US Navy News and updates

[t68]

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.

Sorry I must have misconstrued your previous statement about having more QE class carrier than Ford and costs.

We must not forget both class have had their fair share of cost overruns, Ford with a new untested launching system in EMALS and a variety of other changes to crewing and EO movement, just as is the case of QE.

Fords price will most certantly come down once the first of class has been delivered and reviewed for best practice and economy of scale come into play. I would hazed a guess that the Brits would have found the lessons on QE and applied them to POW and if the had a third would have seen more savings.

I guess the USN still has a lot of data from the last conventionally powered carrier CVA-67 which decommissioned in 2007 and as such still the benefits on going larger than basing a CBG on two QE sized carriers which still gives the same overall combat weight of a single Ford

 

[StingrayOZ]

I guess the USN still has a lot of data from the last conventionally powered carrier CVA-67 which decommissioned in 2007 and as such still the benefits on going larger than basing a CBG on two QE sized carriers which still gives the same overall combat weight of a single Ford

Its the aim to save money or increase hulls?

Ford will be much more capable than a Nimitz. With new systems, new catapults, new smarter weapons and new aircraft its going to be nearly a magnitude (IMO) more capable. 15% higher sortie rate, less crew, F-35 will be more capable than previous aircraft, higher availability, lower cost to operate etc. With nuclear ships IMO you are better off having one bigger more capable than more less capable.

For the US I imagine it will be a question of balance. I think the America class would be quite a useful concept. For example for an international coalition it make make sense to send an America class if it doesn't require the sledge hammer of a supercarrier or if a QE or CDG are going to be in attendance. Aircraft can cross deck, one logistics train etc.

Or on missions where its more of an amphibious nature and again doesn't require a complete CBG. (ie no threat out at sea etc). Or in missions where they have a LHD and want to augment the air component.

Deploying a CBG to a conflict changes everything about it. If it doesn't require a CBG then the US can send an America.

 

[Ranger25]

Its the aim to save money or increase hulls?

Ford will be much more capable than a Nimitz. With new systems, new catapults, new smarter weapons and new aircraft its going to be nearly a magnitude (IMO) more capable. 15% higher sortie rate, less crew, F-35 will be more capable than previous aircraft, higher availability, lower cost to operate etc. With nuclear ships IMO you are better off having one bigger more capable than more less capable.

For the US I imagine it will be a question of balance. I think the America class would be quite a useful concept. For example for an international coalition it make make sense to send an America class if it doesn't require the sledge hammer of a supercarrier or if a QE or CDG are going to be in attendance. Aircraft can cross deck, one logistics train etc.


Or on missions where its more of an amphibious nature and again doesn't require a complete CBG. (ie no threat out at sea etc). Or in missions where they have a LHD and want to augment the air component.

Deploying a CBG to a conflict changes everything about it. If it doesn't require a CBG then the US can send an America.

Thank You again. With a surge capacity of 20+ F35s the America class will provide a lot of versatility for sure. Coalition operations etc.


Would it make sense from an economic standpoint to consider nuclear propulsion?

 

[StingrayOZ]

Thank You again. With a surge capacity of 20+ F35s the America class will provide a lot of versatility for sure. Coalition operations etc.


Would it make sense from an economic standpoint to consider nuclear propulsion?

For the Amphibs I think it does, nuclear doesn't really fit their conops. The US has made huge gains in efficiency with the new amphibs and america class. In many cases they use less than half the fuel of previous ships. The argument to go nuclear is further reduced by the diesels being cheaper to operate than before.

For the big carriers, I think that's one of the key things they are designed around. Nuclear is most likely cheaper and has benefits in terms of range, sorties, speed etc. As france found, trying to design a small nuclear carrier has its own problems. US doesn't need small nuclear carriers as it can use and afford to operate the big stuff.

For the US its about efficiency of what its got. It can get more out of a CVN and more out of a LHD. Both are now better at fixed wing ops than previous versions. Both are more efficient and cheaper to operate. Fuel and engine costs for the LHD are about half what they were. For the CVN its not as clear but there is probably a ~30% (IMO) saving on running costs (crew, plant, sortie).

