How To Pay For A 11-Carrier Navy

[fatman17]

having a lot of $$$ would do it.

 

[Penguin]

USN doesn't need so many super carriers. 5-6 should be enough to cover all the oceans.
With F-35, USN could go landing carrier way in a much cheaper path.

US has more than enough offensive capability for next 30-50 years. It needs to focus more on defensive capabilities, especially ABM systems..

Quantity versus quality remains an issue. Eight is the minimum you need to have 2 available in theater at any given time, I believe. But, the issue certain isn't a new one. See 1993 GAO report. However, even cutting carrier groups incurs costs.

Analysis: A look at cutting 3 carrier strike groups | Navy Times | navytimes.com

Navy Carrier Battle Groups: The Structure and Affordability of the Future Force - Norman J. Rabkin, Richard J. Herley, Mach J. Wielgoszynski - Google Boeken
US Navy Faces Aircraft Carrier Cuts | The Diplomat
Carrier Doomsday Cuts Yield Congressional Queries | DoD Buzz

 

[shuntmaster]

US should go for escort carriers in the range of 15k-20k displacement, with F-35 on them.

Escort carrier
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Escort carrier HMS Audacity (D10)
The escort carrier or escort aircraft carrier (hull classification symbol CVE), also called a "jeep carrier" or "baby flattop" in the USN or "Woolworth Carrier" by the Royal Navy, was a small and slow type of aircraft carrier used by the Royal Navy (RN), the Imperial Japanese Navy and Imperial Japanese Army Air Force, and the United States Navy (USN) in World War II. They were typically half the length and 1/3 the displacement of the larger fleet carriers. While they were slower, less armed and armored, and carried fewer planes, they were less expensive and could be built in less time. This was their principal advantage, as escort carriers could be completed in greater numbers as a stop-gap when fleet carriers were scarce. However, the lack of protection made escort carriers particularly vulnerable and several were sunk with great loss of life. The light carrier (hull classification symbol CVL) was a similar concept to escort carriers in most respects, however they were intended for higher speeds to be deployed alongside fleet carriers.

Most often built on a commercial ship hull, escort carriers were too slow to keep up with the main forces consisting of fleet carriers, battleships, and cruisers. Instead, they were used to escort convoys, defending them from enemy threats such as submarines and planes. In the invasions of mainland Europe and Pacific islands, escort carriers provided air support to ground forces during amphibious operations. Escort carriers also served as backup aircraft transports for fleet carriers, and ferried aircraft of all military services to points of delivery.

In the Atlantic, the escort carriers were used to protect convoys against U-boats. Initially escort carriers accompanied the merchant ships and fended off attacks from aircraft and submarines. Later in the war, escort carriers were part of hunter-killer groups which sought out submarines instead of being attached to a particular convoy.

In the Pacific theater, CVEs provided air support of ground troops in the Battle of Leyte Gulf. They lacked the speed and weapons to counter enemy fleets, relying on the protection of a Fast Carrier Task Force. However, at the Battle off Samar, one U.S. task force of escort carriers managed to successfully defend itself against a large Japanese force of battleships and cruisers. The Japanese were turned back by a furious defense of carrier aircraft, screening destroyers, and destroyer escorts, proving that CVEs had the striking force, if not speed and strength, of full CVs.

Of the 151 aircraft carriers built in the U.S. during World War II, 122 were escort carriers. Though no examples survive to this day, the Casablanca class holds the distinction of being the most numerous single class of aircraft carrier ever built, with 50 having been launched. The Bogue class comes in a close second, with 45 launched.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

US should go for escort carriers in the range of 15k-20k displacement, with F-35 on them.

The US already has like 10 Amphibious Assault ships that could potentially carry F35B's. F35C's are the issue.

There's 8 of these:
Wasp-class amphibious assault ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Building these:
America-class amphibious assault ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Penguin]

The US already has like 10 Amphibious Assault ships that could potentially carry F35B's. F35C's are the issue.

There's 8 of these:
Wasp-class amphibious assault ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Building these:
America-class amphibious assault ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The first F-35C was rolled out on 29 July 2009
On 27 July 2011, the F-35C test aircraft CF-3 completed its first steam catapult launch during a test flight in Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst;
On 18 November 2011, the U.S. Navy used its new Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) to catapult an F-35C into the air for the first time
On 22 June 2013, The U.S. Navy's Strike Fighter Squadron VFA-101 received the Navy's first F-35C Lightning II carrier variant aircraft from Lockheed Martin at the squadron's home at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida.
In February 2014, Lockheed said that F-35C was on schedule for sea trials after the tailhook was redesigned. The new tailhook has a different shape to better catch arresting wires. Testing on land achieved 36 successful landings. Sea trials are scheduled for October 2014.

What is the issue?

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

The first F-35C was rolled out on 29 July 2009
On 27 July 2011, the F-35C test aircraft CF-3 completed

What is the issue?

How would they take off from a "15k-20k displacement" escort carrier which to save money probably wouldn't have catapults.

We basically already have ships which would qualify as "escort carriers" (actually they may be even heavier than that) unfortunately F18s and F35Cs can't take off very easily from them.

 

[Penguin]

How would they take off from a "15k-20k displacement" escort carrier which to save money probably wouldn't have catapults.

We basically already have ships which would qualify as "escort carriers" (actually they may be even heavier than that) unfortunately F18s and F35Cs can't take off very easily from them.

Well, Peter, that is not an issue with the F-35C but rather with ship design.

Artist conception of proposed U.S. Navy medium-sized aircraft carrier (CVV) circa 1976.

Here is some info to get you started:

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Carriers/USN Midway and Essex CV/CVV-1-medium.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Carriers/USN Midway and Essex CV/CVV-2-medium.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Carriers/USN Midway and Essex CV/CVV-3-medium.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Carriers/USN Midway and Essex CV/CVV-4-medium.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Carriers/USN Midway and Essex CV/CVV-5-medium.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Carriers/USN Midway and Essex CV/CVV-6-medium.jpg
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b336/Bager1968/Carriers/USN Midway and Essex CV/CVV.jpg

The design study was started in 1972 and completed in 1974, and the over-riding goal of the study was cost limitation. In 1976, the out-going US president (Gerald Ford) deleted the 4th Nimitz-class carrier (CVN-71) and revived the "affordable carrier" concept, using the earlier study as the baseline. In 1978, the new US president (Jimmy Carter) vetoed the attempt of Congress to revive CVN-71 and re-opened the CVV case. Only in mid-1980 was CVV finally killed, and CVN-71 authorized and ordered.

The defeat of the Sea Control Ship in the mid-1970's failed to still the debate within the administration or Congress on the relative merits of small carriers. ADM Zumwalt and his planning group, architects of the small carrier, did not limit their attention to the SCS. They were also interested in another, larger design for sea control, a 40,000-ton design which ultimately grew to a 50,000- to 60,000-ton design. They proposed this second design, in addition to the SCS, as a small aircraft carrier. The new design formed the basis of the Tentative Conceptual Base Line (T-CBL), which in turn, formed the basis for all smaller than large-deck carrier discussions leading to the Carter Administration's medium aircraft carrier (CVV).'

The questions about the small carriers ability to withstand damage reappears with every small carrier design.

The Carter Administration supported the CVV program in general, but removed the requirement for only VSTOL
aircraft. The CVV would now be capable of operating VSTOL and all the conventional aircraft in the Navy inventory,
using catapults and arresting gear.

The CVV was not to be an austere carrier; it was a small, "high-end" ship.

While sea control has a direct application to amphibious assault--an assault can't happen without control
of the area--the [LHA| ship's primary mission remains amphibious assault. The switch to a sea control role will require about 15 to 30 days in port. Consequently, the Navy can have an amphibious assault ship or a small carrier, but not both at the same time. The Navy would be better advised to build a small carrier--even use the LHD design--and use the LHD as only an amphibious assault ship

The Tbilisi represents a possible design for a small "high-end" carrier. She can operate the latest, large,
Soviet CTOL aircraft, jimiliar to the U.S. F-14 Tomcat fighter.

Some Congressmen, analysts, and naval officers believe that "the price they paid in carrier function was
probably unacceptable." They argue that the small carrier cannot strike targets ashore with the same power as the
large-deck carrier. Although correct, they miss the point. A small carrier is not supposed to be the Navy's primary
power-projection carrier; it is designed to protect convoys, amphibious shipping, and the Like from the open-ocean air and submarine threats.

Contemporary study http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a227420.pdf

Tibilisi is of course Kuznetsov/Varyag/Liaoning...

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Well, Peter, that is not an issue with the F-35C but rather with ship designArtist conception of proposed U.S. Navy medium-sized aircraft carrier (CVV) circa 1976.

The design study was started in 1972 and completed in 1974, and the over-riding goal of the study was cost limitation. In 1976, the out-going US president (Gerald Ford) deleted the 4th Nimitz-class carrier (CVN-71) and revived the "affordable carrier" concept,

Aircraft Carrier (Medium) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well it looks like the cost for it was 62% of a Nimitz and you only get 2 catapults. Not outrageously bad but not the best deal.

 

[Penguin]

Aircraft Carrier (Medium) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well it looks like the cost for it was 62% of a Nimitz and you only get 2 catapults. Not outrageously bad but not the best deal.

For a good understanding of the intent and trade-offs I recommend you read both article and thesis.

Repost of segment of previous post:
While sea control has a direct application to amphibious assault--an assault can't happen without control of the area--the [LHA| ship's primary mission remains amphibious assault. The switch to a sea control role will require about 15 to 30 days in port. Consequently, the Navy can have an amphibious assault ship or a small carrier, but not both at the same time. The Navy would be better advised to build a small carrier--even use the LHD design--and use the LHD as only an amphibious assault ship