WI: USS Eagle?

I don't know and I haven't been able to look through my copy of Friedman to find out.

However, I can tell you that in 1956 it was planned to build 6 CVAN FY1958-63 and that when CVAN-70 completed in 1967 the USN would have had 15 CVA consisting of 12 super carriers completed 1955-67 and the 3 Midways. Though what actually happened is that the ships planned for FYs 1959, 1960 and 1962 weren't built while the FY 1961 and FY 1963 ships were built as CVAs that is America and JFK.

IIUC America was supposed to be another Enterprise with 8 reactors but was changed to oil powered due to the cost of the Enterprise. The JFK was ordered as a nuke with 4 x 3AW reactors but like America was changed to oil fired after construction had begun due to the cost. Finally the Nimitz broke this back and forth by being obviously worth it's cost, perhaps by only having 2 reactors.

I have often seen reference to 8 Enterprise class being built but have wondered why when the JFK of 63 was to have 4 not 8 reactors. Your reference to a plan for a CVAN every year from 58 to 63 goes a long way to explain the 8 enterprise idea.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Is it me or did Roosevelt get the same sort of half arsed refit as the Ark Royal, shortening her working life by decades?
Yes and no. It was half assed, but for entirely different reasons. The UK half-assed Ark Royal's refit to try and save money. The USN did it to FDR to make sure she would retire early and Congress couldn't use her as an excuse to not fund another Nimitz
 
Is it me or did Roosevelt get the same sort of half arsed refit as the Ark Royal, shortening her working life by decades?

Yes and no. It was half assed, but for entirely different reasons. The UK half-assed Ark Royal's refit to try and save money. The USN did it to FDR to make sure she would retire early and Congress couldn't use her as an excuse to not fund another Nimitz

Different aim, but same reason. Politics.
Neither.

It was half-arsed because of a shortage of money. There were two reasons for the shortage of money. Reason one was the Vietnam War which consumed money that would otherwise have been spent on major refits and new ships. Reason two was that Midway's major refit took longer and cost more than expected. It was much the same as what happened with the British armoured carriers in the 1950s. That is the planned refits of Implacable and Indefatigable were cancelled because the refit of Victorious took longer than expected and cost more than expected.

Back in the 1950s Midway and FDR were fitted with steam catapults and an angled flight deck in a refit called SCB.110 and both refits were authorised in FY1954. Coral Sea's refit wasn't approved until FY1957 and was even more extensive that the ones carried out on her sisters, which is why it was called SCB.110A. All 3 refits were carried out at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard as follows:
23/04/54 to 06/04/56 Franklin D. Roosevelt - I have a note that it cost $48 million.
28/06/55 to 01/10/57 Midway
24/05/57 to 25/01/60 Coral Sea​

In the middle of the 1960s both Midway and FDR were to have a further major refit designated SCB.101 to bring both ships to an even higher standard than Coral Sea.

Midway's refit was approved in FY1966 which is why it was called SCB.101.66. It was planned to take 2 years (1966-68) and cost $88 million. FDR's refit was to be approved in FY1968 which is why it was called SCB.101.68. Midway was refitted at San Francisco Bay Naval Shipyard. I don't know, but my guess is that FDR was to be refitted at San Francisco too. This is because it was to have started in 1968 which is when Midway's refit was due to be completed.

Midway's refit began on 11th February 1966 but instead of being completed in February 1968 it ran on until 31st January 1970. In addition to taking twice as long as planned the cost of the refit went up from $88 million to $202 million.

The doubled length and more than doubled cost of Midway's refit meant that FDR's SCB.101 refit wasn't carried out. Instead she had a much less extensive refit at Norfolk Naval Shipyard that lasted from July 1968 to 26th May 1969 at a cost of $46 million.

If Midway's SCB.101 refit had been completed on time and on cost FDR would have been refitted 1968-70 to the same standard.

I don't know if there were any plans to bring Coral Sea up to SCB.101 standard. Roger Chesneau said that she was fitted with 3 C11 steam catapults in her 1957-60 refit and that her lifts were capable of handling 75,000lbs each. However, as part of her 1966-70 refit Midway had her 3 C11 steam catapults replaced by 2 C13 units and new lifts capable of handling 100,000lbs were fitted. Therefore my guess is that it was planned to bring Coral Sea up to SCB.101 standard before Midway's refit went Pete Tong.

