Should US Market New Sea Control Ship? ( Carrier)

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 03 Mar 2014, 08:18

The F-35B could open up a "Brand New World" in many countries to Naval Aviation. Yet, the only thing holding it back is a economical platform. (i.e. Small Carrier) So, should US Government and Industry market a simple, reliable, and efficient Light Aircraft Carrier. Which, could be produced at a reasonable price. Yet, would be large enough to operate F-35B's.

My thought would be an enlarged Sea Control Ship Design. (Carrier) Which, the Spanish "Príncipe de Asturias" was based on. Of course it would have to be larger to accommodate the F-35B. My guess something at ~25,000 tons.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 03 Mar 2014, 09:06

Which countries will be the new F-35B/suitable flat deck customers which don't already have an F-35B suitable flat deck?

Which new countries can afford these extra ships/aircraft?

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 03 Mar 2014, 16:54

Hell. No. Because the first thing that will happen is US politicians, braintrusts that they are, will demand we replace CVNs with "more affordable" SCSs. :doh:

gtx · by **gtx** » 04 Mar 2014, 00:54

I would love to see something akin to these concepts:

Not necessarily practical, but fun!

count_to_10 · by **count_to_10** » 04 Mar 2014, 02:29

The LCS are more or less the new Sea Control Ships. They aren't really a big threat to a combined force, but they do control the sea by limiting the movements of individual craft.

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 04 Mar 2014, 03:47

Whilst LCS exercise sea control, the context definition of the SCS really are small aircraft carriers per what Adm Zumwalt had defined. The 1990 analysis in the link below imho still applies and indeed is more relevant in the context of budget pressures.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a227420.pdf

Interesting to note that the SCS design was sold to spain for their Principe De Asturias class. Today, any such US design would face significant competition e.g. Navantia, DCN even the ROK and JPN entities. Whilst the US would not allow the F-35B to operate from a Chinese-LHD, the chinese 081 & STOVL fighters are being developed. The Far East shipyards have lower costs due to economies of scale and wage costs advantages.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 04 Mar 2014, 04:02

spazsinbad wrote:Which countries will be the new F-35B/suitable flat deck customers which don't already have an F-35B suitable flat deck?

Which new countries can afford these extra ships/aircraft?

Oh, I can think of a number of countries. With Brazil, Japan, South Korea, and Australia coming to mind first..........

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 04 Mar 2014, 04:05

sferrin wrote:Hell. No. Because the first thing that will happen is US politicians, braintrusts that they are, will demand we replace CVNs with "more affordable" SCSs.

Well, the USN is in trouble then as they already plan to equip Amphibious Assault Ships with F-35B's. :doh:

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 04 Mar 2014, 04:08

weasel1962 wrote:Whilst LCS exercise sea control, the context definition of the SCS really are small aircraft carriers per what Adm Zumwalt had defined. The 1990 analysis in the link below imho still applies and indeed is more relevant in the context of budget pressures.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a227420.pdf

Interesting to note that the SCS design was sold to spain for their Principe De Asturias class. Today, any such US design would face significant competition e.g. Navantia, DCN even the ROK and JPN entities. Whilst the US would not allow the F-35B to operate from a Chinese-LHD, the chinese 081 & STOVL fighters are being developed. The Far East shipyards have lower costs due to economies of scale and wage costs advantages.

I was thinking a US Designed Sea Control Ship produced by say Hyundai in South Korea could be economical solution. With the latter possibly being the first customer. Especially, considering it is already planning on purchasing F-35's.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 04 Mar 2014, 04:10

So that is it? Brazil. Which country does not want to buy anything American last I heard. If anything with Gripens soon they will go with a Sea Gripen on a new conventional carrier in the far future - if they have the money.

We posted at same time. Second question why does Hyundai have to build a US designed ship? The South Koreans are probably the best conventional ship builders these days (perhaps not warships) so why would they want a US design? Sketches are easy on a computer. Getting the money to build ships and buy aircraft - not so much.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 04 Mar 2014, 04:25

gtx wrote:I would love to see something akin to these concepts:

Not necessarily practical, but fun!

I don't know looks like such a design would have a lot of room for vehicles on the lower level and possible a big hanger above for aircraft. So, it could a very versatile design..........Of course in the context of an Amphibious Carrier. (i.e. LHA)

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 04 Mar 2014, 10:54

Corsair1963 wrote:I was thinking a US Designed Sea Control Ship produced by say Hyundai in South Korea could be economical solution. With the latter possibly being the first customer. Especially, considering it is already planning on purchasing F-35's.

Hyundai (Korea) already have their own designs and won't need a US design. LM will probably provide access to enable an indigeneous design to be F-35B capable if needed. Also, just design cost won't yield much profits. The bulk of the profits will be in construction and US shipbuilders will be up in arms if the US Government markets a design for construction in Korea. Australia won't need one since they already bought 2 canberras based on the Juan Carlos design. Brazil can't afford one. Japan also has their own designs (Hyuga DDHs) and their constitution actually prevents CVs in their fleets.

Interesting to note per the link was that the original SCS proposal was sunk for the reasons sferrin mentioned i.e. that USN feared CVN numbers reduction as a result. The America class is still technically an amph replacement with a secondary SCS role.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 05 Mar 2014, 04:39

spazsinbad wrote:So that is it? Brazil. Which country does not want to buy anything American last I heard. If anything with Gripens soon they will go with a Sea Gripen on a new conventional carrier in the far future - if they have the money.

We posted at same time. Second question why does Hyundai have to build a US designed ship? The South Koreans are probably the best conventional ship builders these days (perhaps not warships) so why would they want a US design? Sketches are easy on a computer. Getting the money to build ships and buy aircraft - not so much.

Clearly, Brazil is not happy with the US over the NSA Scandal and some believe that is one of the reasons the Super Hornet lost out in the Brazilian Fighter contract to the SAAB Gripen. Nonetheless, any new Aircraft Carrier is sometime off and things will naturally cool down with time. Also, just because Brazil selected the Gripen NG. Doesn't mean they will follow with the expense of developing a Naval Version of the aforementioned aircraft.

As for Hyundai building a US Designed SCS. My point is the US has far more expertise in Naval Designs. While, South Korea (Hyundai) can produce ships cheaper and quicker than any US Yard. Which, is not to say either county couldn't design and produce a SCS on there own. Just speculations on possible options.......

Honestly, the whole point of the thread is to foster discussion and throw around ideas and see what mite stick......

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 05 Mar 2014, 04:45

weasel1962 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:I was thinking a US Designed Sea Control Ship produced by say Hyundai in South Korea could be economical solution. With the latter possibly being the first customer. Especially, considering it is already planning on purchasing F-35's.

Hyundai (Korea) already have their own designs and won't need a US design. LM will probably provide access to enable an indigeneous design to be F-35B capable if needed. Also, just design cost won't yield much profits. The bulk of the profits will be in construction and US shipbuilders will be up in arms if the US Government markets a design for construction in Korea. Australia won't need one since they already bought 2 canberras based on the Juan Carlos design. Brazil can't afford one. Japan also has their own designs (Hyuga DDHs) and their constitution actually prevents CVs in their fleets.

Interesting to note per the link was that the original SCS proposal was sunk for the reasons sferrin mentioned i.e. that USN feared CVN numbers reduction as a result. The America class is still technically an amph replacement with a secondary SCS role.

I am sure Hyundai would be happy to produce any proposed SCS Design. Again it doesn't mean they couldn't produce it themselves.

Honestly, I would prefer the US produce such a type. Yet, the best solution for the market would likely be a wholly South Korean Effort. As while the don't have as much experience as the US in Warship Design. They are nearly as capable and would be extremely competitive in price.....

In addition such a SCS would be ideal for the South Korean Navy and could win a number of export orders if produced. (like the BPE)

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 05 Mar 2014, 04:52

So now you are saying that South Korean and not the US should produce such a flat deck? Again who is going to buy it and why? Countries contemplating F-35Bs have flat decks - with some unlikely exceptions such as Singapore. Is that it?