Carter's Second Term and the US Navy

After the rescue of most of the American hostages in 1980 Jimmy Carter went on to secure a second term against a divided Republican party.

The United States Navy had been hoping that a Republican victory would secure its additional Nimitz class carriers. Carter moved quickly to scotch these hopes. Instead a programme of conventional carriers based on the CVV design was initiated. The lead carrier was named "Franklin D Roosevelt", as it was intended to use these ships to replace the "Midway" class. They would carry the new F18 as production of the F14 was being halted as well.

A further legacy of the first Carter term was the "Sea Control Ship" programme. The "Freedom" class of mini carriers was proceeding even though development of the General Dynamics 200 fighter and the ASW/AEW vstol transporter was way behind schedule. In fact after the Falklands War in 1982 there was talk of the US buying the Sea Harrier instead.

Although Carter agreed the CG47 class, they were only being built at the same rate as the nuclear cruisers they had replaced. The Spruance class however, was nearly complete.

By the 1984 Election the Republicans were pointing to the construction of two Soviet nuclear carriers as proof that Carter's strategy for the Navy had failed. Ronald Reagan, back for a second tilt at Carter (One more shove for the Gipper!), promised that the first thing he would do would be to order new Nimitz carriers and that the first ships would be called "George Washington" and "Abraham Lincoln".

I was prompted to set up this alternate reality for the excellent threads on US Navy 70s projects that are on other parts of the site.

Reagan would be up against someone else, as Carter would have served two terms .

Uncle Jim

You are right of course. My sentence got a bit garbled. I meant to say that Reagan had a rematch against Carter in 1980
and promised to build Nimitzes. I then could not remember who the Democrat would have been in 1984. Mondale presumably, though by 1984 he might have been replaced by Hart or Dukakis. Either way I assume that the Republicans get back in and in 1985 start building Nimitzes!

I'd suppose the Long Beach refit might go ahead in the early '80's, as Carter tries (unsuccessfully) to counter increasing claims of weakness on Defense and Foreign policy, to name but a few.

Another project that might have come to fruition in such a timeline was the SCAT:

According to the report, SCAT was an aircraft created by the Naval Air Development Center (NADC) in Warminster, PA. NADC had been involved with a study effort that addresses the problem of providing real-time surveillance, over-the-horizon (OTH) targeting and similar functions for ship groups not in company with an aircraft carrier. A small, manned, fixed-wing VTOL aircraft was conceived by NADC to fulfill this mission. SCAT employs two lift jet engines for vertical takeoff and landing from destroyer and frigate-class ships but transitions to a turbo-prop engine for conventional flight. The two lift engines were not simulated in the wind tunnel studies.

Click to expand...

In fairness, I want to point out that CNO Admiral Elmo Zumwalt was in favor of building smaller ships in greater numbers in the 1970s. He proposed a ship in 1972 that was the conceptual forebearer of the CVV. Further, the Ford Administration (Republican) for FY 77 requested CVN 71 and then reversed this decision under criticism of the defense budget and advocated two oil-fired carriers be built in FY 79 and FY 81. The CVV idea originated in the Ford Administration (Republican), carriers optimized to operate VSTOL aircraft.

I find it ironic that CVN-79 is named U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford considering that his administration cancelled CVN 71.

uk 75 said:

By the 1984 Election the Republicans were pointing to the construction of two Soviet nuclear carriers as proof that Carter's strategy for the Navy had failed. Ronald Reagan, back for a second tilt at Carter (One more shove for the Gipper!), promised that the first thing he would do would be to order new Nimitz carriers and that the first ships would be called "George Washington" and "Abraham Lincoln".

Click to expand...

Read your Friedman. The fact that the Soviets were building two nuclear aircraft carriers would not have been a compelling argument in 1984. Soviet submarines were the threat. War was expected to start in Europe in the 1980s with the Warsaw Pact. The United States would be sending convoys to Europe and United States Navy carriers would be performing escort and ASW duties. Soviet nuclear attack submarines were the threat to convoys supplying Europe.

