Keep the Essex class as a strike carrier

Riain

Banned
I mean I don't think the original designers were incompetent. I think that changing the design partway through construction to save money via the elimination of the catapults and traps was the worst and most disastrous decision. And that was more political/ Treasury.

People always denigrate the political and treasury, and they are often contemptible, but they are perhaps the most important things to get right. Since WW2 more aircraft have been lost to a politician or accountants pen than have been lost to enemy action.
 
Whoever came up with the idea of a supercarrier sized VTOL ship capable of handling a maximum of like 40 aircraft should have been keelhauled.
It depends if the large super size version cost £4B and the small one with half the aircraft £3B why go for the small ship if you know that HMT will not give you a third anyway?

I'm not sure that the large CV actually cost that much more, its still got the presumably the same electronics fit and number of crew will be similar for many of the jobs no matter how large the ship is just look at how large modern merchant ships have grown? So the only added cost is the air wing size and you can always run that at reduced capacity in peacetime or bring along USMC to test full capacity at no extra cost.... (and a bit more on fuel and steel but not sure that matters much on modern ships 20-10%?)
 

McPherson

Banned
Decidedly off topic, but as a sidebar...

The RN captured one sub after forcing them to beach themselves. They dropped over 200 ASW weapons while trying to hunt the other down. That seems a little like overkill for a navy "swanning round blissfully unaware"...

The ASW officer responsible for that prosecution (Chris Perry) was the man I cited for that conclusion about the RN swanning about... and instances of RN mistakes made in battle.


START 27.00 in about USS Catfish (ARA Santa Fe).

Sheer luck and good guessing caught the Santa Fe in the act of submergence.

Blue and Blue free for all during the prosecution... Start at 30.00. This was similar to a United States army free for all during the Gulf War where some US air cavalry helos in direct Overwatch support during a confused armor engagement, broke their fire control discipline and an Apache KILLED a Bradley and an M113 full of American soldiers (2 dead, many wounded) because a US officer, who was supposed to manage the battle got "buck fever" and wanted to target service something instead of strike coordinate and assign the targets in response to positive ground control. HE did the shooting.


The British were actually lucky that time at South Georges in their own wild ordnance launches against the Santa Fe. They could have killed each other.

Which ones?

HMS Sheffield is an example.

The Type 42 destroyer was designed as an air defence ship and built to a tight budget resulting in a slightly compromised platform. The main Sea Dart system was usually very effective against medium and high altitude targets but the fire control radars did not have the ability to successfully track low-level targets. Although the sea-skimming missile threat was well understood and the RN possessed their own ship-launched Exocets, the entire Royal Navy fleet of the time lacked effective Close In Weapons Systems (CIWS). (The only exception were the new Type 22 frigates armed with very effective Sea Wolf). This was a glaring institutional failure that is hard to explain, especially as the Soviets had many potent anti-ship missiles. Space and funding constraints would not allow the fitting of the Sea Wolf missile on the Type 42 and the only back-up weapons were 2 manually-aimed 20mm Oerlikon cannons, dating from WWII. The Sea Dart was not always reliable and it seems extraordinary that a cheap second line of defence consisting of several modern 20 or 30mm cannon mounts had not been fitted. The Sheffield also lacked basic electronic jammers that could confuse missile radars. The best option would have been the Phalanx CIWS that had been in development since 1973 and was proven in service with the US Navy by 1980. Phalanx is entirely automated and would almost certainly have saved the Sheffield. It was hurriedly purchased by the RN and subsequently fitted to many surface ships, it is still in service today.

Let me continue.

There also existed many shortcomings in warship design and equipment fit that were quickly exposed by the Exocet strike. The use of formica panels were a hazard that created lethal flying shrapnel shards when subject to blast. Some escape hatches were found to be too small for men dressed in breathing apparatus. The Rover portable fire pumps were unreliable and there was inadequate fire-fighting equipment held onboard most ships. There was insufficient attention to the dangers of smoke in the design of ventilation and provision of fire curtains. Standard issue nylon clothing was found to have melted in contact with fire, severely exacerbating burns. The ship contained PVC cable insulation and foam furnishings that gave off toxic fumes in a fire.

