Keep the Essex class as a strike carrier

[Riain]

What does technically capable mean though? There are a lot things you can do in the controlled environment of tests conducted under ideal conditions with the planes flown by highly trained test pilots. Then you have the real world where LTjg Bob "Snot" Rag is trying to bring the beast down on a pitching deck in lousy weather.

IIRC the HMS Invincible sailed south in 1982 with a smashed coupling, so could only use 1 shaft until it was fixed at Ascension. If 'Vince was a CATOBAR ship and certain planes needed 20kts+ to generate enough Wind Over Deck then these planes wouldn't be able to operate for 2 weeks until the coupling was replaced. If operations meant that the Vince couldn't anchor and have have the coupling flown out to be fixed then she'd have to operate at half power until able to withdraw from operations, and these planes would be able to operate at all.

This is the sort of reason why planes which can theoretically operate from a certain ship don't actually do so. If a ship needs EVERYTHING to go right to operate a plane, then it can't operate that plane.

 

[bobtdwarf]

I imagine the USN would be willing to have a British yard do the work if it meant that the RN was retaining its carrier capabilities, getting Congress and the rest of the Pentagon to agree might be a tad harder

it would not have been a bone of contention.. a British yard doing the work hides her condition more than a US yard that is answerable to congress

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

US Congressmen from shipbuilding districts would be asking pointed questions about why the very valuable contract to refurbish what the USN said was a wreck had gone to damn foreigners.

 

[Spencersj345.346]

US Congressmen from shipbuilding districts would be asking pointed questions about why the very valuable contract to refurbish what the USN said was a wreck had gone to damn foreigners.

Ah Congresman you see the UK wanted a carrier and as it turns out our initial survey of the FDR was a bit too pessimistic and by the time we had discovered our error the FDR had been formally transferred and was drydocked on the Clyde. On the positive side we did get a lucrative parts contract for her and the RN signed onto the Hornet program and is planning on building two carriers to replace the FDR when she retires in around 20 years. Besides we assumed that the RN wouldn't dare send the FDR across the Atlantic without a refit given her condition but apparently we didn't account for how much the British wanted the work to be done in one of their yards

 

[Riain]

drydocked on the Clyde

Could it fit? Is it bigger than the CVA01 design, which was the biggest ship that could fit in British yards?

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

She was lighter than CVA01, Narrower, slightly longer and with slightly more draft. It should be doable.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Could it fit? Is it bigger than the CVA01 design, which was the biggest ship that could fit in British yards?

She was lighter than CVA01, Narrower, slightly longer and with slightly more draft. It should be doable.

FDR is considerably bigger than CVA-01. Much longer and heavier.

 

[Father Maryland]

This is the one that still blows me away.

Back from the brief era of " Alright whats the craziest fucking thing we can do with a carrier"?

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

The Spanish might have got Saipan or Wright if they hadn't been converted. IMHO they were considerably better than an Independence becaues they were larger and had seen no war service.

Though having written that I think the Americans should have built more Essex class ships in their place.

Except the Saipans don't take up valuable capital-grade slips, of which the US only had so many. Granted, two at Fore River are open when the Saipans are laid down, but still, a light carrier utilizing cruiser slips was an excellent idea.

IMHO the Independence class was a necessary evil. The USN needed aircraft carriers and it needed them quickly.

I think a Baltimore would have made a better CVL than a Cleveland. (That's almost certainly why the Saipan class was based on the Baltimore.) My guess is that the Cleveland class was chosen for conversion because more hulls were available and they could have a large homogenous class. That's why I usually have the Clevelands built as CL versions of the Baltimores.

AIUI the USN expected to loose 2 CVL and the Saipan class was built as attrition replacements form them. However, production of the Essex class was in full swing by the time the Saipans were built. IMHO two Essexes or even better two Midways would have been a better long-term investment. That is subject to shipbuilding capacity, which you indicate wasn't there. In which case I'd rather have one extra Essex or one extra Midway than two more CVLs.

 

[bsmart]

Yes and no.

1) Yes the Vietnam War did absorb money that might have been spent on other ships and it also mean that some of the existing ships such as the Essex wore out earlier than expected. However, the "legacy of Vietnam" may have been just as important. That is it created a hostility towards high levels of military spending inside and outside of Congress when the ships built in World War II were wearing out. Or at least that is how I understand it.

2) Most of the damage had been done before President Carter was sworn in.

A) There were 15 active CVA in commission in 1970 and 15 air wings. This had been reduced to 13 active CVA and 13 wings before he came to office. FDR was decommissioned in September 1977, but her place was taken by Eisenhower which commissioned in October 1977. I can't prove this, but I suspect this was planned to be that way by the Ford Administration. The 13th air wing was disbanded on 30th June 1977 which happened to be the end of the Fiscal Year ending 30th June 1977 and was the end of the last fiscal year of the Ford Administration so I suspect that it was planned before President Carter came to power. Again the SCS project died before he came to power. Yes there were the VSS and SCS sagas while Jimmy Carter was in power, but according to the plan he inherited (source Jane's Fighting Ships 1976-77) was to order one carrier in FY1979 and another in FY1981. These ships were to be Nimitz class and were required to maintain a force of 12 aircraft carriers rather than build up to the 15 that were wanted. AIUI what President Carter tried to do was have two CVV ordered in their place. In the end no aircraft carriers were ordered in FY1980, but Theodore Roosevelt was ordered in FY1980. No aircraft carriers were ordered in FY1981, but Abraham Lincoln and George Washington were ordered in FY1983.

B) This doesn't seem to have effected the number of ships in commission, although it would not have been good for their effectiveness. Again most of the damage was done before he came to power. The USN had 932 ships in commission on 30th June 1968, which had declined to 536 on 30th June 1976. The nearest figure that I have to January 1981 is 30th September 1980 when there were 530. However, this had declined to 521 on 30th September 1981.

So it is possible to argue that Jimmy Carter arrested the decline and Ronald Reagan tried to reverse it.

Well being stationed at Langley AFB from 76-85 and reading the Tidewater newspapers, USNIP and watching activity at both Newport News Shipbuilding and the Tidewater naval bases I don't think anyone would say Carter arrested the decline. The ship count may not have gone down but it became a regular occurance for deployments to be postponed because there were gaps in manning. There was a constant fight in congress to defund or downsize military projects. There was also a continuous cycle of analyzing programs to 'reduce waste and fraud' or ''started with a clean sheet of paper'. Yes the decline started before that but the Carter years accentuated the 'people cost' and actually got the Navy to force the issue by getting rid of ships (like the FDR) in a wholesale attempt to get rid of excuses for not building new ships

 

[NOMISYRRUC]

Well being stationed at Langley AFB from 76-85 and reading the Tidewater newspapers, USNIP and watching activity at both Newport News Shipbuilding and the Tidewater naval bases I don't think anyone would say Carter arrested the decline. The ship count may not have gone down but it became a regular occurance for deployments to be postponed because there were gaps in manning. There was a constant fight in congress to defund or downsize military projects. There was also a continuous cycle of analyzing programs to 'reduce waste and fraud' or ''started with a clean sheet of paper'. Yes the decline started before that but the Carter years accentuated the 'people cost' and actually got the Navy to force the issue by getting rid of ships (like the FDR) in a wholesale attempt to get rid of excuses for not building new ships.

I can't contradict anything you write, because I don't know about it in that depth.

I based what I wrote on this.

30th June 1968 is the height of the Vietnam War. 30th June is the end of the Fiscal Year before President Carter took office. 30th September 1980 is the end of the Fiscal Year before he left office. So depending upon how the table is read he inherited 536 or 523 active ships when he came to office and passed 530 or 521 ships to President Reagan when he left office. There were more surface warships and submarines in 1980 and 1981 than there were in 1976 and 1977.

I know that statistics aren't everything.

Furthermore, that ships completed while Jimmy Carter was president were ordered when Nixon and Ford were president. Similarly the ships completed during President Reagan's first term were ordered when Jimmy Carter was president.

 

[McPherson]

I can't contradict anything you write, because I don't know about it in that depth.

I based what I wrote on this.

View attachment 549661

30th June 1968 is the height of the Vietnam War. 30th June is the end of the Fiscal Year before President Carter took office. 30th September 1989 is the end of the Fiscal Year before he left office. So depending upon how the table is read he inherited 536 or 523 active ships when he came to office and passed 530 or 521 ships to President Reagan when he left office. There were more surface warships and submarines in 1980 and 1981 than there were in 1976 and 1977.

I know that statistics aren't everything.

Furthermore, that ships completed while Jimmy Carter was president were ordered when Nixon and Ford were president. Similarly the ships completed during President Reagan's first term were ordered when Jimmy Carter was president.

Correct. When people speak of Mister McKinley's New Steel Navy, it was:

1. Chester Alan Arthur 1881-1885
2. Grover Cleveland 1885-1889
3. Benjamin Harrison 1889-1893
4. Grover Cleveland 1893-1897

i.e., ... mainly GROVER CLEVELAND who built it. With Jimmy Carter, the utter naval wreckage he left Reagan (and He, Carter, should be blamed for it, because the man did do enormous damage in the cases of personnel policies, training and he made gigantic geopolitical mistakes. That is on HIM.) started under the previous 2 administrations.

 

[Zheng He]

This is worth a read:

1977-1978 The End of the Rosie – USS Franklin D. Roosevelt

 

[Zheng He]

AIUI what President Carter tried to do was have two CVV ordered in their place. In the end no aircraft carriers were ordered in FY1980, but Theodore Roosevelt was ordered in FY1980. No aircraft carriers were ordered in FY1981, but Abraham Lincoln and George Washington were ordered in FY1983.

