Alternate Naval Procurements in the Cold War and beyond

[Keyboard Commando]

I've been perusing the naval projects section as well as articles about carrier and submarine procurements and figured it would be interesting to discuss some possibilities and alternatives. I'll start with the premise of a shorter Vietnam with no draft or large ground forces build-up, it's mainly an Air Force and Navy show with only bare minimum ground troops drawn only from active duty units to provide advisory and special mission capabilities. This shorter war ends around or before 1968 with US forces learning the necessary combat lessons without the massive drain of lives and money. With that out of the way what are some alternate naval procurements that can come about with more money available and that would be better or more cost efficient than OTL? I know before Vietnam the Enterprise class was going to be the standard going into the 60s after the initial Forrestal class, with 6 being planned. Would these get built with more money around, or would it still become a white elephant and would the money be better spent on a nuclear Kennedy type ship with (I believe?) 4 A3W reactors rather than 8 in the Enterprise. The story is similar with the Nimitz, it was on the verge of cancellation due to huge cost overruns and construction delays only to be pushed through in the end.

 

[SSgtC]

No, more Enterprise class wouldn't get built. Enterprise herself ended up costing more than double her authorized cost (planned to cost 150 million, ended up north of 300 million). Combine that with the 41 for Freedom SSBN program, and the Navy shipbuilding budget just couldn't handle that kind of cost. Even with a shorter Vietnam. The Navy will wait until they get a better design, ala the Nimitz class, for series production. Kennedy may stay nuclear powered though.

With Vietnam being shorter, the Essex class don't get clapped out as fast, so the SCB-27C ships will last a bit longer in service as ASW carriers while a new CVS is designed to replace them. A few more CGNs might get built to escort the nuclear carriers. We probably don't see the Gearing class last as long in service with a new DE/FF/FFG replacing them earlier.

 

[zen]

It would certainly have helped the RN cheap Escort design had the Konfrontasi not happened. No crazy diversions into 50kt Frigates.

Arguably the RN could have achieved a single shaft ship by accepting a 35,000shp system. But they didn't try to copy USN achievements in this and felt 20,000shp was the limit.

Type 21 was.....not ideal to put it mildly.

I've long come to the conclusion NF-90 did more damage than good.And the whole diversion of FUN, FUNGI and ultimately Horizon that led to Type 45 Daring is a protracted mess.

 

[Keyboard Commando]

No, more Enterprise class wouldn't get built. Enterprise herself ended up costing more than double her authorized cost (planned to cost 150 million, ended up north of 300 million). Combine that with the 41 for Freedom SSBN program, and the Navy shipbuilding budget just couldn't handle that kind of cost. Even with a shorter Vietnam. The Navy will wait until they get a better design, ala the Nimitz class, for series production. Kennedy may stay nuclear powered though.

With Vietnam being shorter, the Essex class don't get clapped out as fast, so the SCB-27C ships will last a bit longer in service as ASW carriers while a new CVS is designed to replace them. A few more CGNs might get built to escort the nuclear carriers. We probably don't see the Gearing class last as long in service with a new DE/FF/FFG replacing them earlier.

Were there any proposals to fit the remaining Enterprise class ships with the proposed 4xA3W reactor set intended for Kennedy? Rickover apparently wanted the supercarrier fleet to be 6 conventional and 6 nuclear for a total of 12, and with less wear on the Essex and Midways due to a shorter war could this have been impetus for him to say that was good enough and put the rest of the budget towards submarines like APHNAS?

Another possible turn is that after dealing with the experience of the Enterprise's procurement could the Nimitz (which apparently started out like Enterprise with cost overruns and delays) have been canceled and the Navy forced to go a different route, maybe Zummwalt ends up as SecDef and has more power to push through his CVV and SCS designs.

 

[SSgtC]

No, more Enterprise class wouldn't get built. Enterprise herself ended up costing more than double her authorized cost (planned to cost 150 million, ended up north of 300 million). Combine that with the 41 for Freedom SSBN program, and the Navy shipbuilding budget just couldn't handle that kind of cost. Even with a shorter Vietnam. The Navy will wait until they get a better design, ala the Nimitz class, for series production. Kennedy may stay nuclear powered though.

With Vietnam being shorter, the Essex class don't get clapped out as fast, so the SCB-27C ships will last a bit longer in service as ASW carriers while a new CVS is designed to replace them. A few more CGNs might get built to escort the nuclear carriers. We probably don't see the Gearing class last as long in service with a new DE/FF/FFG replacing them earlier.

Were there any proposals to fit the remaining Enterprise class ships with the proposed 4xA3W reactor set intended for Kennedy? Rickover apparently wanted the supercarrier fleet to be 6 conventional and 6 nuclear for a total of 12, and with less wear on the Essex and Midways due to a shorter war could this have been impetus for him to say that was good enough and put the rest of the budget towards submarines like APHNAS?

Another possible turn is that after dealing with the experience of the Enterprise's procurement could the Nimitz (which apparently started out like Enterprise with cost overruns and delays) have been canceled and the Navy forced to go a different route, maybe Zummwalt ends up as SecDef and has more power to push through his CVV and SCS designs.

Not that I'm aware of. That would have required a major redesign to the point that you might as well design a new ship anyway. I doubt CVV and SCS would enter service, though of the two SCS has a better chance. CVV was too expensive for too little capability. You could, at the time it was canceled, build a repeat JFK for only 100 million more than CVV. Or in other words, it cost 3/4 of what a full size super carrier did, while delivering only half the capability.

One minor/major change I did just think of though, we might see the C14 catapult enter service. With no Vietnam, there would be more money available to throw at it and fix its flaws. Enterprise was originally supposed to be fitted with these, but C13s were installed when it was realized that the C14 wouldn't be ready in time. But she retained the hardware to install it later. The C14 was the holy grail of catapult technology in the 60s. A fuel-air cat that was lighter, more powerful, cheaper, and all existing steam cats could be converted to it. It would have given even the Essex class the ability to launch the heaviest aircraft in the inventory, like the Vigilante or later even the Tomcat. And the biggest benefit, it required no steam. So instead of diverting steam from propulsion, which slowed the ship, any ship fitted with C14s could make 30+ knots all while delivering full power cat shots.

 

[Dilandu]

And the biggest benefit, it required no steam. So instead of diverting steam from propulsion, which

It also made small carrier projects more attractive, since with fuel-air catapults they could be fitted with diesel or gas turbines, instead of steam propulsion.

 

[PMN1]

One minor/major change I did just think of though, we might see the C14 catapult enter service. With no Vietnam, there would be more money available to throw at it and fix its flaws. Enterprise was originally supposed to be fitted with these, but C13s were installed when it was realized that the C14 wouldn't be ready in time. But she retained the hardware to install it later. The C14 was the holy grail of catapult technology in the 60s. A fuel-air cat that was lighter, more powerful, cheaper, and all existing steam cats could be converted to it. It would have given even the Essex class the ability to launch the heaviest aircraft in the inventory, like the Vigilante or later even the Tomcat. And the biggest benefit, it required no steam. So instead of diverting steam from propulsion, which slowed the ship, any ship fitted with C14s could make 30+ knots all while delivering full power cat shots.

Interesting article on the C14 on the Global Security site.

Internal Combustion Catapult

www.globalsecurity.org

 

[Keyboard Commando]

Not that I'm aware of. That would have required a major redesign to the point that you might as well design a new ship anyway. I doubt CVV and SCS would enter service, though of the two SCS has a better chance. CVV was too expensive for too little capability. You could, at the time it was canceled, build a repeat JFK for only 100 million more than CVV. Or in other words, it cost 3/4 of what a full size super carrier did, while delivering only half the capability.

One minor/major change I did just think of though, we might see the C14 catapult enter service. With no Vietnam, there would be more money available to throw at it and fix its flaws. Enterprise was originally supposed to be fitted with these, but C13s were installed when it was realized that the C14 wouldn't be ready in time. But she retained the hardware to install it later. The C14 was the holy grail of catapult technology in the 60s. A fuel-air cat that was lighter, more powerful, cheaper, and all existing steam cats could be converted to it. It would have given even the Essex class the ability to launch the heaviest aircraft in the inventory, like the Vigilante or later even the Tomcat. And the biggest benefit, it required no steam. So instead of diverting steam from propulsion, which slowed the ship, any ship fitted with C14s could make 30+ knots all while delivering full power cat shots.

Repeat JFK type carriers with C14 cats would be an intriguing alternative to additional Nimitz carriers, I know it was looked at due to the post-Vietnam budget environment but do you think it would be seriously studied in absence of those conditions?

 

[Lascaris]

Not that I'm aware of. That would have required a major redesign to the point that you might as well design a new ship anyway. I doubt CVV and SCS would enter service, though of the two SCS has a better chance. CVV was too expensive for too little capability. You could, at the time it was canceled, build a repeat JFK for only 100 million more than CVV. Or in other words, it cost 3/4 of what a full size super carrier did, while delivering only half the capability.

One minor/major change I did just think of though, we might see the C14 catapult enter service. With no Vietnam, there would be more money available to throw at it and fix its flaws. Enterprise was originally supposed to be fitted with these, but C13s were installed when it was realized that the C14 wouldn't be ready in time. But she retained the hardware to install it later. The C14 was the holy grail of catapult technology in the 60s. A fuel-air cat that was lighter, more powerful, cheaper, and all existing steam cats could be converted to it. It would have given even the Essex class the ability to launch the heaviest aircraft in the inventory, like the Vigilante or later even the Tomcat. And the biggest benefit, it required no steam. So instead of diverting steam from propulsion, which slowed the ship, any ship fitted with C14s could make 30+ knots all while delivering full power cat shots.

Repeat JFK type carriers with C14 cats would be an intriguing alternative to additional Nimitz carriers, I know it was looked at due to the post-Vietnam budget environment but do you think it would be seriously studied in absence of those conditions?

That there is no Vietnam doesn't mean that it's raining money or that every tax dollar that went to the war still went to the armed forces instead of dunno, how about funding a moonbase and SST instead? Does no Vietnam mean detente in the relations with the Soviets? Does this in turn affect defense spending? How about other crises?

 

[uk 75]

The confrontation with Indonesia was not the sole reason for the UK's East of Suez commitment. We were a founder member of SEATO (South East Asia Treaty Organisation)
Mao's China rather than the Soviet Union was seen as a threat to allies in the region.. Hong Kong was due to stay British until 1997, a SciFi date in the 60s.
By contrast after the Berlin Wall and Cuba things in Europe settled down until 1968.
1968 we had left Aden one of our staging posts in the Middle East and HM Treasury decided Gulf Sheikhs and Malaysia/Singapore could defend themselves. Mao's China had enough on its plate with the Cultural Revolution. Sukharno was ousted in Indonesia.
Meanwhile in Europe impressive new Soviet missile ships appeared and Czechoslovakias Spring was crushed.
By 1969 the long misery of Northern Ireland had started for British forces.
A commitment to keep some forces East of Suez was watered down by the new Tory givernment in 1970 along with acknowledging that the recently converted Ark Royal would not decommission in 1972 as planned. A new Labour Government in 1974 agreed despite a worsening economy and she survived until 1979.
The UK offers little scope for alt naval developments unless we change this
backdrop.
If the Soviet Union had deployed significant numbers of Kyndas, Krestas and Moskvas by 1964 instead of 1970 the RN might have been less focussed on East of Suez. Surface to Surface missile systems might have made an earlier.appearance. Not sure it would have helped CVA01 as Russia still had no fixed wing carriers.

 

[uk 75]

US history should really be left for US Americans to pick over.
Many Euripeans however share the rose tinted view that Kennedy if he had lived planned to move US expenditure to domestic reform programnes rather than the military.
As I understand this scenario. Kennedy not Johnson avoids the mistakes of going into South Vietnam and leaves regional despots to fend for themselves.
With greater public expenditure a New Society is established and Bobby not Nixon takes over in 1968.. It is Bobby and John F Kennedy who telephone Neil and Buzz on the Moon in 1969.
Unfprtunately democracy is not always grateful. In 1972 Nixon finally gets into the White House as various Kennedy scandals are exposed by Woodward and Bernstein amongst others.
As for the US military it looks more like it did in our 1962 than our 1972.
Shiny silver F111s have finally made it into service with SAC and TAC around the world. Forced through by Macnamara.

 

[uk 75]

The C14 catapult looks like being another Supertiger thread if this description is correct.

Internal Combustion Catapult

www.globalsecurity.org

 

[uk 75]

The various Friedman books on the US Navy offer some interesting alternatives for US naval programmes.
Broadly the main expenditure would still be on SSBN and SSN programmes as these were vital to countering the Soviet Union and later Red China.
The US Navy without Vietnam would have found it harder to justify carrier strike aircraft as Polaris took on their role.
ASW carriers both converted Essex and smaller new build ships would be needed to cope with the surging Soviet submarine force.
The big nuclear Task Group (Enterprise, Long Beach, Bainbridge) is less important if you are not fighting bushfire wars around the world.
The new Russian missile ships would look modern and threaten to knock out a Forrestal before she could react in the Med. Long range Soviet airpower would add to this.
Something like the Spruance class was going to have to be built to keep the USN up to date.

