Sea Control Ship (SCS) and VSTOL Support Ship (VSS)

JFC Fuller said:
Outline specs for the V/STOL Support Ships (VSS) under study as of 1975 attached, note the addition of Harpoon canisters. VSS No.1 is basically the earlier Sea Control Ship concept scaled up to use a doubled-up version of that design's twin-gas turbine machinery, e.g. VSS No.1 had two shafts and four gas turbines for 90,000SHP. The artists impression posted earlier in the thread by @Triton , from the July 1976 All Hands, probably shows this design. The 1975 Navy five year shipbuilding proposal included 7 ships through to 1980 but the total ask was for 8, same as the original Sea Control Ship, presumably the last ship would have been in FY81.

The flight-deck layout for VSS No.3 as described is probably the one shown in the Naval Engineers Journal in 1977, the number of catapults, arrestor wires and elevator locations all match.

Also attached is the range of concepts that were under study as part of the Sea Based Air Platforms Project. Note the inclusion of VSS-D, this was a "hardened" V/STOL support ship and is the design shown here. There was also a feasibility study of VSS-D with a ski jump, I would assume 12 degrees, it would be great to find a drawing of that. The DDV concepts, certainly the Santa Fe DDV-1b, are probably here.
Click to expand...
 
 
Last edited:
JFC Fuller said:
Outline specs for the V/STOL Support Ships (VSS) under study as of 1975 attached, note the addition of Harpoon canisters. VSS No.1 is basically the earlier Sea Control Ship concept scaled up to use a doubled-up version of that design's twin-gas turbine machinery, e.g. VSS No.1 had two shafts and four gas turbines for 90,000SHP. The artists impression posted earlier in the thread by @Triton , from the July 1976 All Hands, probably shows this design. The 1975 Navy five year shipbuilding proposal included 7 ships through to 1980 but the total ask was for 8, same as the original Sea Control Ship, presumably the last ship would have been in FY81.

The flight-deck layout for VSS No.3 as described is probably the one shown in the Naval Engineers Journal in 1977, the number of catapults, arrestor wires and elevator locations all match.

Also attached is the range of concepts that were under study as part of the Sea Based Air Platforms Project. Note the inclusion of VSS-D, this was a "hardened" V/STOL support ship and is the design shown here. There was also a feasibility study of VSS-D with a ski jump, I would assume 12 degrees, it would be great to find a drawing of that. The DDV concepts, certainly the Santa Fe DDV-1b, are probably here.
Click to expand...
sea-based-air-platforms-study_house-appropriations-committee-1978-png.696962


Interesting, what was the Tarawa based CVV concept ?
Also of note is the Refit of CV-11 Intrepid, as she had just retired, so this woud be more viable than the 80s Oriskany refit
 
Thanks for that, I normally avoid the Alternative history as its speculation focused, It was intersting to see how they modified a Tarawa, although you can see they used the lessons learned to apply to the Wasp class.
A pity there is little on the possible refit of CV-11 Intrepid, as it refers to a 3 dimentional enlagement, I'm guessing that means larger buldges, larger, longer angled flight deck, revised deck edge lifts and starboard side deck extentions, would they cut open the hull and insert a plug in the hull to extend
 

Attachments

  • 20251125__Rohr_Marine_Inc_Sea_Control_Ship_SDASM_Flickr_Archive_001.jpg
    20251125__Rohr_Marine_Inc_Sea_Control_Ship_SDASM_Flickr_Archive_001.jpg
    258.5 KB · Views: 119
Self contained carrier isn't bad idea.
"Supercarrier";is dead because cost airing 100 fighters/planes is not doable classic sense so a 1000 footer doesnt even carry thay many. A carrier launch able seaplane would project logistics across larger ranges. 1000036506.jpg
 
spikedpsycho said:
Self contained carrier isn't bad idea.
Click to expand...
I suspect that the US carriers will end up with some Mk41 Angled launchers pretty soon, to replace the ESSM boxes (Mk29s?), so they can use SM2s and SM6s for AShBMs and hypersonics.



spikedpsycho said:
"Supercarrier";is dead because cost airing 100 fighters/planes is not doable classic sense so a 1000 footer doesnt even carry thay many. A carrier launch able seaplane would project logistics across larger ranges. View attachment 808755
Click to expand...
Nope.

Your crew requirements are more or less the same for a carrier that is 800ft long as they are for one that is 1200ft long. You can put a much bigger air wing onto a larger carrier, of course, and the larger air wing does need a few more support staff (cooks etc).

Further, there is a minimum viable size for operating aircraft. Plus, big high-power radars are not appreciated by your deck crews. Nor are they appreciated by whoever is paying for the care of the veterans.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I suspect that the US carriers will end up with some Mk41 Angled launchers pretty soon, to replace the ESSM boxes (Mk29s?), so they can use SM2s and SM6s for AShBMs and hypersonics.




Nope.

Your crew requirements are more or less the same for a carrier that is 800ft long as they are for one that is 1200ft long. You can put a much bigger air wing onto a larger carrier, of course, and the larger air wing does need a few more support staff (cooks etc).

Further, there is a minimum viable size for operating aircraft. Plus, big high-power radars are not appreciated by your deck crews. Nor are they appreciated by whoever is paying for the care of the veterans.
Click to expand...
Where would we be without Acronyms
 
ford_tempo said:
Related to SCS and VSS here is a proposal studied DTNSRDC.
Source "swath - the vstol aircraft carrier for the post 1990's" Childers, Gloeckler and Stevens, USNEJ February 1977
Click to expand...
'Aviation Ship for Sea Conteol"
18x helios ie missile or Marine truck

6-8x STOVL maritime missile launch including anti- cruise, hypersonic, ballistic, aircraft or BAI/CAS
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom