Author Topic: Carrier Naming  (Read 2204 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Charlie Beeler (OP)

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
Carrier Naming
« on: October 22, 2012, 12:19:56 PM »
I noticed that quite a while ago, and according to Friedman, that name was not used before 1982.  ;)
That said, I put together the correct list, and I've attached it here.


Great list... except I don't see the John F Kennedy. :D CV-67 Launched 1968, now decomissioned and docked NISMF Philadelphia.  The name is slated for CV-79.  There is a petition to name CV-80 Enterprise!! 
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Carrier Naming
« Reply #1 on: October 22, 2012, 12:45:51 PM »
Great list... except I don't see the John F Kennedy. :D CV-67 Launched 1968, now decomissioned and docked NISMF Philadelphia.  The name is slated for CV-79.  There is a petition to name CV-80 Enterprise!! 
Oops.  I think I know what happened.  When I was pulling names, Kennedy was listed under a separate class, so I missed it.  Then I thought it was already in when I got to CVN-79.
And CVN-80 should absolutely be named Enterprise.  I've signed the petition.
To be pedantic, the correct form is CVN-79 and CVN-80.  Both are nuclear powered, which CV-67 wasn't (possibly for political reasons, as the Kennedy family was anti-nuclear).
In case you haven't noticed, I'm a bit of a naval geek.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Charlie Beeler (OP)

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
Carrier Naming
« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2012, 02:05:14 PM »
Oops.  I think I know what happened.  When I was pulling names, Kennedy was listed under a separate class, so I missed it.  Then I thought it was already in when I got to CVN-79.
And CVN-80 should absolutely be named Enterprise.  I've signed the petition.
To be pedantic, the correct form is CVN-79 and CVN-80.  Both are nuclear powered, which CV-67 wasn't (possibly for political reasons, as the Kennedy family was anti-nuclear).
In case you haven't noticed, I'm a bit of a naval geek.
True, I should have used CVN when referencing the new Ford Class carriers.  But if we're going to be technical about class and hull number sequence then you've left out the Independence (22-30) and Saipan (48 & 49) classes of CVL's.  Steve does have those covered in the USCVL list though.

Needless to say I don't worry about distinguishing long-hull Essex and Midway class refits for jets as CVA's or some of the later reclasses to CVS.  I may not be a naval geek, but I tend to hold my own is general discussions.

I completely agree with bringing back the battle honored carrier names instead of politician's (presidential or otherwise).

Back to the regularly scheduled bugs topic.
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Carrier Naming
« Reply #3 on: October 22, 2012, 07:09:01 PM »
True, I should have used CVN when referencing the new Ford Class carriers.  But if we're going to be technical about class and hull number sequence then you've left out the Independence (22-30) and Saipan (48 & 49) classes of CVL's.  Steve does have those covered in the USCVL list though.
Which would be why I left them out.  IMO they should all be in the same list, and I'm talking to Steve about fixing that.

Quote
Needless to say I don't worry about distinguishing long-hull Essex and Midway class refits for jets as CVA's or some of the later reclasses to CVS.  I may not be a naval geek, but I tend to hold my own is general discussions.

I completely agree with bringing back the battle honored carrier names instead of politician's (presidential or otherwise).

Back to the regularly scheduled bugs topic.
I'm all in favor of naming some class of ships after statesmen (which means they have to have been dead for a minimum of 50 years).  The problem is when you do too many at once, and start to get weird names.  USS Will Rodgers?  What were they thinking?
As for recent (as in just retired) politicians, I'm also in favor of naming ships after them.  So long as the hull number begins with YSR.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Online Zed 6

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Z
  • Posts: 128
  • Thanked: 4 times
Carrier Naming
« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2012, 08:41:50 PM »
LOL when I saw that YSR. (Sludge Removal Barge). Enough with the politicians already. As for the Will Rodgers, better a humorist than a politician.

As for CV-67; Intended to be the fourth member of the Kitty Hawk class, when the JFK was commissioned in September of 1968 there were so many modifications made during her construction that the Kennedy was designated a separate class of ship.

When originally laid out, the Kennedy was to be powered by a Westinghouse A3W nuclear reactor, but budget considerations caused the Navy to change the powerplant to a conventional, oil-fired, steam-powered one. Unfortunately, the original ship design did not feature an exhaust gas funnel, so one was engineered in after the fact. This feature is one of the many modifications that distinguished the JFK; unlike the other members of the Kitty Hawk class, who's funnel extends vertically out of the aft portion of the island, the Kennedy's stack is angled out of the right rear corner of the island, which helps to project the exhaust gasses away from the flight deck.

As for myself, the last boat I was on was the USS "Sea Cucumber".

With the Ford class CVN's there are so many technological changes that years ago seemed in the realm of SCI-FI. The primary one being the Steam catapults being replaced with Electromagnetic Launch systems.

The Nimitz-class aircraft carriers use steam-powered catapults to launch aircraft. Steam catapults were developed in the 1950s and have been exceptionally reliable. For over fifty years at least one of the four catapults has been able to launch an aircraft 99.5% of the time. However, there are a number of drawbacks. “The foremost deficiency is that the catapult operates without feedback control. With no feedback, there often occurs large transients in tow force that can damage or reduce the life of the airframe.” The steam system is massive, inefficient (4–6%), and hard to control.
 
Control problems with the system results in minimum and maximum weight limits. The minimum weight limit is above the weight of all UAVs. An inability to launch the latest additions to the Naval Air Forces is a restriction on operations that cannot continue into the next generation of aircraft carriers. The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) provides solutions to all these problems. An electromagnetic system is more efficient, smaller, lighter, more powerful, and easier to control. Increased control means that EMALS will be able to launch both heavier and lighter aircraft than the steam catapult. Also, the use of a controlled force will reduce the stress on airframes, resulting in less maintenance and a longer lifetime for the airframe. Unfortunately the power limitations for the Nimitz class make the installation of the recently developed EMALS impossible.
 
Electromagnetics will also be used in the new Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) system. The current system relies on hydraulics to slow and stop a landing aircraft. While effective, as demonstrated by more than fifty years of implementation, the AAG system offers a number of improvements. The current system is unable to capture UAVs without damaging them due to extreme stresses on the airframe. UAVs do not have the necessary mass to drive the large hydraulic piston used to trap heavier manned planes. By using electromagnetics the energy absorption is controlled by a turbo-electric engine. This makes the trap smoother and reduces shock on airframes. Even though the system will look the same from the flight deck as its predecessor, it will be more flexible, safer, more reliable, and require less maintenance and manning
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Carrier Naming
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2012, 09:13:16 PM »
As for CV-67; Intended to be the fourth member of the Kitty Hawk class, when the JFK was commissioned in September of 1968 there were so many modifications made during her construction that the Kennedy was designated a separate class of ship.

When originally laid out, the Kennedy was to be powered by a Westinghouse A3W nuclear reactor, but budget considerations caused the Navy to change the powerplant to a conventional, oil-fired, steam-powered one. Unfortunately, the original ship design did not feature an exhaust gas funnel, so one was engineered in after the fact. This feature is one of the many modifications that distinguished the JFK; unlike the other members of the Kitty Hawk class, who's funnel extends vertically out of the aft portion of the island, the Kennedy's stack is angled out of the right rear corner of the island, which helps to project the exhaust gasses away from the flight deck.
Not exactly.  McNamara forced the change to conventional fuel, not the Navy.  And she was ordered as a conventional carrier in October of 1963, and not laid down until 1964.
The carrier was designed from the keel up for conventional power, and I think that the smokestack is a result of the plan to change to pressure-fired boilers, which reduced smoke.  They abandoned the concept, but were able to use JP-5, which burned cleaner.  As to my source, I cite Friedman.  Wikipedia does too, but I'm not sure where they were looking.

Edit: IMO it's good form to at least mention it when you quote from Wikipedia.
What did you do on Trepang?
« Last Edit: October 22, 2012, 09:23:20 PM by byron »
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Charlie Beeler (OP)

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
Carrier Naming
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2012, 07:16:18 AM »
Eric, can we get the carrier naming discussion moved to it's own topic?  It is interesting, but not on topic for a bugs posting.  I'm guilty of going off topic just as much as anyone else.

Charlie
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley
 

Online Zed 6

  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • ******
  • Z
  • Posts: 128
  • Thanked: 4 times
Re: Carrier Naming
« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2012, 11:40:28 AM »
Actually it all came from mil.com and is the same on wikipedia. I will remember for the future. Supposition: The family probably did not have to put much political pressure on a Democratic administration at the time and McNamara was known for his budgetary cuts and being close to the Kennedy family. I think it's just semantics if McNamara as SECDEF tells the Navy to make a budget cut but that's just my opinion.

Very good catch on Trepang SSN-674
ET1/SS
I did a lot of different things including but not limited to: NavET, QMOW, Sonar Operator, RO, COW
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: Carrier Naming
« Reply #8 on: October 23, 2012, 11:55:14 AM »
I assumed it was from wikipedia because I saw the same text there.  I'm not sure where the legend about conversion came from, but there's no factual support.  Friedman clearly states it was ordered and laid down as a conventional carrier.  I suppose he could be wrong, but I'm going to trust him until I see good documentation.  The idea is also implausible given how carriers are built.  Things like propulsion are ordered well before she is laid down, so changing after the order is placed is unlikely to save money.
Also, there is no factual support for the carrier being conventional because of family pressure.  The carrier was ordered on October 9th, 1963, and Kennedy was killed on November 22nd.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Charlie Beeler (OP)

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Carrier Naming
« Reply #9 on: October 23, 2012, 01:10:29 PM »
Byron I don't know where your getting your reference dates for CV-67, but per navsource.org (and several others) these are the dates for the JFK:

Awarded        Laid down     Launched      Commissioned   Decommissioned   Stricken 
30 Apr 1964   22 Oct 1964  27 May 1967  7 Sept 1968     23 Mar 2007        16 Oct 2009

Several sites list as Ordered instead of Awarded, but all agree that the date is 30 Apr 1964


Per Neptune Papers #7-Aircraft Carriers - The Limits of Nuclear Power - ref #29

29. In September 1964, the Center for Naval Analyses completed a major study on nuclear propulsion for
surface ships with primary emphasis upon carriers. The report, nicknamed NAVWAF 33 for being the 33rd
study by the naval warfare analysis group, found that a two-reactor carrier comparable in size to the USS
Enterprise would cost about the same as a conventional Kennedy class carrier, plus a fast ammunition-oiler,
plus a replenishment fleet oiler; Rickover and the Nuclear Navy, op.cit., p. 145.

This was the justification for changing CV-67 from nuclear to conventional power and it predated the assassination.  Something else to note is that CV-67 was originally planned to have 4 reactors to Enterprises 2.
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: Carrier Naming
« Reply #10 on: October 23, 2012, 01:44:01 PM »
Byron I don't know where your getting your reference dates for CV-67, but per navsource.org (and several others) these are the dates for the JFK:

Awarded        Laid down     Launched      Commissioned   Decommissioned   Stricken  
30 Apr 1964   22 Oct 1964  27 May 1967  7 Sept 1968     23 Mar 2007        16 Oct 2009

Several sites list as Ordered instead of Awarded, but all agree that the date is 30 Apr 1964
Friedman.  Which is the source on carrier design.   I think that my choice of words was poor on this one.  The quote is: "Secretary McNamara rejected the navy position, and construction of CVA 67 (the USS John F. Kennedy) as a "fossil-fuel" carrier was ordered on 9 October 1963, about a year behind the FY63 schedule."  (p. 283)
That said, if you can find a reliable source (and I've looked for sources on that section about her being ordered as a nuke, and haven't found any), we'll look at this again.

Quote
Per Neptune Papers #7-Aircraft Carriers - The Limits of Nuclear Power - ref #29

29. In September 1964, the Center for Naval Analyses completed a major study on nuclear propulsion for
surface ships with primary emphasis upon carriers. The report, nicknamed NAVWAF 33 for being the 33rd
study by the naval warfare analysis group, found that a two-reactor carrier comparable in size to the USS
Enterprise would cost about the same as a conventional Kennedy class carrier, plus a fast ammunition-oiler,
plus a replenishment fleet oiler; Rickover and the Nuclear Navy, op.cit., p. 145.

This was the justification for changing CV-67 from nuclear to conventional power and it predated the assassination.  Something else to note is that CV-67 was originally planned to have 4 reactors to Enterprises 2.
No, by any dates you want, Kennedy was well under way by then.  If they were going to build her as a nuke, the reactor design would have been finished, and fabrication well under way.  There would be no savings from switching.
There was an alternative nuclear design underway, SCB 211.  It was a clean-slate design, not based on the Kitty Hawk.  It was not built.
Edit:
Why would they even build a nuclear carrier on the hull of a Kitty Hawk?  They did a new hull for Enterprise, so either they'd repeat that, or start over.  In no case does the "begun as a nuclear Kitty Hawk" make sense.
Edit 2:
The above quote actually supports my point.  They used Kennedy as a baseline for the conventional carrier.  Therefore, it was already planned to burn dinosaurs when the study started.  The study probably took something like 6 months, so it was before that.  And given the problems inherent in converting a CVN to a CV, a reversion to an older, purpose-built design would have been a likely baseline if Kennedy wasn't conventional from the start.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2012, 01:56:52 PM by byron »
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman
 

Offline Charlie Beeler (OP)

  • Registered
  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1381
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Carrier Naming
« Reply #11 on: October 23, 2012, 10:22:01 PM »
If you mean Norman Friedman's "U.S. Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated Design History" then turn to page 387 since that is the reference that several site list as stating that CV-67 was originally designed to be nuclear powered as well as being a highly modified Kitty Hawk base design. 

In addition the Navy's history site lists the Kennedy as being a Kitty Hawk.

I'd say that is reliable wouldn't you?
Amateurs study tactics, Professionals study logistics - paraphrase attributed to Gen Omar Bradley
 

Offline bean

  • Rear Admiral
  • **********
  • b
  • Posts: 916
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: Carrier Naming
« Reply #12 on: October 23, 2012, 11:33:33 PM »
If you mean Norman Friedman's "U.S. Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated Design History" then turn to page 387 since that is the reference that several site list as stating that CV-67 was originally designed to be nuclear powered as well as being a highly modified Kitty Hawk base design. 
They're wrong.  That page is the magazine loads of modern carriers.  The only mention of Kennedy is the column for SCB 127C (the design name).  It says nothing about CV-67 starting off as a nuke.

Quote
In addition the Navy's history site lists the Kennedy as being a Kitty Hawk.

I'd say that is reliable wouldn't you?
Indeed.  The Kennedy was a modified Kitty Hawk.  Designed for conventional power from the keel up.  I've never said differently.
This is Excel-in-Space, not Wing Commander - Rastaman