Naval Aviation News 1962-64 - Evolution of Aircraft Carriers.pdf - 01.Monografie - Criskross

EVOLU

AIRCRAFT CARRIERS

By Scot MacDonald

FOREWORD

Since February, 1962, a series of articles has ap-

peared in Naval Aviation News under the title “Evolution of

Aircraft Carriers.” They measure up as an authentic, earnest

attempt to chronicle a history of carriers since the mobile

airfield idea was initially conceived.

Here, under these covers, are the entire contents of

those articles. This does not comprise a complete history

of carriers-- that history is still being written in seas a-

round the world.

This collection, based on information gathered from

many official sources, provides an interesting account of

how and why the carrier developed as it did.

It is the story

behind the perhaps better known

tale of carrier operations.

It is the story of change-- change dictated by operational

necessity and by technological progress. It is also the story

of how naval constructors took full advantage of technological

progress, and the lessons learned of operational experience

to solve the Navy's unique problem of taking aviation to sea.

As a result of their efforts and the constant improvement of

tactics necessary to weld sea and air power together, the air-

craft carrier stands today at the forefront of Naval power,

ready and able to defend the nation and to project national

interests to all parts of the world.

Vice Admiral, USN

Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Air)

February 1, 1964

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Washington, D. C., 20402 - Price 55 cents

USMC (6), Alfred A. Cunningham, USMC (5), John H. Towers (3),

AT GUANTANAMO 1913 fleet games, early Naval Aviators, in dark

P.N.L. Bellinger (8), W.D. Billingsley (9), and G. deC. Chevalicr (7).

uniforms, are (L) Victor D. Herbster (NO. 4), Bernard L. Smith,

Evolution of Aircraft Carriers

THE AEROPLANE GOES TO SEA

First Article in a Series

By Scot MacDonald

well known. Not so well known, but equally

as a dominant segment in our military estab-

itself, for the Navy was prompt to assess the

1944-1947; SecDef, 1947-1949.

‘The striking successes of carrier warfare in the Second World War are

important in its own right, is the story of the evolution of sea-air power

lishment. The formative years began almost with the birth of the aircraft

value of the newest weapon in its arsenal.’—James V. Forrestal, SecNav,

J ULES VERNE,

between the Navy and the swelling

author of startling desk of Capt. W. Irving Chambers in

number of letter-writers who were

science-fiction during the last half

1910. Capt. Chambers had recently

eager to advance their own schemes or

of the 19th century, would have rel-

been assigned as Assistant to the Sec-

ished some of the sketches, plans, and

retary’s

Aid for Material, and was designs involving aviation.

Less than seven years earlier, the

given the collateral duty of liaison

ideas for “aeroplanes” that crossed the

ELY’S AIRCRAFT is loaded aboard a special platform in USS

Birmingham at Norfolk for first take-off from ships, in 1910.

NAVAL AVIATION NEWS

Wright brothers had launched their

pusher biplane into a brief but im-

pressive flight. In the intervening

years, advocates of aviation fought for

recognition—and money.

At first, the Navy’s interest in avi-

ation was skeptical, if not openly dis-

couraging. Twelve years before Cham-

bers entered the picture, “The Joint

Army Navy Board to Examine Lang-

ley’s Flying Machine” was formed at

the urging of Assistant Secretary of

the Navy Theodore Roosevelt. A Navy

member reported favorably on it to

the General Board. But the Secretary,

upon the advice of another Bureau in

the Department, decided “the appar-

atus as [it] is referred to pertains

hers and two other officers were sent;

for the Navy, Chambers, and Naval

Aviation, it was a fortunate decision.

There he met Curtiss and the Curtiss-

trained pilot, Eugene Ely. At that time,

the Navy had neither an aircraft nor

a designated pilot. In a series of start-

ling tests, Chambers, Curtiss and Ely

demonstrated that this situation must

change, and soon.

Several problems nagged Chambers.

There was not conclusive proof, for

instance, that it was feasible to launch

and land aircraft at sea. And if there

was to be any future for aviation in

the Navy, it had to be demonstrated

aircraft could be operated in, and were

important to, the Fleet. Navy officials,

decide the destiny of nations.” And

he added, “Encumbered as [our big

war vessels] are within their turrets

and military masts, they cannot launch

air fighters , and without these to de-

fend them, they would be blown apart

in case of war.”

The “battleship controversy” was

on, puffed by publicity in a competi-

tive press. Curtiss added weight to his

argument by a series of tests in which

he lobbed 15 out of 22 “bombs” into

targets as large as and shaped like

battleships near Hammondsport, N.Y.

There was a rumor that France was

building an aircraft carrier. More to

the point, a growing group of enthusi-

asts,

the U.S. Aeronautic Reserve,

CAPT. W. I. CHAMBERS was O-in-C of Naval

Aviation jrom 26 Sept. 1910 until 17 Dec. 1913.

CAPT. M.L. BRISTOL relieved Chambers, served

until March 1916, led aviation in Gitmo games.

CAPT. NOBLE E. IRWIN was next leader, held

title, Director U.S. Naval Aviation in WW I.

strictly to the land service and not to

the Navy.”

On at least two important occasions

between then and 1910, the Navy

participated in or observed the fledg-

ling "apparatus” in flight-in the 1907

Jamestown Exposition and the 1908

tests by the Wright brothers at Fort

Myer, Va. But the Navy Board held

to the attitude that “aeronautics” had

“not yet achieved sufficient importance

in its relation to naval warfare” to

warrant Navy support.

It was not until 1910 that specific

action was taken to alert the Navy

to the potentials of aviation. In one

incident, pioneer Glenn H. Curtiss

successfully flew a prize-winning flight

between Albany and New York. At

its conclusion, he prophesied publicly:

“The battles of the future will be

fought in the air. The aeroplane will

asked the Navy to appoint a represen-

tative who would handle aviation mat-

ters. Since this civilian organization

enjoyed semi-official status, Capt.

Chambers was assigned to handle all

correspondence on the subject.

Chambers’ job proved far from

easy. He was given no space to work

in, no clerical help, no operating

money, no authority, and precious

little encouragement. Despite this, he

later wrote to Lt. T. G. Ellyson, “I

am endeavoring to start an office of

aeronautics here in such a way that

things will run smoothly without hav-

ing them all get into one Bureau and

made a mess of as was the submarine

question.”

In October 1910, the Navy was in-

vited to send the corps of midshipmen

to Halethorpe, Md., where an aviation

meet was to be held. Instead, Cham-

military and civilian, were still apa-

thetic about the program and gave it

token and grudging cognizance—when

they treated it with any degree of seri-

ousness at all.

The first test was prompted by plans

of a German merchant line to launch

a plane from one of its ships in order

to speed up its mail service. Chambers

was appalled that such an advance

might be made by a foreign power

when the aircraft had been, in fact,

developed by this country. He ob-

tained permission to make a similar

attempt at launching from the deck of

the cruiser Birmingham. The Wright

brothers were contacted, but they de-

murred; Ely was eager.

A temporary wooden platform was

erected on Birmingham at the Norfolk

Navy Yard. The German line, mind-

ful of the Navy’s experiment, moved

FEBRUARY 1962

.——.

——

original program, was the uncertainty

of stopping the ship or changing the

course in time to prevent running

over the aviator in case he should land

in the water.

“His demonstration, that an aero-

plane of comparatively old design and

moderate power can leave a ship in

flight while the ship is not under way,

points clearly to the conclusion that

the proper place for the platform is

aft. An after platform can be made

longer, will not require a lessening of

the stays of any mast and its essential

supports can be so rigged as a perman-

ent structure of a scout cruiser as to

cause no inconvenience in arranging

the other military essentials of the

ship’s design.”

News of the feat inspired a New

York Navy Yard worker to design a

light movable platform for installation

above the turrets in battleships for the

purpose of launching aircraft at sea.

Some Navy officials were enthusiastic,

but Chambers was not quite so ready

for this innovation. “Recognizing the

practicability of Quarterman Joiner

[E. C.] Keithley’s idea,” he wrote, he

could “not contemplate the use of

aeroplanes from turret ships in the

immediate future.”

Chambers’ reasoning was cautious.

As a result of the Birmingham flight,

he did not think it necessary to launch

aircraft into the wind. He had already

gone on record as supporting the place-

ment of the platform in the aft sec-

tion of the ship and saw no reason to

take a different stand. The safety of

pilots was another determining factor:

he feared they would be run over by

the ship if the plane, forced to ditch,

landed forward of the carrier.

Though Ely’s flight opened a few

Navy eyes, it did not loosen the

Navy’s purse strings. Glenn Curtiss,

at this time, offered to teach a Naval

officer the mechanics of flying, absorb-

ing the expense himself. Chambers

recommended the immediate approval

of the plan and Lt. T’. G. Ellyson was

ordered to Curtiss’ San Diego camp.

A series of experiments followed, in

conjunction with the pilot’s training.

Chambers, immensely pleased with

the Birmingham launching, was now

interested in proving it practical to

land a plane aboard a Naval warship.

Another platform was constructed at

Mare Island and permission was ob-

tained to install it on the armored

cruiser USS Pennsylvania. While the

vessel was anchored at San Francisco

on 18 January 1911, Ely launched

from a shore airdrome.

“There was never a doubt in my

mind that I would effect a successful

landing,” Ely is quoted in a March

1911 Naval Institute Proceedings arti-

cle. “I knew what a Curtiss biplane

could do, and I felt certain that if the

weather conditions were good there

would be no slip.”

AT VERA CRUZ aviation camp, Mexico, pilot

Bellinger,

right, poses with ground crew.

up its target date in an effort to be

the first to launch, and thereafter bask

in the honors of claiming a significant

aeronautical first. Luck was not with

them, however. An accident aboard,

caused by a careless workman, forced

a delay of the experiment.

Chambers’ plan went ahead without

a hitch. On Monday, 14 November

1910, Birmingham pulled into the

waters off Hampton Roads, in com-

pany with three torpedo destroyers.

Aboard was pilot Ely and his biplane.

Weather was unsatisfactory; visibility

was dropped by a low cloud cover and

there were light showers mixed with

hail.

Ely was not discouraged. He slipped

into the seat of his aircraft near three

in the afternoon and signalled his han-

dlers to let loose. The plane roared off

the platform, took a dangerous dip

when it left the platform, then swung

into the air. In the take-off, the skid

framing and wing pontoons of his

plane struck the water, nearly abort-

ing the flight. The prop tips were

splintered and water splashed over his

goggles. This brief baptism, and a

steady rain, blanketed his vision and

for a moment he swung dizzily in the

air. Finally, he spotted the sandy

beaches of Willoughby Spit and touch-

down, ending a 2 1/2-mile flight.

The flight was an extraordinary suc-

cess, but Chambers tempered his jubil-

ance with native conservatism. Said

he: “After [Ely] had demonstrated

his ability to leave the ship so readily,

without assistance from the ship’s

speed, or from any special starting de-

vice, such as that formerly used by

the Wright brothers, my satisfaction

with the results of the experiment was

increased.”

He admitted to pre-experiment per-

turbation: “The point of greatest con-

cern in my mind, carrying out the

PLANE LAUNCHES from catapult on cruiser Huntington. After U.S. intervention in WW I,

catapult was removed from all U.S. ships. Huntington spent war years in convoy escort duty.

NAVAL AVIATION NEWS

Naval Aviation News 1962-64 - Evolution of Aircraft Carriers.pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: