Meanwhile, time marches on, and not only do we have the evolving cruise missile threats, but an ongoing improvement in world fighter aviation, Su-30MK's and possibly the Mig 35 (the "ATFski").
Posted on 03/24/2005 9:22:21 AM PST by Paul Ross
The new shipbuilding strategy could spell trouble for Northrop Grumman Newport News.
WASHINGTON -- The Navy is considering shrinking its fleet of aircraft carriers to as few as 10 ships within the next 30 years, a move that would produce the smallest carrier fleet in at least a half-century.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailypress.com ...
Meanwhile, time marches on, and not only do we have the evolving cruise missile threats, but an ongoing improvement in world fighter aviation, Su-30MK's and possibly the Mig 35 (the "ATFski").
Hadn't heard that. It takes a lot to design a carrier fighter. The last time the Navy & Air Force attempted to combine on a fighter project was McNamara's TFX Project (the F-111). Even then the naval version, the F-111B, was significantly different from the Air Force's 'A' Model. Part commonality was very low and the Navy couldn't get the performance that they needed.
During the Carter Administration there was talk of making a naval version of the F-16. The Navy got the Hornet (2 engines) instead.
Perhaps. But it is being regarded more and more as the essential feature in air dominance. Even the Russians are trying to effectively deploy stealth air craft, and may be having some success, with craft such as their Project 1.42/1.44 or Mig 35
From that same source:
The actual interesting aspect of the 1.44's stealth technology is something called 'Plasma Stealth Technology'. This system, designed by the Russian Federation Keldysh NITs (Nauchno- Issledovatelskiy Tsentr or Scientific Research Centre) is based on electromagnetic wave-plasma interactions.
Plasma Stealth
According to its director, Anatoliy Koroteyev, the system weighs less than 100kg and consumes little more than several dozen kW of power.
The plasma generator would envelop the aircraft in a film of ionized gas, which would be impervious to radar pulses, theoretically rendering the warplane electronically 'invisible'.
This however, may put out more heat placing the fighter in a disadvantageous situation but the design and superagility of the MiG could possibly offset that problem.
Keldysh NITs said that "first- and second-" generation plasma-generators had been tested on the ground and in flight. A third-generation system, "based on new physical principles" is a possible field of electrostatic energy around an airframe to further reduce TRCS.
There are rumors also that Russia is attempting to develop 'smart skins' on composite frames to enable warplanes to mimic their background.
MY COMMENT on this asserted development. How long then before we see Russian cruise missiles which incorporate this feature? And are we ready for it?
It also works the other way. Increase the size from 100 to 200,000 ton and you can carry fuel and ordnance for to operate twice as many aircraft. But you only have 60% greater deck area. cube-square law says as it gets bigger it also gets more crowded.
That was the thinking behind the CVV of the 70s. All things considered 60-70,000 is about the optinium size. max area remaining/tonnage when space allocated for landing area is allowed. Plus you can operate all aircraft types the big one can.
So 3 x 70,000 is better than 2 x 100,000.
The problem is to get three carriers (of any size)approved by Comgress is exactly 50% harded than for two carriers (of any size).
Actually, what's funny about that is that the Air Force is probably the branch with the MOST to fear from the advance of technology. The Army now has a laser-energy weapon capable of bringing down a missile in flight, and it's only a matter of time (a few decades at most) until the weapon is portable enough for battlefield deployment (it's currently only useable for protecting fixed assets). Once we have a portable high energy laser weapons system coupled with a high speed mirrored targeting system, we'll have a weapon capable of targeting and destroying any aircraft on the visible horizon in MICROSECONDS. With queued targeting, one of these things could conceivably down 10+ aircraft per second.
Given the history of warfare, it won't take more than a few more decades before the technology is in the hands of the worlds other nations. At that point, aircraft in warfare become obsolete. The ONLY things that will be flying will be very small and ultra stealthy ROV's, and stealth missiles, capable of evading the targeting sensors of these things.
This, of course, is just another nail in the carriers coffin.
Who in the Army has a laser energy weapon capable of bringing down an aircraft in flight. I hadn't heard that there was anything other than in the testing phase.
As for the capability, they said the same thing about the Sgt York as I recall.
Assuming the scenario of other nations gaining this technology is true(and there's certainly n o reason not to think so) then we will be in big trouble: I don't think a C-5 ot C-17 would fall into the "very small and ultra stealthy ROV" category.
What that means is we either get out of the force projection business entirely or find ways to protect our airlift and sealift capability (because they've been cutting into those programs to pay for lasers and stealth fighters and computer systems and operations that Congress won't appropriate for like Bosnia and Somalia).
Here is something I learned through experience in this field: You can gab about capabilities all you want (there's a whole boatload of people who do that, us enlisted folks call them officers) but unless you plan for your limitations you are going to get your butt handed to you most ricky tick. Counting solely on technology will get you killed.
An excellent page on CVNX and CVN 21 at Global security.
Dissapointing though...when the lead time contracts are assayed.
They should reasonably amend the process right now to see 4-6 hulls with same machinery/powerplant set in motion...advance procurement and advance construction of components ....and here.....other ship yards must be created.
The haggling of contract rights and protectionism is something the Navy needs to get its head out of its ... over.
I understand the hull issue in regards to Panama Canal transit.
Why not build a new design all together ....more squat in width with double the lunch rails.
Build them on each coast.....Panama transit is removed yes...but they can still reach all seas if neccessary.
You don't need to build a shipyard on the west coast to avoid a Panama Canal transit for a Pacific deployment. When the Ronald Reagan sailed from the east coast to San Diego (its home port) it went around South America.
USS RONALD REAGAN (CVN 76), at sea – Ronald Reagan Strike Group (RGNSG), consisting of Commander, Cruiser Destroyer Group ONE (CCDG1), the Navy’s newest nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76), and Carrier Air Wing ELEVEN (CVW 11), departed Naval Station Norfolk, Va., May 27 for a two-month transit around South America en route to the ship’s new homeport at Naval Base Coronado, Calif."
http://www.reagan.navy.mil/04-016.htm
They should reasonably amend the process right now to see 4-6 hulls with same machinery/powerplant set in motion..
I'm sure if you give the navy a personal check for $20 billion, they would be happy to start building a half - dozen aircraft carriers all at the same time. Otherwise, money is a problem.
Wasn't there a quote 5 or 10 years ago that went something like this " the fire power of one US carrier today is more than all of the pacific fleet combined during WWII " please correct me if I am wrong.
Because nutrition is so important.
If you are China....what is acceptable loss for gain?
100 Aircraft....600 Cruise missiles.... a couple of surface combatants.
U.S. loses 1 Carrier...with another severly damaged.
Several other U.S. Battlegroup assets damaged.
Cease fire...negotiation.
China begins negotiation with first talking point being the legitimate re-unification party and past election returns.
China reveals a Taiwan which supports re-unification and claims the popular vote is being skewed.
Japan ...after seeing the massive fiscal loss of the breif military encounter between U.S./China,
begins to lean toward re-unification of Taiwan.
South Korea...having a desire for re-unification with the North ...also leans towards Taiwans re-unification.
Back in the United States....Defence analysts margin it will be half a decade for the U.S. to recover from this event...with Congress at each others throats over why the Navy was strategically vulnerable.
Being unable to address the real reason..that being a 12 Carrier Navy...with 2 Carrier Battlegroups now scatched off the game board.
They defer for *recovery.
Taiwan re-unification becomes tabled in Congress.
Like Vietnam.....the U.S. did well in battle...lessons were learned.
Yet the political track factored the incrimental losses if the conflict continued.
In a few more months time......the U.S. could have lost 4 carriers.
It was time to cut and run.
Taiwan was a democracy....if they desired re-unification,
Then the U.S. should step aside.
This scenario is very real.
It could also be China getting absolutely hammered....with no Carrier loses to the U.S.
Yet if China could just hurt the U.S.Navy...
Enough to create doubt in Congress.
They would then have their prize in time.
LOL...you got me : )
so ya...Launch rails...
What the heck.....double the Lunch rails too.
Bluejackets would like that!!
USAF B2's are going to hammer Chinese naval installations long before the CVN's go anywhere near Taiwanese waters. The USN must also 'account' for any remaining Chinese attack subs that were at sea at the opening of hostilities. This all assumes that the US opts to back Taiwan, which is increasingly doubtful.