Chesneau (writing in 1984) said that in 1977 Coral Sea was mainly employed as a training carrier, but from 1979 had been used as a back-up carrier, while her more modern successors were undergoing refit. He also wrote that plans to use her as a permanent training carrier, in place of Lexington (AVT-16), had been shelved, and that she was to be retained as a full CV through the 1980s. Finally he wrote that a short refit in 1978-79 improved her air group facilities, but that she could not handle F-14s, "which limits her value at present."

I think it's also worth pointing out that in the middle of the 1960s the first 3 Nimitz class CVAN were planned to be completed 1971-75 and replace the remaining SCB.27C Essex class employed in the CVA role and that in 1975 there would be 15 attack carriers completed since 1945 in service. That is 12 super carriers and the 3 Midways. However, in 1975 all 3 Midways would be 30 or nearly 30 so that another 3 CVAN would have to be completed 1975-80 to replace them. These would be 3 additional Nimitz class or a new CVAN design.
 
I find the evolution of plans interesting, both the British ans US plans for their carrier force constantly changed throughout the 60s in response to all manner of events. What is annoying is various histories will state a plan that was a snapshot in time and readers will take that as established fact and run with it. The 5 CVA01 plan is a prime example and the 8 Enterprises is another.

The 2 biggest stumbling blocks for the 8 Enterprises plan was the laying down of a carrier every other fiscal year and the A3W reactor.
 

SsgtC

Banned
I find the evolution of plans interesting, both the British ans US plans for their carrier force constantly changed throughout the 60s in response to all manner of events. What is annoying is various histories will state a plan that was a snapshot in time and readers will take that as established fact and run with it. The 5 CVA01 plan is a prime example and the 8 Enterprises is another.

The 2 biggest stumbling blocks for the 8 Enterprises plan was the laying down of a carrier every other fiscal year and the A3W reactor.
I think the problem is, the original plan was for eight Enterprise class carriers. And everyone just assumes that that was always the plan and they don't dig any further.
 
But didn't the British still use avgas?
No, the RN got rid of it as soon as turbo shaft engines for helicopters became available. It's considered too dangerous to have aboard. The USN considered the RN paranoid on the subject of safe AVGAS storage and handling. The RN was right, British built carriers didn't blow up, US and Japanese built ones did.
 
No, the RN got rid of it as soon as turbo shaft engines for helicopters became available. It's considered too dangerous to have aboard. The USN considered the RN paranoid on the subject of safe AVGAS storage and handling. The RN was right, British built carriers didn't blow up, US and Japanese built ones did.

Given the RAN lost virtually all of its Trackers in a single night (6 Dec 1976) to a deliberately lit hangar fire I think the RNs paranoia about AVGAS is not misplaced
 
I was also imagining the Eagle would be primarily dedicated to ASW work. Could the S3 Viking operate off of the Eagle?

If it is mainly for ASW work what advantage does it have over the Essex CVSs that are being retired? I think the U.S. was getting away from dedicated ASW carriers by that time. Also I think the S-3, even after you folded the tail would be too tall for the Eagle's hanger deck
 
No, the RN got rid of it as soon as turbo shaft engines for helicopters became available. It's considered too dangerous to have aboard. The USN considered the RN paranoid on the subject of safe AVGAS storage and handling. The RN was right, British built carriers didn't blow up, US and Japanese built ones did.
When after the very early days of WWII (when damage control was still very crude) did the U.S. have a carrier 'blow up' due to avgas storage. It may have happened but I can't think of any. The British did have some problems with American built escort carriers but whether that was due to the inherent gasoline storage on American carriers or due to the modifications the RN made is unknown to me.
 
Hard lessons that the RN did not have to endure. Even at the start of the war. The RN considered USN Avgas handling and storage dangerously inadequate, hence sending lend lease CVE's straight to the shipyards for improvements upon delivery.
 

SsgtC

Banned
When after the very early days of WWII (when damage control was still very crude) did the U.S. have a carrier 'blow up' due to avgas storage. It may have happened but I can't think of any. The British did have some problems with American built escort carriers but whether that was due to the inherent gasoline storage on American carriers or due to the modifications the RN made is unknown to me.
USS Franklin maybe? She had a gasoline vapor explosion on her hanger deck, but that was due to bomb damage and the ship not being at battle stations at the time. The rear gasoline fueling system was in operation when the bomb hit causing the explosion.
 
Top