tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064462751833591182.post5386656579254790337..comments2023-07-17T14:09:50.226+02:00Comments on Combat Fleets Of The World: Future of the US Carrier's & Gator's FleetMike Colombarohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05775506320809799429noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064462751833591182.post-31483656361029161842012-11-15T19:22:44.952+01:002012-11-15T19:22:44.952+01:00CVN'S are here to stay.CVN'S are here to stay.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064462751833591182.post-33148329529122891672011-12-10T03:30:12.214+01:002011-12-10T03:30:12.214+01:00I understand that the navy did studies of smaller ...I understand that the navy did studies of smaller carriers (especially during the Carter years)- but determined that you lose a great deal of capability without much cost.<br /><br />This was probably before the Ford came in at $10 billion+<br /><br />Carriers really have to be nukes- especially for 20 years in the future when fuel oil will be- God knows what.<br /><br />Once you put a nuke inside- it makes sense to spend another billion or so on steel/displacement.<br /><br />The key to me is crew size- I was disappointed that the Ford was only able to shave a few hundred off of the crew/airwing. If this can be knocked down by a thousand or so- the savings really kick in- especially over 50 years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064462751833591182.post-54569057281464393862011-11-08T06:57:53.435+01:002011-11-08T06:57:53.435+01:00Come off it
The Americans need to have a bigger o...Come off it<br /><br />The Americans need to have a bigger one than everyone else!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064462751833591182.post-42911418612902352882011-01-28T04:43:53.515+01:002011-01-28T04:43:53.515+01:00Sorry,
"Smaller" does not = "cheap...Sorry,<br /><br />"Smaller" does not = "cheaper". The design of a smaller US carrier would likely end up with design costs almost as high as those of the Ford Class, acquisition costs on the order of 4/5th per unit and capability on the order of 1/3 (bombs across the beach at range). <br /><br />Smaller decks drive the airwing to more unique and less capable aircraft (ie F-35B) that cost far more over the life of the hull than the hull itself. The loss of capability means the CV bring less to the national security table to justify even its reduced cost. This leads to the British death spiral where the Arc Royal is downsized to the Invincible and the RN is so neutered that it looses the money to even operate those ships. <br /><br />You are on target with the fact that the Cost and Manning requirements of the Ford and America cannot be sustained. SIZE is not the problem per se, it is the density, complexity and insane maintenance/upkeep costs. The USN needs a large, simple, easy to upgrade/maintain CV/LHA. Large hull size minimizes the VERY expensive requirement to add CV unique design requirements. <br /><br />Suggest you look at Maersk's proposal to to put a steel deck on one of their 100,000+ ton container ships. It is a bit too minimalist to a CV replacement (not very damage tolerant etc.) but the ability to load/customize everything from berthing, stores, AIMD via 40 foot shipping containers is one very good start on complexity and maintainability.<br /><br />Size is just steel, its cheap. The Navy's tendency to fill that big hull and insist that it go 33 knots for 10 years without stopping with manpower requirements based on USS Constitution levels of automation is what really drives the cost.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064462751833591182.post-76060779823012053232011-01-11T08:16:34.282+01:002011-01-11T08:16:34.282+01:00Obviously, in rought/heavy-sea, a larger ships hav...Obviously, in rought/heavy-sea, a larger ships have more "seakeeping" qualities than a smaller ship...Mike Colombarohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05775506320809799429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064462751833591182.post-28174858512539335162011-01-11T01:58:45.820+01:002011-01-11T01:58:45.820+01:00Big decks are nicer to land on in bad weather than...Big decks are nicer to land on in bad weather than small ones. I have been in the North Atlantic where large decks were operating , but the smaller decks were shut down. What good are flight decks if mother nature prevents flight operations!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064462751833591182.post-81123124498033869852010-07-05T02:16:46.472+02:002010-07-05T02:16:46.472+02:00As a former sailior in the U.S. Navy it's very...As a former sailior in the U.S. Navy it's very easy to understand why people do not understand why American warships are the size they are and has as many men and women on border compared to there counterparts around the world.<br />1) Damage Control. American warships are designed to take incrediable amount of damage. Which in turn makes them heavier, beamier, and in some cases longer. Compare the watertight compartments of a Burke to that of a Euro type destroyer and you will see my point.<br />2) The U.S. Navy demands that all systems are manned at all times. U.S. Warships operate on a 24hr clock meaning 1/3 rd of the crew is on station at all times. Even the engine rooms are fully manned 24/7 on gas turbine ships.<br />3) Future growth. American warships are always being upgraded. There designed from the outset large enough to accept new technologies as they come online. In the case of carriers this includes larger aircraft and there weapons.<br /><br />As far as the CVNs (Nimitz class)are concern they are pretty close to a perfect design. Thats the reason only small changes have been made over the decades. All this talk about them being obsolet is far out of line. Super Carriers believe it or not are the fastest ships in the American fleet. They have defenses against torpedos, cruise missils and there armor will protect them from most threats. American carriers also have other survival tricks. As for as China's ASBM is concerned thats why the Aegis Cruisers and Destroyers get paid the big bucks. Granted on any given day you can always lose a battle. Im not saying there invincible, however if anyone thinks getting to a CVN and damaging her, or sinking her is now in there favor will be sadly mistaken. <br /><br />sorry for any grammer mistakes late for the fireworks show. great blog by the way!<br /><br />RPW2Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064462751833591182.post-86159551838999692002010-07-02T23:14:32.236+02:002010-07-02T23:14:32.236+02:00Mr. Colombaro,
Thanks for your reply. Your opini...Mr. Colombaro,<br /><br />Thanks for your reply. Your opinion again - what on earth has happened that the final nuclear Nimitz-class carrier cost somewhere in the $6.5B - 7.0B range, yet a "Forrestal II" or "Kitty Hawk II" carrier might cost so much?<br /><br />I found your blog via another site, and am glad I signed on the internet that day. You do good work.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00993791762629490855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064462751833591182.post-62879838497737299412010-06-30T11:19:52.949+02:002010-06-30T11:19:52.949+02:00Estimate's:
- 500 to 800 $ million for one rea...Estimate's:<br />- 500 to 800 $ million for one reactor systems.<br />- For the 1st reactor, final cost: 1/1,5 $ billion (R&D INCLUDE).<br />- For a US nuclear powered LHD/LHA, 800+ $ million of increase in cost.<br />- For a US nuclear powered destroyer, 500/600+ $ million of increase in cost.<br /><br />Personnal opinion<br />- Current cost of the 1st CVN 78; +/- 14 $ billion (R&D include).<br /><br />- A 1st CV 78 without nuclear reactors cost probably around 10/11+.Mike Colombarohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05775506320809799429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064462751833591182.post-7812912504355861852010-06-29T23:42:41.787+02:002010-06-29T23:42:41.787+02:00A curious question...
If the 100,000 ton Ford-cla...A curious question...<br /><br />If the 100,000 ton Ford-class were being built sans nuclear propulsion, does anyone have an estimate as to what its construction cost might be?<br /><br />Same question, but applied to the notion of building something like a modernized version of either the Kitty Hawk or Forrestal class (60-80,000 tons)?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00993791762629490855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064462751833591182.post-80929721783580979142010-06-29T18:03:23.960+02:002010-06-29T18:03:23.960+02:00Anonymous,
Your understanding in the red...Anonymous,<br /> Your understanding in the reduction of crew size in the UK's CVF's is a little off the mark. They are not getting rid of Cats/Arrester gear to reduce manpower,the last UK carrier to operate with CTOL aircraft was the Old Ark Royal which was taken out of service before the Falklands war (1982) We have only operated VSTOL from our carriers since then.As for your remarks re Comms and Radar,I think you will find that they are being fitted with the most up to date systems that are available to us,any reduction in such capability would in any case have little impact on the manning levels. The reason for the lack of self defence systems is soley for one reason and one reason only. The sheer studity of the bean counters in the MOD who's job it is to save money at the expense of the safety of the crew.<br />I think that if you look closely at the design of the CVF you will find that the biggest savings in manpower (how very un PC) is to be found in the advanced use of automation in various systems. One of the main ones being the handling of ammunition and stores which is designed to be completely computerised and cuts out large numbers of jobs.<br />The main reasons for the cost overuns in the case of CVF is once again the ill thought out ideas of the MOD who decided to slow down the build by two years therefore adding a huge amount of costs in manpower etc, in fact to the sum of approx £500,000,000.