 

[t68]

Its the aim to save money or increase hulls?

*

I am nether here or their on the matter, just trying to response to John Fedup about the possibility of the USN having a mixed fleet of Fords & QE. I really don't know enough to say if it's better to have the 1x Fords or 2x QE for every CBG, but I guess with the way the USN is doing business going Fords are the logical way forward

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?

 

[NeoIsolationist]

Fords + QE's

The USN can probably build the America class in lieu of something like the QE's, dedicated to the light carrier role. Ford + Americas could work out well IMO.

 

[t68]

The USN can probably build the America class in lieu of something like the QE's, dedicated to the light carrier role. Ford + Americas could work out well IMO.

It you were to split th diffrence would speed be needed as LHA 6 has 22k compared to say Izumho with 30>k as a main stream carrier

 

[Ranger25]

The USN can probably build the America class in lieu of something like the QE's, dedicated to the light carrier role. Ford + Americas could work out well IMO.

The USN is kind of pursuit this now with a planned build of 10 Fords and 11 America Class.

 

[t68]

The USN is kind of pursuit this now with a planned build of 10 Fords and 11 America Class.

America clas are reverting back to having the well dock only two will be aviation enhanced

 

[t68]

The USN is kind of pursuit this now with a planned build of 10 Fords and 11 America Class.

America clas are reverting back to having the well dock only two will be aviation enhanced

 

[StingrayOZ]

America clas are reverting back to having the well dock only two will be aviation enhanced

But they still have two that purely aviation focused. US really is spoilt for choice when it comes to carriers.

Small - regular LHD with perhaps 6 f-35b
Medium - America class with no dock with 20 odd F-35b.
Large - CVN with 90 aircraft.
Extra large - multiple CVN and amphibs + anything a multinational force could throw in. It is possible for the USN to surge 2 or 3 CVN's in the one location.

With the F-35B being a very viable aircraft, and a huge upgrade on the harrier, its hard to think of a situation they wouldn't have something that would be well suited for the task.

IMO the america's don't replace any CVN capability, they augment and free up the CVN's. I would imagine they are an ideal partner for international missions, particularly ones where the US doesn't want or need to be lead. Or when things are just starting or winding up. Take Libya for example. France, Italy and the UK provided significant air support from nearby bases and from ships. It made little sense to draw a CVN into such a conflict, but the LHD was not really designed for that type of mission.

They don't really need more than 2 aviation focused Americas, one will be available any time they need it, for anything else they just choose between a LHD or a CVN. Spoilt for choice. a 65k t CV would encroach on CVN territory.

 

[barney41]

The Navy is reporting positive results from field testing of it‘s automated SSK hunter. ACTUV intends to be a cost-effective way of dealing with SSKs being acquired in increasing numbers by potentially hostile regimes.


The US Navy's 'ghost hunter' hit the water: Robo-boats set to track down silent enemy submarines for months at a time | Daily Mail Online

The US Navy's 'ghost hunter' hits the water: Robo-boats set to track down silent enemy submarines for months at a time

- Designed to hunt down silent and deadly diesel-electric submarines
- Robot boats will go to sea for us to three months at a time*

...In six weeks of tests along a 35-nautical mile stretch of water off of Mississippi earlier this year, testers at engineering company Leidos and DARPA put the ACTUV's systems through 100 different scenarios.*


The test boat was able to tail a target boat at 1 kilometer's distance, something military bosses say is a major step forward.

'Instead of chasing down these submarines and trying to keep track of them with expensive nuclear powered-submarines, which is the way we do it now, we want to try and build this at significantly reduced cost.*

'It will be able to transit by itself across thousands of kilometers of ocean and it can deploy for months at a time.*

'It can go out, find a diesel-electric submarine and just ping on it,' said Urban.*

More at the link.

 

[John Fedup]

The Navy is reporting positive results from field testing of it‘s automated SSK hunter. ACTUV intends to be a cost-effective way of dealing with SSKs being acquired in increasing numbers by potentially hostile regimes.


The US Navy's 'ghost hunter' hit the water: Robo-boats set to track down silent enemy submarines for months at a time | Daily Mail Online

The US Navy's 'ghost hunter' hits the water: Robo-boats set to track down silent enemy submarines for months at a time

- Designed to hunt down silent and deadly diesel-electric submarines
- Robot boats will go to sea for us to three months at a time*

...In six weeks of tests along a 35-nautical mile stretch of water off of Mississippi earlier this year, testers at engineering company Leidos and DARPA put the ACTUV's systems through 100 different scenarios.*


The test boat was able to tail a target boat at 1 kilometer's distance, something military bosses say is a major step forward.

'Instead of chasing down these submarines and trying to keep track of them with expensive nuclear powered-submarines, which is the way we do it now, we want to try and build this at significantly reduced cost.*

'It will be able to transit by itself across thousands of kilometers of ocean and it can deploy for months at a time.*

'It can go out, find a diesel-electric submarine and just ping on it,' said Urban.*

More at the link.

When does this vessel get some weapons? Just pinging will require another asset to support and deal with the detected threat.

 

[swerve]

But they still have two that purely aviation focused..

They're not purely aviation focused. They carry a substantial force of marines, & equipment for them including vehicles. The largest part of her aviation component will normally be devoted to transporting those marines & their equipment ashore.

 

[barney41]

deleted.

 

[barney41]

When does this vessel get some weapons? Just pinging will require another asset to support and deal with the detected threat.

No talk of weapons at his time AFAIK. The intent seems to be to unnerve sub crews by stripping away their stealth, highlighting their vulnerability. Imagine having an ACTUV pinging away at you 24 x 7..LOL..may as well put back to port with their tail tucked between their legs. Maybe it would be considered too provocative to have ACTUV armed lest the quarry panic and do something rash?
I‘d expect a surface or airborne asset to be available to deliver an ASW torpedo if warranted.

 

[t68]

They're not purely aviation focused. They carry a substantial force of marines, & equipment for them including vehicles. The largest part of her aviation component will normally be devoted to transporting those marines & their equipment ashore.

Correct, The ship was primarily built for increased aviation to support the concept of Ship to Objective Maneuver via Vertical Envelopment as its primary means, she was designed with no well deck and has no on-board parking area for vehicles those decked which were resevered for vehicles armour and plant equipment in the WASP class has given way for expanded hanger facilty and extra fuel storage to support the USMC Aviation Combat Element.

Depending on the mission at hand the flight 0 America class will swing between a SCS and Vertical Amphiboius Assault ship

 

[StingrayOZ]

They're not purely aviation focused. They carry a substantial force of marines, & equipment for them including vehicles. The largest part of her aviation component will normally be devoted to transporting those marines & their equipment ashore.

Well, aviation focused amphibious operations, poor choice of words. I didn't mean to imply that they were just there to push F-35bs. I would think these ships would be key for operations focusing on V-22 and future lift aircraft. I would imagine something like the QTR tiltrotor would be a challenge to operate off the regular LHD's and even the Marines Heavy Lift Replacement would no doubt present challenges. Can't imagine anything that is going to double the lift of the Ch-53e would be light on the fuel...

Which is why the USN wasn't really worried, its not replacing its CVNs.

 

[Ranger25]

No talk of weapons at his time AFAIK. The intent seems to be to unnerve sub crews by stripping away their stealth, highlighting their vulnerability. Imagine having an ACTUV pinging away at you 24 x 7..LOL..may as well put back to port with their tail tucked between their legs. Maybe it would be considered too provocative to have ACTUV armed lest the quarry panic and do something rash?
I‘d expect a surface or airborne asset to be available to deliver an ASW torpedo if warranted.

I would think it would have Optional arms built into the design. What about self defense from Air/submarine attack. In wartime I don't see anything from stopping the "nervous" SSK crew from striking the ACTUV that's tailing it

 

[barney41]

I would think it would have Optional arms built into the design. What about self defense from Air/submarine attack. In wartime I don't see anything from stopping the "nervous" SSK crew from striking the ACTUV that's tailing it

KISS principle applies, at least for now. IMO avoid mission creep and accompanying bells and whistles. I look at this as a mobile networked sensor, a great force multiplier but not a surface combatant. It will be plugged real-time into the network and any hostile action against it reaps the whirlwind many time over.