US 1940 Liner - Carriers

Kugelblitz

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
25 May 2008
Messages
32
Reaction score
13
from Flight Global 31mar2015 -75 years ago:
"The US maritime Commission is calling tenders for the Construction of two luxury liners which are capable of conversion into aircraft carriers. Speed is stated to be 24 knots and they are intended for operation in the Pacific."

I guess this requirement was quickly made redundant by the 1940 navy law, but does anyone here have any addition info?
 
Image and text from 'U.S. Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated Design History' by Norman Friedman, US Naval Institute Press, 1983.
 

Attachments

  • P-4P.png
    P-4P.png
    96.9 KB · Views: 967
  • P-4P text.png
    P-4P text.png
    284 KB · Views: 708
This site describes an earlier proposal:
http://asmrb.pbworks.com/w/page/9959044/Pulp%20XCV

A proposal was made by the U.S. Navy, under War Plan ORANGE (war with Japan), for the conversion of fast ocean liners to aircraft carriers in time of war with Japan. Since the conversion would take at least six months, and the liners would be needed for troop transport (especially in a Pacific campaign), the XCV proposal came to nothing.

However, United States Lines proposed in the autumn of 1927 building at least two high-speed ocean liners for trans-Atlantic service, with military conversion simplified. The vessels would have a 3/4 length flight deck, and funnels offset to the starboard side. Two 18-plane squadrons (scouts, fighters, fighter-bombers, or torpedo bombers) could be carried; a single centerline elevator would be fitted. Actual military equipment (mostly the guns, naval aircraft and the aft-most portion of the landing deck) would only be installed when the vessel was brought into naval service. A catapult is mounted extending forward from the flight deck; another traversable catapult is mounted on the island, for launching float-equipped airplanes.

In civil service, a few mail planes would be carried, to be launched when the ship came within easy range of land. Some cargo -- such as automobiles -- would be carried in the hangar space; the hangar space aft of the elevator would be left open to the sky, and landings aboard would probably not be made. Probably only 500 - 800 passengers would be carried.

The Navy Department drew up plans for the vessel, in coordination with United States Lines, by 18 July 1928; but the U.S. Shipping Board by then had already rejected the plan in April. Large government subsidies and loans would have been needed. Naval interest in the project continued until the stock market crash of 1929 prevented United States Lines from further participation. Likely names would have been S.S. Manhattan and S.S. Washington.

The "New Deal" legislation of 1933 includes funds for building two carriers, the Yorktown and Enterprise; two other carriers, the Lexington and Saratoga, were built in the Twenties as conversions from incomplete battlecruisers.



Length 980', beam 100', displacement about 33,000 tons.

Speed 33-36 kts from turbines on 4 shafts; range 11,000 nautical miles at 18 kts.

Armament: four open mounts with single 6" Mark 12 guns; eight open mounts with 5"/25 caliber AA guns.

Crew: 1,000 in military service (including aviators and Marines)
 

Attachments

  • Liner-carrier.jpg
    Liner-carrier.jpg
    44.1 KB · Views: 950
Thanks a lot, also for the 1927 one.
This is embarrasing as i have the Friedman, but was pretty sure this wasn´t in it. Seems it´s time for a re-read...
 
Enjoy the read :)
 
Beyond the USN supposedly subsidizing Building those liner-carrier would have been very uneconomical to operate. The would be contemporary fast liners of Italy and Germany were all smaller, but had 2000+ passengers.
It´s hard to imagine how they could make money, even if fast delivery of mail was lucrative.
And USN desiring a 980ft CV operating 36 aircraft ...one has a feeling that they were not meant to be, but what a striking profile they would have had. Any knowledge of an artists expression of these vessels?
 
btw. I dont like the way real ships are mixed with fictional on the site the 1927 ship came from. Seen any other sources for it?
 
Yep. Friedman again, a page or so earlier, shows the same drawing of the 1927 proposal. I cited the other source because it saved me the trouble of some image manipulation for a coherent text.
 
Kugelblitz said:
btw. I dont like the way real ships are mixed with fictional on the site the 1927 ship came from. Seen any other sources for it?

Layman and McLoughlin have a few pages on the 1927 design, including the same conversion drawing. But they refer to it as the Flying Cloud intended for the Blue Ribbon Line, operating in conjunction with the Transoceanic Corporation of the United States.
 
Italy did it for real: the two sister liners Roma and Augustus were converted into the CV Aquila (ready in September 1943 but never entered in service and scrapped in 1951) and the CVL Sparviero (not completed and scrapped at the end of war).
 
Interesting foresight by the American's!
It makes me wonder if they couldn't do something similar with their civilian ships in this day and age as a strategic reserve force-pool of ships?
But then again America doesn't really build commercial ships anymore - does it ::)

Regards
Pioneer
 
We build many commercial ships, just not anywhere near as many as we once did. As for modern conversions, the MLP/AFSB hull is close enough to a "stock" Alaska class tanker that you could convert existing ships if you wanted or needed to. And there are US-flagged cargo ships which can form a reserve to support the logistics chain.
 
MS Atlantic Conveyor is the closest I can think of in the modern realm. And the follow-on conversion in the 1980s, I forget the name.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom