The Ship Model Forum

Here are some different shots from the 50's. I found them to help Model Monkey with the designs of Korean War Island pre-angle deck.

Why didn't the bunker hill and Tarawa get angle decks?

My understanding is that Bunker Hill was being kept in reserve for an 'ultimate' conversion that never happened. It was in excellent shape, having been completely refurbished after her ordeal in the Pacific, but just never got to the conversion stage. By the time it might've happened, they had realized that the Essex's were obsolete for the aircraft coming on line then. I can't speak to Tarawa though.

Bunker Hill was struck from the NAVY list in Nov 1966. And from that time until Nov 1972 she was moored in San Diego as an electronic test ship for the Naval Electronics Laboratory Center. Then scrapped in 1973... Not sure if that had anything to do with not receiving an angle deck & other upgrades...

As for Tarawa. I guess since she served while the other Essex Class were getting upgraded, and by the time the angle deck Essex's were back in service the new Forrestal Class & Kitty Hawk Class were out. The NAVY decided it was not worth the cost to convert her to an angle deck...

Thomas

The later Essex Class Carriers commissioned at the end of the war were active when Korea broke out. They carried the torch as the older ships were brought back online. So as they fought the war while the older ships got the SCB-27A/C updates. Oriskany being the exception because she was incomplete after WWII and was re-started as an SCB-27A conversion. 14 Carriers were converted before the navy ceased the conversions and focused on the new super carriers (Forrestal's). Of the 14 ships converted, only 1(Lake Champlain), did not get the SCB-125 (Angled Deck/Hurricane Bow) conversion. As previously mentioned, it became clear that the Essex Class was going to be inadequate to support the newer and heavier aircraft coming online. I always thought it odd that both Franklin and Bunker Hill did not get converted since they got major re-work because of battle damage at the end of the war.

Thanks Marc;
I also thought it was odd too. I still thought the Essex class could serve a purpose such in support of special operations or a spare platform that harriers could be used. The navy made a lot of mistakes and I think one of the late model Essex could have lasted until into the 90's when the LHD's came online. Regardless, I am planning on doing two version of the CV 14 one in Korea and one in late 60's.

It's also worth mentioning the Navy had to deal with fiscal realities, and that by the late '50s and early '60s the Essex-class ships were starting to wear out. The limits of the Essex class were also well-known by this time, and even with the converted ships, there was only so far you could go in that box.

According to Norman Friedman, Lake Champlain was proposed for an angle-deck conversion under Fiscal Year 1966, but it didn't happen in part because the S-2 Tracker was being viewed as inadequate. The dedicated CVS program was also on the way out, which took away the mission for much of that fleet. Modernizing a ship like Yorktown to a comparable standard as Hancock would have required 40 months and $65 million in FY 65 dollars, and that just wasn't going to happen.

Friedman's U.S. Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated Design History talks a little about various proposals to modernize the Essex-class fleet and keep them around through the 1980s. From reading them, you get the idea that to solve the various structural and operational problems (which in one scheme would have meant rebuilding the ships from the second deck up) would have required about the same effort as would new construction, and would have resulted in a ship slower and less-capable than purpose-designed new construction.

One more thing: as the Vietnam War went on and demanded more resources, it took its toll not only on modernization plans, but maintenance of the existing fleet. It became hard enough to find funds and yard time to keep the ships as they were in good repair, and this wasn't helped by the fact the ships were just plain tired. There are plenty of stories and documents from these ships' later days that support how tired they were, and to be made right again they'd have required a lot of resources that weren't there at the time. I love those ships - hands down, they're my favorite class of any kind of ship - but as a practical matter, their time was up.

Jodie Peeler

On a side note about the Essex Class being worn out. The Lexington CV-16/AVT-16 was the last to be decommissioned in Nov. 1991 (Serving as the dedicated training carrier from 1962-1991). Aside from the LEX, the Hancock CV-19 & Oriskany CV-34 were the last to be decom'ed in 1976. In Bert Kinzey's "Detail & Scale" book on USS Lexington, he states that the in the late 70's till her decom in 91, the LEX either had to machine it's own parts to replace those that broke/failed or the crew had to get parts from other Essex Class still in reserve or a museum. Book states Shangri-La CV-38 was raided of parts many times before her dismantling. & the museum ship Yorktown had parts taken from her to keep LEX running. & I think I also remember hearing in the documentary of the Oriskany sinking, that part had been used from her on the LEX as well...

Thomas

If I recall correctly, the reason Shangri-La was kept around at Philadelphia until 1988, several years after being stricken from the register (in 1982, was it? can't recall offhand), was to serve as a parts source for Lexington. I don't know how much Shang had been picked clean by the end, but I remember getting a response from the Navy sometime that year stating that several groups had expressed interest in Shangri-La, but found the ship to be in poor condition.

As it happened, the four Essex-class ships in reserve at Bremerton were stricken from the Navy List in 1989 and would go off to their various fates, and Lexington's much-anticipated retirement finally came a couple years later.

Jodie Peeler

Counting Oriskany, 15 Essex's received SCB-27 upgrades. CV's 9, 10, 12, 15, 18, 20, 33, 34, & 39 received SCB-27A. Of those, all but Oriskany were widened to 101'. Oriskany, as the prototype, was 106'. Three, CV's 11, 14, & 19 got SCB-27C without SCB-125. They were widened to 103'. The last modernized batch, CV's 16, 31, & 38 all received SCB-27C and SCB-125 in the same yard period, but photos of Shang's bow show that -125 came later in the refit rather than from the beginning. These were also 103' in the beam, waterline. Antietam received the prototype angled deck, being the only Essex to have that feature without one of the SCB-27 upgrades.

Of the -27A's only Oriskany had enough width to remain stable with the addition of the steam cats. The others would have required removing their blisters and rebuilding the hulls with the greater waterline beam. This, more than any other factor, made this type upgrade uneconomical. One of the biggest reasons that the Essex's were falling behind was the length of the angled deck itself. That limited the runout distance after trapping, which effected the combination of landing speed and weight of modern aircraft that the ships could handle. Lex survived because the training aircraft that used her deck were still in the size/speed range she could deal with. She couldn't handle the newer combat models. Similarly, that was the biggest limitation on the FDR. Midway's second modernization was intended to (and did) overcome that limitation, but the rising costs during her rebuild also ate up most of the funds intended for the same upgrade to FDR.

Whoops!

I should know not to do public math....

Thanks for the correction!

Good day,
I am looking for any photos of the USS Antienum CV 36 1953-1955. I have found a few on National Archives site but they are not viewable. Online.
Also is picking up the 1/700 Dragon kit is a good start for a startling point to build in 1/350
Thanks

Navsource.org has some pics from the time period...

Thomas

http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/36.htm

Here is the USS Antietam sometime in the mid 50's as a CVS.
It appears her forward mounts are removed. I thought she did not lose any small weapons until her overhaul prior to becoming a training carrier. Can anyone please confirm.
Thanks

One more Navsource pic showing no bow mounts, but still while doing CVS duty prior to conversion to CVT in 1958: http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/023617.jpg

Of even more interest is the missing 5"/38 in the port sponson.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

There are lights on CV-11's island. Are they clear or colored?

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery

Timmy, the port-after 5" went away with the original angled deck. Both of the forward guns are still in place in this photo. Look at the barrels placed tip-to-tip. The body of the forward gun is covered in dark canvas.

Most if not all of the lights appear to be clear spot/floodlights in the pictures I have been able to find on the web.

Ah, missed that!

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

Thanks!

_________________
Martin

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." John Wayne

Ship Model Gallery