tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post113875013099497652..comments2024-03-27T08:39:28.807-06:00Comments on Wash Park Prophet: British Aircraft Carriers Are Cheap (Or Are They?)Andrew Oh-Willekehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-69203080985208409282008-07-07T13:30:00.000-06:002008-07-07T13:30:00.000-06:00folks, the thing that's making the damn carriers s...folks, the thing that's making the damn carriers so expensive isn't the size. it's the nuclear propulsion. The British basically ruled out nuclear for their next carriers because it was so goddarn expensive. The French built a nuclear carrier: they won't be doing that again for the next carrier.<BR/><BR/>In today's world, nuclear-powered carriers is a gigantic cost overrun.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-1163707161634906982006-11-16T12:59:00.000-07:002006-11-16T12:59:00.000-07:00Unfortunately (and contrary to what all the cheerl...Unfortunately (and contrary to what all the cheerleaders say), the STOVL variant of the JSF F35 the Marines are buying to place on LHA's and LHD's DOES NOT have anywhere near the capabilities as the CV variant the Navy is buying for the CVNs.<BR/><BR/>The trade off for vertical landing is lack of range, payload, increased maintenance requirements, etc. Which is why the Navy didn't just get the F35B so as to have a cost savings by buying the same bird the jarheads are getting.<BR/><BR/>And these light assault carriers CANNOT operate the CV variant -- they are too short, lack arresting gear (which eats DIRECTLY into your below deck aviation spaces, dramatically reducing aircraft complement), lack catapults (ditto), and lack angled decks (the costs associated with implementing an angle deck into a Wasp LHD size hull are prohibitive. . . the LHA(R) ship design team has explored and rejected this option already.)<BR/><BR/>There are other issues related to force sustainability, due to the lack of the size of the "airfield" of the L-classes.<BR/><BR/>Bottom line, if you want to do serious force projection and DEEP interdiction missions "From The Sea", you still need full size CVs -- and if you're building them that big, you might as well build 'em as CVNs (which more than DOUBLES the amount of aviation fuel and ordnance you can carry). CVNs ccan even act as tankers to the non nuclear ships in the battlegroup (and regualrly do so), further reducing reliance on fragile tankers.<BR/><BR/>Having said that, are "escort carriers" (what we called this consept in WWII) a good idea? SURE! That's why the LHA(R) program was instituted.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-1153166713085543512006-07-17T14:05:00.000-06:002006-07-17T14:05:00.000-06:00As a side note, assume a modified Wasp carries 30 ...As a side note, assume a modified Wasp carries 30 fighter/strike a/c, and unmodified could carry 20, and a Nimitz about 60 plus support a/c.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-1153166008411793412006-07-17T13:53:00.000-06:002006-07-17T13:53:00.000-06:00I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel. Don't...I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel. Don't forget in your calculations that we A) are really good at building and operating the big carriers, use it or lose it, B)Follow on designs improve upon on what's known, C) commonality in ship types breeds efficiency, D)perhaps most important lately, the availability and cost of diesel fuel. Should we go to war with Iran for example, needing billions of gallons of fuel for our carriers??? (Don't forget in your calculations that for each small carrier you'd likely have to build, crew and operate one or more fleet replenishment ship to follow it around).<BR/><BR/>I do VERY strongly believe we need to operate at least one modified Wasp type ship as a mini carrier, optimised with F35's. Where? JAPAN. Last I recall, the Japanese do not allow Nuke ships to be based on their soil. I could be wrong, but I believe we retired our last conventional carrier, or soon will.(Constellation?) That I believe was the only non US homeported carrier. <BR/><BR/>Why build a single modified Wasp and base it in Japan? China/Taiwan. Consider a 40,000T carrier modified from the Wasp design optimsed for fighters as a quick reaction force. Today, if China rapidly ramped up their preparations for war, we would be in mad scramble to send carriers committed elsewhere. This is not to say one small carrier could do the job, in fact one big carrier couldn't do the job. But one big, one small, toss in another nearby unmodified Wasp loaded with extra fighters, with several more big carriers on the way and your deterrent is quite credible. Consider that at any given time, half our carriers are in port. That leaves 3-4 somewhere in the vast Pacific at any given time. One may be nearby, but the others could be thousands of miles away. A rapid reaction Vstol ship, plus a nearby supercarrier make a nice team. Remember, the catapults on Vstol carriers don't break.