CVV concepts of the '70s

GTX

All hail the God of Frustration!!!
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2006
Messages
3,256
Reaction score
1,067
Website
beyondthesprues.com
Hi folks,

Does anyone have any information on the USN CVV concepts of the 1970s? Apart from some brief references in books, I have found the following information on the web:

"CVV was the major program, an outgrowth of Zumwalt's earlier T-CBL, proposed by Ford and championed by Carter. It would have been oil-fired and considerably smaller, with a much smaller air wing, than a repeat Nimitz. T-CBL was built to a cost ($550m in FY73 dollars) and so was not designed like ships are normally designed - starting with a threat analysis and a mission - but with a price-tag. So size, capability and to a lesser extent electronic sophistication had to be sacrificed. Also, uniquely, no air-group was specified. An air wing would have had to be hobbled together to suit the size of the ship, not any tactical mission. The number of aircraft quoted would run variously from 52 to 65 with no justification on how those numbers were reached. The design though seems to have been optimized for strike missions with the A-7 and would not have been a multi-role carrier like the Nimitz. At full load she would displace 58,897 tons, 44,500 tons light. There would have been 2 catapults and 2 elevators - a 50% reduction in capacity over a Nimitz. There were fewer ammunition elevators as well so the aircraft elevators would have to pull double-duty. The design was poorly balanced for air operations with fuel for 1.35 days of air operations but ordnance for 4.5 days in a strike configuration, a product of the ships design priorities. This discrepancy got worse if the ship was carrying fighters instead. Hangar deck height was a paltry 19 feet 6 inches. Half of the Kennedy's unreliable high-pressure plant was all that could be accomodated within the limited volume available. The ship could only make 27.8 knots clean with 26.2 knots sustained, well below the 30 knot minimum requirement. The machinery was considered vulnerable to side hits because of its densely packed nature given the limited available volume in the small hull. Defensive weapons would consist of 3 CIWS but no point defense missiles as on larger carriers."

Regards,

Greg
 

Anthonyp

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jan 25, 2006
Messages
13
Reaction score
1
Hey, Greg!

Check out Norman Friedman's US Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated Design History. It's got an entire chapter on the CVV, as well as a chapter devoted to post-war ASW carriers which includes information on the SCS and VSS, as well as some other neat ASW carrier concepts.
 

TinWing

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
893
Reaction score
98
GTX said:
Hi folks,

Does anyone have any information on the USN CVV concepts of the 1970s? Apart from some brief references in books, I have found the following information on the web:

"CVV was the major program, an outgrowth of Zumwalt's earlier T-CBL, proposed by Ford and championed by Carter. It would have been oil-fired and considerably smaller, with a much smaller air wing, than a repeat Nimitz. T-CBL was built to a cost ($550m in FY73 dollars) and so was not designed like ships are normally designed - starting with a threat analysis and a mission - but with a price-tag. So size, capability and to a lesser extent electronic sophistication had to be sacrificed. Also, uniquely, no air-group was specified. An air wing would have had to be hobbled together to suit the size of the ship, not any tactical mission. The number of aircraft quoted would run variously from 52 to 65 with no justification on how those numbers were reached. The design though seems to have been optimized for strike missions with the A-7 and would not have been a multi-role carrier like the Nimitz. At full load she would displace 58,897 tons, 44,500 tons light. There would have been 2 catapults and 2 elevators - a 50% reduction in capacity over a Nimitz. There were fewer ammunition elevators as well so the aircraft elevators would have to pull double-duty. The design was poorly balanced for air operations with fuel for 1.35 days of air operations but ordnance for 4.5 days in a strike configuration, a product of the ships design priorities. This discrepancy got worse if the ship was carrying fighters instead. Hangar deck height was a paltry 19 feet 6 inches. Half of the Kennedy's unreliable high-pressure plant was all that could be accomodated within the limited volume available. The ship could only make 27.8 knots clean with 26.2 knots sustained, well below the 30 knot minimum requirement. The machinery was considered vulnerable to side hits because of its densely packed nature given the limited available volume in the small hull. Defensive weapons would consist of 3 CIWS but no point defense missiles as on larger carriers."

Regards,

Greg

The CVV was conceived as a replacement for the similarly sized Midway and Coral Sea. From the point of view of the Ford and Carter administrations, the Nimitz class bordered on a failure due to cost escalation and shipyard delays. The sad reality was that Newport News had a virtual monopoly on nuclear carrier construcion, which has been maintained to the present. The CVV concept could have been built by any of 6 or 7 major American shipyards, many of which have long since disappeared, and it was hoped that competition could reduce costs.

As it turned out, the death of the CVV meant that Midway and Coral Sea would not be replaced, although both ships were reprieved by the Reagan defense build up.
 

starviking

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2006
Messages
1,172
Reaction score
309
Here's scans of the Naval Aviation News article of the CVV from July 1979.

I think I got them from one of the Naval Forums, but what with my memory...who knows?
 

Attachments

  • CVV-1-medium.jpg
    CVV-1-medium.jpg
    168.4 KB · Views: 1,554
  • CVV-2-medium.jpg
    CVV-2-medium.jpg
    136.5 KB · Views: 1,644
  • CVV-3-medium.jpg
    CVV-3-medium.jpg
    139.7 KB · Views: 1,665

Golfus

Lo que diga Don Manué
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
44
Reaction score
10
Hi to everyone!
This carrier design reminds me the spanih design BSAC 200 and 220, that ewre offered by BAZAN (later IZAR and nox NAVANTIA) shipyards to China, Brazil and Argentina in the nineties. You can hardly find any info of this interesting projects, just some illustrations (very imprecise) and very little data, such as:
Lenght: 240 m (O.A.)
Beam: 28 m
Displacement: 24000T
Air group: 20 F/A-18 sized aircrafts + 4 helicopters
I´m wondering if it would deserve a topic...

A salute
 

Attachments

  • BSAC-220.jpg
    BSAC-220.jpg
    28.9 KB · Views: 1,070

Antonio

ACCESS: Top Secret
Staff member
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2006
Messages
3,586
Reaction score
424
Shiplover's nice drawings on BSAC 220 project:

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=77226
 

Trident

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
1,219
Reaction score
653
Starviking's article can be found in this back issue of Naval Aviation News:

http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backissues/1970s/1979/jul79.pdf

( http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=55999)
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
251
Any further specs on the BSAC 220.

Power plant, etc.
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
918
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
The CVV was requested for Congressional authorization in the Fiscal Year 1980 Shipbuilding program. The 1,200 PSI steam plant would produce 140,000 SHP for a maximum speed of 28.1 knots; manning of 3,720 officers and ratings; a capacity of 4,000 tons of aviation fuel and 1,075 tons of aviation ordnance. Cost of lead ship $1671.1 million in FY 1980 dollars.

Source: Warships International No.1, 1979
 

Triton

Donald McKelvy
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
9,719
Reaction score
918
Website
deeptowild.blogspot.com
Artist's impression of CVV concept from February 1981.

Source:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/63014123@N02/5756716664/in/set-72157626674107805/
 

Attachments

  • 5756716664_d7d9ca1424_b.jpg
    5756716664_d7d9ca1424_b.jpg
    209.2 KB · Views: 280

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
15,966
Reaction score
5,548
shokaku said:
This scheme - from Friedman's book - is the last CVV configuration: 908x126(wl)x34 ft, 61872 tons full load, with a protection system more advanced than the CV67.

Was that one of the ships they considered the Sea Phoenix for?
 

Grey Havoc

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
15,966
Reaction score
5,548
A short article on the 'Envelope Aircraft Carrier' study from 1976 by Norman Polmar: http://www.navyhistory.org/2013/05/normans-corner-the-envelope-aircraft-carrier/

As soon as we had ordered lunch, I handed the admiral a copy of the formal proposal from my firm, the Santa Fe Corporation, to undertake “Analysis of the Feasibility of the Envelope Aircraft Carrier Concept,” dated 5 March 1976. The effort would be undertaken with the firms of BDM and Gibbs and Cox as subcontractors. The later was one of the nation’s top naval architectural firms. The proposal stated:

It is our belief that the ”Envelope Aircraft Carrier Concept” may provide an approach through which
significant reductions in construction costs can be attained without unacceptably impacting on basic
carrier effectiveness.

Accordingly, the goal of this effort is to identify aircraft carrier features which significantly contribute
to total construction cost and which can be deleted or delayed without impacting on carrier size and
basic effectiveness. Special emphasis will be given to features for which space can be reserved for
subsequent installation during the operational lifespan of the carrier.

As a secondary objective, the study will key on the identification of systems and components which,
if deleted or deferred, would allow for substantial personnel reductions.

The unsolicited proposal was staffed at the Naval Material Command, approved, and funded. I was named the study program manager with an all-star team assembled. The hard-core engineering work was directed by Kenneth Brower, an insightful and versatile naval architect. A key consultant was Hebert Meier, recently retired as the senior naval architect at the Naval Sea Systems Command and probably the leading U.S. authority on carrier design. Aviation aspects of the study were directed by Charles Stalzer of BDM, a leading authority on aviation and weapons systems.

We worked hard over the next few months. We produced a highly readable, intuitive and analytical study. However, despite our best efforts, we found that few major features could be delayed or deferred in constructing a large aircraft carrier. Some features, such as weapons stowage, could be changed or delayed, but no major efficiencies could be identified. The concept of an “envelope aircraft carrier” was not valid.

However, when we looked at engineering-related features (e.g., steam catapults), we became intrigued with the basic engineering plant—two pressurized nuclear reactors combined with four steam turbines turning four propeller shafts. At the time the Soviets were constructing the first of the four large, 28,000-ton “battle cruisers” of the Kirov class. These would be the largest surface combatants built from the keel up by any navy since World War II.

The Kirovs had a combination two-reactor/oil-burning steam plant. For several reasons the concept was attractive: The steam plant was efficient at providing high speed and the nuclear plant at providing endurance. Other benefits of such a “split plant” in a large aircraft carrier would be a reduction in nuclear-trained (expensive) personnel and a reduction in construction costs. Oil was relatively cheap at the time.

Thus, our report as submitted to Admiral Michaelis contained two parts: The basic envelope carrier study and a classified volume addressing the split-plant concept. We briefed the admiral and he reviewed the report. He felt that the envelope concept had been worth pursuing to demonstrate whether or not it could be feasible. As for the split plant, as a former skipper of the Enterprise, Michaelis thought that the idea was interesting. But, he pointed out, the idea would never “sell.” It would be fought by Admiral H.G. Rickover, the long-time and intractable head of the Navy’s nuclear propulsion program. Indeed, we were told to submit only three copies of our final report. And, we later learned, that all three copies of the second volume—examining the split-plant propulsion concept—were immediately destroyed.

Thus ended an interesting study effort.
 

Tybarious

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Jul 18, 2019
Messages
4
Reaction score
8
Here a link to concept art.
 

Attachments

  • NH 88035.jpeg
    NH 88035.jpeg
    271.8 KB · Views: 141

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
251
I've often wondered how the CVV would have faired as substitute for CVA O1? I know it's not exactly the same timeframe.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,798
Reaction score
2,184
Here a link to concept art.


I'm curious what the aircraft are meant to be. They might not be anything real at all -- the artist has taken quite a few liberties, showing the design rather slimmer than the drawings suggest and with people much larger than scale on the flight deck. The aircraft are barely sketched but this sort of baby F-14 is interesting.

1607723619056.png
I
 

SSgtC

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
696
Reaction score
1,094
I've often wondered how the CVV would have faired as substitute for CVA O1? I know it's not exactly the same timeframe.
It's a couple feet shorter, but 70' broader at the fight deck. I'm not entirely sure they would fit in British docks.
 

Similar threads

Top