WI The USS United States had been not been cancelled?

Pangur

Donor
The original flight deck arrangement of the USS Forrestal wasn't all that different as originally laid down, so I expect the United States to look very similar to the OTL Forrestal class. The only real question is whether the USN would be able to work in enough magazine space to carry a usable warload of conventional munitions.

Probably the only way for the United States to escape cancellation would be if she was suspended at an early stage of the building process to allow the USN to complete her to a similar standard to the Forrestal Class.

I had not thought about that possibility, from what I have read about them they were primarily to be used for nuclear attack however they also had a secondary role for ground attack and the like. That being so why would there be an issue with magazine space?
 
I'm not sure an island and angled deck would have worked in during construction. The united states was laid down in April 1949. The first trials of the angled flight deck weren't until late 1952, that's a good two and a half years worth of construction.
new_CVA-58_ussunitedstates-1.jpg

Not too far off from being angled, and those catapult lengths look pretty robust

And you can do a lot with update programs
uss_midway_main_kolor_by_lioness_nala-d6tvkxc.jpg
 
Not too far off from being angled, and those catapult lengths look pretty robust
It does look like you'd be able to do some early kind of "paint lines on the deck" tests up to 5-8 degrees just on the existing deck, so it's possible United States gets used for angled deck development, possibly as an excuse for keeping a relatively marginal as-built configuration away from the conventional war in Korea during 1952-1953 while they decide what configuration they're rebuilding the second of her class into (and basically developing the Forrestal and how to refit United States into one).
 
It does look like you'd be able to do some early kind of "paint lines on the deck" tests up to 5-8 degrees just on the existing deck, so it's possible United States gets used for angled deck development, possibly as an excuse for keeping a relatively marginal as-built configuration away from the conventional war in Korea during 1952-1953 while they decide what configuration they're rebuilding the second of her class into (and basically developing the Forrestal and how to refit United States into one).

Korea caught the USN by surprise, and if United States was worked up, it would be deployed

Here's what Kearsarge went to Korea aboard in Fall 1951

VF-11 F2H-2
VF-721 F9F-2
VF-884 F4U-4
VA-702 AD-4/4L
VC-3 F4U-5N
VC-61 F2H-2P
VC-35 AD-4N
VC-11 AD-4W
HU-1 HO3S-1

So you would see something similar, though given it's construction, VC-5 with the AJ-2 Savage might be deployed, or even Neptunes, to prove that they could use their 10,000 pound payloads in a Police Action
 
From what I can work out from Friedman's US Carriers, the original Forrestal design duplicated the United States deck layout, with the main differences between the two designs being the Forrestal had a hurricane bow and there weren't any gaps between the waist catapults and the forward pair of elevators. The angled deck and island were all modifications while she was under construction.

From my earlier comments about ordnance carried, I'll retract that as looking at Freidman, the United States carried 2000t compared to the Forrestals 1650t, though Forrestal had bunkerage for 50% more aviation fuel, so there had to be a tradeoff somewhere.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
No U.S Navy surface vessels no longer carry any kind of nuclear weapons? I didn't know that.
Technically the USN "neither confirms nor denies" the presence of Special Weapons on board vessels, but in practical terms they are gone.
 
Excellent question and thank you. Interesting. I will have to think a bit. You need to get input from both retired command grade Air Force and Navy personal. Even today lots of background information is probably still classified. Let's just say there may have been a grumbling between United States Armed Forces. In this case Navy vs. Air Force. The politics probably got the upper hand rather than any real need of nuclear strategic l considerations. Vague I know but there you have it.

All below covers part of what was going on circa 1948-1950.\

The USS United States was the United States Navy way to win the Battle of the Budget after World War Two over the USAF when the thought was that from now on wars were going to be fought with atomic weapons.
The Air Force countered that with the B-36 and the Air Force won the Strategic Air battle over the Navy.
The cancellation of the USS United States led to what has been called "The Admiral's Revolt' when the Navy tried to get public opinion on their side after they were told to keep quiet.

I would recommend a reading of One Hundred Years of Sea Power: The U. S. Navy, 1890-1990 by George W Baer, it covers the tug-of-war between the USAF and USN, especially regarding the nuclear mission, strategic and tactical, and how the USN not simply saved itself but helped move the USA from MAD to flexible response, giving its carriers both a nuclear and conventional mission. ...

At the center of this was Sec Defense Louis Johnson. He was a product of the Congressional, and voters, desire for returning to the low cost military of the previous century and a half of US history. Johnson was working hard to return the US Army to its 1920s cost & size, and had a similar goal for the Navy. Cancellation of the USS America was not a discrete independent event. It was part of a larger package to decommission a large number of modern USN ships, eliminate the Naval air wing, and reduce the Navys Marines to a few thousand, less than a quarter the size of their 1930s strength. The Key West Agreement removed fixed wing aircraft from the US Army, Johnson & his backers in Congress expected a similar 'agreement' for the USN within a few years.
 
..d. The enlisted rating (weapons technician/WT) was disestablished in the mid-1990s as nukes were no longer deployed (except those on missile subs).

A few years ago I talked to a very recently retired Navy lifer who had that rating. He hinted there is still a small unit buried within the nuke techs for the submarine force that can place the special weapons back abroad Navy ships or aircraft. Exactly what special weapons those might be I have no idea, since these are expensive to keep on the shelf. Such weapons specifically for deployment aboard surface ship would be difficult to keep in stock?
 
This is very close to my viewpoint on the United States. That the Navy, in essence, lost the battle but won the war. The ship was, in some respects, a huge step backwards in terms of naval aviation (no island, no catapults, etc). With Korea breaking out in 1950, the Navy was, fortunately, brought back to their senses and forcefully reminded (along with the rest of the US Military) that conventional war was still a district possibility.

My read is that SAC would use its "strategic" purpose to absorb it as another adjunct of their monopoly, in effect they did that to Polaris, using it in SIOP to clear the way for their bombers, negating its best function for an ancillary role under SAC's aegis. USAF was hoping to own everything that flew and we know how the RN fared with RAF owning the aircraft. The USN was far more successful in getting the carrier reduced to a tactical mission, they indeed won the turf war long term. Baer covers just how important Korea proves in salvaging the US conventional role and heading off the massive retaliation only option SAC had painted into the corner.
 
Nukes that were aboard ships (gravity bombs, SAM warheads, ASROC warheads, etc) would be no more difficult to maintain and store ashore than any other nukes. "Special weapons" basically means nukes, chemicals, or bio. For naval forces, chemical and bio have really no use - if used against naval targets said targets can exit the area of contamination quickly and salt water wash down systems will clean things up nicely. An amphibious group could (before the US gave them up) have chemical rounds for artillery/mortars and tactical missiles in theory.
 
A few years ago I talked to a very recently retired Navy lifer who had that rating. He hinted there is still a small unit buried within the nuke techs for the submarine force that can place the special weapons back abroad Navy ships or aircraft. Exactly what special weapons those might be I have no idea, since these are expensive to keep on the shelf. Such weapons specifically for deployment aboard surface ship would be difficult to keep in stock?

There are no “Nuke Techs” on US subs. SSBNs carry Missile Technicians “MT” who work on the systems that support the missiles. Nobody ever works on a special weapon outside of a shore facility. The missiles are loaded in big canisters. The stated policy has always been, “I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of special weapons.” Even if you’re on a Trident SSBN, the statement is the same.
 

SsgtC

Banned
All below covers part of what was going on circa 1948-1950.\





At the center of this was Sec Defense Louis Johnson. He was a product of the Congressional, and voters, desire for returning to the low cost military of the previous century and a half of US history. Johnson was working hard to return the US Army to its 1920s cost & size, and had a similar goal for the Navy. Cancellation of the USS America was not a discrete independent event. It was part of a larger package to decommission a large number of modern USN ships, eliminate the Naval air wing, and reduce the Navys Marines to a few thousand, less than a quarter the size of their 1930s strength. The Key West Agreement removed fixed wing aircraft from the US Army, Johnson & his backers in Congress expected a similar 'agreement' for the USN within a few years.
Johnson and Truman caused a massive amount of damage to the US Armed Forces. They drank the Nuclear Kool Aid by the bucket. Johnson in particular was a real piece of work. The man was a total sycophant. His lips were practically glued to Truman's ass. He never once disagreed with Truman about cutting the budget for the military. Even when he cancelled the United States, he did it without Congressional authorization. Same with the budget. Congress mandated a 14.5 billion budget cap. Truman and Johnson tried to cut it even more, asking for just 13.3 billion in 1950 (and then asking for another almost 11 billion when the US was getting it's ass kicked in Korea). Those two were almost criminally negligent in their oaths to defend the United States.
 
Top