One thing to keep in mind about the CVV is that the Ford administration was just as enthusiastic about as the Carter administration and the whole concept itself dated from the Nixon administration and CNO Zumwalt's belief that more, smaller, and cheaper platforms were better than fewer, larger, and expensive platforms. The irony being that the ship named after Zumwalt is a massively overpriced and over engineered monstrosity.

 

[Riain]

Something that hasn't really been addressed with all the talk about having an Essex operate Phantoms is that the VFX programme selected the Grumman 303 in January 1969 to replace with Phantom. The first Phantom sqns converted to the Tomcat in 1974 and IIRC by about 1982 there were only 2 Phantom sqns left on carriers, so keeping Essex's in commission is shakleing the USN to either the very old F8 or old F4.

Before anyone starts crowing 'F18', that comes with it's own significant issues. The USN primarily replaced A7 sqns with F18s, IIUC only 2 F4S sqns were replaced with F18s, it was the USMC who were the big user of F18s in the fighter role, replacing USMC F4 sqns. The mid 80s deployments of Midway class carriers with F18s were 2 USMC sqns in the fighter role and 2 USN sqns in the attack role. There were a few deployments in the early-mid of CVWs with 2 F14 and 2 A6 sqns because A7s sqns had converted to F18s but these ships (including JFK in 1983 when it bombed Lebanon) hadn't had the refits needed to operate the F18. So if Essex are retained into the 80s with the idea that the F18 will fly from them they will need significant refits to operate this aircraft.

 

[SsgtC]

Something that hasn't really been addressed with all the talk about having an Essex operate Phantoms is that the VFX programme selected the Grumman 303 in January 1969 to replace with Phantom. The first Phantom sqns converted to the Tomcat in 1974 and IIRC by about 1982 there were only 2 Phantom sqns left on carriers, so keeping Essex's in commission is shakleing the USN to either the very old F8 or old F4.

Before anyone starts crowing 'F18', that comes with it's own significant issues. The USN primarily replaced A7 sqns with F18s, IIUC only 2 F4S sqns were replaced with F18s, it was the USMC who were the big user of F18s in the fighter role, replacing USMC F4 sqns. The mid 80s deployments of Midway class carriers with F18s were 2 USMC sqns in the fighter role and 2 USN sqns in the attack role. There were a few deployments in the early-mid of CVWs with 2 F14 and 2 A6 sqns because A7s sqns had converted to F18s but these ships (including JFK in 1983 when it bombed Lebanon) hadn't had the refits needed to operate the F18. So if Essex are retained into the 80s with the idea that the F18 will fly from them they will need significant refits to operate this aircraft.

My personal opinion, I think the USN would keep more Phantoms in service for a longer time to fill out Essex class air wings. The conversion of F-4 squadrons actually factored into my thinking. As Phantom squadrons converted to Tomcats, F-8 squadrons would convert to Phantoms. More F-4Bs and F-4Js would be upgraded to N and S standard, with maybe a handful more F-4Js being purchased originally.

Towards the late 70s/early 80s, you might get the Marine Corps to agree to supply one of the two F-4 squadrons on the Essex class (or the sole F-4 squadron possibly). I don't think the Hornet would ever operationally fly from an Essex class. There in service dates and refit schedules really don't line up. Maybe the last deployment or two of the class could see an Essex with Hornets, but that's about it. This TL would extend the Phantoms service with the USN. But conversely, it could also push the USN to make the Hornet a better fighter compared to OTL where they were willing to accept a downgrade in the aircraft's fighter abilities because as a bomb truck, it was far superior to anything in the fleet's inventory.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

Indeed, the Phantom is far from obsolescence despite its age. Even into the late 80's its still one of the most potent combat aircraft in the world and many first world air forces would gladly snap up any they could get there hands on.

 

[CV12Hornet]

302 Phantoms were converted starting in 1977 to the F-4S standard. That's more than enough to keep eight or even ten squadrons flying for Midways and Essexes, especially with the short squadrons the Essexes will be carrying.

 

[McPherson]

I alluded to it upthread, but there is also the HARRIER. The Essexes could end up as sea-control STOBAR ships.

 

[SsgtC]

302 Phantoms were converted starting in 1977 to the F-4S standard. That's more than enough to keep eight or even ten squadrons flying for Midways and Essexes, especially with the short squadrons the Essexes will be carrying.

That's actually enough for 25 full squadrons (IIRC USN fighter squadrons were twelve Aircraft each). Even if you go with the maximum 9 Essex and Midway class CVAs, that's only 216 aircraft, leaving 86 for attrition replacements and the FRS. More realistically, you only need 192 to support 9 of those ships, since one will always be in refit and unavailable, you don't need 9 air wings. And the practical numbers are even lower since I don't see more than 4 Essex being retained. Maybe a case to keep 5 with the knowledge that at least one of them will always be unavailable in refit or overhaul. So lower that to 168. That leaves 134 minus combat and operational loses. Plenty to keep those ships going.