Forum: Air Power

There's a lot a talk out there about how the USN is going to have trouble paying for its lofty goals in ship-building (and that was before sequestration); and one has to ask why so much of the ship-building budget has to be tied up in a CVN project that isn't needed.

Let's assume that Congress and the USN decide to keep the current force of 11 supercarriers (which I think is unnecessary). Each CVN is designed to last around 50 years, and could probably be pushed further. Why then, is the new JFK being built for service in 2018 when the NIMITZ isn't due for retirement until 2025 at the earliest? Does it not make sense to take a 10-15 year break after the FORD is finished? After all, that's time and money that could be spent on SSN, DDG, and SSBN recapitalization. They might even be able to turn the LCS into something more than an overpriced car-ferry.

If we forgo the ROCH on 2-3 carriers and retire them instead, that's even more money to save and would also reduce the number of new ships required in total (fewer battle groups), saving even more money.

Now, HII says that the capacity to build CVNs (and jobs) will be lost if we don't keep churning them out every 5 years, but I fail to see how that could really be the case. In fact, one can see HII having just as much work (if not more) to do without the constant strain of CVN construction on the USN's books.

Of course, I'm not a Navy man (my father was), so I don't really know what level of airpower the USN sees as necessary; but it seems like SSNs and DDGs do most of the grunt work while our main nuclear deterrent rests in SSBNs. That's why I tend to see these less glamorous platforms as more important than an 11 ship carrier fleet.

F-16.net Sponsor

Yes each CVN is designed for a 50 year service life, but much past that the opperating cost start to grow exponentially. Enterprise is a perfect example. I know its of a different class of ships but it will do for this. Four reactors that over time arn't really the most reliable things anymore and all the mechanics are virtually worn out. Now the decommissioning costs are 750 to 900 million for a CVN and will probably grow as the ships get older.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... scn-cv.htm

Delaying the building of the second Ford class carrier isn't an option either. With the average time of around 8 years, when the keel is laid to the start of its first deployment, your looking at the CVN 78s age of 18 to 23 years when CVN 79 would come online. By then you will be down to 8 or so active CVNs. With 2 always in mid life refueling that puts 6 at any one time deployable. Under current deployment rates around 3 would always be deployed making only 3 able to be surged. Under current world conditions and the demands wanted by the President and the Military leaders 3 spare carriers wouldnt be enough. Especially when the first question is where are the aircraft carriers. 8 deployable would realistically be the lowest in service the USN should go IMO. Even with just 60 fixed wing fighters each carrier is a very formidable force.

I do agree that there are some places where the Navy can cut alot of spending though. Same goes with all the branchs.

Damn! I've used up my free quota of articles on that sight for the month. Can you paste it in? In any case, I gather that you favor dropping one carrier from the fleet, but you didn't mention exactly where you would cut naval spending to pay for the SSNs, DDGs and SSBNs that will be needed fairly soon. I'd say to cut some Army programs, but every major new system they've tried to develop in the past 20 years has already been canceled.

Considering the USN has the cream of the crop in navies perhaps they should wait for the actual need to arise before building the next generation of ships into the budget.

madrat wrote:

Considering the USN has the cream of the crop in navies perhaps they should wait for the actual need to arise before building the next generation of ships into the budget.

It's not just a matter of buying the new hottness. There'a a serious fleetwide problem with maintenance that's been in the news lately, and ship-building has fallen off badly even as ever increasing numbers of cold war ships/subs are retired (often ahead of schedule) in an attempt to free up cash for new types that keep getting canceled or are not being produced fast enough.

1st503rdsgt wrote:

Damn! I've used up my free quota of articles on that sight for the month. Can you paste it in? In any case, I gather that you favor dropping one carrier from the fleet, but you didn't mention exactly where you would cut naval spending to pay for the SSNs, DDGs and SSBNs that will be needed fairly soon. I'd say to cut some Army programs, but every major new system they've tried to develop in the past 20 years has already been canceled.

I actually think we should cut 3 carriers and go down to 8, but with the current requirement to park one off of just about every 3rd world country right now the fleet acutally needs to be bigger.

