Jura The idiot
General
... Japan avoids flak by refusing to call flattop ‘aircraft carrier’
December 6, 2018
Aircraft Carriers III
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
December 6, 2018
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
Well Jura see. Below.
I under stand that sir. And it's sort of my point. Aboard a ship fire is a huge concern on a air base fire is a huge concern. So those overlap. Damage control is a little more specialized but still trained across the board
@Jura made his crew estimate by simply taking the crew size of the Nimitz class without air component and then dividing by size to estimate his figure assuming everything around size.
This is flawed as it's doesn't care about the jobs done by the crew. It doesn't even consider who is part of the Air wing and who is part of the crew. I mean almost 2500 people serve in the Air wing the vast majority are not actually flying the planes they are the guys working the deck. Building the bombs, fixing the jets, running the engine shop and the like.
The model used is flawed because it simply assumes that Nimitz is the optimum crew size by scale. This is flawed because it doesn't consider a lot of the department and what they do. It basically assumes that if you build a carrier double the size of the Nimitz it must have double the crew.
But that's flawed as there have been ships the same size as Nimitz that have smaller crews.
It's not a question of 1 person vs So much cubic mass. After all large freighters and tankers are in Some case larger by size than Nimitz yet have tiny crews.
It's a question of function.
Nimitz class has a full compliment of 6000 give or take. Each of that 6000 has 3 meals a day. That means roughly 18,000 meals a day so the kitchen crew needs a larger department. But if you removed remove the air arm. We get about 3000, so 9000 meals a day. Well do you need as many cooks, Bakers and the like? No obviously not. You are left with excess capacity.
Queen Elizabeth class is Birthed for 1600 total. But that is just the number of beds onboard.
1600 3 meals a day 4800 meals a day. Clearly you can get away with a smaller kitchen staff.
Mind you again that's just the birth numbers the actual crew can be larger if you hot bunk.
Another one is laundry. Nimitz has a full service laundry aboard. Does it need a full service laundry? To a degree yes. As you have some specialized garments like fire resistant clothing. But you can still shrink the laundry crew as if it's just a crewman needing to wash his undies, he should be able to do that himself.
Medical, US carriers and LHA have full hospitals aboard. Other than extreme cases they can take care of most everything. But do that need that?
No.
For general mission needs you don't need full service. The large air wing needs more care and numbers to support it than a smaller one.
The assumption of Size to Crew is based on the idea that the crew are all mechanics and engineering and navigation. It's also flawed by age.
The Ford class has a smaller Crew than the Nimitz.
Consider for a moment the shift from nuclear to conventional. The Virginia class cruiser did not have a major air wing it had a crew of ~580.
The Ticonderoga class it's replacement is a conventionally powered navy ship it's very close in size yet only has a crew ~330 where did the 250 people go? Well they got rid of the nuclear techs, they changed weapons systems from the old school missile launchers to VLS, they shifted from analog fire control to digital. That alone makes a lot of jobs redundant. And there was a huge drop in crew size.
Target of the military unit is to execute its task with the lowest possible cost, NOT to have lot of automation.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
No the target of a Military unit is to accomplish the mission or task in the most effective and efficient means possible with the minimum number of casualties to its self. cost is a factor but not the primary driver.
Automation is one means to the ends.
Your statement and my statement equivalent.
Causalities =cost.
Full Cost = man hours, including development, manufacturing , maintenance, training, execution, battle loss.
Guess who's back, not just me, our big bonnie Lass is too!
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
They should be but cost is sometimes confused with financial investment. A near term investment in a machine can pay out as cheaper long term than a human.
Even when Popeye did his assessment, on the speed of loading given for the Queen Elizabeth class, (which I suspect is actually a low estimate) he included automation, a forklift is automation. It means not having to use 6 guys to lift the bomb on the fighter.
He also was using his experience on the Deck of an American carrier which is going to be faster No matter what.
American carriers emphasize sortie rates. The Queen Elizabeth class carrier is smaller than an American CVN and has a smaller air wing so it will have different (slower, smaller) demands of sortie rates and bomb needs. The Queen Elizabeth class is likely to sit between the rates and needs of an America class and a Ford class. Because of her size and air wing.
Popeye talks from experience.
Forklift : Matured ,off the shelf technology, over 100 years experience, extremely high usage on every field. Risk matrix : Low investment cost, low operation risk, high saving.
Horizontal ammunition mover on the QE : Similar to same industrial system, but unique to use it on ship for ordnance , , risk matrix : Medium investment cost, medium operation risk , low saving
electromagnetic ammunition lifts on Ford : no similar technology exist, all cost / risk taken by the Ford project. Risk matrix : High investment cost, high operation risk, low saving.
So after all for the ship designer ( NOT the guy who makes the drawings, but the military guys who set the capability /cost targets, and selected from different design proposals) what is more important, to spend the money and time to make a weapon elevator, or to make a point air defence system, and torpedo system or improved radar system ?
Last edited:
