Isolationist USN?

That would be what repeat St. Louises are for. But the US Navy needs a lot of light cruisers, and in multiple roles. They're probably the type facing the biggest deficit. That said, this may be something to save for the second wave of orders that'll probably come 1939/1940.
If it was planned like the Vinson (2-Ocean Navy) Act, I'd agree; what I have in mind (as said) is also a jobs bill, masquerading as defense, so starting on as many ships as possible ASAP is an implicit goal. I agree, this may be the biggest "hole", & once war starts (presuming the Japanese still get stupid), the "penetration" cruiser might be among the first new designs laid down; in this bill, no.
I plan to revise my numbers pretty dramatically once Ramscoop gets back to me on when the US expected to complete the Rainbow fleet. Good chance the carrier numbers will go up.
I will bow to the expert opinion.
Carriers I can see being built by 1940 if they're rushed a bit; two years to design, two to build. Battleships at least until 1941. Too many long-lead items to rush them that much.
I'm seeing orders for things happening ASAP, so even a '41 launch date works for me. Except...
DDs you could swing starting January 1937, though you may have to discard the idea of starting with the Bensons and go with repeat Sims to start with. Submarines I don't know enough about, unfortunately.
I'm satisfied to use an existing design (tho IMO the Simses are a bit small), so building could start right away. I'm more doubtful about the rate of construction; how fast could slipways be added? Doubling the speed of construction shouldn't be a problem, & that might do it for the subs; I'd like to add ways at Groton, Portsmouth, & Mare Island, too (if not Manitowoc on top of that;)).
As for surplus ships, I doubt it. The ships that are made surplus are the battleships Arkansas, Texas, and New York, the Omaha-class cruisers, and as many 4-pipers as they can get away with. All are grossly obsolete. They're going to be all scrapped unless someone throws a lot of money at the US, and the ships simply aren't worth it.
The heavies I expect will see the breakers. The cans & subs, tho, might attract the Brits & others: convoy escort absorbed 50 old 4-pipers, & there were about 125 more still afloat; the old R-boats were used for training by USN, & (as more fleet boats were built) the S-boats were either turned over to training or sold/given to the Brits, French, Poles, & others. I'm picturing that happening as soon as war starts, given this building program making all the 4-pipers, older "letter" subs, & oldest fleet boats surplus. (I see USN keeping Narwhal & Nautilus, but maybe I'm using hindsight...)
 
Well. I stand corrected on the final numbers, then.

Since this is an isolationist USA, the plan would likely be for the defensive war against Japan. So that means an additional 15-16 BB (Arkansas, New York, and Texas were on the way out and saved by Pearl; they might also want to retire the VTE Oklahoma), 6-8 CV (depending on whether Ranger and Wasp count towards the CV requirement), 8 CA, and 24-34 CL (again, depending on whether they count the Omahas).

Do you happen to know when the US expected to achieve these final force requirements?
I think it was '44-'45

The Omahas weren't counted and neither was Ranger, I think Wasp was
 
If it was planned like the Vinson (2-Ocean Navy) Act, I'd agree; what I have in mind (as said) is also a jobs bill, masquerading as defense, so starting on as many ships as possible ASAP is an implicit goal. I agree, this may be the biggest "hole", & once war starts (presuming the Japanese still get stupid), the "penetration" cruiser might be among the first new designs laid down; in this bill, no.
I don't like it, but the more I think about it the more I find myself thinking that waiting for future bills is for the best, simply because of how much argument there's going to be about the desired characteristics of such a ship. In all honesty, these may end up being ordered in between the 1936 bill and the likely, even bigger 1940 bill.

I'm satisfied to use an existing design (tho IMO the Simses are a bit small), so building could start right away. I'm more doubtful about the rate of construction; how fast could slipways be added? Doubling the speed of construction shouldn't be a problem, & that might do it for the subs; I'd like to add ways at Groton, Portsmouth, & Mare Island, too (if not Manitowoc on top of that;)).
The US had, at one point during the 1930s, 40 destroyers in various stages of construction. And those numbers only went up as the wartime programs kicked in, to the point that the US Navy ended up begging Congress to stop ordering destroyers, and this all on existing slips and with simultaneous mass DE construction. Slip numbers are not going to be a problem for destroyer construction, even without building new ones.

This does bring up a way to fit new designs into the jobs program: contract out some of the private shipyards for destroyer designs. The US Navy would howl, but Bethlehem Iron Works significantly modified the designs of the Bensons they were initially contracted to build, and by all accounts they worked just as well as their sisters. So the usual problems with private designs were at least lessened enough in destroyers to hopefully not be a problem.

I think it was '44-'45

The Omahas weren't counted and neither was Ranger, I think Wasp was
So time enough for two rounds of construction, then. In that case...

Naval Act of 1936:
Battleships: 8. These would be the core of a new Standard-type battle line, as the equivalent tactical characteristics of the OG Standard line were a huge advantage the US Navy keenly recognized. These will be armed with 16" guns, have a top speed around 27-28 knots. One will likely be a slightly enlarged 35,000-ton type, probably similar to the OTL South Dakotas, to make use of all the post-Washington design studies. The other will likely be a 45,000-ton type similar to the slower, twelve-gun designs that were part of the Iowa-class preliminaries.

Carriers: 4. Short-hull Essex type. Only four, as the US only expected to need a dozen carriers, and the target completion date for the Rainbow fleet was in 1944. More will have to wait until the 1940 bill.

Heavy cruisers: 4. Modified Wichita-type with twin 5"/38 and greater stability, probably via increased beam. Will likely work out to around 11,000 tons standard. May be modified for super-heavy 8" shells.

CL: 8. With the number of battleships ordered this is one place where Congress is likely to balk at spending a lot of money all at once. Either repeat St. Louis or OTL Cleveland. Fast offensive cruiser and/or AA cruiser would have to wait for a 1938 Naval Act.

DD: Pick a number. Some repeat Sims to start with, and then because destroyer construction being far more of a continuous ordering rather than the bursts associated with larger ships, oodles of Bensons.

Naval Act of 1938:
Battleships: 4. Fast type to complement new Standard line, counter the Kongo-class battlecruisers, and provide heavy carrier escort.

Carriers: none.

Heavy cruisers: none.

CL: 8. Four each of AA cruiser and fast attack cruiser.

DD: Pick a number. Extended run of Bensons.

Naval Act of 1940:
Battleships: 4. Last four of new Standard line. Likely Montana-type.

Carriers: 4+. Either long-hull Essex, or new, larger armored carrier. Some sort of light carrier design is also likely.

Heavy cruisers: 4+. Either Baltimore-type, or any one of a number of possible large cruisers (12 8", some variety of Alaska)

CL: 18+. Another four AA cruisers, either fourteen fast cruisers or a mix of fast cruisers and Cleveland type.

DD: Pick a number. Finally start building 2000+ ton destroyers.

Above numbers are likely to increase if and when war comes. Submarines I'll let you decide.
 
I don't like it, but the more I think about it the more I find myself thinking that waiting for future bills is for the best, simply because of how much argument there's going to be about the desired characteristics of such a ship. In all honesty, these may end up being ordered in between the 1936 bill and the likely, even bigger 1940 bill.
That's not untrue, except it has hindsight to benefit it. I'm thinking of an isolationist U.S. &/or PotUS not wanting to wait, plus the Depression making a "build it now" program desirable (if not necessary, & it arguably is).
to the point that the US Navy ended up begging Congress to stop ordering destroyers
:eek:
The US had, at one point during the 1930s, 40 destroyers in various stages of construction. And those numbers only went up as the wartime programs kicked in, ...all on existing slips and with simultaneous mass DE construction. Slip numbers are not going to be a problem for destroyer construction, even without building new ones.
I did not know about that. Thx.

It might be, for the heavies (IDK) & subs (I can't recall if Groton & Portsmouth added ways after the war started, but I think so). Adding the capacity in the Depression would be good both for jobs & for wartime construction, to be sure. (Same applies to building tankers...)
This does bring up a way to fit new designs into the jobs program: contract out some of the private shipyards for destroyer designs. The US Navy would howl, but Bethlehem Iron Works significantly modified the designs of the Bensons they were initially contracted to build, and by all accounts they worked just as well as their sisters. So the usual problems with private designs were at least lessened enough in destroyers to hopefully not be a problem.
That works for me. Ditto for subs; EB's design of main induction valve was actually better (& had it been standard at the time, would have prevented Squalus' loss:mad:), & EB pioneered welding when the Portsmouth & Mare Island boats were still rivetted... OTOH, this helped lead to the MAN/HOR fiasco...so it would help if somebody decided to avoid too much innovation, & just buy Winton diesels for the entire fleet. (That would shut out Fairbanks-Morse, which would not be good, tho...at least until war starts.)
So time enough for two rounds of construction, then. In that case...

