Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

bd popeye said:

Jeff I read that PEO statement about the LHA(R) before I posted previously and it is pretty vauge. No money has be authorized and without money there is no final design..So like the rest of the world, this time, we USN fans gotta wait.

Click to expand...

Amen, until the dollars are authorized for actual construction, it remains a lot of planning and dreaming.

But, they have spent over a hundred million on planning and prep work, and they have decomm'd Tarawa class vessels (Belleau Wood and Saipan, the Saipan just on April 20, 2007) and sunk the Belleau Wood, and I believe may sink the Saipan in weapons tests as well (a real shame and mistake in both cases IMHO)

I am pretty sure they will build the LHA(R), and at this point, it sure sounds like there may well be two versions.

If so, then the US will be getting 2-3 Sea Control capable aircraft carriers, built that way from the ground up.

Regarding A/V, that PEO statement at least says it will be aviation optimized. Having 20+ JSFs, larger aviation related facilities and so on. So I would guess future LHAs to generally be an aviation variant of amphib vessels, while LPDs/LHDs become the real amphib variants.
With Wasps in service for some time and San Antonios coming online, the aviation part seems to be of a greater need now.
Maybe later we will see LHD(R)s based on the current LHA(R)s for Wasp replacements, otimized to bring forces to the beach in modern ops.

Regarding A/V, that PEO statement at least says it will be aviation optimized. Having 20+ JSFs, larger aviation related facilities and so on.

Click to expand...

That 20+ JSF by PEO is really a misnomer in my opinion. As long ago as 1981 and as recently as 2003 LHA/LHD's have deployed with a 20 Sea Harrier air wing. And the avation faclities on those ships is not as enhanced as it may be on the LHA(R). Probally 30+ JSF is the truer figure.

OK, maybe they are even capable of that.
But then I think there may also be V-22 variants for ASW, AEW, ISR ...
And perhaps even some transporter variants stored on these vessels wich are then used to airlift troops from other vessels to the shore.
It would make really sense, IMO. Use a specialized aviation ship to bring aircraft into theater wich then help improve the airborne part of the amphib landing.

Are even larger aircraft carriers possible?

A larger carrier can have a lot more firepower. Just think how many more aircrafts Nimitz can carry than Du Gaulle. But a larger ship is most likely to be more vulnerable to attacks since it will be a bigger target. Are aircraft carriers even larger than Nimitz-class and the upcoming CVN-21 possible? If so, how large?

Re: Are even larger aircraft carriers possible?

F40Racer said:

A larger carrier can have a lot more firepower. Just think how many more aircrafts Nimitz can carry than Du Gaulle. But a larger ship is most likely to be more vulnerable to attacks since it will be a bigger target. Are aircraft carriers even larger than Nimitz-class and the upcoming CVN-21 possible? If so, how large?

Click to expand...

Larger carriers are very possible, but at some point, law of diminishing returns apply. How much more use is there with a larger carrier? Also, what if new fighter planes were pilotless? Then you have a plane that can free up a lot of room reserved for the cockpit to use for ordinance. Firepower is increased without needing a larger carrier.

Re: Are even larger aircraft carriers possible?

joshuatree said:

Larger carriers are very possible, but at some point, law of diminishing returns apply. How much more use is there with a larger carrier? Also, what if new fighter planes were pilotless? Then you have a plane that can free up a lot of room reserved for the cockpit to use for ordinance. Firepower is increased without needing a larger carrier.

Click to expand...

Clearly, larger carriers are possible, and in their sea-basing strategies, the US has been considering various options.

For example, the "Mobile Offshore Base":



While this particular design has been determined to be feasible, it has also been considered less cost effective than other options, like more super-carriers, or joint capabilities of several large ships operating together.

Threads merged. We already have an aircraft carrier thread. Please discuss any type CV here. Discuss the PLAN CV in those threads.

bd popeye super moderator

Though I believe it to be technically possible to build bigger CVNs, I think at a certain point it's better to have more super-carriers than less mega-carriers.
If you have more carriers, you have a higher readiness-state of the single CVNs and can cover a greater area (disperse forces).
If there's really a need for more firepower than one CVN can deliver, just send two or more.

Scratch said:

Though I believe it to be technically possible to build bigger CVNs, I think at a certain point it's better to have more super-carriers than less mega-carriers.
If you have more carriers, you have a higher readiness-state of the single CVNs and can cover a greater area (disperse forces).
If there's really a need for more firepower than one CVN can deliver, just send two or more.

Click to expand...

Well, the thought behind the Mobile Offshore Base was just that. It would give you a large, entire base that was actually mobile, with the capability of landing large, non-naval aircraft in areas where you could not secure an onshore base.

You could bring large amounts of men and material to the offshore base to support continued operations onshore, without the vulnerability an onshore base has to even insurgents.

Problem is, that such a base is REALLY big, and can only move a few miles each day. So, in the event of any major hostilities with a major power, it would be vulnerable...even though with enough subs and AEGIS vessels, etc. they thought they could protect it...it's just to expensive to put at any risk like that.