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

[TomS]

Thanks for your reply JCF Fuller!

I hear what you're say re "SCS was a US Navy design so there wasn't a winner as such, to my knowledge the construction contract was never competed as Congress refused to fund the programme.", and I should have probably have worded my question better.

Found the Budgeting of the SCS interesting!

I've been scouring the web since I posted my question, and think it might have been 'Ingalls shipbuilding' (or was it Litton-Ingalls?) design that was favoured (if I can use the term) by the USN. But I'm still keen to have this verified.

Regards
Pioneer

There were no competing industry designs here. The SCS preliminary design was prepared by NAVSEA personnel at the Naval Ship Engineering Center with some assistance from Gibbs and Cox. When Spain decided to build one, it was G&C who prepared the detailed design drawings for the shipyard.

I think SCS/VSS may have been the last or nearly the last designs where the Navy actually did the design work with expectation that a shipyard would simply build to the Navy design.

 

[Grey Havoc]

I think SCS/VSS may have been the last or nearly the last designs where the Navy actually did the design work with expectation that a shipyard would simply build to the Navy design.

I believe the CL:O family of ships are currently the last known in-house Navy designs known to have fully reached the detailed blueprint stage between the early 1990s and the present day. The MEU of the late 1980s (which also came close to being built) was a cousin to this family of designs, all part of the 'Revolution At Sea' concept.

 

[TomS]

I think SCS/VSS may have been the last or nearly the last designs where the Navy actually did the design work with expectation that a shipyard would simply build to the Navy design.

I believe the CL:O family of ships are currently the last known in-house Navy designs known to have fully reached the detailed blueprint stage between the early 1990s and the present day. The MEU of the late 1980s (which also came close to being built) was a cousin to this family of designs, all part of the 'Revolution At Sea' concept.

I don't know whether CL:O ever got to as advanced a state of design as the SCS. The most detailed I've seen were sort of general arrangement drawings, while SCS got to more detailed design. And CL:O wasn't really associated with a procurement program, was it? AFAIK, it was never part of the SCN program of record. I know there were other studies in NAVSEA that produced designs about as detailed as CL:O. The SC-21 COEA for example, did arrangement drawings for its notional designs, as did CVX. There were also several "Spring Style" efforts for future combatants at similar levels of details in the early 1990s. They were just efforts to explore the design space and determine possible approaches to suggest to industry, and were not expected to be directly adopted as buildable designs.

I think PF/FFG-7 is likely the last warship design that was actually prepared by the Navy and given to industry for production. Sort of tragic, really, because the lack of this activity inside the Navy explains why it can't seem to get a handle on newer designs (DD-21, LCS, etc.) The Navy outsourced all the capacity to determine what requirements were actually feasible to build and at what cost.

 

[Grey Havoc]

I could be wrong about how far along the CL:O designs got. On the other hand though, that family of designs were an important part of the 'Revolution at Sea', which in turn was a cornerstone of the Navy's future shipbuilding strategy from the late '80s to the early 1990s (it survived briefly into the Clinton era). The proponents of the Revolution at Sea believed, among other things, that a single basic hull could replace existing frigates, destroyers and cruisers in a cost effective manner. A number of promising designs and concepts, such as FFX, DDGY, & the Strike Cruiser program, were sidelined in favour of this hull concept, the 'Battle Force Combatant', yet another 'cousin' of the C:LO family. Like the MEU, the BFC had reached the detailed design around 1988/89.

 

[Jemiba]

The photos of the hydrofoils are now in their own thread here:
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/grumman-hydrofoil-warship-hyd-2.32080/

 

[Grey Havoc]

VFA: V/STOL Fighters for Sea Control Ships (XFV-12 rivals) thread.

 

[Pioneer]

Artist's conception of V/STOL Support Ship (VSS) circa 1976.

Source:

The F-35/MV-22 just re-imagined concepts from the Zumwalt era?

www.snafu-solomon.com

By chance, has anyone come up with more detailed drawing of the V/STOL Support Ship I (VSS-I)?
I found these Interesting rendition of the concept on the internet, but it looks somewhat different to the wonderful artist impression supplied by Triton.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Firefinder]

This is a PDF on the USS Guam testing as a Sea Control ship. I didn't see it post it so here you lot go.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

That's interesting - thanks!

 

[TomS]

That's interesting - thanks!

Indeed. I'd heard of proposals for Harrier to drop sonobouys but this is the first thing I've seen to report that it was actually done, even to a limited degree.

 

[Firefinder]

That's interesting - thanks!

Indeed. I'd heard of proposals for Harrier to drop sonobouys but this is the first thing I've seen to report that it was actually done, even to a limited degree.

Appereantly they also used other strike craft, like A6/7 for ASW work as well.

The Navy Experimented With Turning Its Attack Jets Into Submarine Hunters 50 Years Ago

The experiment was far ahead of its time in many ways and came in part as a result of the Navy looking to fit every mission onto its supercarriers.

www.thedrive.com

 

[TomS]

That's interesting - thanks!

Indeed. I'd heard of proposals for Harrier to drop sonobouys but this is the first thing I've seen to report that it was actually done, even to a limited degree.

Appereantly they also used other strike craft, like A6/7 for ASW work as well.

The Navy Experimented With Turning Its Attack Jets Into Submarine Hunters 50 Years Ago

The experiment was far ahead of its time in many ways and came in part as a result of the Navy looking to fit every mission onto its supercarriers.

www.thedrive.com

They're always looking for ways to have the air wing contribute to whatever the problem de jour is. Like the A-6F being pitched as an AMRAAM shooter to help out in the outer air battle problem.

 

[Pioneer]

That's interesting - thanks!

Indeed. I'd heard of proposals for Harrier to drop sonobouys but this is the first thing I've seen to report that it was actually done, even to a limited degree.

Appereantly they also used other strike craft, like A6/7 for ASW work as well.

The Navy Experimented With Turning Its Attack Jets Into Submarine Hunters 50 Years Ago

The experiment was far ahead of its time in many ways and came in part as a result of the Navy looking to fit every mission onto its supercarriers.

www.thedrive.com

Very interesting article, thanks for sharing Firefinder !
I've never heard or seen the Aero 2A Sonobuoy/Flare Dispenser pod before.

I'm personally of the opinion that the removal and disbandment of the S-3 Viking was and remains a very flawed decision, that still need addressing.

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Julio Garay Terrazas]

I found this very complet links: https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/the-sea-control-ship/

 

[nova10]

Artist's conception of V/STOL Support Ship (VSS) circa 1976.

Source:

The F-35/MV-22 just re-imagined concepts from the Zumwalt era?

www.snafu-solomon.com

By chance, has anyone come up with more detailed drawing of the V/STOL Support Ship I (VSS-I)?
I found these Interesting rendition of the concept on the internet, but it looks somewhat different to the wonderful artist impression supplied by Triton.

Regards
Pioneer

In Triton's great artist impression of the VSS can anybody identify the two different aircraft that aren't the Sea King or Convair 200?

 

[TomS]

Artist's conception of V/STOL Support Ship (VSS) circa 1976.

Source:

The F-35/MV-22 just re-imagined concepts from the Zumwalt era?

www.snafu-solomon.com

By chance, has anyone come up with more detailed drawing of the V/STOL Support Ship I (VSS-I)?
I found these Interesting rendition of the concept on the internet, but it looks somewhat different to the wonderful artist impression supplied by Triton.

Regards
Pioneer

In Triton's great artist impression of the VSS can anybody identify the two different aircraft that aren't the Sea King or Convair 200?

The two tiltwing aircraft are Canadair CL-84-8 ASW aircraft.

More info here: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/canadair-general-dynamics-cl-84-projects.4267/

 

[nova10]

They are not. They are two different aircraft, both both jet powered. The CL-84 is a turbine powered tilt prop.

 

[TomS]

They are not. They are two different aircraft, both both jet powered. The CL-84 is a turbine powered tilt prop.

You might have been more clear; the CL-84s are pretty prominent in the picture and fit the "aren't Sea King or Convair 200."

Are you talking about the fighter-like aircraft forward of the island? They have roughly the shape of Harrier and might just be an artist's approximation of an improved Harrier type.

 

[nova10]

They are not. They are two different aircraft, both both jet powered. The CL-84 is a turbine powered tilt prop.

You might have been more clear; the CL-84s are pretty prominent in the picture and fit the "aren't Sea King or Convair 200."

Are you talking about the fighter-like aircraft forward of the island? They have roughly the shape of Harrier and might just be an artist's approximation of an improved Harrier type.

