Agents of Innovation by Kuehn John T

Author:Kuehn, John T. [Kuehn, John T.]
Language: eng
Format: epub
ISBN: 9781612514055
Publisher: Perseus Books, LLC

FIGURE 2. Flying Deck Cruiser Design Blueprint

TABLE 4. Characteristics for Flying Deck Cruiser by CNO and the General Board87

Moffett proposed that all other naval appropriations give way in priority to the construction of the CF. The Committee gave the ship a favorable report. However, the Bill for its construction (only a single ship) was not acted on during that session of Congress. By the winter of 1932–1933 the economic situation had worsened and proposals were even being made to put the battleship fleet into lay-up in order to save money. In late 1932, the flying deck cruiser was removed from the construction budget for 1933 due to the governmental economies necessitated by the Depression.88

The flying deck cruiser died a slow death. However, the concept had enough merit to remain a General Board priority but the promising design of 1931 was radically altered. First, Admiral Clark had taken issue with the way in which aircraft bombing accuracy had been tested during the 1930–1931 Naval War College war games. A new round of games was conducted at the college in 1932 that used more pessimistic bomb accuracy decrements. Understandably, the CF’s performance decreased in comparison to regular cruisers. However, another factor perhaps had more effect. From the beginning critics of the flying deck cruiser had labeled it a “hybrid.” Retired Adm. Hilary Jones went so far as to call the ship “a hermaphrodite—neither a real cruiser nor a real airplane carrier. It has all the weaknesses of both and none of the efficient characteristics of either.” This language had been written during the summer of 1933 for a Navy League speech when the issue of building the ship had again come up as the General Board drafted its annual construction request for 1934. The Navy League speech was forwarded to the Board by the Navy secretary during the Board’s preparation of another recommendation on the topic. The Navy League had been a vocal critic of the Hoover administration’s naval construction policies. The new administration, especially FDR, who was perhaps more sensitive to this constituency, wanted to ensure that the League’s concerns were addressed. Jones, and active duty admirals like Schofield and the aviator admiral J. M Reeves, believed that “pure” aircraft carriers were really what the fleet needed.89 With FDR’s election, and the subsequent loosening of the purse strings for additional carrier construction, much of the original impetus and logic for the construction of the flying deck cruiser lost its persuasiveness. Also, the flying deck cruiser had lost some of its influential advocates. In 1933, Moffett died in the Akron crash, Pratt departed as CNO, Laning moved on from the Naval War College and Admiral Bristol had left the General Board in mid-1932.90

The new and “improved” data from recent War College games were forwarded to the Board and it was decided to hold new design hearings for the CF. The latest design reflected the bias of the games and the times. BuC&R now proposed a twelve-plane design which no longer had an angled flight deck.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.