Study Proposes Light Aircraft Carriers for the Future Fleet
-
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1873
- Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
- Location: Australia
weasel1962 wrote:Crap comments come when people don't understand what the USN is looking at. I'd rather read to keep up. Its not just LHD/LHA hullforms proposed and is certainly not an LHA/LHD replacement.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... er-studies
What I would say is the USN aren't made up of dumb tw*ts who don't know that LHD/LHAs are not as good as the CVNs or that they don't know the role of a LHD/LHA. I would also assume that they have the same concerns that any replacement would be a downgrade from the CVNs. Yet they, not Congress, are the ones doing this study....
What maybe be a problem is the lack of escorts, support ships and subs available for having more small F-35B carriers in more locations, more often. Probably the biggest ace in the hole is having Allies doing it as well.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
- Elite 3K
- Posts: 3070
- Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
- Location: Singapore
That's a mindset change. Back in ww2, the CVEs were themselves escort ships. They didn't need escort ships to escort the escort ships. The CVLs were intended to keep up with the CVs and thus benefit from the existing CVBG escorts.
Its a good question what kind of escorts a CVL would require. If it follows the traditional role, pairing with CVNs, then no real expansion in escorts required since they operate as part of existing CVBGs.
Bearing in mind that the new frigates may be more effective from an AAW/ASW perspective (compared to the LCS), it does already expand the number of escorts available for lighter opposition scenarios. A CVL is not going to fight the same way as a CVN and thus may not potentially face the same kinds of large scale anti CVBG assets, if deployed on its own.
Also, if one looks at the 30 shipbuilding doc, they're not cutting large combatants even though the number of CVNs may go down (and the CVLs go up).
The driver for this appears to be distributed operations as opposed to concentrated CVN firepower. Personally, like many others here, I'm not sold on this yet wrt carrier ops. I think for many of us, many of these ideas have come and gone over the past years. I won't bank on this happening until I actually see this appear in the budgets.
Its a good question what kind of escorts a CVL would require. If it follows the traditional role, pairing with CVNs, then no real expansion in escorts required since they operate as part of existing CVBGs.
Bearing in mind that the new frigates may be more effective from an AAW/ASW perspective (compared to the LCS), it does already expand the number of escorts available for lighter opposition scenarios. A CVL is not going to fight the same way as a CVN and thus may not potentially face the same kinds of large scale anti CVBG assets, if deployed on its own.
Also, if one looks at the 30 shipbuilding doc, they're not cutting large combatants even though the number of CVNs may go down (and the CVLs go up).
The driver for this appears to be distributed operations as opposed to concentrated CVN firepower. Personally, like many others here, I'm not sold on this yet wrt carrier ops. I think for many of us, many of these ideas have come and gone over the past years. I won't bank on this happening until I actually see this appear in the budgets.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests