The United States Navy in the Cold War Era: What ifs.

[chico20854]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

The USN built one ship and converted another specifically for use as major command ships, while a third such ship was planned for conversion.

The heavy cruiser NORTHAMPTON (CA-125), cancelled in 1945 while under construction , was subsequently in 1948 as a tactical light command ship (CLC-1) and completed in that configuration in 1953. After operating as a fleet flagship, she was reconfiguration to serve as a National Emergency Command Post Afloat (NECPA) in 1961 and re-classified as CC-1. She was decommissioned in 1970 and laid up in reserve until stricken in 1977.

The light carriers WRIGHT (originally CVL-49) and SAIPAN (CVL-48) were similarly designated for conversion to the NECPA role. The WRIGHT, also designated AVT-7 while in reserve, was converted in 1962-1963 and became CC-2; she operated in the NECPA role until 1970 when she was laid up in reserve. She was stricken in 1977.

The SAIPAN, designated as AVT-6 while in reserve after World War Two, began conversion too CC-3 in 1964, but was instead completed as a major communications relay ship in 1966 (renamed ARLINGTON and classified AGMR-2).

In the NEPCA role these ships were to provide afloat facilities for the President in the event of a national emergency or war.

Some more on CC-1, the Northampton is here.

I'm going to weave a similar concept into the history thread, stay tuned!!!

[dragoon500ly]

A precursor to the V-22 Osprey, the Bell XV-15A is a tilt-rotor technology demonstration aircraft. This was an early entry in the Joint Service Advanced Vertical Lift Aircraft program of the early 1970s. Considered to be the second successful experimental tiltrotor aircraft and the first to demonstrate the concept's high speed performance relative to conventional helicopters. One of the major problems with the early tiltrotor aircraft designs was that the driveshafts carrying power from the fuselage out to the wingtip rotors, along with the gearbox and tilting mechanisms at the wingtips, had substantial loads placed upon them and were heavy. They were transferring large amounts of power and torque long distances for an aircraft power transmission system.

The XV-15 experimental aircraft introduced a major design concept advance: instead of engines in the fuselage, the XV-15 moved the engines out to the rotating wingtip pods, directly coupled to the rotors. The normal path for power was directly from the engine into a speed-reduction gearbox and into the rotor/propeller without any long shafts involved. There was still a driveshaft along the wings for emergency use to transfer power to the opposite rotor in case of engine failure, but that shaft did not normally carry any power loads, making it lighter.

The tilting engine concept introduced complexities in the design of the engines and engine pods to be able to shift from operating horizontally to operating vertically. Those problems were addressed fairly early in the XV-15 program.

The XV-15 first flew on 3 May 1977. Flowing wind tunnel and flight testing by Bell at the Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California the aircraft was moved to NASA Dryden at Edwards Air Force Base, California. The XV-15 flight testing continued expanding its flight envelope. It was able to successfully operate in both helicopter and normal aircraft flight modes and smoothly transition between the two. Once the aircraft was considered sufficiently tested, it was returned to Ames Research Center for further testing.

Its first public appearance was at the 1981 Paris Air Show where it was the hit of the show with its maneuverability wowed the audience. The XV-15s were a standard demonstration in the annual summer airshow at the co-located Moffett Field Naval Air Station for several years during the 1980s. Both XV-15s were flown actively throughout the 1980s testing aerodynamics and tiltrotor applications for civilian and military aircraft types that might follow, including the V-22 and AW609 program.

The first XV-15 prototype aircraft, N702NA, was transferred back to Bell for company development and demonstration use. On 20 August 1992, the aircraft crashed while being flown by a guest test pilot. He was lifting off for a final hover when a bolt slipped out of the collective control system on one pylon, causing that rotor to go to full pitch. The aircraft rolled upside down out of control and crashed inverted. While significantly damaged, the aircraft was largely structurally intact and both the pilot and copilot escaped with only minor injuries from the crash. The cockpit of the aircraft was salvaged and converted for use as a flight simulator.

The second XV-15 prototype, N703NA, was used for tests to support the V-22 Osprey military tiltrotor program and Bell/Agusta BA609 civilian medium tiltrotor transport aircraft. It continued in primarily NASA test operations until September 2003. The shortest takeoff distance was achieved with the nacelles at 75 degrees angle.

The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale classifies the XV-15 as a Rotodyne, and as such it holds the speed record of 456 kilometers per hour (283 mph), and the 3 km and 6 km time-to-climb.

SPECIFICATIONS
Crew: 2
Capacity: up to 9 passengers if seats fitted/3,400lbs (1,542kg) max payload STOL
Width: 57ft 2 in (17,42m overall with rotors turning
Height: 12ft 8in (3.86m) over tail fins. 15ft 4in (5m) with nacelles vertical
Wing Area: 169 sq ft (15.7 square meters)
Empty Weight: 9,570lbs (4,341kg)
Gross Weight: 13,000lbs (5,897kf) VTO
Max. Takeoff Weight: 15,000lbs (6,804kg) STO
Fuel Capacity: 229 US gal (867L) in four wing tanks
Powerplant: 2 × Textron Lycoming LTC1K-4K turboshaft / turboprop engines, 1,550 shp (1,160 kW) each normal takeoff power (10 min max)
Main Rotor Diameter: 2x25ft (7.6m)
Main Rotor Area: 981.8sq ft (91.21 square meters) total
Max. Speed: 332knts (615km/h) at 17,000ft (5,182m)
Cruise Speed: 303kts (561km/h) at 16,500ft (5,029m)
Never Exceed Speed: 364kts (674km/h)
Range: 445nm (824km) with max fuel
Service Ceiling: 29,000ft (8,800m)
Service Ceiling OEI: 15,000ft (4,572m)
Hover Ceiling IGE: 10,500ft (3,200m)
Hover Ceiling OGE: 8,650ft (2,637m)
Rate of Climb: 3,150ft/min (16.0m/s) at sea level

[dragoon500ly]

Designed as an integrated air-defense system for the USN, replacing the Talos/Terrier/Tarter SAMs. It consists of the RIM-50A Typhon LR and the RIM-55A Typhon MR paired with the AN/SPG-59 radar. Replaced by the Standard MR/ER missile program due to costs of the Typhon system.

Development of Typhon was initiated in the late 1950s, as the existing Talos, Terrier, and Tartar long-, medium-, and short-ranged missiles were considered to be approaching obsolescence; in the event of a mass attack by Soviet bomber forces, the requirement for each missile to have its own dedicated target illuminator would lead to rapid saturation of the defensive system. The Typhon system, developed under a contract awarded to the Bendix Corporation, would overcome this through the use of the AN/SPG-59 electronically scanned array radar system, capable of tracking and engaging multiple targets simultaneously.

The missile system to complement the radar was originally named Super Talos (long-range) and Super Tartar (short-range), but to avoid confusion with upgrades for the existing missiles was soon renamed Typhon. Typhon LR, the only version of the Typhon missile system to be test-flown, was ramjet-powered and was capable of intercepting high-speed aircraft and missiles, engaging targets in the Mach 3–4 range at between 50 feet (15 m) to 95,000 feet (29,000 m) altitude and 6,000 yards (5,500 m) to 110 nautical miles (130 mi; 200 km) range; a secondary capability in the surface-to-surface role, capable of targeting enemy ships, was also included in the specification. While primarily intended to be armed with a conventional high explosive warhead, Typhon LR was designed to be capable of carrying the W60 nuclear warhead.

Typhon MR was designed to be capable of intercepting aircraft at between 50 feet (15 m) to 50,000 feet (15,000 m) in altitude and 3,000 yards (2,700 m) to 25 nautical miles (29 mi; 46 km) range but had yet to enter testing before the Typhon project was canceled.

In March 1961 the first test launches of the SAM-N-8 Typhon LR took place;
beginning in 1962, the test ship USS Norton Sound entered refit to install the Typhon Weapon Control System to allow at-sea tests to be undertaken. However, the expense of the Typhon system, combined with the technical issues encountered during development, meant that the program was canceled in November 1963. The conversion of Norton Sound was allowed to be completed to provide test data, the ship recommissioning in June 1964; following the tests the Typhon equipment was removed in July 1966.

Specifications, Typhon LR
Weight: 1,700lbs (770kg) w/o booster. 3,620lbs (1,640kg) w/booster.
Length: 15ft 6in (4.72m) w/o booster. 27ft 7in (8.41m w/booster.
Diameter: 16in (410mm) missile. 18.5in (470mm) booster.
Warhead: 150lb (68kg) HE warhead or W60 nuclear warhead (yield est. 2.0kt)

[dragoon500ly]

This prototype supersonic United States Navy fighter was built in 1977. The XFV-12 design attempted to combine the Mach 2 speed and AIM-7 Sparrow armament of the McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in a VTOL (vertical takeoff and landing) fighter for the small Sea Control Ship which was under study at the time. On paper, it looked superior to the subsonic Hawker Siddeley Harrier attack fighter. However, it was unable to demonstrate an untethered vertical takeoff and its inability to meet performance requirements terminated the program.

In 1972, the Navy issued a request for proposals for a next generation supersonic V/STOL fighter/attack aircraft. Rockwell's design with the XFV-12 won against Convair's proposal with the Convair Model 200. The XFV-12A, despite its concept being considered risky compared to that of the Harrier, was selected for development.

To reduce costs, the nose from a Douglas A-4 Skyhawk and intakes from the F-4 Phantom were used. Engine rig testing began in 1974. Free-flight model tests conducted at the NASA Langley full-scale wind tunnel showed the projected thrust augmentation levels were highly optimistic, and that the aircraft would most likely be incapable of vertical flight on the thrust available, while the design remained suitable for conventional flight.

The XFV-12 used a thrust augmented wing concept in which exhaust would be directed through spaces in a wing opened up like venetian blinds to increase available lift, somewhat like Lockheed's unsuccessful XV-4 Hummingbird. Such arrangement restricted weapons carriage to under the narrow fuselage and two conformal missile mounts. Its canards were extremely large, with almost 50% of the area of the wings, making it effectively a tandem wing. The 30,000 lbf (130 kN)-class afterburning turbofan engine had enough thrust to lift the weight of the 20,000 lb (9,072 kg) aircraft. It was modified to further increase thrust for vertical lift. The rear engine exhaust was closed and the gases redirected through ducts to ejector nozzles in the wings and canards for vertical lift.

Ground testing of the XFV-12A began in July 1977, and the aircraft was officially rolled out at the Rockwell International facility in Columbus, Ohio on 26 August. Due to increasing costs, the construction of the second prototype was abandoned.

Tethered hover tests were conducted in 1978. Over the course of six months, it was determined that the XFV-12A design suffered from major deficiencies with regard to vertical flight, especially a lack of sufficient vertical thrust. Lab tests showed 55% thrust augmentation should be expected; however, differences in the scaled-up system dropped augmentation levels to 19% for the wing and a mere 6% in the canard. While the augmenters did work as expected, the extensive ducting of the propulsion system degraded thrust, and in the end the power-to-weight ratio was such that the engine was capable of vertically lifting only 75% of the weight of the aircraft in which it was mounted.

Following the tests, and with the program suffering from cost overruns, the Navy decided the XFV-12A was not worth further development and canceled the project in 1981.

Specifications
Crew: 1
Length: 43ft 11in (13.39 m)
Wingspan: 28ft 6.25in (8.6932 m)
Height: 10ft 4in (3.15 m)
Wing area: 293 sq ft (27.2 m2)
Empty weight: 13,800lb (6,260 kg)
Gross weight: 19,500lb (8,845 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 24,250lb (11,000 kg)
Fuel capacity: 2,763L (730 US gal; 608 imp gal) in two fuselage bladder tanks and two integral wing tanks
Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney F401-PW-400 afterburning turbofan engine, 30,000lbs with afterburner.
Maximum speed: Mach 2.2-2.4
Thrust/weight: 1.5 (conventional)
Take-off run: 300 ft (91 m) at 24,250lb (11,000 kg)
Guns: 1 20mm M-61 Vulcan cannon w/639 rounds
Missiles: 2 AIM-7 Sparrow (carried under fuselage) and 2 AIM-9L Sidewinder AAMs or 4 AIM-7s

[Raellus]

I don't know if it's within the scope of this thread, but the Navy almost got a single seat A-6 instead of the A-7 Corsair II.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...a-7-corsair-ii

-

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I don't know if it's within the scope of this thread, but the Navy almost got a single seat A-6 instead of the A-7 Corsair II.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...a-7-corsair-ii

-

And a two seater A-7 for the carrier groups.

What's interesting for me is the sheer number of projects that were dreamed up in the 1960s-70s.

[dragoon500ly]

Another “aircraft carrier” concept that continues to receive support from some officials of the Department of Defense is the Mobile Offshore Base (MOB). A MOB is a large, mobile sea base, made up of modular components that are towed to the crisis area and assembled at sea.

These platforms referred to in the Bottom-Up Review as “floating islands”, would be capable of operating from 150 to almost 300 aircraft, depending on the type, including C-130 and even C-17 transports as well as large amounts of dry and liquid cargo. Although not directly comparable to aircraft carriers, MOBs could reduce the requirement for carriers in some areas, where ample time, resources, and security are available to deploy and assemble the platforms.

These platforms would be non-self-propelled. One CAN study addressed the MOB concept comprising six modules assembled to form a platform 3,000ft (914.6m) and 300ft (91.46m) wide. Another concept being developed by McDermott International and Babcock & Wilcox provides for a platform 4,925ft (1,502m) long and 500ft (152m) wide. This design has five separate modules to be towed and assembled at a remote location. The assembled displacement at operating draft would be 1,700,000 tons. Massive amounts of cargo could be transported and stored in the individual sections.
The MOB concept would be the largest floating structure ever built. However, with the available offshore drilling platform and related technology, and the use of subcomponents, there is considered to be little risk in the construction of the platform.

A MOB also could be used to rearm surface ships and submarines and refuel surface ships.

In 2001, the Institute for Defense Analysis, a DoD sponsored think tank, thinks that a MOB would be less cost-effective than nuclear-propelled carriers or high-speed cargo ships for projecting U.S. military power into distant regions. By one estimate, one MOB module would cost about $1.5 billion, meaning a set of modules 5,000ft long would cost $8 billion.

Critics also have cited the loss to explosion of a huge floating oil platform off Brazil in 2001 to warn that such massive structures filled with ammunition and fuel, are too vulnerable to accidents in sea and enemy attacks.

Supporters point that MOB-type platforms would complement, not replace, aircraft carriers. The Department of Defense is sponsoring ongoing studies of the MOB concept , and the Navy’s 30-year shipbuilding plan submitted to Congress in 2003 has $100 million in FY 2008 and $900 million in FY 2009 for construction of a MOB. However, these funds may have been inserted as a “place holder” to ensure Navy participation in the project should the Department of Defense continue to show interest.

From 2003 onward, the MOB concept has received less support because of the efforts of Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Vern Clark to develop the “Sea Base” concept.