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

[SSgtC]

"More Midways" as a shorthand for "more attack carriers the size of the Midways"

I can see the use for small carriers as convoy escorts, where an LHA CVV/CVS would make sense. I don't really see the point of attack carriers smaller than Nimitz class. Carriers are exponentially more effective the larger they get, since they basically all need the same size crew but a bigger hull gives you more aircraft for roughly the same operating costs.

Which is why the Navy only wanted more Nimitz class instead of a "mid sized" carrier.

 

[Pirate Pete]

There seems to be a page missing (26?) as the text on page 25 ends mid-sentence.

My apologies- missing page now included

 

[uk 75]

The RN used its two Commando ships to carry ASW Seakings in addition to Commando versions. The three Invincibles and the new QEs all had/have a role in delivering Royal Marines.

Given that ASW helos take up valuable space on Nimitz ships would using the LHA/LHD to carry Seahawks or Seakings have been useful in wartime?

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Given that ASW helos take up valuable space on Nimitz ships would using the LHA/LHD to carry Seahawks or Seakings have been useful in wartime?

No, with a maximum sustained speed of 20 knots the LHAs and LHDs would be unable to accompany the CVAs/CVANs. Not to mention you're diverting valuable amphibious shipping from its intended role.

 

[uk 75]

I was going to start a new thread but this one seems to fit quite well.

For a variety of reasons US involvement in Vietnam ends in 1973 and not 1975. The US Navy turns to the growing problem of defending sealanes from Soviet submarines in tension or war.

Although the big carriers are getting S3 Viking and Seaking ASW assets, and Spruance ASW destroyers are on order to replace ageing FRAM destroyers the Sea Control Ship (SCS) and other small carrier designs appear to offer a solution similar to the WW2 jeep carriers.

The main obstacle to adding such a ship to US and NATO fleets is the absence of credible fixed wing aircraft to supplement the Seaking ASW.

With the UK looking at Harrier variants for its Though Deck cruisers, the USN looks at developing this plane.

US manufactures Convair and NA Rockwell have their own designs to bring to the table.

Canadair meanwhile is working with HS in the UK to develop an AEW version of its CL84.

The Ford administration in 1975 takes the Soviet threat seriously and encourage by SACLANT agrees to order a small carrier to work with the new Spruance class.

 

[Scott Kenny]

I was going to start a new thread but this one seems to fit quite well.

For a variety of reasons US involvement in Vietnam ends in 1973 and not 1975. The US Navy turns to the growing problem of defending sealanes from Soviet submarines in tension or war.

Although the big carriers are getting S3 Viking and Seaking ASW assets, and Spruance ASW destroyers are on order to replace ageing FRAM destroyers the Sea Control Ship (SCS) and other small carrier designs appear to offer a solution similar to the WW2 jeep carriers.

The main obstacle to adding such a ship to US and NATO fleets is the absence of credible fixed wing aircraft to supplement the Seaking ASW.

With the UK looking at Harrier variants for its Though Deck cruisers, the USN looks at developing this plane.

US manufactures Convair and NA Rockwell have their own designs to bring to the table.

Canadair meanwhile is working with HS in the UK to develop an AEW version of its CL84.

The Ford administration in 1975 takes the Soviet threat seriously and encourage by SACLANT agrees to order a small carrier to work with the new Spruance class.

Honestly, the biggest force towards getting an SCS or VSS out at sea would be the CL84 AEW (though I suspect that it'd have to be a bigger airframe than the CL84). So that the small carriers can have AEW that isn't stuck on a helicopter that can't fly at 25,000ft. Harriers could play fighter, I'm sure the USMC aviators would love a chance to go chase a Bear.

"We have everything to give this an acceptable air wing. 3 AEW Dynaverts, 4 Harriers, and a dozen Sea Kings for ASW."

 

[H_K]

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…

Coming back to this medium carrier discussion. @Cjc was asking me what a USN 45,000 ton carrier might look like (much like PA58), and whether it could carry F-14s. Short answer is "Yes"... it looks tight but doable (*just about*) with 253ft C7 catapults and a 650ft angled deck (long enough for Mk7 Mod 2 wires with a 310ft runout).

Here are 2 airgroups with 46-50 fixed wing aircraft:
20 F-14 or 24 F/A-18 fighters
18 A-6/KA-6 attack/tankers
4 EA-6B electronic warfare
4 E-2C AEW
5 SH-3D ASW helos

This would be similar to a CVN but without the 2 light attack squadrons (20 F/A-18 or 24 A-7) and without the ASW squadron (8-10 S-3 Vikings). Should be OK as the F-14s could contribute to attack/recon missions when not tasked with fleet air defense. This would probably require carrying a few more ASW helicopters on escorts.

Enjoy.

 

[Archibald]

Wow, never thought a 45 000 tons carrier could handle Tomcats.

 

[SSgtC]

Coming back to this medium carrier discussion. @Cjc was asking me what a USN 45,000 ton carrier might look like (much like PA58), and whether it could carry F-14s. Short answer is "Yes"... it looks tight but doable (*just about*) with 253ft C7 catapults and a 650ft angled deck (long enough for Mk7 Mod 2 wires with a 310ft runout).

Here are 2 airgroups with 46-50 fixed wing aircraft:
20 F-14 or 24 F/A-18 fighters
18 A-6/KA-6 attack/tankers
4 EA-6B electronic warfare
4 E-2C AEW
5 SH-3D ASW helos

This would be similar to a CVN but without the 2 light attack squadrons (20 F/A-18 or 24 A-7) and without the ASW squadron (8-10 S-3 Vikings). Should be OK as the F-14s could contribute to attack/recon missions when not tasked with fleet air defense. This would probably require carrying a few more ASW helicopters on escorts.

Enjoy.

View attachment 734112View attachment 734113

So, basically a redesigned Essex class. Because 45,000 tons was right about what Oriskany was at post modernization. The Navy is probably going to want at least an extra 10,000 tons for any proposed medium attack carrier. I can see 45,000 tons for the CVS design though. Put 20xS-3s, 10xF-14s, 4xE-2s, 8xSH-3s and probably 2-4 KA-6s on it and you've got a very capable CVS that can also provide a meaningful contribution to Fleet Air Defense

 

[H_K]

So, basically a redesigned Essex class.

Yes, the basic idea is a modern Essex.

There are some important detail differences though, to support modern jets:

• Much longer angled deck (650ft) and catapults (C7)
• The catapult arrangement is designed to improve cyclic ops, with the waist catapult allowing a bigger deck park forward
• The hangar is smaller, to make room for more workshops and more spacious accommodation spaces
• Finally I would assume a lower top speed (~28-29 knots), allowing a smaller propulsion plant and more fuel/munitions storage under the waterline

 

[1635yankee]

I know, alas, that CVA-01 was the proverbial camel - a horse designed by a committee...
This suppose an ATL where the french build PA58 and the british didn't failed CVA-01... Zumwalt become CNO in 1970.

The NIH is a major obstacle for sure.

Every real-world ship design is "by committee," as are all modern industrial projects. We can also see the problems with ships not designed by committee. See, for example, Fisher's large light cruisers.

A problem at least equal to NIH is the USN's requirements for carriers, which could not be met by anything much below 70,000 tons.

In any case, If they wanted a heli/VTOL carrier, they could start with something like USS Tarawa LHA-1.

 

[1635yankee]

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.

I could see one of the authoritarian governments in South America trying that, on the grounds that being anti-communist would (and did) excuse a lot of sins.