We're talking about different pictures. I meant the shipbucket 3 view. Apologies.

 

[Jason Dykstra (Wyvern)]

Are you talking about the fighter-like aircraft forward of the island? They have roughly the shape of Harrier and might just be an artist's approximation of an improved Harrier type.

I assume this would be the type that ran round under the designation of "AV-16", to make an improved version of the Harrier (with a Sea Harrier-like appearance).

 

[Archibald]

Asking in passing... I'm turning into a groupie of the Bell V-280 and its clever take at the CL-84 & V-22 general concept. In the case of the V-280 it is no longer the wing nor the engines that are pivoting, but "only" the propellers.

Why didn't the V-280 smart idea happened before ? I mean a) lack of imagination or b) some technical impossibility ?

 

[Grey Havoc]

I assume this would be the type that ran round under the designation of "AV-16", to make an improved version of the Harrier (with a Sea Harrier-like appearance).

Yes, that would seem to fit in with the time period in question.

EDIT:

(h/t Mark Nankivil)

 

[Grey Havoc]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1297805850548023298

View: https://twitter.com/tempest_books/status/1297805850548023298?s=20

 

[uk 75]

The US produced the optimum small carrier aircraft in the A4 Skyhawk.
Combine a developed Skyhawk with better radar and missile fit (Amraams and Harpoons) and you have a much easier plane to operate than any VSTOL.
ASW and AEW can be developed versions of the S2 Trader and Tracker which like the A4 operate easily from a Light Fleet carrier.
Less glamorous than VSTOL but does the same job a lot cheaper and a lot safer for the pilots.

 

[Archibald]

I assume this would be the type that ran round under the designation of "AV-16", to make an improved version of the Harrier (with a Sea Harrier-like appearance).

Yes, that would seem to fit in with the time period in question.

EDIT:

(h/t Mark Nankivil)

Stupendous artwork !

 

[TomS]

They are not. They are two different aircraft, both both jet powered. The CL-84 is a turbine powered tilt prop.

You might have been more clear; the CL-84s are pretty prominent in the picture and fit the "aren't Sea King or Convair 200."

Are you talking about the fighter-like aircraft forward of the island? They have roughly the shape of Harrier and might just be an artist's approximation of an improved Harrier type.

We're talking about different pictures. I meant the shipbucket 3 view. Apologies.

Ah, now I see.

I think they may be some versions of the various Lockheed VSTOL Type A designs seen in this thread.

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/lockheed-navy-type-a-vstol-proposals.13475/

 

[BlackBat242]

Artist's conception of V/STOL Support Ship (VSS) circa 1976.

Source:

The F-35/MV-22 just re-imagined concepts from the Zumwalt era?

www.snafu-solomon.com

By chance, has anyone come up with more detailed drawing of the V/STOL Support Ship I (VSS-I)?
I found these Interesting rendition of the concept on the internet, but it looks somewhat different to the wonderful artist impression supplied by Triton.

Regards
Pioneer

In Triton's great artist impression of the VSS can anybody identify the two different aircraft that aren't the Sea King or Convair 200?

They are not. They are two different aircraft, both both jet powered. The CL-84 is a turbine powered tilt prop.

You might have been more clear; the CL-84s are pretty prominent in the picture and fit the "aren't Sea King or Convair 200."

Are you talking about the fighter-like aircraft forward of the island? They have roughly the shape of Harrier and might just be an artist's approximation of an improved Harrier type.

We're talking about different pictures. I meant the shipbucket 3 view. Apologies.

The only Shipbucket drawing posted in this thread was posted by Pioneer, not by Triton.

 

[Hood]

The aircraft on the Shipbucket drawing are; Vought LTV 530, Rockwell XFV-12A, Sikorsky Sea King.

 

[uk 75]

Spain did order the SCS in 1979 and she entered service in 1988.

Spanish aircraft carrier Príncipe de Asturias - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Her airgroup was Harriers and Seakings then SH60s as well.
While the US ships might have entered service sooner, they would not have had any of the exotic designs looked at here on board.
The USN feared that they would be deprived of at least one, possibly more, Nimitz class to get these modest vessels.

 

[jsport]

InSvivia SWATH

www.insvivia.com

When we get back on track, a SWATH CG-STOVL can be looked into again. Back to seventies.

Anti-sub, AEW and EA and tanker ops could be accomplished w/ a multi-mission modular payload UCRAS when industry is motivated to develop.

CGs need to stand off a 1000miles an carry nearly 200 reconfigurable diameter VLS cells depending on the mission, but have an emphasis of large diameter long range HV and counter HV size cells.

Likewise, a CG STOVL should be equipped w/ a VGS which can put rds in orbit.

Deconflicting VLS and aircraft flight patterns seems like a 1970s problem IMHO. Aircraft and VLS cells are complementary.

A survivable fast large ship is the only means to standoff but retain the ability to close in and raid, and or react to break land, naval and air offensive in a particular distance battlespace.

 

[nova10]

That's interesting - thanks!

Indeed. I'd heard of proposals for Harrier to drop sonobouys but this is the first thing I've seen to report that it was actually done, even to a limited degree.

Appereantly they also used other strike craft, like A6/7 for ASW work as well.

The Navy Experimented With Turning Its Attack Jets Into Submarine Hunters 50 Years Ago

The experiment was far ahead of its time in many ways and came in part as a result of the Navy looking to fit every mission onto its supercarriers.

www.thedrive.com

Great article! Really interesting! Cheers! I can just imagine dropping sonobuoys being the first additional ability being added to the Stingray. Far more useful than arming it.

 

[JFC Fuller]

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.

 

[TomS]

Outline specs for the V/STOL Support ships 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.

There is something suspect about the VSS No 2 design in particular. A capacity of 72 A-7 spots in ~33ktons is much higher than expected. It is about 2/3 the capacity of the proposed CVV in the same time frame on roughly half the displacement.

 

[H_K]

There is something suspect about the VSS No 2 design in particular. A capacity of 72 A-7 spots in ~33ktons is much higher than expected. It is about 2/3 the capacity of the proposed CVV in the same time frame on roughly half the displacement.

I would tend to agree. The similarly sized Clemenceau had a max spotting of approx 54 A-7s (my rough estimate below), so 72 A-7s sounds very implausible.

 

[Archibald]

Or 72 much, much smaller Skyhawks...

 

[TomS]

Or 72 much, much smaller Skyhawks...

Fun fact, the spot factors of the A-4 (non-folding wing) and A-7 (folding wing) are very similar. Both right around 0.7 of an F/A-18C. (Based on CSBA estimates anyway.)

 

[H_K]

Fun fact, the spot factors of the A-4 (non-folding wing) and A-7 (folding wing) are very similar. Both right around 0.7 of an F/A-18C.

The A-4’s spot factor is 0.9 in A-7 terms, which in turn is 0.85 of an F/A-18C.

 

[TomS]

Fun fact, the spot factors of the A-4 (non-folding wing) and A-7 (folding wing) are very similar. Both right around 0.7 of an F/A-18C.

The A-4’s spot factor is 0.9 in A-7 terms, which in turn is 0.85 of an F/A-18C.

Thanks for the correction. I had them as closer than that. But the CSBA study I was referencing doesn't use the official numbers, because those are not readily findable for all aircraft.

I really would love to track down the doctrine pub that everyone cites* for a better list but it hasn't turned up online despite a lot of searching. (Somehow, some Chinese researchers have a copy but I can't find it.)

*NAEC-ENG-7604, Maximum Density Aircraft
Spotting CV and CVN Aircraft Carriers, LPH, LHA, and LHD Class Ships

 

[H_K]

I really would love to track down the doctrine pub that everyone cites*

I don’t have that but here are some good sources on spotting factors:

1980s air wing: page 52

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA474792.pdf

1990s air wing: page 28

https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=a60925e8d7dc985a81fc298b092c60d0e7633df1

 

[H_K]

Here’s some more info on older aircraft designs. The spot factor back then was measured as the # of aircraft that could be stored on an Essex class carrier.

Fighters
F4D Skyray: 84
F11F: 80
F-8 Crusader: 81
F-4: 57

Attack
A-4: 106
A-6: 63
A-3: 27

Support
E-1: 45
E-2: 47
EA-6A: 63
EA-6B: 59

And in CVA-59 terms:
A-5C: 63
F-111B: 85
F-14: 94
A-4E: 175

…I really should compile this into a clean spreadsheet.