Furthermore. (Start pp 57.)

The Sheffield was killed by fuel fires ignited by Exocet missile fuel and not by missile blast. Atlantic Conveyor was lost the same way. The RN Sheffield crew and the Atlantic Conveyor fought and lost ship fires very similar to those that almost cost the USN the USS Stark. That indicates inadequate damage control training that is aggravated by poor shipwrighting. But USS Stark was not too dissimilar to HMS Sheffield as to ship construction mistakes made.

(pp 59.)

HMS Antelope

Survived the dud bomb hit, but was own goaled when the EOD team removing the supposed inerted ordnance somehow set it off and started a fire when they tried to remove the bomb. Fires swept through the ship and once again the British RN crew lost the fire fighting battle and Antelope had to be scuttled.

===================================

Now back to the Essex and lessons to be applied. (^^^) from above.

Whether the Essex enters into RN service in 1972 or the HMS Hermes is fully restored or the HMS Bulwark is retrofitted back to CATOBAR status...

HMS-Bulwark.-2.jpg


the important things to remember about aviation ships and aircraft carriers is that they are floating bombs. FIRE kills these ships. Firefighting saves them.

Old aircraft carriers have leaky fuel lines, defective purge ventilation and obsolete automatic fire mains. Magazines and hidden spaces inside the hull, especially in the stern steer control and the bilges contain unseen and or ignored fire hazards (Usually forgotten oiled cleaning rags in a stores locker are a culprit.). To bring an Essex up to acceptable SLEP standard for modern aviation operations for the RN or the USN would require a massive overhaul to fix those firefighting problems.

And I cannot emphasize that in the 1970s, neither navy had kept up their WW II damage control proficiency or ethos. The sailors have to be willing to stand and DIE fighting a fire to save their fellow sailors and their ship. That is a hard lesson to learn. When all you have is sea water and an ax and the linoleum burns around you, you have to stay and try, no matter the urge to run..
 
Last edited:
Tankers don't keep up with the fast jets, they meet them at pre arranged points, top them up and send them on their way. If tanking on the way out the tankers are sent out first.

Obviously I'm not an expert but seems like you could use it for the lower end tanking and use buddy tanks for the higher end strike tanking. You'd still use buddy tanking somewhat but it would save a lot of hours on fighter air frames.
 
Tankers don't keep up with the fast jets, they meet them at pre arranged points, top them up and send them on their way. If tanking on the way out the tankers are sent out first.

The Greyhound is too slow to allow the fighters to hook up without the risk of stalling. The maximum speed of the Greyhound is 200mph below the subsonic cruise speed of the fighters it would be refueling.
 
The Greyhound is too slow to allow the fighters to hook up without the risk of stalling. The maximum speed of the Greyhound is 200mph below the subsonic cruise speed of the fighters it would be refueling.

Fair enough. Then I guess the obvious answer would be the purpose built tanker variant of the S3 Viking that was proposed.
 

marathag

Banned
Tankers don't keep up with the fast jets, they meet them at pre arranged points, top them up and send them on their way. If tanking on the way out the tankers are sent out first.
KB-29s and 1st&2nd Generation Jets had real problems, with at altitude, stall speed was very close to the tankers top speed, leading to the KB-50J with jet pods to get the speed up.
 
The Greyhound is too slow to allow the fighters to hook up without the risk of stalling. The maximum speed of the Greyhound is 200mph below the subsonic cruise speed of the fighters it would be refueling.

The Hornet won't be refueling at cruising speed, which is approximately 520 knots. Heck, most tankers can't get up to that speed. Hornet's refuel at a range of 120-150 knots about their stall speed, which is around 120 knots, depending on load and angle of attack. Stall speed is the most critical since if you drop below it you start to fall out of the sky. Cruising speed is just the most economical speed taking into account load and range. So you are looking at a range of 240-270 knots for the speed of the tanker. FYI, KC-130J's have a refueling speed envelope of 100-270 knots, the lower speeds for helicopters and the higher speeds for jets. If developed, tanker versions of C-2's or S-3's should have had no problem refueling Hornets.
 
What POD would be required for Congress to decide there is a need for such a large CV force?

Michael

The only way I see the Essex class remaining in a front line role beyond when they did, is it Congress requires the Navy to maintain between 18-24 carriers in the fleet. Once Congress reduced the requirement to 15, then to 12, all rationale for keeping the Essex disappears. Before that point, you can argue that maintaining the Essex class in service is a cost saving measure. Particularly since Congress won't approve enough funds to build that many Nimitz class.

As for individual ship numbers to make it cost effective to buy spares, I think you need a minimum of 6 hulls in front line service to make you cheap enough to buy new parts. Below that, you're basically caniblizing decommissioned ships for spares. Ideally, you'd probably want three ships each in the Atlantic and Pacific with one in Pensacola as training carrier.

What doesn't get spent too retain the Essex? I'm sketching out a TL where JFK doesn't get built due to keeping the Essex. Probably the biggest immediate butterfly.
 

SsgtC

Banned
What POD would be required for Congress to decide there is a need for such a large CV force?

Michael
There's a couple I can think of. One is a more volatile Cold War with a higher risk of a super power conflict. Another would be far more brushfire wars requiring a bigger military presence, more frequent intervention by naval air forces. The third would be the USSR and/or the PRC making an earlier and more concerted effort to acquire carriers of their own, sparking something of a "carrier panic" in Congress
 
What POD would be required for Congress to decide there is a need for such a large CV force?

Michael
Maybe the UK joins France in dropping out of NATO, or at least its military cooperation part.

And both are less committed to the Cold War generally. Depriving the US of potential allies in confrontations with Soviet proxies or allies.

So several ESSEX class carriers are retained into the late 1970s and beyond. I suspect that would mainly be in secondary roles rather than as intended to participate in strikes against Soviet territories. But they'd be at least as useful as Ark Royal was in the 1970s.
 

McPherson

Banned
Russian shipbuilding quality aside they're a much more credible threat than the Kiev's with their abysmal Harrier wannabes.

The Yaks were supposed to CAP a SAG against LRMPs.

upload_2019-11-19_13-30-4.png



The missiles were the anti-ship strike means. Different needs, different viewpoint and different doctrine. The Russians expected to fight NATO STANFLOAT in the Arctic where they falsely thought American flattops would not be or could not operate.
 
Tankers don't keep up with the fast jets, they meet them at pre arranged points, top them up and send them on their way. If tanking on the way out the tankers are sent out first.

Right, tankers generally don't fly with the strike aircraft, they are at a pre-arranged point or several (called an air bridge). Frankly if the USN ever used the too slow excuse for not keeping around some S-3s to use as tankers (as SSgtC pointed out), I'm betting that's more of a bullshit reason they toss out when trying to make a laundry list of reasons for why a platform needs to be retired.
 

Riain

Banned
I suspect the C2 speed issue is less of a red herring that it is made out to be, mainly because of what it would take to put such a slow aircraft out to the tanking point; turning the carrier and its entire Task Force into the wind maybe 30 minutes before the strike to launch a single aircraft. This throws the entire launch-recovery cycle out of whack, whereas a faster tanker can launch in the same cycle as its strike and the Admiral can sail his ships to where he wants them to be more of the time instead of being dicked-around by the wind.
 

SsgtC

Banned
I suspect the C2 speed issue is less of a red herring that it is made out to be, mainly because of what it would take to put such a slow aircraft out to the tanking point; turning the carrier and its entire Task Force into the wind maybe 30 minutes before the strike to launch a single aircraft. This throws the entire launch-recovery cycle out of whack, whereas a faster tanker can launch in the same cycle as its strike and the Admiral can sail his ships to where he wants them to be more of the time instead of being dicked-around by the wind.
Worse even. The C-2 cruises at less than half the speed of the Hornet, 270 knots verses 580. So if you want to tank the strike say 300 miles out, you need to launch an hour before your strike package
 
Top