attachment 685095

Also note that none of this discussion covers draft (hull depth below waterline), which is an important factor in displacement.

I haven't seen anything giving PA-58"s draft (normal or full-load), but CVV's was 34' (presumably full-load), and CVA-01's was 33.5'.
The Clemenceaus' was 28' 3".

I think that may be from post 74 on this thread https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...early-60s-what-does-it-look-like.40164/page-2

 

[BlackBat242]

The difference is PA 58 is a scaled up Clemenceau, mostly length wise. Very similar to the modernised Essex class in terms of overall dimensions. (Might be useful in fact to add Oriskany to your table)

PA 58’s flight deck remained much smaller than CVA-01 or CVV, which had much beamier hulls to support the larger deck.

View attachment 684969

Where did you get that drawing of PA-58 Verdun?

Here is the one in Conway's:

View attachment 685095

Also note that none of this discussion covers draft (hull depth below waterline), which is an important factor in displacement.

I haven't seen anything giving PA-58"s draft (normal or full-load), but CVV's was 34' (presumably full-load), and CVA-01's was 33.5'.
The Clemenceaus' was 28' 3".

I think that may be from post 74 on this thread https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...early-60s-what-does-it-look-like.40164/page-2

Ah... so his personal version (much like my personal PA-58 Joffre).

 

[BlackBat242]

Note edit in post #58 above:
{edit: I have since found a listing that PA-58 Verdun's planned full-load draft was to be 32'... so definitely less than either CVV or CVA-01.

 

[Archibald]

The renewed success of what was, once, a half baked idea of a thread, surprised me. Keep on the good work folks. The PA58 vs CVA-01 vs CVV comparison is well worth it.

BlackBat242​

I like that one. Any context ? And I suppose you already knows there was a PA59 the same year 1959... in a few words: the French Navy badly wanted three carriers, but PA58 Verdun is only part of the story. When it proved too expensive, in 1959 the French Navy instead asked for a third Clemenceau ( = Foch like clone), with only minor improvements.
Smart move, but it was too late: De Gaulle now returned to power had already committed the bulk of French military funding to the Force de Frappe (first step: Mirage IVA, IOC October 1964).

My understanding of PA58 is: France tried to got its own Vigilante carrier-borne supersonic bomber for nuclear strike. Back in 1958 the FDF wasn't very well defined, notably its main vector. Boomers with SLBM hasn't prevailed it (Regulus II, cough, Vigilante). So PA58 could have been the FDF main strike platform, instead of the Redoutable-class submarines with M1 SLBMs.
SNCASO and Dassault were requested to design naval variants of the Mirage IV (IVM) and SO-4060 (M). There the latter may have had an edge, as it was a classic swept wing - tailed design. A Mirage IV, even shrunk to fit on a PA58, would be hampered with its delta wing.

More generally: found some numbers at Google books and elsewhere. For the sake of comparison, first decade of the FDF (1958-1968) cost France half of Apollo budget, that is, north of $12 billion dollars (Apollo ended at $25 billion). For a medium power like France, it was quite a gargantuan expense. And before 1962, the military budget cake also had to include conventional weapons for NATO committments, plus Algerian bush war. De Gaulle made the ranking clear, from the beginning: 1st- FDF, 2nd NATO, 3rd Algeria.

In 1960 the Armée de l'Air was procuring Mirage IIIC for air defense and NATO; Mirage IVA for the FDF; and... Skyraiders plus T-28s to fight in Algeria. Mirage pilots were being rotated to Algeria on a regular basis, flying COIN missions. Must have been pretty bizarre to jump from, say, SMB-2 to T-28.

 

[BlackBat242]

The context is just some alternate-history doodling.

My Joffre was to be in place of the "Improved Clemenceau" PA-59. Basically, a "finished" version of PA-58 that would actually be ordered (at least one, and maybe 2).

This would, of course, negate the "Improved Clemenceau" completely... it would never be proposed (at least for France).


I have done a lot more work (with a couple of friends) on 4 different alternate-histories (divergent points being 1945+, 1954+, 1962+, and 1978+) - I run Australia & New Zealand , one friend usually ran the UK. and the other Canada.

At one time I had considered Australia ordering an "Improved Clemenceau" in the early 1960s (in the time period when they historically had considered buying a modernized Essex class from the US), but decided that outside of uniquely-modified Majestics & Centaurs, they would design & build their own carriers (1970s or later).

 

[BlackBat242]

Oh... I forgot that I had this image I found on the net:

 

[Hood]

Just wondering why the Clemenceau-class and the PA58 had shallower draughts? Was it a docking limitation?

Just for further comparison, HMS Eagle had a normal draught of 33.25 ft and a full weight draught of 36ft by 1964.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

So what I hear you saying is the real world timeline was already a USN 'carrier" wank?

I will see myself out lol

Correct! In 1956 the USN had...

• Several times more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world put together.
• Been laying down super carriers at the rate of one-a-year since 1952 and it looks like the USA had the capacity to lay down two or three-a-year if the American Electorate & Congress was prepared to provide the money.
• Refitted 15 Essex class to SCB.27A/C standard and was in the process of refitting 14 of them to SCB.125/125A standard.
• The fourth largest air force in the world after the USAF, USSR and (pre-Sandys) RAF. Although not necessarily in that order.

Edit: I forgot to include that they were also in the process of refitting the 3 Midways to SCB.110/110A standard.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

folks,
Just wanted you to know that all these carrier threads I started (or posted in) are related to some kind of "meta timeline" in the making.

The pitch (not entirely serious, and very much a pretext for a carrier wank TBFH) have some Nazis adding Kockums-like AIP to Type XXI submarines in 1945, and then going into hiding for a decade. Preparing the "revenge".
Then a day of 1956 all hell breaks lose.

This sounds like a Lewis Gilbert directed Bond movie or a Gerry Anderson series but 10 years earlier.

These submarines will need bases to operate from and where said bases are will have a lot of influence on the countermeasures that the USA and its allies employ.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

In phase 1, the USN, RN and their allies makes an all-out, huge effort to get as many carrier decks as feasible. Meanwhile any available battleship and cruiser is given heavy SAM (for air defense) and cruise missiles (Regulus).

Phase 1 manages to get 72 decks & carriers in three categories - small, medium, and large
10 000 to 25 000 tons
> 25000 to 45 000 tons
> above 50 000 tons.
The small ones receive N-156N for limited air defense.
The medium ones have Crusader, Skylancer, and Super Tiger
The heaviest have Crusader III and Phantom.

In the case of the USN.

• Construction of super carriers would continue at the rate of at least one-per-year. So there would be 12 by the late 1960s instead of 9 including 6 Enterprise class instead of Enterprise, America and JKF.
• I'd expect Lake Champlain to have the SCB.125A refit that was cancelled in the "real world".
• The 8 Essexes that weren't modernised in the "real world" would probably be refitted to SCB.27C/SCB.125 standard in the second half of the 1950s.
• Saipan and Wright may be fitted with steam catapults and angled flight decks.
• Three Commencement Bay class CVE were still in service in the middle of 1956. I'd expect the rest of the class and the 3 Sangamons to be brought back into service. Some of the Cassablanca and Bogue class might be brought back into service too.
• The 10,000 to 25,000 ton category may well be filled by an updated version of the SCB.43 escort carrier. According to Friedman and contemporary editions of Jane's one ship of this type was in the FY 1953 building programme, but was removed (with other projects) a year later to pay for Saratoga. According to Appendix E of Friedman it had 2 H 4B catapults and could carry 30 S-2 Trackers. In common with World War II I'd expect the vast majority to be built in the USA and many of them transferred to the navies of allied countries under MDAP.
• I'd also expect a large increase of the share prices of Grumman, Lockheed and Sikorsky due to these firms receiving large orders for S-2 Trackers, P-2 Neptunes and HSS Seabats respectively.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

folks,
Just wanted you to know that all these carrier threads I started (or posted in) are related to some kind of "meta timeline" in the making.

The pitch (not entirely serious, and very much a pretext for a carrier wank TBFH) have some Nazis adding Kockums-like AIP to Type XXI submarines in 1945, and then going into hiding for a decade. Preparing the "revenge".
Then a day of 1956 all hell breaks lose.

This sounds like a Lewis Gilbert directed Bond movie or a Gerry Anderson series but 10 years earlier.

These submarines will need bases to operate from and where said bases are will have a lot of influence on the countermeasures that the USA and its allies employ.

After reading this again you might as well have asked...

"World War III breaks out in 1956 and the USSR has hundreds of FDB and AIP submarines. How do the NATO navies counter them?"​

So they'd implement the 1956 version of their ASW mobilisation plan. Whatever that was, because I don't know.

Does anyone know how many FDB and AIP submarines the USSR had in 1956?​

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

folks,
Just wanted you to know that all these carrier threads I started (or posted in) are related to some kind of "meta timeline" in the making.

The pitch (not entirely serious, and very much a pretext for a carrier wank TBFH) have some Nazis adding Kockums-like AIP to Type XXI submarines in 1945, and then going into hiding for a decade. Preparing the "revenge".
Then a day of 1956 all hell breaks lose.

This sounds like a Lewis Gilbert directed Bond movie or a Gerry Anderson series but 10 years earlier.

These submarines will need bases to operate from and where said bases are will have a lot of influence on the countermeasures that the USA and its allies employ.

There should be an Alien Space Bats Forum for threads like this.

For what it's worth Lewis Gilbert was directing "Reach for the Sky" in 1956. Gerry Anderson's first puppet show "The Adventures of Twizzle" didn't premiere until 1957 but he might have started making it in 1956.

This also reminds me of the plot of "Moonraker" the novel in which some Nazis build a ballistic missile armed with a Soviet supplied nuclear warhead that they plan to use to destroy London.

If I remember correctly from the novel and its BBC Radio adaptation Auric Goldfinger was a Soviet agent. His "Evil Plot to Rule the World" was to steal the gold rather than "nuke" it and he used a Soviet-supplied atomic bomb to blow the vault open rather than cut it open with a laser. In the film (directed by Guy Hamilton) the atomic bomb was supplied by Communist China and Burt Kwok (who else) played the technician who armed the bomb. Though coming to think of it Goldfinger might have been in league with the Soviets rather than a Soviet agent and the atomic bomb might have been stolen from the US Army in Germany.

Then in "You Only Live Twice" (which Lewis Gilbert did direct) it's Communist China paying SPECTRE to provoke a war between the USA and USSR by hijacking their spaceships. Burt Kwok played one of Blofeld's henchmen.

Then we have "The Spy Who Loved Me" in (Gilbert's second Bond film) in which a mad billionaire wants to destroy the world by stealing ballistic missile submarines which will destroy Moscow and New York provoking World War III.

Based on the above... Perhaps it could be the some Nazis in league with Communist China and the USSR (this was several years before the Sino-Soviet Split) with the Nazis fighting a proxy-war against the West on behalf of the Communists.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Phase 1 manages to get 72 decks & carriers in three categories - small, medium, and large
10 000 to 25 000 tons
> 25000 to 45 000 tons
> above 50 000 tons.
The small ones receive N-156N for limited air defense.
The medium ones have Crusader, Skylancer, and Super Tiger
The heaviest have Crusader III and Phantom.

USN Part 2 - Although (according to Google Translate) you want this to be a "Porte-avions branler"...

• Several years ago I constructed a spreadsheet of the USN's VP squadrons from 1948 to 1996 using the Dictionary American Naval Aviation Squadrons.
  • At the end of 1955 there were 32 squadrons: 21 with P2V Neptunes, 2 with PBM Mariners and 9 with P5M Marlins.
  • At the end of 1956 there were 31 squadrons: 21 with P2V Neptunes and 10 squadrons of P5M Marlins.
  • As far as I know all the squadrons had 12 aircraft, which if correct would have made a total of 384 aircraft at the end of 1955 and 372 aircraft at the end of 1956.
  • Continuing until the end of the Cold War.
    • There were 30 squadrons from the end of 1957 to the end of 1967.
    • There were 29 squadrons at the end of 1968
    • There were 24 squadrons from the end of 1969 and that strength was maintained until the end of 1990.
    • There were 10 P5M squadrons until the end of 1959 and then the number of Marlin squadrons was reduced to nil by the end of 1968.
    • There were 20 P2V Neptune squadrons until the end of 1959. It increased to 21 in 1960 and 1961.
    • The number of Neptune squadrons declined as the Orion came into service.
    • There were 6 Neptune squadrons at the end of 1968. They disbanded or converted to the P-3 Orion during the course of 1969.
    • The P-3 Orion entered service in 1962 and 2 squadrons were operating the aircraft at the end of 1962. The number of squadrons gradually increased to 24 by the end of 1969 and there were still 24 Orion squadrons at the end of 1990. As far as I know all the Orion squadrons had 9 aircraft from 1962 to 1990.
• I also tried to construct one for the NRF VP squadrons. It's all over the place.
  • There were 26 at the end of 1955.
  • 58 at the end of 1956 and 1957.
  • 61 at the end of 1958 and 1959.
  • Then it fluctuated between 61 and 71 in the period 1960 to 1967.
    • That is 68 at the end of 1961 and 64 at the end of 1967.
    • The peak was 71 in 1963 and the trough was 61 in 1965.
  • All the NRF VP squadrons were disbanded on 1st January 1968. My spreadsheet doesn't say which types they were equipped with or what the number of aircraft per squadrons was.
  • 12 NRF VP squadrons were formed on 1st November 1970.
    • Initially there were 11 squadrons of Neptunes and one squadron of Orions.
    • As far as I know the Neptune squadrons had 12 aircraft and the Orion squadrons had 9 aircraft.
    • At the end of 1974 there were 6 Neptune and 6 Orion squadrons.
    • According to my copy of Norman Polmar's "World Combat Aircraft Directory" which was published in 1975 the NRF had 36 SP-2H Neptunes in 3 squadrons and 81 P-3A Orions in 9 squadrons.
    • However, my spreadsheet says there were 2 Neptune and 10 Orion squadrons at the end of 1975.
    • A thirteenth NRF VP squadron (which was equipped with P-3As) was formed on 1st July 1976.
    • There was one Neptune and 12 Orion squadrons at the end of 1976.
    • VP-67 the last Neptune squadron converted to the Orion in 1977.
    • Thus there were 13 Orion squadrons at the end of 1977 and this strength was maintained until September 1994 when 4 of squadrons were disbanded.
• I think...
  • All the NRF squadrons would have been mobilised.
  • Development of the Orion would have been accelerated or an aircraft with the same performance as the Orion to be put in service as soon as possible.

 

[bobtdwarf]

all those carriers and all those aircraft being fielded by a US with roughly half the population of today...

 

[SSgtC]

all those carriers and all those aircraft being fielded by a US with roughly half the population of today...

Much, much higher tax rates. ESPECIALLY for the top tier earners. And far fewer loopholes to cut your tax bill with. We also had really high tariffs and duties on pretty much everything that was imported to bring in more revenue. We also had more corporate taxes since we didn't let businesses get away with the off shore "headquarters" bullshit they do now. Companies like Boeing and Amazon haven't paid a dime in income taxes in years because of that. We never would have let them get away with that back then. We could still field that kind of force today if we needed to. It would just take a massive overhaul of our tax code and a couple decades to rebuild the dockyards and build the new ships

 

[bobtdwarf]

all those carriers and all those aircraft being fielded by a US with roughly half the population of today...

Much, much higher tax rates. ESPECIALLY for the top tier earners. And far fewer loopholes to cut your tax bill with. We also had really high tariffs and duties on pretty much everything that was imported to bring in more revenue. We also had more corporate taxes since we didn't let businesses get away with the off shore "headquarters" bullshit they do now. Companies like Boeing and Amazon haven't paid a dime in income taxes in years because of that. We never would have let them get away with that back then. We could still field that kind of force today if we needed to. It would just take a massive overhaul of our tax code and a couple decades to rebuild the dockyards and build the new ships

Yup, I was more commenting about the manpower angle. All your points are totally valid as well

 

[SSgtC]

all those carriers and all those aircraft being fielded by a US with roughly half the population of today...

Much, much higher tax rates. ESPECIALLY for the top tier earners. And far fewer loopholes to cut your tax bill with. We also had really high tariffs and duties on pretty much everything that was imported to bring in more revenue. We also had more corporate taxes since we didn't let businesses get away with the off shore "headquarters" bullshit they do now. Companies like Boeing and Amazon haven't paid a dime in income taxes in years because of that. We never would have let them get away with that back then. We could still field that kind of force today if we needed to. It would just take a massive overhaul of our tax code and a couple decades to rebuild the dockyards and build the new ships

Yup, I was more commenting about the manpower angle. All your points are totally valid as well

Well, we had the draft then too. We only saw the number of Ships truly plummet once the draft was gone and recruiting couldn't keep up with manpower needs

 

[Pioneer]

BlackBat242
When it proved too expensive, in 1959 the French Navy instead asked for a third Clemenceau ( = Foch like clone), with only minor improvements.

By any chance do we know specifically what these "minor improvements" entailed?