Or the United States carriers would be doing peace keeping or power projection duties in the Indian Ocean and/or Persian Gulf.

Secretary of the Navy John Lehman chose the names U.S.S. George Washington and U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln.

Plus there was also the argument against big carriers for fear of anti-ship missiles such as Exocet and the sinking of HMS Sheffield during the Falklands War. Critics of CVNs argued that they were big targets for smart anti-ship missiles.

If you are going to write alternate history, you really should do research for the arguments of time and the opinions of the opinion leaders of the era. This exercise is just another dig at Jimmy Carter and the Carter Administration and totally ignoring the fact that there were elements in the United States Navy that were advocating smaller carriers.

This alternate history also ignores post-Vietnam War public opinion concerning the military and military spending and the détente foreign policies of the Nixon (Republican) and Ford (Republican) Administrations that were continued under the Carter Administration. The Reagan Administration was opposed to the concessions made for détente.

Triton

Your points are of course well made in real time history. What I was trying to do was to shunt the Reagan first time into the 80s and let the Carter era carry on a while to see if anybody wanted to develop some of the technologies thrown up by the USN in the late 70s.

I think we agree that Reagan (and his Navy Secretary) started ordering CVNs again after a long gap. The main role of these ships was to take the war to the Soviets in the North of Europe as part of a more aggressive strategy. I used the existence of new Soviet carriers in the 80s to add weight to this.

As you say, the emphasis on smaller conventional carriers and ASW ships predated Carter. I was not criticising this. On the contrary I wanted to see how some of these systems might have developed further in the 80s, notably the SCS and its related aircraft.

Alternate history should allow some playing around with reality, otherwise one might as well stick to what actually happened.

Something else we might have seen during such a timeline; The GPX Global Patrol Aircraft (Senior Pine)

Thanks to ChuckAnderson and Overscan for these Boeing images:

I suspect you'd only see Global Patrol aircraft if the Navy was not able to buy the Naval Ocean Surveillance System satellite formations, the first one of which orbited in 1976, or had this system not worked. NOSS could only locate ships using radio or radar which was a limitation, however it could truly cover the entire globe and enemy warships under radio silence had limited ability to actually engage in combat.

Sea Skimmer said:

I suspect you'd only see Global Patrol aircraft if the Navy was not able to buy the Naval Ocean Surveillance System satellite formations, the first one of which orbited in 1976, or had this system not worked. NOSS could only locate ships using radio or radar which was a limitation, however it could truly cover the entire globe and enemy warships under radio silence had limited ability to actually engage in combat.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, although most of the system was launched during the '80's, IIRC, and those launches might have been pushed back or cancelled altogether in a second Carter term as part of ongoing (at least until things got really dire) defense cutbacks. Leaving other, supposedly less costly, systems to fill the gaps.

Of course, as things continue to fall apart worldwide thanks to his policies, Carter might, in order to try and preserve his 'legacy', opt for some extreme measures, to try and prove to both the Soviets and the US electorate that he has been a 'strong President'. Such as authorise an example of the nuclear powered version of the late '70's Ultracarrier concept. Of course, given his philosophy, he probably would have had it named the 'USS Benedict Arnold'! [CVN-1779 might be appropriate here.]


On a more serious note, it's unlikely that it would have been completed, much less commissioned, by the time the Administration changed however, assuming laying down of the keel taking place sometime during early 1984.

Building a 500,000 ton carrier to support twice the air group of a 100,000 ton carrier is not very logical when even such vast size is insufficient to protect it from a single good spread of heavyweight torpedoes, and the thing is only going to cruise at 23 knots and make 26 knots full on. In other words, it throws the number one advantage of a nuclear carrier out the window out of hand, and gives up a fair bit of the top speed range on top of it all. Also its absurdly too big to build at Newport News and draws too much water to use any existing US dry dock, so add in an extra billion dollars for a new shipyard and dock on Puget Sound to even start work. I would not be capable of entering a single port on the US east coast that I can think of. This monster is hardly the only time someone got a really bad idea into Proceedings.
Carter wanted the navy to go for smaller cheaper carriers, if he got concerned about things he'd just have them build more hulls. Also given his favoritism for cruise missiles incapable of first strike, we might really have seen some of those silly ideas like a Knox with a single ABL being deployed. The Soviets will run out of trawlers trying to chase them all.

Irrespective of any long-range DOD budgetary projections, the Ford Administration was not responsible for any budgets past FY-77. Those budget decisions belonged to the Carter administration, and it was President Carter who actually vetoed the entire FY-1979 defense budget because it included funding for CVN-71. It was the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan that forced President to reverse his stand when Congress authorized CVN-71 in the FY-80 defense budget.

http://books.google.com/books?id=d8_VUWsG7R0C&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=CVN-71+Carter&source=bl&ots=Ye9IJZEOLH&sig=-mBvd6lvFgj0QmpQBqec7RVcwMU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=h28JUJyoPOeG2gWA0dnWBw&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=CVN-71%20Carter&f=false

Also, see Norman Polmar, Aircraft Carriers: A History of Carrier Aviation and Its Influence on World Events, Volume II: 1946-2006, pp. 298-299, 363-364.

Yes, there was preliminary design work for the medium aircraft carrier called TCBL under the Ford administration, but the CVV was a design initiative of the Carter administration.

Also, given the make-up of the U.S. Congress following the 1972 elections and thereafter, calls for defense cuts were not just confined to the Nixon and Ford administration. However, under the Carter administration, defense cuts were actively pursued, particularly in regards to power projection assets like Nimitz-class carriers, B-1 manned bombers, etc.

Finally, Gerald R. Ford served honorably in World War Two aboard the aircraft carrier Monterey and nearly lost his life in the typhoon that struck the U.S. Third Fleet in December 1944.

Grey Havoc said:

Of course, given his philosophy, he probably would have had it named the 'USS Benedict Arnold'! [CVN-1779 might be appropriate here.]

Click to expand...

Is that really appropriate? Remember that Jimmy Carter did have a very honourable career in the USN.

little bit off topic
but i think that US Navy could use this on there DoD missions with Space Shuttle

NASA MSFC work on a orbital "Power Module" for Space Shuttle
a large solar wings with docking system what extent a orbiter mission up to 30 day
PM mass would be 31000 lbs, it's mainframe 55 feet long from the framework having its aft- and side-facing international docking ports
It's Solar wing have extended a span of 276 feet, by 30 feet wide and give 59 kilo watt

the program went very well under Carter administration, until Ronald Reagan was elected to president
his new NASA administrator James Beggs stopped all work on PM. for something bigger a Space station.

source:
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/evolution-vs-revolution-the-1970s-battle-for-nasas-future-1978/#more-114838

graphic source from NASA MSFC

GTX said:

Is that really appropriate? Remember that Jimmy Carter did have a very honourable career in the USN.

Click to expand...

Well, I did suggest the name (mostly) in jest. Although Arnold did honourably serve the Colonial cause up until he decided to turn his coat. It has been even argued that he could be considered one of the founding fathers of the USN (Lake Champlain).

Michel Van said:

little bit off topic
but i think that US Navy could use this on there DoD missions with Space Shuttle

NASA MSFC work on a orbital "Power Module" for Space Shuttle
a large solar wings with docking system what extent a orbiter mission up to 30 day
PM mass would be 31000 lbs, it's mainframe 55 feet long from the framework having its aft- and side-facing international docking ports
It's Solar wing have extended a span of 276 feet, by 30 feet wide and give 59 kilo watt

the program went very well under Carter administration, until Ronald Reagan was elected to president
his new NASA administrator James Beggs stopped all work on PM. for something bigger a Space station.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, the disastrous failure of various Carter era renewable energy schemes, including ground based solar, tainted the (arguably far more viable) Orbital Power Station proposals and related projects well into the Reagan era.

Here's a couple of more designs that might have ended up being resurrected during this alternate timeline;

First, the USS Austerity (my nickname for it):


Actually the 'austure' DG/Aegis design first proposed in 1972. Ultimately it was "too austere even for Admiral Zumwalt", but it might have made a comeback in a timeline where both hulls and funds were increasingly in short supply. (h/t to Triton)

And;

The Type 2000 SSK (referred to as 'Design 2000' in at least one source):

The "ultracarrier" looks like the first step towards something from the recent "Avengers" movie (although perhaps it should be more the other way around?). And if you thought a Typhon SAM ship was too many eggs in one basket...


I suppose it does beg the question: IF you had unlimited money and resources, would you build it?


Also, can you really call any AEGIS ship 'austere'? I note only one twin launch arm and two illuminators, true; but on the other hand, doesn't AEGIS allow control of off-platform SM-2 ER missiles from former Terrier ships? So even if she's only got a limited load-out of Standard MR missiles herself, she can still guide SM-2 ERs for the missile cruisers until the threat comes within range of her own weapons and then return to that task once she's emptied her own magazine. Or is that one of the capabilities that gets lost in the austerity package?

I can't remember the exact designation at the moment, but the version of the Aegis system proposed for the design was a seriously downgraded version originally intended for frigates and such. And if Zumwalt said a ship design was too austere, you can take it for granted that that was a major understatement.

On another note, here's a new addition to our list of alternate 1980s aircraft, the ECX-130, courtesy of fightingirish:

Attached a slightly different version of a previously posted image due to a failed intra-forum image link:

Grey Havoc said:

I can't remember the exact designation at the moment, but the version of the Aegis system proposed for the design was a seriously downgraded version originally intended for frigates and such. And if Zumwalt said a ship design was too austere, you can take it for granted that that was a major understatement.

On another note, here's a new addition to our list of alternate 1980s aircraft, the ECX-130, courtesy of fightingirish:

Click to expand...

Only issue I see with this ECX-130, is that it doesn't address the issue of internal cargo area width or height, which the YC-14/YC-15 did :-[

Regards
Pioneer

Something else we might have seen as a stopgap system?

Thanks to stevoe for reminding me about this one. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Project Stork:

Intended for very long range maritime reconnaissance among other things & apparently optimised for locating surface targets such as Soviet task forces and commerce raiders. (h/t Bill S)

uk 75 said:

After the rescue of most of the American hostages in 1980 Jimmy Carter went on to secure a second term against a divided Republican party.

The United States Navy had been hoping that a Republican victory would secure its additional Nimitz class carriers. Carter moved quickly to scotch these hopes. Instead a programme of conventional carriers based on the CVV design was initiated. The lead carrier was named "Franklin D Roosevelt", as it was intended to use these ships to replace the "Midway" class. They would carry the new F18 as production of the F14 was being halted as well.

A further legacy of the first Carter term was the "Sea Control Ship" programme. The "Freedom" class of mini carriers was proceeding even though development of the General Dynamics 200 fighter and the ASW/AEW vstol transporter was way behind schedule. In fact after the Falklands War in 1982 there was talk of the US buying the Sea Harrier instead.

Although Carter agreed the CG47 class, they were only being built at the same rate as the nuclear cruisers they had replaced. The Spruance class however, was nearly complete.

By the 1984 Election the Republicans were pointing to the construction of two Soviet nuclear carriers as proof that Carter's strategy for the Navy had failed. Ronald Reagan, back for a second tilt at Carter (One more shove for the Gipper!), promised that the first thing he would do would be to order new Nimitz carriers and that the first ships would be called "George Washington" and "Abraham Lincoln".

I was prompted to set up this alternate reality for the excellent threads on US Navy 70s projects that are on other parts of the site.

Click to expand...

One should bear in mind the state of USN moral after Carter, it took a long time under Reagan's support before things turned around.
So a potential revolt and wildcat actions are highly likely under a continuation of Carter's policies. Further weakening USN support.

This was a rather hasty scenario, as various people pointed out, I made a few goofs.
I was mainly trying to tease out some alternate weapons and developments that might have happened in a Carter second term.

May I suggest that ( instead of the SCS - too small, good for nothing - and the CVV - too big, threatens the Nimitz) - the VSS, VSTOL Support Ship might be a nice in-between.

RP1 said:

3000t, 39 knots. 74.6MW advanced GT plant driving superconducting motors. Aluminium construction. 12 x large ASW/Antiship Missiles and space for 24 TEU sized combat system modules. 2 SH-60. Reference: "Miller, R T., Long, C. L., and Reitz, S., "ASW Surface Ship of the 80's Study," Naval Engineers Journal, Dec. 1972."

Click to expand...

uk 75 said:

They would carry the new F18 as production of the F14 was being halted as well.

Click to expand...

Trigger "Revolt of the Admirals 2: Electric Boogaloo." If Carter tried to kill the Tomcat at the height of the Cold War, he could damn near legitimately be accused of treason. Not to mention that the F-14 had only entered the fleet in 74. Not even all the super carriers had them yet. And the CVV was fully capable of operating Tomcats. Not to mention his own SECNAV recommended killing the program and ordering a repeat JFK which would cost only about 100 million more than the CVV.

unclejim said:

Reagan would be up against someone else, as Carter would have served two terms .

Click to expand...

Carter VP most likely.

marcd30319 said:

Also, given the make-up of the U.S. Congress following the 1972 elections and thereafter, calls for defense cuts were not just confined to the Nixon and Ford administration. However, under the Carter administration, defense cuts were actively pursued, particularly in regards to power projection assets like Nimitz-class carriers, B-1 manned bombers, etc.

Click to expand...

To be fair to Carter, he cancelled the B-1 in favor of ALCMs for B-52s and the B-2 program once he found out about the ATB after taking office. Take the $20+ billion cost of buying 100 B-1Bs and apply that to the B-2 and B-52/ALCM programs and I'd argue that would be better for long term security than 100 B-1Bs and 20 B-2s was. And I like the B-1.

As for carriers, CVV was a good design, but JFK CVs were only a $100 million more for 30 more aircraft (you could buy 3 JFKs for the price of 2 Nimitz), so I suspect that there would have been conventional CVs built instead of CVVs or CVNs. The Navy used CVs and CVNs interchangeably, and without all nuclear escorts CVNs can't really exploit their sustained speed and endurance, so I'm not sure how much sense they make if you aren't building nuclear powered frigates and destroyers as well as cruisers so the entire force can steam at 30+ knots for days at a time.

Now that's an interesting whatif, more JFK-class carriers in the 80's.

Ok, so 3 Nimitz out of 10 had already been build. Now if one can buy 3 JFK for 2 Nimitz... 1/3rd of 7 is 2.33 (shit !) soooooooo 3 Nimitz plus NINE or TEN JFK-class ?

What difference would it make, 2 or 3 more carriers, from 1980 to 2020 ?

Archibald said:

Now that's an interesting whatif, more JFK-class carriers in the 80's.

Ok, so 3 Nimitz out of 10 had already been build. Now if one can buy 3 JFK for 2 Nimitz... 1/3rd of 7 is 2.33 (shit !) soooooooo 3 Nimitz plus NINE or TEN JFK-class ?

What difference would it make, 2 or 3 more carriers, from 1980 to 2020 ?

Click to expand...

A lot lower operational tempos and less and wear and tear on the fleet and air wing. More ability to keep 4 carriers deployed without interfering with maintenance schedules. Better retention rates for the Navy with less frequent and shorter deployments.

What's not to like, then !

Archibald said:

What's not to like, then !

Click to expand...

You need a bigger fleet train. During high tempo ops, a conventional carrier will have to hit the gas station every couple of days. For both JP-5 and bunker fuel. A nuclear boat can go over a week without topping off.

I wonder if we would have seen APHNAS (basically an USN SSGN class) revived and come to fruition?

Would Navy Secretary John Lehman serve in a second Carter term or after a possible Reagan win in 1984? He still has a high amount of respectability in DC after many years for his service under Reagan and even in his semi-retirement. He actually served in the navy and was a naval aviator at one time. He knew his way around the bureaucracies of the Navy and Pentagon and knew how to get things done. He is often regarded as the best Navy Secretary in recent times.