It has been looked at, there's an F-18 with a small 'stealth' weapons bay and conformal fuel tanks which has been doing flight tests within the last 12 months.
US Navy News and updates
- Thread starter AegisFC
- Start date
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Neither the F-15SE or the ASH (advanced Super Hornet) can offer what the F-35 promises. However, for the USN, some of the enhancements Boeing is offering for the F-18 SH seem attractive (conformational fuel tanks, internal weapons pod, and new glass cockpit with bigger displays). Whether this happens or not will be a function of cost and LM's progress with the F-35C's software and outstanding hardware issues.
Thank You for the updates
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
It is being reported that the Navy has begun evaluating the feasibility of adding the Virginia Payload Module (VPM) to boats in the forecast Block IV procurement.
The reason being given is that early addition of VPM equipped boats would mitigate the loss of firepower projected to be lost as the SSGN Ohio boats begin retiring in 2020.
Block V, VPM equipped, Virginia-class boats aren't forecast to begin construction until 2019. So, the first Block V boat wouldn't enter service until years after the first Ohio SSGN was retired.
While it isn't mentioned, it's not outlandish to think that this early procurement might also have to do with getting some VPMs into the fleet before the Ohio Replacement Program starts eating away at construction funds.
Navy Wants 28 More Tomahawks on Virginia-Class Submarines Sooner | Military.com
The reason being given is that early addition of VPM equipped boats would mitigate the loss of firepower projected to be lost as the SSGN Ohio boats begin retiring in 2020.
Block V, VPM equipped, Virginia-class boats aren't forecast to begin construction until 2019. So, the first Block V boat wouldn't enter service until years after the first Ohio SSGN was retired.
While it isn't mentioned, it's not outlandish to think that this early procurement might also have to do with getting some VPMs into the fleet before the Ohio Replacement Program starts eating away at construction funds.
Navy Wants 28 More Tomahawks on Virginia-Class Submarines Sooner | Military.com
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I guess this is the reason why there is no SSGN replacement under consideration. Still, having a single boat that can launch 154 missiles is pretty awesome. The SSBN replacement is estimated at 4.9B per boat (for boats 2-12) versus 2.6B for a Virginia. A new SSGN would be at least as much as a SSBN so the economics does favour the Virginia with VPM.
HurricaneDitka
New Member
I'd imagine that having a bunch of Virginias with a not-insignificant TLAM load is a bit nicer than just four SSGNs with a massive TLAM load-out. You know, not putting all your eggs in one (or four, in this case) basket, sort of a thing.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Yep, I think you're right. Two boats with 80 missiles in total versus one boat with 154 missiles. For the same cost you get two boats which is not putting the eggs in one basket as you say and with two boats you can fire from two locations.
USN studying alternatives to Ford class
Thoughts?
Navy Conducting Alternative Carrier Study - USNI News
Interesting read, the USN is looking at possible alternatives to the large 100k plus ton carrier. Perhaps a fleet of smaller yet capable carriers may be a better choice? More edges in the same basket instead of heading in tpwith 2-3 platforms with the majority of your offensive strike power. Perhaps a larger number of smaller carriers similar to the new America class would spread out our vulnerability given the proliferation of accurate ASCM
Thoughts?
Navy Conducting Alternative Carrier Study - USNI News
I wouldn't get any hopes up about that turning up something other than supporting the Ford class.
They drew up the list of requirements when they wanted to replace the Nimitz class and the Ford class popped out. What elements of it could they actually make cheaper than what they're already attempting to do?
There's a line saying they want to have the same level of power protection for a cheaper cost. There's nothing on earth capable of creating the level of power projection that a Nimitz or Ford class can do, ergo considering the sunk costs in R&D it would work out the cheaper way to create that level of power projection rather than developing a new platform.
That platform ultimately would still be CATOBAR and nuclear powered, be pretty big driven by air wing size/sortie generation reqs and with a still pretty mean sensor suite. Probably can add EMALS considering the R&D cost and lets say the old arrestor gear over AAG.
Whatever benefits using the LHA has in theory, while you may get 2 + 3 per CVN it still wouldn't be an equal capability.
They drew up the list of requirements when they wanted to replace the Nimitz class and the Ford class popped out. What elements of it could they actually make cheaper than what they're already attempting to do?
There's a line saying they want to have the same level of power protection for a cheaper cost. There's nothing on earth capable of creating the level of power projection that a Nimitz or Ford class can do, ergo considering the sunk costs in R&D it would work out the cheaper way to create that level of power projection rather than developing a new platform.
That platform ultimately would still be CATOBAR and nuclear powered, be pretty big driven by air wing size/sortie generation reqs and with a still pretty mean sensor suite. Probably can add EMALS considering the R&D cost and lets say the old arrestor gear over AAG.
Whatever benefits using the LHA has in theory, while you may get 2 + 3 per CVN it still wouldn't be an equal capability.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
So much has been invested in the Ford class already it makes a change pretty difficult. It is likely going to be less expensive to continue with the Ford class and America class ships rather than opting for yet another carrier design.
The QE class carrier cost is now approaching 9 billion US. Even if the USN considered this as a base for a new non-nuke carrier (doubt the USN would opt for anything smaller) it would have to be modified for CATOBAR and the British figured this was going to cost them an additional 1.5 billion which is why they stuck with STOVL. This ship will operate with half the aircraft and will still need fuel. The only plus is a reduction in crew size and you get 1.5 QE to 1 Ford.
$9 billion for two ships
t68
Well-Known Member
I allways thought a QE would make a good ship for the Marines, wonder how much modifications would be needed to have the extra 1600 odd pers for the MEU on board?
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
You're right. At $4.5 ship, they look a lot more enticing. Perhaps in a CATOBAR version, the additional cost spread over 4-6 ships for the USN wouldn't exceed 5 to 5.5 billion per ship. Don't think the Ford program is going away but does 6 Fords and maybe 6-8 type QE (or something similar) provide the USN with the capability that 10 Fords will for roughly the same cost?
Quite a bit, probably. As it stands I think the troop capacity of the QEC is 250. She's not a proper amphib.
I suppose it'd all come down to a seriously large amount of number crunching and i'd probably hazard a guess that it'd probably work out more than 5.5bn a pop.
The size would really start pinching when you add in F/A-18E/F, F-35C, HV-22, E-2D, E/A-18G, MH-60R or S, UCLASS when it arrives. You really start running out of room for a decent number of each of those to make up a CAW.
Plus is a suspicious Euro design
In all seriousness, they'll get the Fords to work and I have no doubt they'll be the kings of the sea. Ford is first in class, it happens.
t68
Well-Known Member
I guess it also comes down to lifetime overall cost, we need to compare 8 QE to 4 Fords
[QUOTE=Ranger25;292894]Interesting read, the USN is looking at possible alternatives to the large 100k plus ton carrier. Perhaps a fleet of smaller yet capable carriers may be a better choice? More edges in the same basket instead of heading in tpwith 2-3 platforms with the majority of your offensive strike power. Perhaps a larger number of smaller carriers similar to the new America class would spread out our vulnerability given the proliferation of accurate ASCM
Thoughts?
Classic Pentagon politics. John McCain is the new Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Not only is he an ex-Navy aviator but he has become a curmudgeons in his later years, a curmudgeon but a powerful curmudgeon. He expressed concern about the cost of the Ford class carriers. So, the Pentagon, in time honored fashion, says that it will do a study - a study that will undoubtedly conclude that the Ford class carrier is the best bang for the buck. Nothing to see here - move on.
Thoughts?
Classic Pentagon politics. John McCain is the new Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Not only is he an ex-Navy aviator but he has become a curmudgeons in his later years, a curmudgeon but a powerful curmudgeon. He expressed concern about the cost of the Ford class carriers. So, the Pentagon, in time honored fashion, says that it will do a study - a study that will undoubtedly conclude that the Ford class carrier is the best bang for the buck. Nothing to see here - move on.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Size does matter when operating a large number of different aircraft which is how the super carrier evolved. it is a successive platform without question. I think the smaller carrier idea is the result of unease at placing a 12-14 billion dollar asset in harms way. The USN clearly is confident that these carriers can be defended and they probably can sustain a number of hits.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Until such a peer to (or near peer) conflict occurs, there is no absolute way of knowing what the survivability really is as this analysis is classified. The USN, IMO, has a better grip on reality than the other services. I think the Ford class along with its support vessels will be ok. The only real concern is economics.