RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-06-2022, 11:18 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,825
Default The United States Navy in the Cold War Era: What ifs.

(Primary source material is the 13th Edition of the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet by Norman Polmar and the Naval Historical Center)

Heavy Aircraft Carrier (CVA) On 29 July 1948, construction of five "supercarriers", for which funds had been provided in the Naval Appropriations Act of 1949. The keel of the first of the five planned postwar carriers was laid down on 18 April 1949 at Newport News Drydock and Shipbuilding. The program was canceled on 23 April 1949, United States was not completed, and the other four planned carriers were never built.

The primary drive behind the design was the development of a carrier using the new jet aircraft. The new jets were faster, larger and much heavier that the WW2-era aircraft used on the Essex and Midway-class carriers. It was anticipated that the aircraft would have a much longer range thus allowing the carrier to operate further away from any targets. These requirements would require that the ship’s strength deck would have to be the flight deck rather than the hanger deck as in traditional US carrier design. The heavier flight deck meant that the ship would have a greater tendency to roll in rough seas, since a much larger part of the ship’s weight would be high above the waterline.

Due to the anticipated size of the new aircraft, the CVA would be flush-decked, meaning that the design would have no island superstructure. This resulted in two major concerns;

1) How would the exhaust gas from the power plants be diverted from the flight deck? The USN’s first carrier, USS Langley, had been built flush-decked and this problem caused a great many problems that were never satisfactory resolved.

2) Were are the necessary radar equipment to be mounted ? One possible solution was for a command ship to remain close by, carrying the task force commander and the necessary radar equipment. The USS Northampton (CLC-1) would be built to fulfill this mission. Another solution was for an airborne early warning radar to be carried among the air group.

It was finally assumed that the CVA would not operate by itself, but in conjunction with traditional fleet carriers as a complementary bomber-carrier. There was a great deal of debate on the CVA’s mission. One viewpoint was that the ship would carry a group of large bombers that would be secured to the flight deck with no hanger space as the bombers would be too large to be moved via the ship’s elevators. This allowed for munition to be reduced as multiple strikes would be unlikely. A hanger area for a small fighter contingent and a small magazine for nuclear weapons storage were provided.

The final design included a more balanced air group but would be able to support the heavier nuclear-armed bombers. It would be equipped with four deck edge elevators (three waist and one stern) as well as four catapults (two forward and two waist). The CVA would be able to launch and simultaneously recover aircraft. Estimated cost was $189 million dollars (equivalent to $1.66 billion in 2020).

Unfortunately, the CVA concept as a nuclear-armed bomber carrier was viewed as a challenge to the USAF’s monopoly on strategic nuclear weapons delivery.

Looking to cut the military budget and accepting without question the Air Force argument on nuclear deterrence by means of large, long-range bombers, Secretary of Defense Louis A. Johnson announced the cancellation of construction of United States, on 23 April 1949, five days after the ship's keel was laid. Secretary of the Navy John Sullivan immediately resigned, and Congress held an inquiry into the manner and wisdom of Johnson's decision. In the subsequent "Revolt of the Admirals" the Navy was unable to advance its case that large carriers would be essential to national defense.
Soon afterward, Johnson and Francis P. Matthews, the man he advanced to be the new Secretary of the Navy, set about punishing those officers that let their opposition be known. Admiral Louis Denfeld was forced to resign as Chief of Naval Operations, and a number of other admirals and lesser ranks were punished. The invasion of South Korea six months later resulted in an immediate need for a strong naval presence, and Matthews' position as Secretary of the Navy and Johnson's position as Secretary of Defense crumbled, both ultimately resigning.

Displacement: 66,000 tons standard, 83,000 tons full load. Length: 1,030ft (314m) at waterline; 1,088ft (331.7m) overall Beam: 125 feet (38.1m) Flight Deck: 190 ft (57.9m) Propulsion: (8) 1,200psi Foster-Wheeler boilers; (4) Westinghouse steam turbines totaling 280,000shp; driving four screws. Speed: 33 knots Range: 12,000nm at 20kts Crew: 3,019 officers and enlisted, 2,480 air wing officers and enlisted, total of 5,499 officers and enlisted Armament: (8) 5in/54 caliber guns in single mounts; (16) 3in/70mm AA guns in eight twin mounts; (20) 20mm/70 autocannons (single, dual or quad mounts were debated).
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-06-2022, 11:19 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,825
Default USN What ifs Part Two

Sea Control Ship (SCS) In the late 1960s, studies by US Navy identified a potential requirement for large scale convoy operations in the event of a war with the Soviet Union. In order to compensate for a shortage of escort ships, it was suggested that helicopters operating from small helicopter carriers could fill the gap. When Elmo Zumwalt became Chief of Naval Operations in 1970, he seized on the idea of small helicopter carriers as part of his "High-Low" plan in which large numbers of cheaper lower capability ships would be built to supplement existing expensive high capability ships. The proposed small carrier, which was named the Sea Control Ship (SCS), was required to provide continuous airborne cover of two anti-submarine and one airborne early warning helicopters, as well as carrying VSTOL fighters to stop Soviet long-range aircraft (like the Tupolev Tu-95 "Bear") from shadowing convoys and directing submarines and surface ships against them. This resulted in a requirement to carry 14 helicopters and three VSTOL fighters such as the AV-8 Harrier. It was hoped that production SCSs could be built for $100 million each, an eighth of the price of a full sized aircraft carrier.
In 1971 USS GUAM (LPH-9), was used as a test vessel. Testing began on 18 January 1972. In 1974 she was deployed to the Atlantic Ocean. The vessel was equipped with AV-8A Harrier STOVL fighters and SH-3 Sea King ASW helicopters. The tests were completed in July 1974.
The lead ship was planned for the fiscal year 1975 shipbuilding program. However, Congress refused to authorize the ships because of their limited capability and strong opposition by the advocates of large carriers. The SCSs were smaller than most fleet aircraft carriers, and the concept was seized upon by nations wanting inexpensive aircraft carriers. Spain's PRINCIPE DE ASTURIAS, and her smaller cousin ship, Thailand's HTMS CHAKI NARUEBET, were based on the final US Navy blueprints for a dedicated sea control ship, but with the addition of a ski-jump ramp and follow a similar mission profile.

Displacement: 9,770 tons light; 13,735 tons full load Length: 620ft (190m) Beam: 80ft (24m) Draft: 21.62ft (6.59m) Propulsion: (2) General Electric LM2500+gas turbines, single shaft, 45,000shp; (3) 2500Kw ship service generators. Speed: 26kts; 24kts sustained Crew: 76 officers, 624 enlisted Armament: Two Mk15 Phalanx CIWS Aircraft Carried: (3) AV-8A Harrier VTOL; (17) SH-3 Sea King ASW helicopters
Aviation Facilities: Flight Deck: 545 x 105ft (166.1 x 32m) Enclosed Hanger: 19ft (5.8m) high Aircraft Elevators: 60,000lb (27.2mt) lift capacity Centerline: 60x30ft (18.3x9.1m) Stern: 35x50ft (10.7x15.4m) JP-5 Fuel Capacity: 950 tons (861.8mt) Aviation Ordnance: 180 tons (163mt)
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-06-2022, 11:21 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,825
Default USN What Ifs Part Three

VSTOL Support Ship During the mid-1970s there was increased USN interest in VSTOL aircraft, with a major analysis known as the Sea-Based Air Master Study developing a long-term program for several categories of VSTOL aircraft.
Admiral Zumwalt's successor as CNO, James L. Holloway III abandoned plans for the SCS and instead proposed a larger and faster design, the VSTOL Support Ship, or VSS. By June 1976, it was planned that the VSS would be 690 feet (210 m) long and would be powered by four General Electric LM2500 gas turbines driving two propeller shafts (essentially double the machinery of the single shaft SCS) which would give a speed of 29 knots (54 km/h; 33 mph). It would carry 22 helicopters (16 H-53 Sea Stallions and six LAMPS light helicopters) together with four Harriers. Holloway hoped to develop a series of advanced V/STOL aircraft, including a supersonic fighter and a utility aircraft for Anti-Submarine and Airborne Early Warning duties which could operate from the VSS as well as from the Navy's existing carriers, although these types were never fully defined. The need to accommodate the new designs resulted in the carrier's design being reworked in February 1978 as the VSS II. This design had a larger hangar and greater beam than the original design to allow the potentially larger advanced aircraft to be carried, and carried substantially more aviation fuel.
A third variant, the VSS III, evolved by July 1978 as a result of a requirement to protect the ship's magazines. In order to cope with the extra weight of the armor, the ship had a new hull form with less freeboard but allowing greater speed. The final VSS III design was 717 feet (218.5 m) long overall and 690 feet (210.3 m) at the waterline, with a beam of 178 feet (54.3 m) and a draft of 24 feet 4 inches (7.42 m). Displacement was 20,116 long tons (20,439 t) light and 29,130 long tons (29,600 t) full load. As well as the ship's aircraft, two quadruple Harpoon anti-ship-missile launchers were to be mounted on the fantail, with two Phalanx Close-in weapon systems were to be fitted. A complement of 49 officers and 910 other ranks were to operate the ship while the ship's air wing had 87 officers and 541 other ranks. The final configuration is described below.

Displacement: 20,115 tons light; 29,130 tons full load Length: 690ft (210.4m); 717ft (218.6m) oa Beam: 178ft (54.3m) Draft: 25.5ft (7.7m) Propulsion: (4) General Electric LM2500 gas turbines; 2 shafts; 90,000shp Speed: 30kts Manning: 97 officers and 910 enlisted, air group of 87 officers and 541 enlisted; total of 184 officers and 1,451 enlisted. Armament: (2) Mk15 Phalanx CIWS Air Group: 8 AV-8A Harrier VTOL; 6 SH-2F Sea Sprite and 16 SH-3 Sea King ASW helicopters
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-06-2022, 11:22 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,825
Default USN What Ifs Part Four

Medium Aircraft Carriers In the early 1970s, the United States Navy, following the doctrine of Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Elmo Zumwalt for larger numbers of smaller and cheaper ships, initiated design studies for a "minimum-cost" carrier of 50,000–60,000 tons. The new design was planned to be much cheaper than nuclear-powered carriers (a cost target of $550 million was set in 1972) but still be suitable for replacing the ageing Midway-class aircraft carriers. Work on the project (designated T-CBL) was stopped however, when the US Congress made statements encouraging all major warships to be nuclear-powered, and in 1976 an order was placed for a fourth nuclear-powered Nimitz-class aircraft carrier.

Later that year, however, US President Gerald Ford cancelled the order for the fourth Nimitz, stating that instead, two CVVs, medium-sized, conventional-powered carriers which were expected to mainly operate V/STOL aircraft would be built. The existing T-CBL design formed the basis for the new CVV, this being of the required size, while capable of operating all existing conventional carrier aircraft (this proved important as the hoped-for supersonic V/STOL fighters did not come to fruition).

The CVV carried a smaller air group than existing supercarriers (i.e. about 60 compared with about 90 for the nuclear-powered Nimitz class or the conventional-powered Kitty Hawk-class aircraft carriers) and had two steam catapults rather than four, and three arrestor cables instead of four. The CVV also had a less powerful power plant, with steam turbines fed by six boilers generating 100,000 shaft horsepower (75,000 kW) in a two-shaft arrangement, compared with the 280,000 shaft horsepower (210,000 kW) delivered to four shafts of the larger carriers, giving a speed of 28 knots (52 km/h) compared with over 31 knots (57 km/h). While slower than earlier carriers, this was still sufficiently fast to keep up with carrier task forces. Not all of the design features in the CVV were less capable than earlier carriers, however, as the carrier was planned to have improved protection for the ship's magazines and to be protected against under-keel explosions.

The Carter administration from 1977 onwards continued with the CVV program, by now expected to cost $1.5 billion per ship compared to $2.4 billion for a Nimitz, vetoing congressional attempts to vote $2 billion towards construction of a fourth Nimitz, although plans for a second CVV were abandoned. When it was realized that a repeat of USS John F. Kennedy, the last conventionally powered large carrier to be built would only cost about $100 million more than the CVV, while being much more capable, the Navy and the Secretary of Defense Harold Brown recommended that a repeat John F. Kennedy be included in the 1980 shipbuilding program instead of the CVV, but this was rejected by Carter, partly based on the lower life-cycle costs of the smaller ship with its smaller airwing. Following is the design Congress was willing to accept; however, the ship was strongly opposed by proponents of the nuclear-powered NIMITZ, especially Admiral Rickover, and none were authorized.

Displacement: 52,200 tons standard; 62,427 tons full load Length: 912ft (278m) waterline; 923ft (281m) overall Beam: 126ft (38m) waterline; 256.5ft (78.2m) flight deck Draft: 34ft (10m) Propulsion: (2) steam turbines; (2) shafts; 100,00shp Speed: 27.8kts Range: 8,000nm Crew: 4,025 (including air wing) Armament: (3) MK15 Phalanx CIWS Aircraft: 55-65
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-06-2022, 11:23 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,825
Default USN What Ifs Part Five

Strike Cruiser The strike cruiser (CSGN) was an outgrowth of the DLGN concept, developed in 1973-1974 as an enlarged DLGN intended to specifically to carry the Aegis weapon system. As more weapons were added (Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles) the ship was enlarged and the twin reactor D2G propulsion plant was upgraded.

The basic CSGN design was an improved CGN-38 class hull with several thousand tons of armor added. This would have been the first armored ship built by the USN since the USS LONG BEACH. The additional displacement would have reduced speed to 28-28.5kts; accordingly, the design was lengthened until at least 30 knots could be achieved, resulting in a very shallow draft.

Initially the ship was to only carry the Phalanx CIWS; however, in an effort to make the ship more competitive than the proposed Aegis-armed destroyer (DG/Aegis and later DDG/CH-47), an 8-inch Mk71 Lightweight Gun was fitted forward.

The ship was proposed as a carrier escort, with up to four CSGNs being considered to screen each carrier. The cost of the lead strike cruiser in fiscal 1976 was estimated $1.371 billion and she was to be have been completed in December 1983.

After the initial concept was ignored by Congress, the Naval Sea Systems Command hurriedly developed a Strike Cruisers Mark II design retaining the same armament but adding a flight deck, presenting a superficial similarity to the Soviet KIEV class VTOL carriers. However, the U.S. ship, with two Mk26 launchers and two 8-inch lightweight guns, would have had an enlarged island structure incorporating hangers for six AV-8A/B Harriers VTOL fighters and three SH-60 ASW helicopters. A further modification to the Mark II design considered a hanger below the flight deck, resulting in a design somewhat similar to the Navy’s light carrier of World War Two (CVL 22-30). That design would have carried about 18 Harriers on a displacement of 18,000 tons. Below is the Mark II stats:

Displacement: 15,900 tons standard; 17,210 tons full load Length: 666ft (203.1m) waterline; 709ft 7in (216.28m overall Beam: 76ft 5in(23.29m) Draft: 22ft 4in (6.81m) Propulsion: (2) pressurized water D2G General Electric nuclear reactors, (2) shafts, 60,000shp
(2) 2,000 kW (2,700 hp) diesel generators (6) ship service turbo generators Speed: 30+ knots Crew: 454 Armament: (2)2 Mk26 missile launchers with SM2MR Block III/IV SAMS and ASROC 64 missiles forward, 64 missiles aft (4)2 Mk143 Armored Box Launchers each with 4 BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles
(4)4 Mk141 Launchers, each with 4 RGM-84 Harpoon missiles (1)1 8”/55 caliber MCLWG (forward) (2) Mk15 Phalanx CIWS (midships) (3)2 Mk32 SVTT with Mk46 ASW torpedoes Air Group: (6) AV-8A/B Harrier VTOL; (3) SH-60B ASW helicopters
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-06-2022, 11:24 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,825
Default USN What Ifs, Part Six

Typhon-class Frigate In the early 1960s, the USN planned to construct a class of at least seven DLGNs fitted with the Typhon AAW system. The Typhon consisted of an advanced radar/fire control system plus a medium-range missile to replace the Terrier and long-range missile to replace the Talos then being fitted to U.S. warships. Construction of the lead ship was to begin in 1963-64.

The high costs of the Typhon DLGN led Secretary of Defense McNamara to cancel the program late in 1963. The system’s SPG-59 fixed-array search/tracking radar was tested in the guided missile ship NORTON SOUND (ABM-1). Several Typhon concepts and features were later incorporated into the subsequent Aegis system.

Displacement: 9,750 tons standard; approx.. 12,000 tons full load Length: 650ft (198.2m) waterline Beam: 64ft (19.5m) Draft: 21ft (6.4m) Propulsion: (2) pressurized-water D2G reactors; 2 shafts Speed: 30+ knots Crew: approx. 500 Missiles: (2)1 Typhon long-range launcher (60 missiles) (1)2 Typhon medium-range launchers (80 missiles each) (1)2 Mk42 5in/54mm guns (one fore and aft) ASW Weapons ASROC fired from Typhon ling-range launcher (3)2 12.75in (324mm) torpedo tubes with Mk46 ASW torps
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-06-2022, 12:27 PM
chico20854's Avatar
chico20854 chico20854 is offline
Your Friendly 92Y20!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 1,028
Default

Thanks for these Dragoon! Keep them coming!

Have you looked at Norman Friedman's Illustrated Design History series of books? They are excellent and have tons of details on these programs.
__________________
I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end...
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-06-2022, 01:24 PM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,825
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chico20854 View Post
Thanks for these Dragoon! Keep them coming!

Have you looked at Norman Friedman's Illustrated Design History series of books? They are excellent and have tons of details on these programs.
working on acquiring the series, but I do favor Polmar's works, bit more balanced.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-06-2022, 09:13 PM
JHart JHart is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 78
Default

I saw the model or photo of the model for the Strike Cruiser mkII in the '80s and thought it was f'in awesome! A self defending CV. Would love to see a modern version for carrying F-35s. Impractical, but cool.
__________________
If you run out of fuel, become a pillbox.
If you run out of ammo, become a bunker.
If you run out of time, become a hero.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-07-2022, 10:06 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,825
Default The DG(Aegis)

A large number of destroyer designs were developed by the USN from the 1950s onwards. The current Aegis program (manifested in the CG-47/DDG-51 designs) originated in 1963 with the Advanced Surface Missile System (ASMS). As the development of the large Typhon missile frigate (DLGN) began to encounter difficulties, the ASMS effort was undertaken, partially based on the expectations of new solid-state electronics.

The development was protracted and in 1971 the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Zumwalt, directed a design effort to provide the smallest possible ship that could carry the new air-defense weapons/electronics system. The initial goal was a displacement of 5,000 tons, but that was soon raised to 6,000 tons. Several designs were put forward, with the more austere versions having a single Mk26 Mod 1 missile launcher for surface-to surface missiles as well as ASROC, a small sonar and a helicopter landing deck but no hanger. By early 1973, the design had been recast, with two Mk13 launchers (a total of 80 missiles but no ASROC capability), plus a full LAMPS facility for one helicopter. The desire for longer-range as well as nuclear SAMS led to still another recasting, this time to provide the Mk26 Mod 2 launcher (with 64 missiles).

However, congressional confusion, the change of the CNO in mid-1974, and advocacy of an all-nuclear Aegis by Admiral Rickover led to the demise of the DG(Aegis) in favor of various DLGN-type designs as well as the CSGN strike cruiser.

The ARLEIGH BURKE-class represents a return to the DG(Aegis) concept. The availability of the vertical-launch missile system (90 weapons) and improvements in the SPY-1 radar coupled with the deletion of the LAMPS helicopter facilities as well as one 5-inch gun permit the construction of a smaller Aegis ship, as envisioned in the early 1970s.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-07-2022, 10:07 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,825
Default The FFX

During the late 1970s, the Navy proposed the construction of a class of small frigates (FFX) for use by the Naval Reserve Force. These ships were intended to augment the Olive Hazard Perry-class ships in the ASW role in low-threat areas. A class of approximately twelve ships was planned with the lead ship intended for authorization in FY 1984. For reasons not fully clear, although such ships would have had marginally effective ASW capabilities, the FFX class was not started. Subsequently, the Naval Reserve Force has been provided with frigates of the Knox and Perry-classes to replace their current aging Gearing-class ships.

Known characteristics include a full load displacement or 2,000---2,400 tons; a speed of 25 knots; a range of 5,000nm at 16---18knts; a crew of 120 men; facilities for one SH-2F LAMPS I; provisions for two triple Mk32 324mmTT w/Mk46 ASW torps; gun armament included a single Mk42 5in/54 gun and a Mk15 Phalanx CIWS.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-07-2022, 10:08 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,825
Default The Sea Frigate

During the late 1970s, the Navy planned to construct a class of Surface Effect Ship (SES) frigates in the mid-1980s. These ships were to be based on a 3,000-ton SES prototype that was to be constructed in 1980-1984. This ship was to have been capable of speeds as high as 80 to 100 knots with a trans-ocean design and to have carried frigate-type weapons, including two LAMPS helicopters.

The Secretary of Defense decided in May 1976 to proceed with the design and construction of a 3,000-ton, “weaponized” prototype SES. This followed 10 years of extensive conceptual and technical development. A contract for design with an option to construct was awarded in December 1976 to Rohr Marine, Inc. of San Diego. The ship was to be completed during FY 1983. Subsequently, the Carter Administration cancelled the SES program in its entirety.

In addition to high speed, the SES program offered a large amount of usable space which would have provided flexibility in the installation of weapons and sensors, with ample space to hangar and operate two helicopters. Also, the design provided considerable stability in heavy seas.

Displacement: 3,000 tons full load Length: 270ft (82.3m) oa Beam: 108ft (32.9m) Draft: 14ft (4.3m) on cushion; 31ft (9.5m) off cushion Propulsion: (4) Pratt & Whitney FT9 gas turbines; (4) waterjet propulsion units; (2) General Electric LM2500 gas turbines; (6) lift fans Speed: 80+kts on cushion Crew: 125 Helicopters: 2 SH-2 Sea Sprite LAMPS III Weapons: “FF/FFG weapons suite”
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-07-2022, 10:09 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,825
Default Little Known Command Ships

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.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-07-2022, 07:47 PM
chico20854's Avatar
chico20854 chico20854 is offline
Your Friendly 92Y20!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 1,028
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragoon500ly View Post
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!!!
__________________
I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end...
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-11-2022, 11:06 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,825
Default Bell XV-15A

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
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-11-2022, 11:08 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,825
Default Typhon Surface to Air Missile

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)
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-11-2022, 11:12 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,825
Default The Rockwell XFV-12A

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
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-11-2022, 11:52 AM
Raellus's Avatar
Raellus Raellus is online now
Administrator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Southern AZ
Posts: 3,734
Default

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

-
__________________
Author of Twilight 2000 adventure module, Rook's Gambit, the campaign sourcebook, Korean Peninsula, and co-author of Tara Romaneasca, a campaign sourcebook for Romania, all available for purchase on DriveThruRPG:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...--Rooks-Gambit
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...ula-Sourcebook
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product...nia-Sourcebook
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-11-2022, 04:36 PM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,825
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Raellus View Post
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.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-13-2022, 09:04 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,825
Default Mobile Offshore Base concept

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.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-13-2022, 09:05 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,825
Default The Sea Base concept

The Navy’s response to Secretary Rumsfeld’s 10-30-30 strategy will be centered in large part on Admiral Clark’s sea basing concept. Derived in part from the Maritime Prepositioning Ships (MPS) initiated in the early 1980s, the plan provides for a large operating base that can be established rapidly (within 10 days) in a forward area, some 25-100 miles offshore of the objective.

This sea base will consist of Maritime Prepositioning Force (MPF) ships and, most likely, amphibious and replenishment ships. It will not be centered on “floating islands” or the Mobile Offshore Base Systems (MOBS), although some proponents in the Department of Defense and industry continue to propose the latter. Indeed, there are promoters of a sea base large enough to support operations by C-130 and C-17 cargo aircraft.
The MPF ships will differ greatly from current MPS ships in that they will be larger and will:

1) have facilities for troops to come aboard at sea, be berthed, and “marry up” with their equipment.

2) be able to put those troops ashore in a combat environment.

3) provide command and control, medical and resupply functions.

4) remark troops after the operation for rehabilitation and the reconditioning or replacement of their equipment, with additional supplies and equipment brought on board.

5) move with the sea base to another location, with the embarked forces ready for combat within 30 days.

Thus MPF ships will be more complex (and more expensive) than the MPS ships.

Although MPS ships will not be capable of operating C-130 conventional aircraft; a variety of fixed-wing Vertical Takeoff and Landing (VTOL) aircraft, including AV-8B Harriers and MV-22 Ospreys, as well as helicopters, will operate from the sea base. Hopefully, the potential for eventual operations of larger VTSOL aircraft, including a Bell quad-rotor aircraft that could be the size of a later Hercules, will be incorporated into the MPF design.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-13-2022, 09:09 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,825
Default The USNs Cruise Missile Submarines; Regulus I

For the ground pounders among us, a cruise missile submarine is a submarine that carries and launches cruise missiles (SLCMs and anti-ship missiles) as its primary armament. Missiles greatly enhance a vessel's ability to attack surface combatants and strike land targets, and although torpedoes are a more stealthy option, missiles give a much longer stand-off range, as well as the ability to engage multiple targets on different headings at the same time. Many cruise missile submarines retain the capability to deploy nuclear warheads on their missiles, but they are considered distinct from ballistic missile submarines due to the substantial differences between the two weapons systems' characteristics.

Originally early designs of cruise missile submarines had to surface to launch their missiles, while later designs could do so underwater via dedicated vertical launching system (VLS) tubes. Many modern attack submarines can launch cruise missiles (and dedicated anti-ship missiles) from their torpedo tubes while some designs also incorporate a small number of VLS canisters, giving some significant overlap between cruise missile submarines and traditional attack submarines. Nonetheless, vessels classified as attack submarines still use torpedoes as their main armament and have a more multi-role mission profile due to their greater speed and maneuverability, in contrast to cruise missile submarines which are typically larger slower boats focused on the long distance surface strike role.

The United States Navy's hull classification symbols for cruise missile submarines are SSG and SSGN – the SS denotes submarine, the G denotes guided missile, and the N denotes that the submarine is nuclear-powered.

The USN’s first SSG were developed in the early 1950s to carry the SSM-N-8 Regulus missile. The first of these was a converted World War II era Gato-class submarine, USS Tunny, which was fitted with a hangar capable of carrying a pair of Regulus missiles. Tunny was used as a test-bed for developing techniques of use for the missile system, before a second boat, USS Barbero was subsequently converted. From 1957, these two boats undertook the first nuclear deterrent patrols.

Subsequently, two larger diesel submarines of the Grayback-class were purpose built for the carriage of the Regulus missile, with each capable of accommodating up to four missiles, while a further boat, the nuclear-powered USS Halibut, could carry up to five missiles. Between September 1959 and July 1964, the five Regulus missile boats undertook deterrent patrols in the Pacific Ocean, in concert with the newly commissioned George Washington-class ballistic missile submarines (SSBN) in the Atlantic, until sufficient SSBNs were in service to replace them.

The SSM-N-8A, better known as the Regulus I was deployed from 1955 to 1964. It is a turbojet-powered second generation cruise missile with a 500nm range at a speed of Mach 0.85 with a circular error probable (CEP) of 0.5% at this range. and carrying a 3,000lb warhead such as the W5 (available with yields of 6/16/55/60/100 or 120kt) or W27 (1.5kt) nuclear warheads.

After being launched, the Regulus I would be guided toward its target by control stations, typically by submarines or surface ships equipped with guidance equipment. It could also be flown remotely by chase aircraft. Later, with improved navigational equipment, one submarine could guide it.

The first launch from a submarine occurred in July 1953 from the deck of USS Tunny, a World War II fleet boat modified to carry Regulus. Tunny and her sister boat USS Barbero were the United States' first nuclear deterrent patrol submarines. They were joined in 1958 by two purpose-built Regulus submarines, USS Grayback and USS Growler, and, later, by the nuclear-powered USS Halibut. Halibut, with its extremely large internal hangar could carry five missiles and was intended to be the prototype of a whole new class of cruise missile firing SSGN submarines.

The Navy strategy called for four Regulus missiles to be at sea at any given time. Thus, Barbero and Tunny, each of which carried two Regulus missiles, patrolled simultaneously. Growler and Grayback, with four missiles each, or Halibut, with five, could patrol alone. Operating from Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, the five Regulus submarines made 40 nuclear deterrent patrols in the Northern Pacific Ocean between October 1959 and July 1964, including during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. According to the documentary "Regulus: The First Nuclear Missile Submarines" by Nick T. Spark, their primary task in the event of a nuclear exchange would be to eliminate the Soviet naval base at Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky. These deterrent patrols represented the first ever in the history of the submarine Navy and preceded those made by the Polaris missile firing submarines.

The Regulus firing submarines were relieved by the George Washington-class submarines carrying the Polaris missile system. Barbero also earned the distinction of launching the only delivery of missile mail (yes they did pack mail for delivery to shore, just to prove they could.)

Additional submarines including USS Cusk and USS Carbonero were equipped with control systems that allowed them to take control of a Regulus in flight, thus extending its range in a tactical situation.

Regulus was also deployed by the U.S. Navy in 1955 in the Pacific onboard the cruiser USS Los Angeles. In 1956, three more followed: USS Macon, USS Toledo, and USS Helena. These four Baltimore-class cruisers each carried three Regulus missiles on operational patrols in the Western Pacific. Macon's last Regulus patrol was in 1958, Toledo's in 1959, Helena's in 1960, and Los Angeles's in 1961.

Ten aircraft carriers were configured to operate Regulus missiles (though only six ever launched one). USS Princeton did not deploy with the missile but conducted the first launch of a Regulus from a warship. USS Saratoga also did not deploy but was involved in two demonstration launches. USS Franklin D. Roosevelt and USS Lexington each conducted one test launch. USS Randolph deployed to the Mediterranean carrying three Regulus missiles. USS Hancock deployed once to the Western Pacific with four missiles in 1955. Lexington, Hancock, USS Shangri-La, and USS Ticonderoga were involved in the development of the Regulus Assault Mission (RAM) concept. RAM converted the Regulus cruise missiles into an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV): Regulus missiles would be launched from cruisers or submarines, and once in flight, guided to their targets by carrier-based pilots with remote control equipment.

Despite being the U.S. Navy's first underwater nuclear capability, the Regulus missile system had significant operational drawbacks. In order to launch, the submarine had to surface and assemble the missile in whatever sea conditions it was in. Because it required active radar guidance, which only had a range of 225nm, the ship had to stay stationary on the surface to guide it to the target while effectively broadcasting its location. This guidance method was susceptible to jamming and since the missile was subsonic, the launch platform remained exposed and vulnerable to attack during its flight duration; destroying the ship would effectively disable the missile in flight.

Following the delivery of the 514th missile, Regulus I was phased out in January 1959. Many of the missiles were expended as targets or converted into target drones.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-13-2022, 09:11 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,825
Default US Cruise Missile Submarines, the Regulus II

A second generation supersonic Vought SSM-N-9 Regulus II cruise missile with a range of 1,200 nautical miles and a speed of Mach 2 was developed and successfully tested, including a test launch from Grayback, but the program was canceled in favor of the UGM-27 Polaris nuclear ballistic missile.
The Regulus II missile was a completely new design with improved guidance and double the range, and was intended to replace the Regulus I missile. Regulus II-equipped submarines and ships would have been fitted with the Ships Inertial Navigation System (SINS), allowing the missiles to be aligned accurately before take-off.

Forty-eight test flights of Regulus II prototypes were carried out, 30 of which were successful, 14 partially successful, and four failures. A production contract was signed in January 1958 and the only submarine launch was carried out from Grayback in September 1958.

Due to the high cost of the Regulus II (approximately one million dollars each), budgetary pressure, and the emergence of the UGM-27 Polaris SLBM (submarine-launched ballistic missile), the Regulus II program was canceled on 18 December 1958. At the time of cancellation Vought had completed 20 Regulus II missiles with 27 more on the production line. Like its fore-bearer, the Regulus II ended its service life as target drones.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-13-2022, 09:13 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,825
Default USNs Cruise Missile Submarines, the Tomahawk era

With the introduction of Tomahawk, the Sturgeon, Los Angeles, Improved Los Angeles, and Virginia-class SSNS were used to carry the missile in is anti-ship and land attack versions.

For the most part, Tomahawks would be fired from the torpedo tubes. The Improved Los Angels and Virginia-class boats use a Vertical Launch System with twelve Tomahawks.

The Ohio-class SSGN concept converts Trident missile tubes 1 and 2 to be permanently modified for five-man SOF lock-in/lock-out and for attaching ASDS (Advanced SEAL Delivery System) and DDS (Dry Dock Shelters). The remaining 22 Trident missile tubes are modified to accept modules/canisters that can store seven TLAM (Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles) or other strike missiles. However, if the ASDS or DDS are mounted, not all tubes can be used for missiles.

The three configurations are:

Maximum Strike---launch tubes 3-24 are fitted with missile canisters (154 TLAMs); all 154 missiles can be fired within six minutes.

Strike/SOF---launch tubes 5-24 are loaded with 140 TLAMs. Tubes 3 and 4 are loaded with SOF stowage canisters; two ASDS vehicles carried.

Strike/SOF---launch tubes 7-24 are loaded with 126 TLAMs. Tubes 5 and 6 are loaded with additional SOF stowage canisters; Tubes 1-4 are blocked by two DDS.

Additional temporary bunks and hot bunking can provide accommodations for up to 100 SOF personnel for short periods. Normally, 66 SOF personnel are carried.

Plans are in place for the SSGNs to be capable of supporting, launching, and recovering UUVs (Unmanned Undersea Vehicles) and UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles).
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-13-2022, 10:20 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,825
Default Cold War Missile what ifs: the ABRS

The Assault Ballistic Rocket System (ABRS) is being proposed for installation on the Navy’s NEWPORT-class landing ships to provide fire support for amphibious assaults. The unguided rocket and launcher are adopted from the U.S. Army’s Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS).

nder current proposals, each LST would be fitted with two 12-rocket launch systems on the ship’s after decks. Up to 156 reloads could be provide in 12-rocket containers. Additional proposals have been made to backfit the ABRS to SPRUANCE-class destroyers and the concept of a LST conversion to a “rocket monitor,” carrying several launchers. No procurement decision has been made by the Navy.

Weight: 686lbs per rocket

Length: 12ft 11in (3.94m)

Diameter: 8.9in (227mm)

Propulsion: solid-propellant rocket

Range: 10+nm

Guidance: ballistic

Warhead: 352lbs conventional (644 M-77 grenades)
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 05-13-2022, 10:22 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,825
Default Missile What Ifs: the ASW SOW

The Anti Submarine Warfare Stand Off Weapon (ASW SOW) is intended to replace the submarine-launched SUBROC anti-submarine weapon beginning in the early 1990s. Whereas SUBROC is a nuclear-only weapon, the ASW SOW may have a nuclear and conventional capability. In the later configuration carrying the Mark 50 Advanced Lightweight Torpedo. The ASW SOW should be capable of ranges out to at least the second convergence zone (approximately 60nm) or double the range of the SUBROC.

The ASW SOW would be launched form the standard 21in (533mm) submarine torpedo tubes. The missile would be encapsulated, with the capsule shed when it reaches the surface, after which the missile travels on a ballistic trajectory to the target. Over the target, the warhead or torpedo would be released.

During the concept stage the Navy envisioned a common ASW stand-off weapon for surface ships and submarines. The technical and program difficulties proved too great, however, and the surface-launched weapon became the Vertical-Launch Anti Submarine Rocket (VLA).

Weight: approx. 2,700lbs

Length: approx. 21ft (6.4m)

Diameter: approx. 21in (533mm) encapsulated

Propulsion: solid-propellant rocket

Range: approx. 60-90nm

Guidance: ballistic then terminal acoustic homing with the Mk 50 ALWT

Warhead: Nuclear (W55 warhead) or Mk50 ALWT
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-13-2022, 01:35 PM
chico20854's Avatar
chico20854 chico20854 is offline
Your Friendly 92Y20!
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 1,028
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dragoon500ly View Post
The Anti Submarine Warfare Stand Off Weapon (ASW SOW) is intended to replace the submarine-launched SUBROC anti-submarine weapon beginning in the early 1990s. Whereas SUBROC is a nuclear-only weapon, the ASW SOW may have a nuclear and conventional capability. In the later configuration carrying the Mark 50 Advanced Lightweight Torpedo. The ASW SOW should be capable of ranges out to at least the second convergence zone (approximately 60nm) or double the range of the SUBROC.
Was this the same project as the Sea Lance?
__________________
I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end...
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-14-2022, 07:42 AM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,825
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chico20854 View Post
Was this the same project as the Sea Lance?
This was the original concept of what would become Sea Lance. The primary difference was that ASW SOW was intended from the start to be primarily a nuclear delivery system, then the option of the Mark 50 ALWT as an alternative warhead.

Later (mid-80s) it was determined that the concept of one weapon for both surface and submarine had too many technical and program difficulties and the decision was made to split with Sea lance being the sub-version and the Vertical Launch ASROC (VLA) developed as the surface version.

Of interest is that Boeing's internal name for this was originally Seahawk until the Navy designated it Sea Lance.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-22-2022, 01:00 PM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,825
Default The DD(X) program

GUIDED MISSILE DESTROYERS: Advanced Destroyer Design DD(X) Units Fiscal Year Status 1 ship 05 Planned 1 ship 06 Planned 1 ship 07 Planned 2 ships 08 Planned 3 ships 09 Planned 8 ships per year 10-13 Planned 8 ships per year 14-18 Planned

Displacement: approx. 14,000 tons full load

Length: approx. 183.0m overall Beam: approx.24.0m

Draft: approx. 8.4m

Propulsion: 4 Rolls-Royce MT30 gas turbines; approx. 100,000+shp;
electric drive; 2 shafts

Speed: approx. 30+kts Personnel: approx. 127-175

Aircraft: 1 or 2 MH-60R Seahawk; 3 Vertical Take-off Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (VTUAVs)

Weapons: Peripheral VLS for SM2MR/TLAM (approx. 80 missiles); (1)2 155mm Advanced Gun Systems (AGS); 2 Mk110 57mm/70-caliber Radars: SPY-3 multifunction Sonar: not determined

Note: The planned follow-up to the ARLEIGH BURKE call as the Navy’s primary surface combatant. The lead design agent for the program if Northrop Grumman’s Ingalls Shipyard and includes Raytheon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Bath Iron Works as subcontractors. The contract for $2.9 billion is for the design, construction and testing of eleven major subsystems of the ship. Construction of the lead ship is not included in the award. This is a departure from the aborted ZUMWALT/DD 21 program, whose construction of the lead ship, series production, service-life maintenance and other cost-reduction features.

The DD(X) design has a wave-piercing, tumblehome hull configuration and a block, low-radar-cross-section superstructure. The guns will have two AGS with a reported 600-round magazine per gun. The design will have ‘peripheral’ VLS cells rather than the usual centerline ‘blocks; configuration of the Mk 41 VLS. Also referred to as the AVLS, it differs from the Mk41 in having four-cell modules installed along the perimeter of the ship rather. This arrangement will reduce the ship’s vulnerability to a single missile, shell or bomb hit.

All previous USN gas-turbine destroyers, as well as the TICONDEROGA class cruisers, had General Electric LM2500 gas turbines. DD(X) will be the first modern US warship with an all-electric drive and an integrated power architecture. Employing electric drive is expected to: reduce ship costs; reduce ship signatures, especially noise; reduce fuel consumption; reduce maintenance requirements; reduce manpower requirements and increase available power for sensors and weapons.
The key element of the integrated power architecture is a single-source generator for all of the ship’s power requirements. Instead of a reduction gear to convert the turbine power into propulsive power as in previous cruisers /destroyers the DD(X) engine will power an electric generator, the electricity produced is then carried via cable to a motor drive, this eliminates the requirement for the gas turbines to be aligned with propellor shafts, permitting considerable flexibility in ship design. In addition, the turbines can be operated at their most fuel-efficient speeds with the motor drive making changes in shaft turns/speed.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 05-22-2022, 01:01 PM
dragoon500ly dragoon500ly is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Tennessee, USA
Posts: 2,825
Default

LAND-ATTACK MISSILE DESTROYER: “Zumwalt” class This program was canceled in 2001. Department of Defense officials cited the large size of the ship, although it probably would have been a small percentage larger than the replacement DD(X).

The lead ship was to be authorized in FY 2004 and placed in commission in 2008; follow-on ships were to reach the building rate of three per year. The design featured a large number of vertical-launched missiles (256 missiles) and long-range guns for land attack/fire support and a very small crew (approx. 95 personnel).

Designed up to 20,000 tons were considered, although a ship of approx. 15-17,000 tons appeared most likely.

The DD 21 program replaced the DD(V) program, which had sought to determine the characteristics for a new guided missile destroyer to begin construction in the FY 1998 shipbuilding program. In the event, it was decided to continue construction of the ARLEIGH BURKE class (Flight IIA) into the 21st century.

The Navy’s cost goal was $579 million per ship by the fifth unit. With two shipyards expected to produce the DD 21 class, that cost goal would have applied to hull number 9 or 10. The first few ships were to cost approximately $1.5 billion per unit.
__________________
The reason that the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.