Talk:Ship Characteristics Board

An apology and tribute to Norman Friedman

The following entries, which list inconsistencies in the published history of SCB projects, would seem to be a criticism of the work of Norman Friedman. Nothing could be further from the truth. This wiki page would not exist without his books. It would have been miraculous if the sheer volume and detail he has written had not resulted in a few errors. Thank you Dr. Friedman for your efforts! Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

CL-154 (or CLAA-154) cruiser design

At the end of World War 2 the U.S. Navy considered constructing an updated anti-aircraft cruiser that would be an improvement over the Juneau class due to installation of the new more capable 5-inch/54 caliber gun; this proposed class was never named and so it is known as the CL-154 class after the first allocated hull number. Friedman reports it was never assigned a SCB number, as if this was an omission born from the SCB's hostility to this design: the SCB from its creation critiqued it on cost-effectiveness grounds.

Friedman also reports that the last mention of the design by the SCB was in late September 1945, he reports the SCB did not begin numbering projects until some time in 1946, and so it can be concluded that the lack of a SCB project number was no omission but rather simply bad timing: it was likely cancelled before it could be assigned a number.

Also, the two cruiser classes contemporary to CL-154 (the Worcester class and Des Moines class) that were constructed also did not receive SCB numbers: all were laid down in 1945, so unlike the case with CL-154 it can be concluded that their designs were largely finalized and so the new SCB was no longer concerned with them. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

References

SCB 182 source information conflict

Friedman identifies this project as Albacore AGSS Phase III, with a planning start in 1957. He also states that Albacore AGSS Phase II began in 1956, without mentioning a SCB number. However, in another book Friedman dates the next sequential project after SCB 182, namely SCB 183 (a PCS concept) as starting in 1956, which is a contradiction.

Crierie identifies this project as Albacore AGSS Phase II, and Albacore AGSS Phase III as SCB 182A. If we accept the dates of each Phase as supplied by Friedman, and Friedman's dating of SCB 183, then Crierie's chronology by SCB number is most likely correct. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

References

SCB 236 source information conflict

Friedman identifies this project as resulting in the USNS Comet T-AK-269, later T-LSV-7. This is almost certainly incorrect, since the SCB 236 number sequentially lies between SCB 227 (start date March 1961) and SCB 247 (June 1962), and the Comet keel was laid down on 31 July 1957. The chronology is wrong: an SCB project start must precede the beginning of ship construction.

Crierie identifies this project as resulting in the USNS Sea Lift T-LSV-9. Given the likely 1961-1962 start date of SCB 236 and the Sea Lift keel laid down date of 18 May 1964, this is almost certainly correct.

This would have been an easy mistake to make, since Sea Lift was an enlarged and improved Comet. It is possible that Comet was the result of SCB 77A, which started in November 1952 - Friedman himself describes SCB 77A and Comet on the same pages of his book, and SCB 77A if implemented would have resulted in a ship much like Comet - but this requires confirmation. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

References

SCB 101.68 and SCB 103.68 source information conflict

Friedman's documentation of these two projects is inconsistent. He identifies SCB 101.68 as the proposed full modernization of the Franklin D. Roosevelt and SCB 103.68 as the austere refit that was done after SCB 101.68 was cancelled, but sometimes he reverses these identifications. Since the full modernization of the Midway was SCB 101.66 and they were sister ships, the reversed identifications are less likely to be true: it is likely that the SCB 101 block number identified the entire Midway class, while SCB 103 identified the Franklin D. Roosevelt only. Crierie appears to agree.. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Ship Characteristic Board changes: reordered block numbers

OK, I looked over your [ERRINGTONINFANTS'] changes, and after consulting my sources I agree that I erred in my placement of the Oliver Hazard Perry class in the sequential project list. So, thanks!

However, I cannot for the life of me understand why you broke the chronological order of the block number projects for which we have dates. This makes it much harder to understand what was happening from the fiscal and project management viewpoints. The general point of this article is what can be termed 'naval administration', and so a chronological ordering is more important than an ordering by category blocks, because the fiscal and project management viewpoints are more important. Obviously it would be ideal if we had a published official start for each project, so we could set up a sortable table, but we don't. Please convince me that I am wrong or put it back. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 03:57, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Ship Characteristic Board changes: reordered block numbers

There are other projects in the FY47-64 list that should be in the Block Number list.

I changed the block number list because it's much easier to read when it's in numerical order.

Furthermore, it looks like there are sub-blocks within the 200-299 Block i.e.

200-219 Destroyer Escorts (DE) which became Frigates (FF) in the re-classification of June 1975.
 200.00 The Knox class (SCB-199C under the previous system)
220-239 Destroyers (DD)
 222.66 Forrest Sherman class ASW Modernisation
 223.67 The DDG planned for FY1967
 224.00 Spruance class (DX Project)
 226.00 Tinconderoga class which was originally designated a guided missile destroyer and then a guided missile cruiser. 
240-259 Frigates (DL) which became Guided Missile Cruisers (CG) in the re-classification of June 1975.
 240.65 Typhoon Frigate (SCB-243 under the previous system)
 241.66 California class
 243.66 Farragut class AAW Modernisation
 244.66 Leahy class AAW Modernisation
 246.00 Virginia class (The DXGN Project)
260-280 Patrol Frigates (PF)
 261.00 Oliver Hazard Perry class - IIRC USS Perry originally had the hull number PF-103 before it became FFG-7.

That can't be seen unless they're in the correct order.

BTW the citations say that one of the sources was a thread on Secret Projects to which I contributed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ERRINGTONINFANTS (talk • contribs) 12:27, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

reply

I must say that I'm glad you arrived here

I don't consider that Secret Projects to be a definitive source. Norman Friedman as a source is well researched and cited. The only reason I've cited Secret Projects is 1) there seems to be no alternative for these ships and 2) in a few cases, as documented on this Talk page, the Crierie / Secret Projects timelines are more correct than Friedman is. I believe that a Wiki committee review of these citations would recommend their deletion. I consider them to be placeholders until something better comes along. I see you did accomplish this with the Fahey citations. If you have more please add them.

BTW, does Fahey go into any detail on the shift to block numbering? If both Fahey and Friedman are correct then Fahey must have got the block numbers just as they were introduced. OTOH, if Friedman states that concept work began prior to 1965 I would have to state that he is correct, and that Fahey only documents a sequential number that was subsequently converted to a block number. For example, if a destroyer project had a Friedman documented pre-1965 number like 245 (because its conceptual design was started @1961 per Friedman) and Fahey has a post-1965 number like 245.66 for the same ship, then I would argue that the DoD just recycled the number and it should be on both lists. I'm going to go back and look for such occurrences, but it might be a few weeks before I'm done.

That can't be seen unless they're in the correct order. I'm still not convinced. I do see that the block numbers themselves are likely assigned in chronological order, so it may be mostly correct. One issue here is that a large number of block numbers were likely assigned in 1965 at the beginning of this system, but unlike the original 1946 list we have no documentation from Friedman to know anything about this. Was there some prioritization in the numbering? Does Fahey say anything?

The FY suffix labelling is flawed for historical use. Under it everything important in a project becomes reduced to what is actually budgeted for construction. The long lead items such as technological changes, conceptual development and the actual design efforts (i.e., the main purpose of the SCB) become invisible. I assume that the block sequence for design is .00, but we generally don't see these documented anywhere, and such a suffix has zero chronological value. Does Fahey say anything about the meaning of the .00 suffix? If he does and if we use it in the table we have to state what it means in the section lede. If we can't document it we will need to decide if and how we can use it.

BTW, I'm going to change the first text in this section lede from "By 1965 the numeric sequence was abandoned and SCB projects were organized by block numbers with a two digit suffix denoting the 'year' of the project" to be more explicit that the 'year' is the Fiscal Year of ship construction. Once this is done the table description column won't need to mention the fiscal year.Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

reply

Thank you for the compliment.

FWIW the contributor to the Secret Projects thread called NOMISYRRUC is me. The main sources for my lists were Fahey and the Friedman books that were available to me at the time.

I do have a few more projects to add or amend and I'll put in page references for them as I go along.

Pre-1965 numbers in the old system weren't re-used for the same designs in the new system. E.g. SCB-245 in the Old System was the SSN Narwhal which was ordered in FY 1964. I don't believe that it was given a number in the New System because no more ships of that type were built. I don't have a project for SCB-245 in the New System, but I suspect that it was for an AAW modernisation of Bainbridge, Truxton or the Belknap class.

According to Fahey SCB-244 was for the 2 Samuel Gompers class destroyer tenders (AD-37 and AD-38) that were ordered in FY-1964 and the ship projected for FY-1966 (AD-39) that wasn't built was SCB-700.66. SCB-244 in the New System was the AAW modernisation of the Leahy class.

A paragraph at the bottom right of Page 42 says... The Ship Characteristics Board reviewed its old Project Numbering system, 4-24-63. [i.e. 24th April 1963.] The Series of FY-1948/1964 reached SCB-252. The new system has Blocks of Numbers allotted to the major Types: Series 001-099 Cruiser; 100-Carrier; 200-Destroyer; 300-Submarine; 400-Amphibious; 500-Mine Warfare; 600-Patrol; 700-Auxiliary/Tender; 800-Service Craft; 900-Special Purpose. As: SCB-400.65 the AGC of FY-1965; -405.65 became LST 1179. See Amphibious Addenda on Page 63.

The .00 suffix is my invention and I put it in to make the list I posted easier to read. It isn't required for Wikipaedia because of the way that it's formatted.

Looking at Fahey there is a clear correlation between the suffix of the project numbers in the Block Number system and the financial year in which they were ordered/funded.

Here are some examples.

The 10 Knox ordered in FY 1964 were SCB-199C.

SCB-200.65 was the batch of 16 Knox class ordered in FY 1965.
SCB-200.66 was the batch of 10 Knox class ordered in FY 1966.

I have no proof, but it's very likely that...

SCB-200.67 was the batch of 10 Knox class ordered in FY 1967.
SCB-200.68 was the batch of 10 Knox class planned for FY 1968 but not ordered.

According to Fahey the 16 Sturgeon class SSN ordered to FY 1962 to FY 1964 were SCB.188A and...

SCB-301.65 was the batch of 6 Sturgeons ordered in FY 1965.
SCB-301.66 was the batch of 6 Sturgeons ordered in FY 1966.

I have no proof but I think that the remaining 9 Sturgeons that were ordered FY 1967 to FY 1969 were SCB-301.67, SCB-301.68 and SCB-301.69.

The Newport class LST design may have begun as SCB-247 under the Old System, but the 20 ships that were built were all SCB-405 because they were all ordered from FY 1965 onwards and Fahey says...

SCB-405.65 was the LST Newport ordered in FY 1965
SCB-405.66 was the batch of 8 Newports ordered in FY 1966 - Fahey says so.

Again I can't prove it, but I suspect that the ships ordered in FY 1967 were SCB.405.67, FY 1968 were SCB.405.68 and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ERRINGTONINFANTS (talk • contribs) 22:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

reply 3

The .00 suffix is my invention And you thereby show more sense than the Robert McNamara DoD administration did. Without it no project can be a concept only, and so much conceptual or preliminary design work that is documented in the Old System is lost in the New.

I've added the following sentence to the Block Numbering subsection: The existence of successive suffixes also does not necessarily mean that the design of ships of a class in any way changed, such suffixes are listed here for historical note only. I think this makes your addition of fiscal year info much more palatable to an article that should be a design history. A note here: Friedman slightly implies that there was a design change between fiscal years with the Anchorage-class LSDs, but now it seems obvious this did not happen.

Some of the information you have provided is a bit too detailed for this list (we should keep lines short and readable), and so I've moved some of it into the individual ship-class articles with some appropriate restructuring, and replicated the Fahey citation. Take a look at the Forrest Sherman-class destroyer#Description and Cimarron-class oiler (1939)#Jumboization - note that by adding a DDG conversion subsection, the SCB table line can link directly to the 4 Forrest Shermans listed there, they don't need to be listed by name in this article (I did something similar on a larger scale in the Radar picket article). I'd like to do the same for many other ship-class articles, including with Friedman info I put here before you started editing, but many of these articles are too poorly structured to easily add a design history.

Tell me more about SCB 222.66. Obviously it was budgeted, so it might not be correct to label it as a concept, as I did earlier. But was it cancelled before any work was done? I want to tell you that I have made a big deal about cancellations on this list. A lot of people have the idea that the U.S. military is quite greedy when it comes to public money, and I really want to convey the sense that Friedman gives in his books about how fiscally careful the military really can be. OTOH cancellations themselves can be a sign of waste ("so you didn't need it after all, eh?") though military uncertainties make this less than certain.

Also, what does Fahey say about the USS Barry work under SCB 251? That project was for only one ship, correct? If it was actually completed I'd like to add it to the Barry article. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

reply 4

I think SCB 251 and SCB 222.66 were the same refit.

The entry on the Sherman class in my copy of Jane's Fighting Ships 1968-69 says that the 14 non-missile armed ships were having an ASW modernisation. It also said that 9 were funded in the FY1964-69 appropriations and the last five would be funded FY1970-1971.

Barry was the prototype which was funded in FY1964 which is when the "old system" was in use hence SCB 251. However, the "block system" came into use the next fiscal year so the refits planned for the other 13 became SCB.222 although it was exactly the same refit.

reply 5

I have transcribed this from the entry on the Sherman class in my copy of Jane's Fighting Ships 1969-70.

The 14 non-missile armed ships of this class all were to have been fitted with "improved ASW systems (to) greatly enhance the effectiveness of these ships against modern high-speed submarines", according to official statements.

The Barry was modernised with FY 1964 funds at Boston Naval Shipyard 1967-68. Five additional ships were to undergo ASW modernisation in the FY 1966 conversion programme (DD 931, 937, 938, 943, 944); eight others in FY1967-68. The DD 941 and 943 reprogrammed for FY 1967 funds; DD 937, 938, 940, 945, and 948 reprogrammed for FY 1968 funds). Six ships (DD 931, 942, 944, 946, 950 and 951) will not undergo modernisation because "estimated cost of converting these ships has risen considerably since they were originally programmed", according to official statements. During ASW modernisation these ships will be fitted with ASROC and two triple ASW torpedo launchers.

So instead of fourteen ASW refits (one FY 1964, five FY 1966 and eight FY 1967 & 1968) which is also what Fahey says, it was eight as follows: one FY 1964 (Barry); two FY 1967 (DD 941 and 943); and five FY 1968 (DD 937, 938, 940, 945, and 948).

reply 6

I've used this info in reply 5 from Janes' to update the Forrest Sherman-class article in the ASW Modernization section. Can you give me (or update that article yourself) with the correct citation from Janes'? I also mentioned there the six cancellations. BTW, an item of interest: reading over the individual ship histories, it is difficult to see when they actually had time for the modernization refits! I've tried to correlate the information from Fahey and Janes' against the individual histories in the ships' Wiki articles and have not had much success, especially against the fiscal years in the block numbering.Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

SCB.001 Cleveland class AAW Modernization

SCB.002 was the Albany class AAW Modernisation SCB.003 was the Boston class AAW Modernisation

Therefore, it's logical that there was a SCB.001 project for a Cleveland class AAW Modernisation, that wasn't carried out because of the age of the ships, the cost and the Vietnam War absorbing money that would otherwise been spent on new ships and modernising exiting ones, but I haven't come across any evidence to support my theory.

Reply 001

And that's what I've been using this Talk page for: identifying good theories (although you must mean the Providence and/or Galveston classes, since the unconverted Clevelands were all retired by then). Likewise, we can guess that there was a project 100.00 CVS ASW concept that predated the SCB 101.66 Midway CVA modernization.

Oh, and don't forget the U.S.Navy modernizes, it doesn't modernise. hehe. Although I must say, I would be in favor of Americans adopting the spelling of the Mother Country in many things for the sake of civilizational, um, civilisational unity. I can go for 'defence' and 'organise', but brevity demands 'color' over 'colour'. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 22:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Reply 002

Yes I did mean the Providence and Galveston classes. It might have been clearer if I'd used my usual shorthand which is Cleveland class CLG.

However, that reminded me that one class had Terrier missiles and the other Talos so different SCB projects with different SCB numbers might have been required for each class.

As I wrote before there wasn't a SCB.100.00. I put .00 on all the projects that didn't have suffixes on them to make my formatting work so they would be easier to read. I think SCB.100 was the project number for the ASW carrier to replace the Essex class in the 1970s and that the SCB.100.68 and SCB.100.71 were different versions of the same design with the suffixes referring to the Fiscal Years when they USN wanted congress to approve their funding. So SCB.100.68 had the .68 suffix because the USN wanted Congress to fund it in FY 1968 and SCB.100.71 had the .71 suffix because they wanted Congress to fund it in FY 1971.

Therefore, project SCB.100.68 was started before project SCB.101.66 because 100 is before 101 in the 100-199 block (for aircraft carriers) in the new numbering system. The difference is that the first SCB 100 was to be funded in FY 1968 (and then put back to FY 1971 to produce SCB 100.71) Midway's SCB 101 refit was funded in FY 1966 hence SCB 101.66.

Following the same logic I think SCB.101 was the project number for the 1960s modernisation of the Midway class. Midway's was SCB.101.66 because it was funded in FY 1966 and the planned modernisation of F.D.R. was SCB.101.68 because it was to be funded in FY 1968. I don't know if the austere modernisation that F.D.R. actually had was SCB.103.68 but it makes sense because 103 is the next number in the sequence (after SCB.102 taken by the Nimitz class) and I think it was funded in FY 1968. I don't know whether a SCB.101 refit was planned to for Coral Sea, because her SCB.110A refit in the late 1950s was more extensive than SCB.110 refits that her sisters had in the middle 1950s. However, they might have thought that the equivalent of a FRAM I or II refit was required to keep her operational until the early 1980s (which in the middle of the 1960s was when the sixth Nimitz was expected to be completed) and this might have been extensive enough to justify giving the project an SCB number. For all I know it could have been SCB.103 and they re-used it for F.D.R.'s austere refit.

The above is also why I think SCB.102 was the project number for the Nimitz class and that SCB.102.67 only applies to Nimtiz because she was funded in FY 1967. If I am correct the subsequent ships of the class would have been SCB.102.70 (Eisenhower) funded in FY 1970, SCB.102.74 (Vinson) funded in FY 1974 and so on. That is, if they were given suffix numbers in the first place.

Reply 003

I concur with this reasoning. I had already come to the same conclusions regarding the FDR.

Sturgeon and Lipscomb numbers

I've removed a section that claims that the Lipscomb initially did not receive an SCB number because of bureaucratic struggles between McNamara and Rickover. This is very speculative and almost certainly not correct. Often designs that are modifications of existing ships will not (at least initially) get a separate set of SCB characteristics. This is what Friedman is alluding to on p. 148 of U.S. Submarines since 1945. He mentions that the first formal characteristics were put forth in 1967, and the SCB number indicates that the final version of the characteristics was set in 1968. This occurred about the same time that she was authorized by the Congress, which makes sense. Also, the Sturgeon class renumbering had nothing to do with the sinking of the Guitarro, although it is true that she was the first Sturgeon to built under the new SCB number. Note that the SCB number ends in 65 and she was authorized in FY65 (the sinking occurred four years later). Vepr157 (talk) 01:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

The mention of the Guitarro sinking is purely chronology, a way of dating the Lipscomb project number. If you think it was meant to have something to do with the Guitarro sinking then I would suggest you are reading into the text things that are not there. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 05:21, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Why mention the sinking at all then? Vepr157 (talk) 23:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

To benchmark a chronology. How often does it need to be said? Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

You really don't need to be so testy. You said it once before and I was asking for clarification (I still don't really understand the logic, but I'll let it go). Vepr157 (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Dates in table

I think the date column in the tables should be clarified. One possibility is to use the date of the SCB memoranda themselves, most of which are on Roberts' site (https://www.shipscribe.com/navyrefs/scb/index.html). Alternatively (or additionally) the fiscal year of the first ship/conversion authorized could be used. As it stands, it is not clear exactly what is meant by "start date" (especially since most concept design studies begin before they are given an SCB project number). Vepr157 (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I was initially enthusiastic about the Robert's site. but I cooled off a bit after I noticed that it cites Friedman and others. It therefore is not a pure source of "SCB memoranda". It is, in fact, not prima facie better than Friedman, and only a detailed comparative analysis can tease out data point by data point where it might be better.

Re "most concept design studies begin before they are given an SCB project number": First, the article already notes how introduction of the block numbering scheme did this, so perhaps the implication here is that the date column should be removed from the block number table. Second, is this really relevant to the sequential numbering scheme? Are the dates we have from current RS really far off? If so how much? How do we prove it? Again, the Robert's site cannot automatically provide this proof. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I disagree about the Roberts site. It appears to be largely based on the memoranda of the OPNAV approval of the SCB characteristics, hence the "initial approval" column. Notice that Friedman is cited as (1) a point of comparison in terms of the characteristics, (2) where Roberts' apparently has no record himself, or (3) as a source of additional information. In large part it appears to be the work of Roberts based on original BuShips/NAVSHIPS memoranda, and the dates and serial numbers don't come from Friedman. If you want clarification, I suggest you get in contact with Roberts.

The Roberts' site offers a consistent date: the date on which OPNAV approved the SCB characteristics. Because the ship design process takes place over several years, it is difficult to assign a meaningful date to a given project. Friedman certainly does mention dates, but they are necessarily the same date (i.e., when the characteristics were approved, when the idea was first discussed in front of the SCB/General Board, when the preliminary design was finished, etc.). This isn't a complaint; I think it's fine in the context of his book. But plucking dates from that doesn't necessarily lend itself to a consistent table. For example, here are some dates for SCB 180:

• 17 June 1957 - OPNAV approves SCB characteristics
• 19 March 1958 - Authorization for preparation of contract plans and specifications
• 15 April 1958 - Summary of preliminary design
• 16 May 1958 - OPNAV approves revised characteristics
• 1 December 1959 - Summary of contract design (an attachment to the hull design summary of 5 July 1960)

Which of these is the "date" of the SCB 180 design? Of course there's no right answer. But depending on which you pick, you could have as early as 1957 or as late as 1960, or even 1961 if you used the commissioning date of SSBN 608. My point is that Roberts' site offers ~75% of the OPNAV approval dates, a consistent metric. If you had a column of these dates and then a column of the dates that the first-of-class was launched or commissioned, that brackets the relevant dates of the design well for most of the projects. Vepr157 (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Of course there is a right answer, from a project management viewpoint that includes all design phases. For SCB 180 it is "on or before 17 June 1957".

When I have the time I will correlate the dates of the two lists (my impression is that the June 1957 date for SCB 180 fits the chronological flow of the dates from Friedman very well, and it also is consistent with the end date of Project Nobska which heavily influenced SCB 180 and its successors). I hope the others do as well. Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Good, we agree then. Vepr157 (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)