Regards
Pioneer

 

[BlackBat242]

Yes, we do.

PA-59

According to the 2006 excellent monograph on the Clémenceau and Foch by Jean Moulin (a MUST on all Marine Nationale carriers from PA-01 to Charles de Gaulle) :

PA-59 would have shared the same hull and machinery as PA-54 with an all-missile armament involving US Terriers.

Conway's Fighting Ships 1947-1995 has only (in the entry for PA58):
Quote:
PA58, possibly to have been named Verdun, was delayed by financial problems, and the Defence Staff considered a smaller design, derived from Clemenceau, in which the after guns would have been replaced by Masurcas, before the project was finally abandoned in 1961.


http://www.stratisc.org/PA8.htm

[Hervé Coutau-Bégarie]
Le troisième de la série, provisoirement dénommé PA 58 (le nom de Verdun a été proposé) et destiné à remplacer l’Arromanches dont le désarmement est prévu en 1962, doit être inscrit au budget de 1958, mais il est supprimé à la dernière minute pour raisons budgétaires, si bien que la tranche de 1958 se retrouve pratiquement réduite à rien. La Marine essaie de relancer l’affaire l’année suivante avec le PA 59, qui devrait être un Clemenceau amélioré ou un porte-avions plus grand, de 35 000 tonnes, capable de mettre en œuvre des avions de bombardement stratégique constituant « la puissance de frappe "résiduelle" de la France » [4]. Le Conseil Supérieur de la Marine en délibère dans sa séance des 5/6 mai 1958. M. Alain Poher (dernier secrétaire d’état à la Marine) impose la solution du Clemenceau pour des raisons budgétaires (35 milliards au lieu de 45 à 47 pour le 35 000 tonnes). Mais la priorité donnée par la Ve République à la force de frappe enterre définitivement le projet. La Marine conserve pendant quelques temps encore l’espoir de le faire reprendre : elle envisage, dans le cadre de la loi de programme 1960-64, une mise sur cale en 1962, avec admission au service actif en 1967 [5]. Ce beau projet ne sera pas réalisé

Note that Masurca was a French-designed SAM, designed from 1955 on, which entered service in 1966 - the Mk 2 version, which incorporated technology from Terrier and Tartar (with USN co-operation) began production the same year, and quickly replaced the Mk1s..

Also note that I do NOT have the Jean Moulin work... I got that from another website.

The only drawing I have is this... it shows the missile launchers replacing the forward 100mm gun set on the starboard side. This matches with the historic replacement of the aft port and fore starboard 100mm gun sets in the mid-1980s with 2 × SACP Crotale EDIR systems, with 52 missiles.




Note that removing the aft starboard 100mm gun set could allow a flight deck extension providing parking for 3-4 more aircraft aft of the deck-edge lift without impacting landing operations.

 

[Archibald]

Compared to the Crotales of the 80's, the MASURCA was a massive system, to the point the Suffrens were designed around the huge thing. Up to 450 tons, according to Wikipedia.

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Phase 1 manages to get 72 decks & carriers in three categories - small, medium, and large
10 000 to 25 000 tons
> 25000 to 45 000 tons
> above 50 000 tons.
The small ones receive N-156N for limited air defense.
The medium ones have Crusader, Skylancer, and Super Tiger
The heaviest have Crusader III and Phantom.

USN Part 3 - Although you want this to be a "Porte-avions branler" it's going to have an effect on the surface fleet too.

In Post 56 I wrote that (according to Jane's 1956-57) the USN had 5 frigates (of the DL variety), 367 destroyers, 10 destroyer minelayers, 267 destroyer escorts, 92 destroyer escort transports (i.e. APDs). I also wrote that 250 destroyers and 70 destroyer escorts were in service on 30th June 1956. I'd expect the USN to mobilise all its destroyers and its best destroyer escorts.

More destroyers would be converted to DDEs and the USN would also intensify its efforts to develop ASW stand-off weapons for destroyer-size ships like ASROC and DASH. I wanted to say the destroyer element of the FRAM programme would begin immediately but when I looked into it decided that it would be a "wank too far" as the first FRAM refits were funded in FY1960 (i.e. the US Fiscal Year commencing 1st July 1959) and that would be asking too much to have things like ASROC and DASH ready three years earlier.

I'd also expect more ships of the Forrest Sherman and Dealey classes to be built as they were the DD and DE designs being built in 1956.