Aircraft Carriers III

Thursday at 8:44 PM
Yesterday at 8:52 PM
related:
Pentagon notifies Congress of two-carrier buy, contract expected by end of January
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
now the BreakingDefense story
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Congress is evaluating the proposal to issue a $24 billion contract for the Navy's next two carriers, as the service looks at months of work to fix ongoing problems with the Ford-class's first ship.
The Navy’s coming request for the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is still under wraps, but one important piece of the Navy’s future plans appears increasingly certain: the service will commit billions to buy two new Ford-class aircraft carriers under the same contract. While most of that money won’t be spent in ’20, it’s still a tremendous long-term commitment that, advocates say, should
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
over buying each carrier separately.

The Navy says that the long-troubled Ford program has turned a corner, and it is pushing ahead with remaining fixes while planning to save up to $4 billion by buying the next two flattops on a single massive contract. That mega-deal would remove uncertainty for the builder, HII’s Newport News Shipbuilding, and help keep production lines humming with no expensive stop-and-start in construction or ramping up and down of supply chains, which spreads across dozens of states.

Congress first has to review the plan over the next 30 days before Navy can award the contract.

News of the potential buy — which was expected by the end of the year —
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
from Virginia Senator Tim Kaine, who put out a statement on New Year’s Eve saying he was “thrilled the Navy has decided to pursue a block buy for aircraft carriers, something I’ve been advocating to save billions in taxpayer dollars and offer more certainty to the Hampton Roads defense community.”

Kaine, a longtime proponent of the block buy, also represents the state where the work will be done. “This smart move will save taxpayer dollars and help ensure the shipyards can maintain a skilled workforce to get the job done,” he said.

Virginia Congressman Rob Wittman, outgoing chairman of the Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee, said he’s “thrilled” about the notification which will allow the Navy “to build to a fleet of 12 aircraft carriers and 355 ships.” Wittman attached an amendment to the FY 2019 DoD appropriations bill calling for the dual buy, which he says “will not only save the taxpayers $4 billion, it provides important certainty to our defense industrial base that build and maintain these ships.”

Wittman was the author of the “Securing the Homeland by Increasing our Power on the Seas Act,”
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
the Navy’s goal of 355 ships into official government policy. President Trump signed the bill into law in 2017.

Both senators said the contract will keep the ships at or under the construction cap set by Congress of $12.9 billion each.

Last May, however, the first ship of the class, USS Gerald R. Ford, blew past that cap by $120 million thanks to a litany of fixes identified by shipbuilder
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
., including replacing propulsion components damaged in a previous failure, extending the repair schedule to 12 months from the original eight, and correcting problems with the ship’s eleven Advanced Weapons Elevators.

The elevators, used to bring munitions from below deck up top for installation on aircraft, are powered by magnets as opposed to cables, and were supposed to be installed by the ship’s delivery date in May 2017, but issues have delayed their completion.

Navy spokesman Capt. Danny Hernandez told me that the eleven elevators remain “in varying levels of construction, testing and operations,” and the first one was turned over to the crew in December. The plan is to complete installation and testing of the elevators before the ship’s scheduled “sail away date” in July.

Hernandez added that “there will be some remaining certification documentation that will be performed for 5 of the 11 elevators after” July, and “a dedicated team is engaged on these efforts and will accelerate this certification work and schedule where feasible.”

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, assistant secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, promised a Congressional panel in November that the Ford would leave HII’s Newport News shipyard with all systems in working order.

“I would say of all of the technologies on the CVN 78, of which there were many we proved out on this lead ship, the weapons elevator is the last one that we need to get tied up and work our way through,” Geurts said. “We are making progress,” he said.

The second ship of the class, CVN 79, USS John F. Kennedy, is currently under construction.

Huntington spokesperson Beci Brenton said in a statement the company is “pleased to have come to an agreement with the Navy regarding a two-ship acquisition approach for CVN 80 and 81, a significant step toward building these ships more affordably. Although there is more work to be done it is important to note that the multi-ship purchase of aircraft carriers helps stabilize the Newport News Shipbuilding workforce, enables the purchase of material in quantity, and permits a fragile supplier base of more than 2,000 in 46 states to phase work more efficiently.”

After decades of dominance however, the Ford-class carriers might be the last of the line for US nuclear-powered supercarriers, given the increasing threat being presented by land-based “ship-killer” standoff weapons being fielded by China and Russia.

Speaking at a Heritage Foundation event last month,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said that optimistically, a carrier strike group could likely knock down 450 incoming missiles, but “that is not enough. You are looking at a threat that is at least 600, and maybe more weapons” that the Chinese can launch from their coast on short notice.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, vice president of the Telemus Group, added that the threat could be somewhat mitigated by keeping ships father from shore and putting more drones in the air both as scouts and attack aircraft. The “carrier air wing must increase its range by investing in an unmanned, air combat strike platform,” Hendrix said.

Any moves to increase range must first fight for primacy with the navy’s other massive investment in hulls, from new aircraft carriers to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. When the 2020 budget comes out next month, we’ll likely have a better idea of what the Navy is planning.
it's
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Redesign the Fleet
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I've now read this armchair admiralling, am reposting the part related to aircraft carriers:
Aviation combatants. The fleet will require ships capable of operating manned and unmanned fixed-wing aircraft with substantial payloads in tactically significant numbers. These ships can serve as manned forward-control hubs for unmanned combat aircraft and long-range missiles and will manage airborne sensors that can deliver long-range search and targeting. While the aircraft may continue to require assisted launch and recovery, their missions will not demand high sortie rates. Future aviation combatants must be smaller and far more numerous than current aircraft carriers. Smaller, nonnuclear aviation combatants are less cost efficient per ship in an unchallenged environment, but the strategic risk of excessive concentration of capability in too few very-large ships in wartime must outweigh this. Aviation combatants require regular replenishment of aviation fuel, so using nuclear propulsion to eliminate the need for the ship’s fuel replenishment must be re-weighed against this risk.
by the way while reading introductory part I guessed that armchair admiral would turn against supercarriers LOL
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Armchair admiral huh? Captain Arthur H. Barber III, U.S. Navy (retired)
Pulled this from his LinkedIn
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Arthur H. (Trip) Barber
Chief Analyst, Systems Planning & Analysis, Inc.
Washington D.C. Metro
  • Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
  • Deputy Director, Assessment Division (OPNAV N81)
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

    2002 – June 2014 12 years
    Pentagon
    Senior Executive Service civilian leader. Chief operating officer of the US Navy's corporate analytic organization and the Navy's senior analyst. Developed the process by which the US Navy assesses its future warfighting capability. Responsible for developing, managing and executing the Navy's overall corporate analytic agenda of over 120 studies/year on future capability and force structure requirements to inform budget and requirements decisions. Managed a staff of 110 military and civilian operations analysts in the Pentagon, providing assessments and analysis to CNO in support of shaping the Navy's overall budget and informing program investments. Leader in 26 Navy program/budget development cycles and every defense review since the end of the Cold War as a member of the N8 or J8 organizations in the Pentagon. Led the Navy's ship and aircraft force structure requirements-setting process.
    .

  • Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

    Captain
    Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

    1973 – 2001 28 years
    Surface Warfare Officer. Commanded USS DEYO (DD 989), Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek and Naval Station/Naval Air Station Norfolk. Led the merger of NAVSTA and NAS Norfolk into a single base, the largest naval base in the world. Earned subspecialty in anti-submarine warfare from multiple sea tours with extensive operational experience conducting ASW. Ashore had 5 Pentagon tours, four in program and budget analysis (J8 or N8) and one as Executive Assistant to the Vice Chief of Naval Operations.
That's five minutes from losing the armchair and just being Admrial
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Now on to his posting. Is it pie in the Sky? Really?
The USN has invested a huge amount of capital in all forms. Personal, command, financial, material into the super carrier. But they have done that before and suddenly found themselves in a pickle when the Battle ship and battle cruiser were found wanting.
The USN has been debating the ability of the super carrier to remain relevant in conventional naval war since the start of the first super carriers.
As a PLA rear Admrial recently pointed out Super Carriers are both an American strength and potential weakness. There is now and has been for sometime a faction of surface warfare who debate it's relevancy in navy vs navy warfare. And if the USN could afford such a loss.
This is not a sudden thing. It's a very old debate, and a nessisary one. As Patton once said. "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking."
For the navy that means questioning it's reliance on super carriers has to be done. It's a way of making sure they are considering the possible risks and there application.
 
Now on to his posting. Is it pie in the Sky? Really?
The USN has invested a huge amount of capital in all forms. Personal, command, financial, material into the super carrier. But they have done that before and suddenly found themselves in a pickle when the Battle ship and battle cruiser were found wanting.
The USN has been debating the ability of the super carrier to remain relevant in conventional naval war since the start of the first super carriers.
As a PLA rear Admrial recently pointed out Super Carriers are both an American strength and potential weakness. There is now and has been for sometime a faction of surface warfare who debate it's relevancy in navy vs navy warfare. And if the USN could afford such a loss.
This is not a sudden thing. It's a very old debate, and a nessisary one. As Patton once said. "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking."
For the navy that means questioning it's reliance on super carriers has to be done. It's a way of making sure they are considering the possible risks and there application.
now and in the future, high sortie rates are needed for an efficient power projection (contrary to claims I quoted Today at 6:01 PM)

plus

these days if you want to achieve what would Mahan call "command of the sea", you need a CVGB,

while

Opfor can challenge your CVGB only if it has its own CVGB (I mean at an open sea)

so

supercarriers = sea power

and alternatives to them are pie in the sky
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Opfor can challenge your CVGB only if it has its own CVGB (I mean at an open sea)
Don't need to challenge of it can't enter range of sortie. Carrier aircraft have shorter ranges and with sea denial technologys now it is more and more a risk to move the carrier into the front line. Even I the cold war there were deep and justified worries about submarines attacking carriers.
Heck in world war 2 a British carrier was sunk by a battle ship.
So claiming it can only be challenged by another carrier is false.

High sortie rates are nice but only if the aircraft can operate in the engagement zone.

Generally I favor CVNs but they have a valid point on the risks. And as to Pie in the sky. Remember the USN has a second type carrier the LHA and LHD.
 
Don't need to challenge of it can't enter range of sortie. Carrier aircraft have shorter ranges and with sea denial technologys now it is more and more a risk to move the carrier into the front line. Even I the cold war there were deep and justified worries about submarines attacking carriers.
Heck in world war 2 a British carrier was sunk by a battle ship.
So claiming it can only be challenged by another carrier is false.

...
hold it, hold it, I even carefully formatted Yesterday at 8:51 PM
now and in the future, high sortie rates are needed for an efficient power projection (contrary to claims I quoted Today at 6:01 PM)

plus

these days if you want to achieve what would Mahan call "command of the sea", you need a CVGB,

while

Opfor can challenge your CVGB only if it has its own CVGB (I mean at an open sea)

so

supercarriers = sea power

and alternatives to them are pie in the sky
hoping some particular line wouldn't be taken out of the context (and LOL! 'torn apart' by somebody)

see?

EDIT anyway I'm looking for some book to say what exactly I meant by the line you picked
 
Last edited:
... thought I had read it in "The Royal Navy and the Capital Ship in the Interwar Period" by Moretz, which I've now found, but it's probably not there LOL

so in short (I'm unable to quote the source) the RN was aware already in the end 1910s the battleship era would be over,

but at the same time the RN designed giants like
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
etc. in early 1920s (and would've built them if the Washington Treaty hadn't been signed);

why? to be able to achieve sea control!

the point is despite 'new' threats to battleships (from submarines; torpedo-boats; naval-mines), 'old' threats were imminent (at that time from Japanese and US (yes) battleships), and

they might be able to counter a SINGLE battleship with cruisers ('worn her out'),

but if a battleship SQUADRON blocked the traffic, they would need to send their own battleship squadron to shoot it out

one-hundred years later, change "battleship" to "CVGB", add Dong-Feng AShBM, Mr. Putin's underwater nuclear-powered drone or whatever,

but I repeat the Pentagon's naval policy will be based on a CVGB with supercarrier(s) in the middle of it,

and I repeat Opfor will need its own CVGB to fight the USN CVGB at an open sea (that's what you probably missed inside Yesterday at 8:51 PM of course a CVGB can be threatened just by FIACs in the Straight of Hormuz etc., but I'm talking control of the World Oceans),

and it's pie in the sky to think the Pentagon would change this under the current shipbuilding plan (already drawn until the middle of this century by the way:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)
 
Top