Naval Act of 1936:
Battleships: 8. These would be the core of a new Standard-type battle line, as the equivalent tactical characteristics of the OG Standard line were a huge advantage the US Navy keenly recognized. These will be armed with 16" guns, have a top speed around 27-28 knots. One will likely be a slightly enlarged 35,000-ton type, probably similar to the OTL South Dakotas, to make use of all the post-Washington design studies. The other will likely be a 45,000-ton type similar to the slower, twelve-gun designs that were part of the Iowa-class preliminaries.
Only one beef: they're too slow. Wouldn't BuShips want them able to keep up with CVs? Or is that too influenced by WW2 experience? (That is, they'd expect CAs, not BBs, to escort CVs at the time.)
Carriers: 4. Short-hull Essex type. Only four, as the US only expected to need a dozen carriers, and the target completion date for the Rainbow fleet was in 1944. More will have to wait until the 1940 bill.

Heavy cruisers: 4. Modified Wichita-type with twin 5"/38 and greater stability, probably via increased beam. Will likely work out to around 11,000 tons standard. May be modified for super-heavy 8" shells.

CL: 8. With the number of battleships ordered this is one place where Congress is likely to balk at spending a lot of money all at once. Either repeat St. Louis or OTL Cleveland. Fast offensive cruiser and/or AA cruiser would have to wait for a 1938 Naval Act.

DD: Pick a number. Some repeat Sims to start with, and then because destroyer construction being far more of a continuous ordering rather than the bursts associated with larger ships, oodles of Bensons.
No major objections, except for the delay in starting construction, as noted. Also the target of sub construction...& I can't give you a good reason they'd build so many bigger boats without resort to hindsight...:oops:
Naval Act of 1938:
Battleships: 4. Fast type to complement new Standard line, counter the Kongo-class battlecruisers, and provide heavy carrier escort.
See above: if BuShips wants an answer to the Kongos, why wait?
Carriers: none.

Heavy cruisers: none.

CL: 8. Four each of AA cruiser and fast attack cruiser.

DD: Pick a number. Extended run of Bensons.
No objections. (I might add a CV or two, but wouldn't insist.) I had the thought the Porter basic design could be fitted with new HA/LA single turrets, & the OTL crew capacity wouldn't hurt for wartime growth in numbers as new gear is shipped.
Naval Act of 1940:
Battleships: 4. Last four of new Standard line. Likely Montana-type.

Carriers: 4+. Either long-hull Essex, or new, larger armored carrier. Some sort of light carrier design is also likely.

Heavy cruisers: 4+. Either Baltimore-type, or any one of a number of possible large cruisers (12 8", some variety of Alaska)

CL: 18+. Another four AA cruisers, either fourteen fast cruisers or a mix of fast cruisers and Cleveland type.

DD: Pick a number. Finally start building 2000+ ton destroyers.

Above numbers are likely to increase if and when war comes. Submarines I'll let you decide.
By 1940, I think the construction rates are going to be higher even than this, but that's getting further afield.

For the DDs, I think I'd stick with my 150 initial, & (assuming the 3 programs survive) break it into groups of 50; given the influence of the war in Europe, maybe it should be 75 & 75 (with a goal of roughly 1:1 replacement on the 4-pipers) & 100-125 (thanks to war).

Sub numbers, as said, I'm no longer sure... What I want & what I can reasonably defend aren't the same...:confounded:
 
Only one beef: they're too slow. Wouldn't BuShips want them able to keep up with CVs? Or is that too influenced by WW2 experience? (That is, they'd expect CAs, not BBs, to escort CVs at the time.)
That's definitely hindsight talking. Carriers were important to the US Navy's prewar doctrine, but they were a complement to the battleships, not a replacement. A speed increase is necessary in view of the general increase in speed the Japanese achieved rebuilding their battle line, but the 30+ knots needed for carrier escorts introduces too many compromises in either armor, armament, or size.

See above: if BuShips wants an answer to the Kongos, why wait?
Cost and intelligence. Engines are one of the more expensive items on a battleship, so faster ship = more cost. It will also require a bigger ship to get that speed with what the US Navy considers reasonable protection and firepower. As for intelligence, in 1936 the US Navy thinks the Kongos can only make 26 knots, which means the new 27-knot ships are sufficient. In 1938, they know the Kongos are capable of 30 knots.

No objections. (I might add a CV or two, but wouldn't insist.) I had the thought the Porter basic design could be fitted with new HA/LA single turrets, & the OTL crew capacity wouldn't hurt for wartime growth in numbers as new gear is shipped.
The advantages of the Fletcher class over a modified Somers (newer than the Porter class and thus easier to modify) are greater structural strength from the flush deck, proper ballistic protection in key spots, and better high-speed endurance, with no disadvantage in DP armament. The ballistic protection especially was highly desired by the US Navy. The Fletchers also had a further improvement to machinery.

At this point you're changing so many things about the basic Somers design that you might as well just bite the bullet and go with the Fletcher hull.

By 1940, I think the construction rates are going to be higher even than this, but that's getting further afield.

For the DDs, I think I'd stick with my 150 initial, & (assuming the 3 programs survive) break it into groups of 50; given the influence of the war in Europe, maybe it should be 75 & 75 (with a goal of roughly 1:1 replacement on the 4-pipers) & 100-125 (thanks to war).

Sub numbers, as said, I'm no longer sure... What I want & what I can reasonably defend aren't the same...:confounded:
Heh, there's a reason I put a + next to the cruiser and carrier numbers. The 1940 ship numbers are definitely ones I can support increasing dramatically, especially if foreign events proceed as they would.
 
That's definitely hindsight talking. Carriers were important to the US Navy's prewar doctrine, but they were a complement to the battleships, not a replacement. A speed increase is necessary in view of the general increase in speed the Japanese achieved rebuilding their battle line, but the 30+ knots needed for carrier escorts introduces too many compromises in either armor, armament, or size.


Cost and intelligence. Engines are one of the more expensive items on a battleship, so faster ship = more cost. It will also require a bigger ship to get that speed with what the US Navy considers reasonable protection and firepower. As for intelligence, in 1936 the US Navy thinks the Kongos can only make 26 knots, which means the new 27-knot ships are sufficient. In 1938, they know the Kongos are capable of 30 knots.
Yeah, that's the trouble about looking back at it.;)
The advantages of the Fletcher class over a modified Somers (newer than the Porter class and thus easier to modify) are greater structural strength from the flush deck, proper ballistic protection in key spots, and better high-speed endurance, with no disadvantage in DP armament. The ballistic protection especially was highly desired by the US Navy. The Fletchers also had a further improvement to machinery.

At this point you're changing so many things about the basic Somers design that you might as well just bite the bullet and go with the Fletcher hull.
Fair 'nuf. What would you say to a Sumner-style hull plug between the stacks (just repeat the frames) to add bunkerage & engines/boilers, on an otherwise-OTL Somers design? And can they go back to the "reload" torpedo idea, or was that rejected as impractical (dangerous?)?
Heh, there's a reason I put a + next to the cruiser and carrier numbers. The 1940 ship numbers are definitely ones I can support increasing dramatically, especially if foreign events proceed as they would.
:cool: Works for me.
 
Fair 'nuf. What would you say to a Sumner-style hull plug between the stacks (just repeat the frames) to add bunkerage & engines/boilers, on an otherwise-OTL Somers design? And can they go back to the "reload" torpedo idea, or was that rejected as impractical (dangerous?)?
Tempting, especially since a Fletcher-type powerplant would probably be about the same size as a Somers powerplant, but again, adding ballistic protection is not a small modification, you lose the structural strength of the flush-decked hull, and I just remembered one more factor, namely that there isn't a destroyer-capable twin 5" DP mount available. The twin mounts used for the battleships weren't suitable, being anywhere from 35,000 to 75,000 pounds heavier. The twin mount used on the St. Louis class is lighter, too, but still too heavy for destroyer use. The time needed to design such a mount would likely lose you any time gained by modifying the Somers design instead of going clean-sheet; this same consideration scuppered plans to replace the Fletcher-class' two forward mounts with a single twin mount.

Reload torpedoes would be rejected as impractical for much the same reasons as OTL, namely that reloading the tubes in the middle of a fight would be slow, hazardous, and unreliable, and thus consumes weight and space better dedicated to other things like AA mounts.
 
Tempting, especially since a Fletcher-type powerplant would probably be about the same size as a Somers powerplant, but again, adding ballistic protection is not a small modification, you lose the structural strength of the flush-decked hull, and I just remembered one more factor, namely that there isn't a destroyer-capable twin 5" DP mount available. The twin mounts used for the battleships weren't suitable, being anywhere from 35,000 to 75,000 pounds heavier. The twin mount used on the St. Louis class is lighter, too, but still too heavy for destroyer use. The time needed to design such a mount would likely lose you any time gained by modifying the Somers design instead of going clean-sheet; this same consideration scuppered plans to replace the Fletcher-class' two forward mounts with a single twin mount.
Did I miss something? I'm thinking, take the OTL Somers (which you were saying would do the trick) & change nothing but the length (by reproducing existing frames): not a change in mounts from those in service, nor any other design detail; add an improvement in engine performance on par with Fletchers, in the longer hull, plus "break" the engine/boiler layout (torpedo protection, tho maybe too advanced for the era;)), when it occurs to anyone.
Reload torpedoes would be rejected as impractical for much the same reasons as OTL, namely that reloading the tubes in the middle of a fight would be slow, hazardous, and unreliable, and thus consumes weight and space better dedicated to other things like AA mounts.
I had a suspicion...
 
Did I miss something? I'm thinking, take the OTL Somers (which you were saying would do the trick) & change nothing but the length (by reproducing existing frames): not a change in mounts from those in service, nor any other design detail; add an improvement in engine performance on par with Fletchers, in the longer hull, plus "break" the engine/boiler layout (torpedo protection, tho maybe too advanced for the era;)), when it occurs to anyone.
Heh, my bad. I overlooked that.

Unfortunately, that just goes back to many of the original problems, most notably the SP main armament. Why are you so invested in modifying the Porter/Somers class?
 
Heh, my bad. I overlooked that.

Unfortunately, that just goes back to many of the original problems, most notably the SP main armament. Why are you so invested in modifying the Porter/Somers class?
I'm looking for a particular performance (or specification), but wanting to keep a design more/less already built, to speed up construction; neither, as built, meets it all.
 
I'm looking for a particular performance (or specification), but wanting to keep a design more/less already built, to speed up construction; neither, as built, meets it all.
In that case, it may be more productive to lay out those specifications you're thinking of, and then I can think over the options.
 
In that case, it may be more productive to lay out those specifications you're thinking of, and then I can think over the options.
Take a look at the Gearings. They're just about ideal for size, range, & speed; the Fletchers, for armament (given no twin 5"/38cal, & I wouldn't go above 2x4 TT, myself).

As I think of it, there are no DEs; should there be? (I'd pick a diesel Evarts with 4"/50 cal, 2x1 fwd/aft, not TT, otherwise not much change.)
 
Take a look at the Gearings. They're just about ideal for size, range, & speed; the Fletchers, for armament (given no twin 5"/38cal, & I wouldn't go above 2x4 TT, myself).

As I think of it, there are no DEs; should there be? (I'd pick a diesel Evarts with 4"/50 cal, 2x1 fwd/aft, not TT, otherwise not much change.)
Ugh, finally, back at my books.

And slight problem with doing Gearing characteristics this early. The plug to add fuel capacity to the Gearings was done on the basis of wartime experience, specifically lots of high-speed formation steaming and the addition of all sorts of new wartime goodies.

The point being, for a standard line destroyer, in 1936 the US Navy doesn't need a ship as big as the Gearings. Or at least, doesn't think it needs a destroyer that big. Further, the Bensons actually match the Gearings in range, and this in 1945 after all the additions. The Fletchers lost range at cruising speeds in comparison, and the Sumners high-speed range. So the need for a specific modification for more range isn't there.

The Bensons are deficient in other areas, mostly in topweight allowance, but they'll do in the early stages by matching two of your three requirements.

As for DEs, the US isn't even thinking of them at this time. In fact, they didn't think of DEs at all until 1941, and there's not much of a reason to change that at this point.
 
Ugh, finally, back at my books.

And slight problem with doing Gearing characteristics this early. The plug to add fuel capacity to the Gearings was done on the basis of wartime experience, specifically lots of high-speed formation steaming and the addition of all sorts of new wartime goodies.

The point being, for a standard line destroyer, in 1936 the US Navy doesn't need a ship as big as the Gearings. Or at least, doesn't think it needs a destroyer that big. Further, the Bensons actually match the Gearings in range, and this in 1945 after all the additions. The Fletchers lost range at cruising speeds in comparison, and the Sumners high-speed range. So the need for a specific modification for more range isn't there.

The Bensons are deficient in other areas, mostly in topweight allowance, but they'll do in the early stages by matching two of your three requirements.

As for DEs, the US isn't even thinking of them at this time. In fact, they didn't think of DEs at all until 1941, and there's not much of a reason to change that at this point.
They'll do, because you made the best point: USN wouldn't realize a need to change at this early date. I might argue for reducing top-hamper, but if USN wasn't demanding it, I won't.:) (I'll think about, tho...;) Since I'm going with new names & the idea of a design tweak here & there anyhow, that kind of thing might "sneak through".:))

Thx for the help on this, too.:cool:
 
They'll do, because you made the best point: USN wouldn't realize a need to change at this early date. I might argue for reducing top-hamper, but if USN wasn't demanding it, I won't.:) (I'll think about, tho...;) Since I'm going with new names & the idea of a design tweak here & there anyhow, that kind of thing might "sneak through".:))

Thx for the help on this, too.:cool:
Hey, no problem. I love discussing things like this.
 
Top