There she is … the gloriously underappreciated Casablanca Class Escort Carrier of WWII fame. When people think of “Jeep Carriers,” more often than not that is what comes to mind, and for good reason. Of the 124 Escort Carriers built for the USN and Royal Navy in WWII, 50 were of the Casablanca Class.
I read somewhere, perhaps in RADM Gallery’s autobiography, that almost immediately after Pearl Harbor BUSHIPS descended on Kaiser Shipbuilding with a complete set of conversion plans for their C-3 cargo ship. That would have required a considerable amount of active thinking and planning.
HA! just yesterday, enjoyed a video highlighting Kaiser company building these Casablanca in the Vancouver shipyards. 50 (FIFTY!) inside of 18 months......
instantly hearkened back to WWI, when Germany was pumping out zeppelin bombers to the tune of one every two weeks.......
yep. airships once again (NOT BLIMPS!).......have for years touted Kaiser company building the 150' diameter Honolulu geodesic dome inside of 22 hours, as an example of how to build modern, fully rigid hulled amphibious airships. flying UCAV carriers..........
Both we and the Brits have been fooling around with this idea since the early 1980s. The Brits actually improvised a shortie aircraft carrier using a container ship during the Falklands War. Afterwards we liked the idea so much we started a development program called Arapaho to do the same thing. Needless to say the program got captured by the system and never came to anything but an expensive failure, but it was a great idea and could easily be dusted off for the present day.
"However, the “decade of concern” school warns of a brewing war in the Western Pacific sometime centered on 2027. That’s not enough time to ramp-up even if Congress and the Executive Branch got religion this POM cycle."
Better late than never. The best time to rebuild the shipbuilding industrial base was ten years ago, the second-best time is today. China is not going to go away if we avoid war in the 2020s, we will certainly need more shipbuilding capacity in the 2030s no matter what happens.
"According to ARAPAHO project manager Lt. James Mulquin (Naval Reserve, ret.), the main ingredients are:......." An LT as a project manager? Man! The Navy must have seriously wanted this project killed off. An LT is not going to have any weight on Capitol Hill.
Excellent! Double hulled tanker with foam filled in the empty stace would allow them the extra buoyancy, too. Someone at the NWC suggested this…the results speak for themselves..current leadership could f* up and do no worse..
The idea of using container ships as aircraft carriers or anti-aircraft missile batteries is the type of innovative thinking Americans are known for. We saw this in 'Nam when the Brown Water Navy modified the LCM-6 for a large variety of combat and support roles.
The hard part is implementing those ideas in the face of woke leadership who seem to be more interested in social experimentation instead of combat effectiveness.
Jun 7, 2023·edited Jun 7, 2023Liked by CDR Salamander
I walked by the ATTU commission pendant and plaque today at the National Naval Aviation Museum. She was laid down in March of 44 and commissioned in June of 44!
To your questions:
1. It would take years to neck down the aircraft to be used, requirements, identify a shipyard and award a contract. My best estimate is 4-5 years before first keel is laid or converted.
2. Depends on type aircraft to be used. F35’s are hard on a flight deck. Feasible to build 3-4 decks ahead of time and prepare to ramp up capacity as build outs occur. I assume no more than 10 ships.
3. This is likely easier. 6-10 months.
4. Absolutely can be manned with a mix of active and reserve. There was an actual method of half ship manning in the interwar years. Meaning the ship was crewed by an active duty/reserve mix of undermanned billets. It was intentional. Minimally manned to absorb the full strength manpower when possible.
6. Manpower in this area would be a scaled back CiC on a CV. I would expect 3 watch teams to man the CIC. You would need around 20 OS/CT/FC and 3 -4 Watch Officers. For the airwing: If the entire ship is UAS, expect at least 4 operators per UAS. Presume we go with 30 mid size UAS like tiger shark, or heron, you would need a smaller operating team than maintenance. When I ran a UAV flight operation after I retired fro the navy we had 4 UAS pilots and 4 payload operators. We had 16 maintenance techs heavy in avionics. We were ground based but our footprint was scalable for a DDG flight deck.
The key issue for manpower size would be engineering and support manpower below the 1st deck.
Dad served on the USS Croatan, CVE-25, a Bogue class carrier, as a Bosun's Mate. Its last big cruise was moving the helo's of the 1st Cav to Vietnam in 65
We do not need to beat the war drums against China to encourage our nation to build a capable naval fleet. It may not be China who we need to defend against. We are an island nation, dependent on trade. It is essential to our survival as a nation that we have a Navy able to defend us against any threat, anywhere. Consider this, if China turned peaceful tomorrow, would we want to stand down the U.S. Navy? Of course not. The wooden walls of Athens have defended this nation for all of our history. If the threat from China went away, there would be other threats.
It was a Chinese philosopher who wrote, “In war, prepare for peace; in peace, prepare for war.” But, if you are anti-China, consider De Re Militari by the 4th Century writer Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus. "Igitur quī dēsīderat pācem, præparet bellum." ("Therefore let him who desires peace prepare for war.") Eighteen hundred years later, the maxim still rings true.
The lesson of history is that the nation which has armed itself is less likely to need to resort to force than the nation that is unprepared. We don't need a strong Navy because we are going to war, we need a strong navy so we don't go to war.
They are a little bit bigger, but i would bring back the Iwo Jima-class LPHs. They operated Harriers and Sea Stallions and were refitted with two Sea Sparrow launchers and two Phalanx CWIS. Resizing the ship to carry a reinforced company of Marines would make more room for the hanger deck.
Some years ago before I began my Crusade for "Lightning Carriers" . . . a study of 'Kaisers Coffins' and others was conducted. My Goodness . . . I had no idea there were so many during WWII. At the end of the war we had more than 100 carriers, and most were of this variety. Some better than others but they were Everywhere after 1943-44.
Wiki has a good article on them under 'Escort carrier' and there are multiple videos on Youtube by many different naval historians and officiados (light carriers, escort carriers, baby flattops, etc.). The USS America (LHA-6) Class that is aviation-centric is probably our best comparison today, and they cost a whole lot less than a CVN (any flavor). IMHO we should buy at least ½ dozen Aviation-Centric “Lightning Carriers” to supplement our eleven (11) bird farms. The Unified Combatant Commander Concept was designed around 15 carriers used during peacetime. Because we continue to reduce the number from that 15 carrier design all manner of maladies plague our naval forces from lack of maintenance due to skipping maintenance availabilities, to . . . can’t be in two places at once.
We gave up our fast Carrier Strike Groups when we let go the CGNs . . . and now we do not have enough CVNs. The ARG/MEU/MAGTF/ESG has filled in for now. Perhaps more USS America (LHA-6) Class Aviation-Centric “Lightning Carriers” could help. In fact a Light Carrier Battle Group based around a "Lightning Carrier" with a DDG-51 as 'AW', and a slew of Frigates could be just the thing in the future for response in a low intensity environment. I really am tired of U.S. Armed Forces always killing ants with sledgehammers.
I read somewhere, perhaps in RADM Gallery’s autobiography, that almost immediately after Pearl Harbor BUSHIPS descended on Kaiser Shipbuilding with a complete set of conversion plans for their C-3 cargo ship. That would have required a considerable amount of active thinking and planning.
HA! just yesterday, enjoyed a video highlighting Kaiser company building these Casablanca in the Vancouver shipyards. 50 (FIFTY!) inside of 18 months......
instantly hearkened back to WWI, when Germany was pumping out zeppelin bombers to the tune of one every two weeks.......
yep. airships once again (NOT BLIMPS!).......have for years touted Kaiser company building the 150' diameter Honolulu geodesic dome inside of 22 hours, as an example of how to build modern, fully rigid hulled amphibious airships. flying UCAV carriers..........
Both we and the Brits have been fooling around with this idea since the early 1980s. The Brits actually improvised a shortie aircraft carrier using a container ship during the Falklands War. Afterwards we liked the idea so much we started a development program called Arapaho to do the same thing. Needless to say the program got captured by the system and never came to anything but an expensive failure, but it was a great idea and could easily be dusted off for the present day.
"However, the “decade of concern” school warns of a brewing war in the Western Pacific sometime centered on 2027. That’s not enough time to ramp-up even if Congress and the Executive Branch got religion this POM cycle."
Better late than never. The best time to rebuild the shipbuilding industrial base was ten years ago, the second-best time is today. China is not going to go away if we avoid war in the 2020s, we will certainly need more shipbuilding capacity in the 2030s no matter what happens.
Ah... the 20th century Navy and the crazy ideas that were investigated. PHM's we bad enough, but this?
https://www.csmonitor.com/1981/0106/010636.html
"According to ARAPAHO project manager Lt. James Mulquin (Naval Reserve, ret.), the main ingredients are:......." An LT as a project manager? Man! The Navy must have seriously wanted this project killed off. An LT is not going to have any weight on Capitol Hill.
Panamax? Suezmax? Seawaymax?
Excellent! Double hulled tanker with foam filled in the empty stace would allow them the extra buoyancy, too. Someone at the NWC suggested this…the results speak for themselves..current leadership could f* up and do no worse..
The idea of using container ships as aircraft carriers or anti-aircraft missile batteries is the type of innovative thinking Americans are known for. We saw this in 'Nam when the Brown Water Navy modified the LCM-6 for a large variety of combat and support roles.
The hard part is implementing those ideas in the face of woke leadership who seem to be more interested in social experimentation instead of combat effectiveness.
I walked by the ATTU commission pendant and plaque today at the National Naval Aviation Museum. She was laid down in March of 44 and commissioned in June of 44!
To your questions:
1. It would take years to neck down the aircraft to be used, requirements, identify a shipyard and award a contract. My best estimate is 4-5 years before first keel is laid or converted.
2. Depends on type aircraft to be used. F35’s are hard on a flight deck. Feasible to build 3-4 decks ahead of time and prepare to ramp up capacity as build outs occur. I assume no more than 10 ships.
3. This is likely easier. 6-10 months.
4. Absolutely can be manned with a mix of active and reserve. There was an actual method of half ship manning in the interwar years. Meaning the ship was crewed by an active duty/reserve mix of undermanned billets. It was intentional. Minimally manned to absorb the full strength manpower when possible.
6. Manpower in this area would be a scaled back CiC on a CV. I would expect 3 watch teams to man the CIC. You would need around 20 OS/CT/FC and 3 -4 Watch Officers. For the airwing: If the entire ship is UAS, expect at least 4 operators per UAS. Presume we go with 30 mid size UAS like tiger shark, or heron, you would need a smaller operating team than maintenance. When I ran a UAV flight operation after I retired fro the navy we had 4 UAS pilots and 4 payload operators. We had 16 maintenance techs heavy in avionics. We were ground based but our footprint was scalable for a DDG flight deck.
The key issue for manpower size would be engineering and support manpower below the 1st deck.
Just some food for your thought exercise.
Dad served on the USS Croatan, CVE-25, a Bogue class carrier, as a Bosun's Mate. Its last big cruise was moving the helo's of the 1st Cav to Vietnam in 65
We do not need to beat the war drums against China to encourage our nation to build a capable naval fleet. It may not be China who we need to defend against. We are an island nation, dependent on trade. It is essential to our survival as a nation that we have a Navy able to defend us against any threat, anywhere. Consider this, if China turned peaceful tomorrow, would we want to stand down the U.S. Navy? Of course not. The wooden walls of Athens have defended this nation for all of our history. If the threat from China went away, there would be other threats.
It was a Chinese philosopher who wrote, “In war, prepare for peace; in peace, prepare for war.” But, if you are anti-China, consider De Re Militari by the 4th Century writer Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus. "Igitur quī dēsīderat pācem, præparet bellum." ("Therefore let him who desires peace prepare for war.") Eighteen hundred years later, the maxim still rings true.
The lesson of history is that the nation which has armed itself is less likely to need to resort to force than the nation that is unprepared. We don't need a strong Navy because we are going to war, we need a strong navy so we don't go to war.
They are a little bit bigger, but i would bring back the Iwo Jima-class LPHs. They operated Harriers and Sea Stallions and were refitted with two Sea Sparrow launchers and two Phalanx CWIS. Resizing the ship to carry a reinforced company of Marines would make more room for the hanger deck.
Maybe bring back the old trainable Sparrow launchers, modified for ESSM?
And as a Buckeye, thanks for supporting us becoming an important shipbuilding state again, Commander!
Living on the Great Lakes, I have wondered about a PAUL R TREGURTHA based escort ship.
She is big enough to be a carrier of lots of UAVs, and loads of ordnance.
You would have to find someone who could build something that big, of course.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Paul_R._Tregurtha
CDR Salamander,
Some years ago before I began my Crusade for "Lightning Carriers" . . . a study of 'Kaisers Coffins' and others was conducted. My Goodness . . . I had no idea there were so many during WWII. At the end of the war we had more than 100 carriers, and most were of this variety. Some better than others but they were Everywhere after 1943-44.
Wiki has a good article on them under 'Escort carrier' and there are multiple videos on Youtube by many different naval historians and officiados (light carriers, escort carriers, baby flattops, etc.). The USS America (LHA-6) Class that is aviation-centric is probably our best comparison today, and they cost a whole lot less than a CVN (any flavor). IMHO we should buy at least ½ dozen Aviation-Centric “Lightning Carriers” to supplement our eleven (11) bird farms. The Unified Combatant Commander Concept was designed around 15 carriers used during peacetime. Because we continue to reduce the number from that 15 carrier design all manner of maladies plague our naval forces from lack of maintenance due to skipping maintenance availabilities, to . . . can’t be in two places at once.
We gave up our fast Carrier Strike Groups when we let go the CGNs . . . and now we do not have enough CVNs. The ARG/MEU/MAGTF/ESG has filled in for now. Perhaps more USS America (LHA-6) Class Aviation-Centric “Lightning Carriers” could help. In fact a Light Carrier Battle Group based around a "Lightning Carrier" with a DDG-51 as 'AW', and a slew of Frigates could be just the thing in the future for response in a low intensity environment. I really am tired of U.S. Armed Forces always killing ants with sledgehammers.
Just my 2ȼ.
TORCH OUT
So happy when people read and understand history, and suggest plausible solutions to thorny operational problems. BZ