Industry agrees, and it isn't primarily a profit issue (the predictable media talking point)...but one of even viability...werewithal to do these ships at all in the budgets being so "generously" outlined. Yet GWB/Rummy's crew appears to be deaf, dumb and blind as to the real risks here of complete loss of necessary shipyard capacity (maybe he is complacent about outsourcing carriers to France, Japan, or China?)
Industry Official Wants Consistency in Shipbuilding
WILLIAM MATTHEWS
DEFENSE NEWS, MARCH 24, 2005
Expecting that the U.S. Navy would order as many as 24 DD(X) destroyers and 12 LPD-17 amphibious transport ships, Northrop Grumman Ship Systems launched a $112 million improvement program for its Avondale, La., shipyard.
The promise of high-paying, long-term jobs looked so bright, the company was able to convince the state of Louisiana to pay half of the cost — $56 million — to modernize the privately owned shipyard.
Now, however, the Navy says it plans to order only nine LPD-17s, and the buy of DD(X) destroyers also may be cut to as few as nine.
“How can we build a business plan against the constant churn?” asked Philip Dur, president of Northrop’s Ship Systems division. “How can we continue to provide value to our customers and the taxpayers” when the Navy’s shipbuilding plan is constantly changing?”
Dur pleaded for consistency during a Navy League discussion of shipbuilding and the industrial base in Washington on March 22. He blamed Congress for shirking its constitutional responsibility to “maintain a navy.”
Dur received only limited sympathy from a deputy assistant Navy secretary and a naval analyst.
Allison Stiller, the Navy’s deputy assistant secretary for ship programs, said that while the 2006 Navy budget calls for building only four ships in 2006 — instead of the six projected earlier — Navy spending on shipyards remains significant.
In addition to $6.3 billion for new ships, the Navy plans to spend $3.1 billion for overhauls and $2.4 billion for research and development of new ships, for a total of $11.8 billion. Ship research and development spending is the highest it has been in years, she said.
Naval analyst Robert Work was even more blunt. Shipyards are in danger of pricing themselves out of business, he said.
The average new warship costs $1.4 billion. Unless shipyards can cut that cost, the U.S. fleet will remain on an irreversible downward spiral, he said.
Historically, the Navy on average has spent about $10 billion a year on shipbuilding. And although budgets in recent years have promised $13 billion or $14 billion “in the out-years,” the promises have not materialized, Work said.
The Navy should plan for shipbuilding budgets of about $10 billion a year, he said. As for shipbuilders, “the thing you really have to attack is the cost of $1.4 billion” per ship. At that price, the Navy cannot build enough new ships a year to maintain a fleet of about 300 ships.
In part, the high cost is due to building ships that are “over-speced,” or more capable than they need to be, Work said.
The U.S. Navy already has a vast margin of superiority over all other navies in the world. There is no need to make the margin even greater, he said.
The DD(X), for example, began as a replacement for the FFG-7, a low-end frigate. The Navy decided that the DD(X) must be able to sail 12,000 miles without refueling. Thus the ship’s fuel alone weighs more than the FFG-7, Work said.
The DD(X) “is clearly not a replacement for the FFG-7,” he said. “The DD(X) is an awesome ship, unquestionably the best in the world. But how many can you build on $10 billion a year?”
BTW: The F-14 had a lot of potential for updates, including speed, although stealthing it would be unlikely...unless we could steal Russia's Plasma stealth technology...
Ping. FYI
Agreed....U.S. can mop the floor with China if *They go for win
Turn of the game board is important....ie...who goes first.
That could spin back to Congress with Soros Media screaming for a cooling off period...negotiation...which see's critical momentum taking away from the Military.
China has no chance at defeating the U.S. Military.
I think their overall gambit would be to wing the U.S. Navy ....mangle a Battlegroup and wait for the U.S. Media to do the rest ....take Taiwan back to the table for final closure.
Which Is likely to see Taiwan left to Re-unification.
How willing is that quadrant towards war which see's Billions in military assets blown away in a matter of days?
Would Japan stand up to China...or aquiese to Democratic process...where China skews election numbers and shows a percentile willingness of Taiwanese who desire re-unification.
Same track for South Korea.
Their populace desires re-unification with the North.
China's fiscal investment in the region = political support.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.