If it was my choice I would cut all the baby flat tops, cut the F-35B and Harrier then make the Marines operate the C model. Retire all the remaining C-D hornets for E-Fs in both Navy and Marine fleets. Legacy hornets use up about 3 or 4 times the maintence hours and 3-4 times the parts(my experiance from working on both airframes). Retire the H-60B which is near the end of its service life anyways in favor for the R or S model. Cut down to 30 attack submarines from 53, 40 destroyers from 59, 5 amphibious assult ships form 9, 10 ballistic missle subs from 14, 5 mine countermeasure ships frome 14. That would make 59 fewer ships plus manning.

I would agree with slowing down carrier acquisition by adding around 2 more years to the current process making a 10 year time frame from start to finish.

Since the USN is the best and largest of all navies by a huge margin, is there really any need to maintain such a big fleet? I don't think so but its my opinion. Should the USN strive to maintain its place as the dominate navy in the world. Yes without any doubt.

Wow, that's pretty drastic. I somewhat agree on your cuts to the CVN/LH fleet, but I'm not so sure about the rest. The F-35B gives allies a front-line fighter that their little STOVL carriers can handle, perhaps easing our future security burdens; and it gives us more options in the future application of naval airpower as well. China's capability against subs is rather limited, so that's the one area where we shouldn't be cutting as it may soon be our only advantage. With the CGs retiring soon, we're also probably gonna need all the DDGs we can get. As for the SSBN(X), 12 is the bare minimum for deterrence because we have a few more things to worry about than the French or British. Still, your idea would probably get us by if it comes down to the US handing world security over to someone else.

That would be worst case scenario. Cutting the F-35B would only be for our Marines. If another country wants to operate it they can fund 100% of it and buy it. The STOVL capibility just seem like a waist to me. How many times was a Harrier operated from a unimproved field for any amount of time that would justify the costs. It hasnt been for a while and with air refueling why would you even take a chance of somthing happening to the a/c. I am not really worried about China's one carrier. The smaller surface ships arn't really my cup of tea and i was just taking a hack and your right it probably was to big. But what other navy in the world could come close to challenging the USN even after those huge cuts were made?

The navy's maintenance issues are from neglect, not from inherent design flaws. You can't run a sportscar at full bore for long without regularly changing the oil.

navy_airframer wrote:

But what other navy in the world could come close to challenging the USN even after those huge cuts were made?

No one in their right mind would challenge a superior opponent to a straight up fight. Other forces don't need to beat the USN as much as they need to make sure it does not get involved in their affairs and therefore is reduced in effectiveness, but not necessarily defeated. This is a more cost conscious approach and an overall easier capacity to develop and field than building the world's next best Navy.

Last edited by LinkF16SimDude on Dec 08, 2011 - 06:05 PM; edited 1 time in total

I still say we should've named the new class after legacy carriers, starting with America. Then Yorktown, Hornet, Saratoga, Ranger, etc. If they wanna name one after a Prez later on, fine. But let's show a little respect for our fore bearers.

On Topic

I'd contemplate a 6+4 carrier fleet doctrine as a means to cut operational costs while preserving maximal capability and deterrence. Build the 2 Ford CVN, then cancel program. Cherry pick the 4 best existing nukes to maintain beyond 2020 as part of the 6 CVN fleet. Add 4 QE Class carriers starting delivery in 2020 @ 1 per year to replace final 2 CVN (of an 8-ship fleet) by 2025. This mix of 6-4 should be cheaper to operate by 2030 than 8 CVN. Could name the 4 QE per LinkF16's suggestion.

Perhaps supplement with 3-4x of the following by 2025 for UCAV and other alternative ops...

3-container ship long x 2-ship wide floating airbase (roughly 1000m in length x 150m relocatable air-strip at sea).

Wait, why would we want to buy 4 QE carriers? Can't we just make more Ford CVNs to maintain the carrier building capabilities of the united states?

tacf-x wrote:

Wait, why would we want to buy 4 QE carriers? Can't we just make more Ford CVNs to maintain the carrier building capabilities of the united states?

^^^^^This!^^^^^ Importing carriers would be a terrible idea, as would going to conventional powered carriers. We'd hurt our industrial base, and get less capable ships in the process.

Forum: Air Power

Canceling/Delaying CVN-79 JFK