<br />Well looking at the history of defence procurement in the UK this is unfortunatley not unusual.michaelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064462751833591182.post-33721231363272447732010-06-27T01:34:49.806+02:002010-06-27T01:34:49.806+02:00That cost is w/o weapons, so maybe $600M, but yes ...That cost is w/o weapons, so maybe $600M, but yes it carries a reinforce Company and so does the LPD, and the Italian has 6 helo spots instead of two, fixing the bottleneck.Chuck Hillnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064462751833591182.post-78376657612445856612010-06-27T00:35:33.155+02:002010-06-27T00:35:33.155+02:00Mike good material again.You are getting into your...Mike good material again.You are getting into your stride me feels.<br /><br />On a general point about Defence planning, I feel the lack of a real shooting war these past decades means that no one really knows how the naval war will pan out. <br /><br />If the rate limiting factor to earth bound success is throw weight into orbit then it will be at best a guess with greater and greater inaccuracy until a real data point is realised.<br /><br />However who wants that?INCOMING!!!!!!!https://www.blogger.com/profile/06597034666699426965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064462751833591182.post-69740601322732422422010-06-26T22:42:06.864+02:002010-06-26T22:42:06.864+02:00Hi "Chuck Hill"
LOL, interesting news (...Hi "Chuck Hill"<br /><br />LOL, interesting news (I incorporate some data in my next edito...).<br /><br />A italian 20 000 tons LHD, 199 meters, with only 200 sailors, but with 760 troops, 12 to 15 helico & so. Only cost around 369 $ million cost (to compare with 3+ billion $ for the next America class.....).<br /><br />..........Mike Colombarohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05775506320809799429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064462751833591182.post-82942362975330057452010-06-26T21:25:49.371+02:002010-06-26T21:25:49.371+02:00This looks like a good asset for amphibious lift:
...This looks like a good asset for amphibious lift:<br /><br />http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/dti/2010/06/01/DT_06_01_2010_p36-228013.xml&headline=Italy%20To%20Get%20New%20Amphibious%20Ships&channel=defenseChuck Hillnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064462751833591182.post-73638608036715824012010-06-26T15:08:43.502+02:002010-06-26T15:08:43.502+02:00Hi,
No, I did not say that the Americans would bui...Hi,<br />No, I did not say that the Americans would build a U.S. version of the Queen elizabeth. But instead of building large ships, they should move to smaller vessels......+/- similar (IN SIZE TERMS) to the Queen Elizabeth class.<br /><br /><br />Why to have a 100 000 tons ships, 330 meters, more than 4,500 sailors, 4 catapults and around 65/70 (so they can carry up to 80/90), while everything indicates that in the future, aircrafts will be FEWER & FEWER on aircrafts carriers....( from 2015/2020, likely around 55/65 on the Nimitz's)..........<br /><br />To compare with the French version of CVF (PA 02): A 60 000 tons aircraft carrier, 280 meters, with 2 catapults, 1,500 sailors and 40 aircrafts.<br /><br />Obviously a new design were usually expensive (1st ships of a class usually relatively expensive, include R & D). But between having an improved version of the "penultimate" nimitz or build radically new .....<br /><br />The U.S. can not remain indefinitely in the Nimitz design .....(especially when aviation knows radical changes.....UAV & so).Mike Colombarohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05775506320809799429noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3064462751833591182.post-51770898042217096242010-06-26T14:42:16.055+02:002010-06-26T14:42:16.055+02:00A problem I see is how is your smaller carrier goi...A problem I see is how is your smaller carrier going to be substantially cheaper?<br /><br />First you will have to come up with a totally new design which costs money<br /><br />You also want nuclear power so either you use the Ford class reactors, or new small reactors or just use one <br />Ford class reactor which leaves you with no backup. But no matter you are going to have lots of costs and the only saving is by dropping to one reactor and give up on speed and redundancy<br /><br />Also to greatly cut the number of crew you need to get rid of lots of equipment and capability as opposed to the Nimitz/Ford class. From what I understand the British are getting rid of the catapults/arrestor gear/speed/comprehensive communications and radar systems/self defense systems in order to greatly reduce crew numbers. Yet the smaller American carrier will have nuclear power/catapults/arrestor gear so what will be cut to greatly reduce crew size?<br /><br />You might say the US should build a American version of the British Queen Elizabeth but that would involve major changes, nuclear power, catapults, arrestor gear, US type equipment. This is going to cost a lot more then the British version and we still don’t know what the actual building cost of the British ship will be since its still being built. The Daring class destroyer is substantially over budget so its not improbable that the QE will also have cost problems.<br /><br />On the other hand I am not tied to the bigger ships, it’s just I wonder if you can get a substantially cheaper carrier without major capability reductions<br /><br />DJFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com