Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
FYI, for those following the new USS Gerald R. Ford Class of nuclear aircraft carriers, the names of the first two carriers are set, and both are under construction with the first in class, now well over 50% complete. They are:
CVN-78 USS Gerald R. Ford
CVN-79 USS John F. Kennedy
A group of us has started another petition to try and get the 3rd in class, CVN-80 named the USS Enterprise. Please take a look and pass it around if you are so inclined.
CVN-78 USS Gerald R. Ford
CVN-79 USS John F. Kennedy
A group of us has started another petition to try and get the 3rd in class, CVN-80 named the USS Enterprise. Please take a look and pass it around if you are so inclined.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Let's make sure that history never forgets... the name... Enterprise... Sorry I am a closet Trekker so I think I know Some people who always want too hear about Big E doing well.
Last edited:
Thanks. The day will come when the name passes to the stars I am sure. To that end, please pass the request on to your Trekker friends, blogs, forums, etc.
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Thanks...all the help we can get!
...and, back on topic, here's a neat pick of the USS Wasp with six Ospreys on deck.
If there was an ASW version of the Osprey and an AEW version, then with a wing of 20 F-35Bs, 4 ASW Ospreys, 3 AEW Ospreys and some SAR helos, a Wasp (and later the America LHA) would be a very effective aircraft carrier in its own right, and could operate a very effective aircraft carrier role.
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Add a Tanker and you can extend the lightning's strike mission range.
I believe it would be difficult to have an organic tanker capability on a Wasp/America class ship. A Lightning II for the buddy-buddy option seems unpracticle due to the T/O weight contraints. And the speed ranges of the Osprey & Lightnig II seem almost incompatible. If 250KTAS is the max fo the V-22, a F-35B would have to operate close to min flying speed in low altitude to fill up. But might be worth a try. If a full scale CVN or land based tanker is available, that's a different matter, however.
I wonder, though, if producing all the assets for an America class CVA is in the interest of the USN's leadership. Because, when those are in place, a point could be made to save money on the CVN fleet by actually replacing part of it with CVAs. And while those CVAs would actually add to the USN's flexibility, IMO, by adding numbers and allowing more diversifing of aviation capabale assets, some might misunderstand it as a chance to cut CVNs from the fleet. So navy leadership might be hesitant to go that step in the first place, maybe. I've seen an article somewhere that talks about the CVN fleet falling to 9 some point in the future due to a decreased CVN-21 built rate for cost saving reasons.
In the end, however, they won't really save money without reducing capability I believe. An America CVA might bring less then half the capability of a CVN-21, but cost almost half as much still.
If they get nuclear propulsion, wich according to a congress panel report would be cheaper over a 30year lifespan with an avarange oil price above US$140 / barrel, and for supporting new energy intensive weapons, cost would go up even higher.
So it's really in the extras put onboard, and not really the size itself, since, as Master Obi Wan always likes to point out, "steel is relatively cheap"
I wonder if rocket assisted take off could be an option.
I wonder, though, if producing all the assets for an America class CVA is in the interest of the USN's leadership. Because, when those are in place, a point could be made to save money on the CVN fleet by actually replacing part of it with CVAs. And while those CVAs would actually add to the USN's flexibility, IMO, by adding numbers and allowing more diversifing of aviation capabale assets, some might misunderstand it as a chance to cut CVNs from the fleet. So navy leadership might be hesitant to go that step in the first place, maybe. I've seen an article somewhere that talks about the CVN fleet falling to 9 some point in the future due to a decreased CVN-21 built rate for cost saving reasons.
In the end, however, they won't really save money without reducing capability I believe. An America CVA might bring less then half the capability of a CVN-21, but cost almost half as much still.
If they get nuclear propulsion, wich according to a congress panel report would be cheaper over a 30year lifespan with an avarange oil price above US$140 / barrel, and for supporting new energy intensive weapons, cost would go up even higher.
So it's really in the extras put onboard, and not really the size itself, since, as Master Obi Wan always likes to point out, "steel is relatively cheap"
I wonder if rocket assisted take off could be an option.
- Status