(since they don't have any) A Vstol carrier may possibly be able a provide more sorties per a/c per day than a conventional carrier. (Gas, load, and go)<BR/><BR/>A single modified Wasp carring 25-30 F-35's plus helos homeported just around the corner, dedicated to one unspoken task, keeps the Chinese in check and reassures nervous allies in the region that we are there to stay the course. It would serve to counterbalance a growing regional power, which someday may not resist the temptaion to flex it's muscles somewhere other than the Taiwan straights.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-1139019748217437862006-02-03T19:22:00.000-07:002006-02-03T19:22:00.000-07:00Just a quick point.Part of the reason why the new ...Just a quick point.<BR/><BR/>Part of the reason why the new carriers are projected to cost so much more than smaller models is because they are making large efforts towards reducing crew size. So, that introduces a wrinkle into your crew size comparisons.<BR/><BR/>Personally, I've always been somewhat fond of the modular (or "Voltron") seabase concept, where you put together as many Wasp-sized "ships" as you need to support the effort. However, that has to my understanding been cost-prohibitive to this point (I haven't seen any recent estimates).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-1138998449191204342006-02-03T13:27:00.000-07:002006-02-03T13:27:00.000-07:00I think the main response to the "no carrier can d...I think the main response to the "no carrier can do what U.S. supercarriers can.", is that not all circumstances need a supercarrier, and that we shouldn't waste supercarriers to deal with less significant threats. <BR/><BR/>A mini-carrier with a small escort force (perhaps two or three frigates) might be just the ticket for supporting U.S. action in places like Liberia or Sri Lanka or Libya or Columbia or Guyana or Yemen or Haiti or some other country where air power is desired or to deal with pirates, but a robust military opposition with many quality submarines, cruise missiles, or major surface combatants is unlikely.<BR/><BR/>There are only a handful of places where supercarrier class intervention is likely to be required. The East China Sea and a potential Pakistan-India war would probably be the most likely. <BR/><BR/>The next most likely would be any country which was the subject of a full scale Iraq/Serbia class air assault (hence requiring a very vigorous pace of operations despite a lack of a strong military capability of the subject of the attack), which is something that can be timed and managed by the DOD (the administration has threatened such action in Syria and Iran, e.g., which is not to say that I support such actions),<BR/><BR/>The benefit you get from mini-carriers is that they allow you to deploy your supercarriers only where they are really needed, rather than trying to cover the entire globe.<BR/><BR/>Also, it is worth recalling that for all the opposition the brass has to mini-carriers, we basically have 12 supercarriers and 12 minicarriers right now. If supercarriers were really so gret, one could, for example, not replace the Tarawa class ships at all, and get another 1-2 supercarriers, but the Congress right now is leaning towards the status quo and replacing the Tarawa with LHA(R).Andrew Oh-Willekehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02537151821869153861noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-1138981289107301822006-02-03T08:41:00.000-07:002006-02-03T08:41:00.000-07:00The standard argument is "no carrier can do what U...The standard argument is "no carrier can do what US super carriers can". The question is, when will it be enough, and when is it too much.Mike Burlesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09694289086921445436noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14162253.post-1138973899095621122006-02-03T06:38:00.000-07:002006-02-03T06:38:00.000-07:00Man, you started a firestorm of controversy on my ...Man, you started a firestorm of controversy on my site! Great post!Murdochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05513322896308436307noreply@blogger.com