 

[bobtdwarf]

US history should really be left for US Americans to pick over.
Many Euripeans however share the rose tinted view that Kennedy if he had lived planned to move US expenditure to domestic reform programnes rather than the military.
As I understand this scenario. Kennedy not Johnson avoids the mistakes of going into South Vietnam and leaves regional despots to fend for themselves.
With greater public expenditure a New Society is established and Bobby not Nixon takes over in 1968.. It is Bobby and John F Kennedy who telephone Neil and Buzz on the Moon in 1969.
Unfprtunately democracy is not always grateful. In 1972 Nixon finally gets into the White House as various Kennedy scandals are exposed by Woodward and Bernstein amongst others.
As for the US military it looks more like it did in our 1962 than our 1972.
Shiny silver F111s have finally made it into service with SAC and TAC around the world. Forced through by Macnamara.

You can avoid Nixon totally if Johnson goes public with the shenanigans Nixon was pulling vis a vis the Paris peace talks: Busting him for a Logan act violation ends him. You still won't get Bobby unless you get rid of his assassination. Soonest a Republican nominee would be viable/electable after that particular scandal would be '76. EDIT: Maybe have Johnson run solves the Bobby problem

 

[Hood]

My dream what-if in this scenario would be the Sprucans all being completed with Mk 26 or at least some kind of split - maybe 1/3 Mk 26, rest ASROC and Sea Sparrow (though swapping out Sea Sparrow for Sea Phoenix would be cooler).

 

[Yellow Palace]

Were there any proposals to fit the remaining Enterprise class ships with the proposed 4xA3W reactor set intended for Kennedy? Rickover apparently wanted the supercarrier fleet to be 6 conventional and 6 nuclear for a total of 12, and with less wear on the Essex and Midways due to a shorter war could this have been impetus for him to say that was good enough and put the rest of the budget towards submarines like APHNAS?

I suspect, knowing Zumwalt and the US Navy's preferences, that the 6 CVAs were only in there because the FORRESTALs and the first two KITTY HAWKs were a sunk cost when CVANs became fesible.

If the Soviet Union had deployed significant numbers of Kyndas, Krestas and Moskvas by 1964 instead of 1970 the RN might have been less focussed on East of Suez. Surface to Surface missile systems might have made an earlier.appearance. Not sure it would have helped CVA01 as Russia still had no fixed wing carriers.

I'd argue the opposite: the Royal Navy's strike carriers always had an Atlantic role, exemplified by the Buccaneer being seen as the Royal Navy's counter to Soviet cruisers. A stronger Soviet surface fleet probably strengthens the argument for carriers to counter it.

 

[uk 75]

The appearance of the four Kyndas and later the Kresta 1 class with their big carrier killing missiles did lead to a debate about whether carriers could survive being fired on by these ships at the beginning of a war.
Later Krestas and Karas focused on ASW missions.
The real Soviet threat to carriers did not arrive until the 1980s with long range airpower getting Backfires the new Kirov class cruisers with their huge battery of missiles and a slew of SSGN up to the mighty OSCAR.
We are all familiar with the layered USN defence to its carriers..The US Naval College Wargames gave both sides in the battle high kill rates. US carrier airgroups would strike Soviet targets but many carriers would not survive.

 

[uk 75]

The Royal Navy atrached more importance to the NATO carrier role than comes out in published books about the carrier debate.
The Buccaneer was a capable killer of Russian cruisers though more so when the RAF got Sea Eagle than the unreliable Martel.
The much vaunted lobbing a Red Beard on a Sverdlov role does not seem to me to have been so crucial. By the time Buccaneer entered service the Sverdlovs had been superseded by Kyndas but not in geeat numbers.

 

[zen]

Certainly more could have been made of the Buccaneer.

The missing element is Green Cheese Anti-ship Missile. Which could have changed a lot of things.

 

[SSgtC]

The C14 catapult looks like being another Supertiger thread if this description is correct.

Internal Combustion Catapult

www.globalsecurity.org

I disagree. Unlike the Super Tiger, the Navy really wanted the C14. It was only canned because it couldn't deliver a consistent shuttle end run speed. And from what I've read about it, that was due to the system being used to regulate the pressure in the tube not being fast enough to react. With additional funding, it could have been pretty easily overcome. But when you combine the escalating costs of Enterprise with the costs of Vietnam, it became an easy cut to appease Congress.

 

[bobtdwarf]

The C14 catapult looks like being another Supertiger thread if this description is correct.

Internal Combustion Catapult

www.globalsecurity.org

I take your meaning.. yeah another missed opportunity with its ability to be retrofitted to existing steam cat carriers.

 

[uk 75]

We need a new thread on C14. I would love to see it given the Supertiger discussion.. Hermes with a C14 refit for example.
I learn a lot from the Supertiger thread even though I prefer the Superscimitar.or Seavixen FAW3.