The Ship Model Forum

by **Seasick** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:09 pm

The Sea Control ship and the medium carrier CVV were Zumwalt and then Rumsfeld's ideas. Sea Control was relegated to be a secondary function of the LHA and CVV was dead and burried by 1977. I dug up some old newspaper and magazine articals last night and I would say that the plan was to order a JFK follow on in 1981 and another in 1983 or 1984.

by **Werner** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:28 pm

Carter did greenlight the Tomahawk. I don't see him approving another CV during this period. He would have switched to the Sea Control Ship, which was "quite the thing" at the time. Many articles at the time hearlded the death of the large flight deck.

by **Seasick** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 2:02 pm

Werner,

I have to disagree with you on some points about Carter.

1. The Strike Cruiser was canceled by Donald Rumsfeld in the last week before Carter was sworn in as President along with some other projects.
2. Carter killed the further units of the Virginia and Aegis Virginia class. It was the correct move because their operating cost are very high compared to conventional cruisers. Carter planned to build all 18 Ticos proposed by the Navy. He had no plans to cancel it. After Reagan was sworn in the Aegis Virginia was revived and Lehman (in agreement with the Carter administration's conclusions) delayed it and then quietly canceled it.
3. Carter was a strong supporter of the Los Angles class SSN.
4. Had Carter been relected he would have built a follow on to CV-67.
5. Carter cancelled the B-1 bomber. After all he had ordered full production of the F-117 stealth fighter, and given the development of the B-2 a high priority. The F-117 was operational in early 1982. (Black Projects he couldn't talk about on the campaign trail).
6. Carter also ordered into production the first Tomahawk missiles.

by **Walt** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:26 pm

Werner wrote:That "tradition" is began in 1890 and only lasted until about 1970, when CGNs pickup up state names.

And in the 70s conventional thinking was that a CGN was our Capitol "Ship".. But this thinking was soon to change when it became public what a monster the Ohios were and are..... Maybe one of the biggest military reasons for the US ending the Cold War arms race and forcing the USSR to back down..
Trust me when the DOD thought to name Boats after States, Cities, and People most if not all subvets were not happy..and if tradition meant anything they would still all have fish names..Just my personal thoughts..

by **Walt** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 1:18 pm

TWoyma wrote:
Walt wrote:In the US Navy anyway, their Capitol Ship is and has been the Ohio Class SSBN for quite some time now.. Tradition has always had the US Navy giving State names to it's "Capitol" ships.
Of course, naming 6 SSNs after states would serve to lessen the convention.

No way.. The Virginias and Seawolfs are all Capitol ships.. still more powerful than any skimmer warship and most Submarines if not all submarines. The Seawolf got her name as to honor prior US Subs and the Carter got her name because Jimmy Carter is a Sub Vet. CVs are fleet leaders but not the most capitol in the USN inventory by a long shot, this honor has been carried by the Nuke Submarine force since the 598 class boomers were introduced back in the early 60s. If ever a real Ocean War was to be fought the submarine will rule.. This is why even small navies with a capable Submarine force will be a serious threat to any surface Navy and why so many smaller Navies are trying to build their Submarine fleets up.

by **Werner** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:37 pm

That "tradition" is began in 1890 and only lasted until about 1970, when CGNs pickup up state names.

by **TWoyma** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 12:17 pm

Walt wrote:In the US Navy anyway, their Capitol Ship is and has been the Ohio Class SSBN for quite some time now.. Tradition has always had the US Navy giving State names to it's "Capitol" ships.

Of course, naming 6 SSNs after states would serve to lessen the convention.

by **Walt** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:50 am

In the US Navy anyway, their Capitol Ship is and has been the Ohio Class SSBN for quite some time now.. Tradition has always had the US Navy giving State names to it's "Capitol" ships.

.. Some may disagree but the fact is the Ohio Class Submarine is the most powerful class of ship ever built..Not conventional for sure but powerful? yup!!

by **richter111** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 9:11 am

I was reading in the book Vietnam by Karnow that the United States skipped one entire force upgrade rotation during the Vietnam War.

Obviously there were valuable lessons learned about our technology, but we did burn through A LOT of equipment during the war.

similar to the situation we have now, we are burning up equipment that WILL need replaced. Off hand I can remember all the stories about the F-16's that were picking up huge hours on their airframes providing air cover here in the United States after the September 11th attacks....

Ric

by **Werner** » Mon Dec 10, 2007 12:15 am

Chuck wrote:Carter approved the Ticonderoga. The 600 ship plan that Reaganites tried to take credit for with such insane shamelessness was formulated by Carter. Look it up.

Two. He could also cancel these 2 ships he ordered after his reelection. He'd canceled ships before. Reagan ordered the remaining 25.

CG 47 was also the overweight and marginally stable end of a series of givebacks in the CGSN program which Carter refused to fund.

The important task for the USN in this period was REFORGER. It's pretty clear that more than 2 AEgis area defense ships were essential for this operation.

It is a classic political tactic to show increases in out years as support for defense, then cancel the systems after election or let the other party figure out how to pay for them.

The 1970-80 fleet was damaged most severely my the transfer of funds in 64-70 to support the wars in Southeast Asia. It was incumbent on Ford and Carter to make good the deferred purchases from the prior period. Neither did.

It's important to remember that the AEgis ships were intended to supplement and eventually supplant the fundamentally flawed "3-T" ships. These only achieved their potential with the NTU upgrades some received a few years before they were scrapped. Sitting as commander in chief with this knowledge, delaying the AEgis program by 4 years, and then only authorizing two ships, was criminal.

by **Guest** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 11:29 pm

Werner wrote:Let's face it... the USN has been in "bad shape" since 1947. The entirety of the '50s and '60s was given over to air forces and ground wars. The '70s began with a fleet of AA ships that had difficulty shooting down target aircraft. Carter canceled every ship request he received. Only a brief period under Reagan saw a USN that was able to stand toe-to-toe with it's opposites.

Carter approved the Ticonderoga. The 600 ship plan that Reaganites tried to take credit for with such insane shamelessness was formulated by Carter. Look it up.

Regarding "Only a brief period under Reagan saw a USN that was able to stand toe-to-toe with it's opposites.", pray how did you envision the Soviet Navy beating the USN through the 1940s, 50s, and 60s?

by **Werner** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:15 pm

Let's face it... the USN has been in "bad shape" since 1947. The entirety of the '50s and '60s was given over to air forces and ground wars. The '70s began with a fleet of AA ships that had difficulty shooting down target aircraft. Carter canceled every ship request he received. Only a brief period under Reagan saw a USN that was able to stand toe-to-toe with it's opposites.

by **Seasick** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:05 pm

You mean, ahem, Donald Rumsfeld?

If the USN was in bad shape in 1981 I would say Rummy would be 60% responcible for it.

by **jjb** » Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:31 am

Most of the criticism of the CVF is based on people judging the ship according to what they want and not what the RN want. People may not agree with the choices made by the RN but they are logical and based on their own operational needs, and by building a ship with options for future conversion to catapult/arrestor gear operation they've allowed the possibility of change in the future if situations and operational requirements change. A sensible approach IMO.

by **Werner** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 10:09 pm

Seasick wrote:The bad concepts from the mid 1970s came mainly from Ford's Secretary of Defense.

You mean, ahem, Donald Rumsfeld?

by **Seasick** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:42 pm

The bad concepts from the mid 1970s came mainly from Ford's Secretary of Defense.

by **Werner** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 9:33 pm

Francisco P. de Nanclares wrote:Big rich is right. The Pr�ncipe is based on the SCS.

Cheers.
Pachi.

Yes, sorry for the confusion. There were so many stillborn ideas in that timeframe, though.

by **Francisco P. de Nanclares** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:21 pm

Big rich is right. The Pr�ncipe is based on the SCS.

Cheers.
Pachi.

by **1Big Rich** » Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:20 pm

Gents,

You're mixing the Sea Control Ship, Zumwalt's low-end, single screw carrier of approximately 17,000 tons, with his carrier replacement, the CVV of approximately 62,000 tons.

Asturias is based on a SCS modified for VSTOL operations.

The CVV was a CTOL carrier, planned to replace the Midways and Forrestals, IIRC.

Compare the illustrations below of SCS, Asturias with the CVV:

As the illustrations show, there was some visual similarities in their funnels, but they were very different concepts.

Regards,

by **Seasick** » Fri Nov 02, 2007 7:58 pm

Principe de Asturias is a CVV but she is operated by a smaller Navy and wasn't built in place of a CVN.

The Ship Model Forum

CVLs?

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: CVLs?