Aircraft Carrier (Medium)

The Aircraft Carrier (Medium) (CVV) was an American design for a conventional-powered (i.e. non-nuclear-powered) aircraft carrier proposed in the 1970s. It was to be smaller and cheaper than the contemporary nuclear-powered . A single example was planned, but was not built, with further ''Nimitz''-class carriers built instead.

Development and design

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 1972Friedman p324.) but still be suitable for replacing the aging s.Friedman pp. 323–324.''Naval Aviation News'', July 1979, p. 8. But work on the project (designated T-CBL) was stopped 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 .

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 also 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 airgroup than existing supercarriers (i.e. about 60 compared with about 90 for the nuclear-powered ''Nimitz'' class or the conventional-powered s) 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 in a two-shaft arrangement, compared with the delivered to four shafts of the larger carriers, giving a speed of compared with over .''Naval Aviation News'' July 1979, pp. 11–12.Moore 1979, pp. 674, 675, 678. 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.Gardiner and Chumbley 1995, p. 575.

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.Moore 1979, pp. 674–675. When it was realized that a repeat of , 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.''Naval Aviation News'' July 1979, p. 10.

A fourth ''Nimitz''-class vessel, was authorized in the FY 81 budget, however, and the election of Ronald Reagan meant that defense budgets were no longer strained, meaning an end to the CVV.Gardiner and Chumbley 1995, p. 551.

Notes

Citations

References

*
*
*
* {{cite book , last=Moore , first=John , author-link=John Moore (Royal Navy officer) , title=Jane's Fighting Ships 1979–80 , location=London: Macdonald and Jane's , year=1979 , isbn=0-354-00587-1

Aircraft carriers of the United States Navy
Cancelled aircraft carriers
Cancelled ships of the United States Navy
Cold War aircraft carriers of the United States
Proposed aircraft carriers