It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Design & Preparations Continue for the USA's New CVN-21 Super-Carrier

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 03:16 PM

Originally posted by Harlequin
Just like they said the F-35a is a go and squadrons are to be in service to replace the F-16`s

and now its dead to pay for more raptors.

The F-35A isn't "dead" they only are temporarily delaying delivery so that they can get more Raptors. The Navy, Marine, and export versions are going ahead as planned.

Souljah, the oldest supercarriers were built in the 50s and 60s. USS Enterprise commisioned in 1961, and USS Nimitz in 1975. With the time it takes to build a carrier, and the age of the current fleet, we need to start replacing them now, otherwise we will end up with a gap when there are only a few carriers, or none at all while we're building the new ones. As the CVN-21s come online, the older Nimitz class ships will be retired.

[edit on 11/26/2005 by Zaphod58]

posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 06:42 PM
The lifespan of a carrier is pretty long. During a carrier lifespan many changes in equipment take place and often necessitate the replacement of this equipment with newer updates during routine maintnance or overhauls which happens on schedules preset before the ship is originally delivered to the Navy.
During the lifespan of carriers..or any ship for that matter...the ships are often just worn out. They are definitely not sailor proof. I saw the USS Eisenhower , a newer carrier, come in for heavy overhaul. It was in places more worn out than the USS Nimitz which is a older ship of the series. The Nimitz was obviously better maintained while out to sea. By this I mean worn out ..the decks and deck frames were atcually worn out ..rusted through and sagging in places. I was astonished. The USS Kennedy is just plain worn out . Same with a older ship like the Kitty Hawk. Eventuall it just costs to much money to keep them going verses retiring them. The USS Enterprise is a classic example of this very phenomonon. It too is just plain worn out. There is a huge lead time in planning a schedule for building a large complex ship of this type. Planning and scheduling takes place for years before the first piece of steel is laid out.
When you consider the number of carriers in the fleet ..the oldest and being worn out daily...verses the newest to join the fleet. There is at any time two carriers in for scheduled maintenance. At least one in for heavy overhaul and or refueling of the reactors. Light maintnence occuring on at least another one or are actually covering your obligations with about 5 carriers on the ready line.
With one carrier about to retire at any time must be building a carrier at all times to meet your present and future obligations.
The Germans in WW2 learned this lesson too..they were doing all that damage in the North Atlantic with less than 20 to 25 submarines available at anyone time out of the hundreds built. It was just a huge undertaking to keep them on line and ready at anytime.
Keeping a carrier fleet its escort vessels on line and ready takes the whole economy of a nation..any nation. This is a concept that most people with the shopping mall or despirate housewives/football sports mentality never think about. It becomes obvoious by many of the posts one reads.

Thanks Zaphod for your post.

posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 05:50 AM
Orangetom you are right about the problems with CAD in design. Too often how the operators and sevicers will use something is considered as an afterthought. This is a failing within the current design processes. Work is continuing on trying to remove such faults as early as possible and most large ships are designed in 3d software which allows walk-throughs so a designer can see the new vessel from an operators point of view. They still happen though in all navies. I have seen some real corkers in my time, from emergency valves being 10ft in the air to an emergency walkway on an oil rig going over a deck hatch (just imagine following the walkway lights in a corridor filled with smoke, only to find a 8ft wide open hatch in the floor blocking your route!). Design is a human process and therefore is never perfect but we try our best!

posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 05:53 AM
One oif the things Boeing did with the 777, which was pure genius, was to have three teams working on the design. One team of flight attendants, and cabin crew working on the cabin. One team of flight crew, working on the cockpit, although there wasn't much to do there. And the third team was maintenance personnel working on the general plane. The design team would come up with something, and take it to the maintenance guys and say "Does this work?" and the maintenance guys would look it over, and make suggestions as to what needed to be changed, or if they liked it. Pure genius, and it's one reason that the 777 is going to be such a great plane. I'd like to see more design teams doing this, in all aspects.

posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 06:48 AM
anybody who designs any peice of technology and does not get inpt from the users and maintainers is a BAD designer. Why this still happens i have no idea. It is one of the first lessons taught to a designer!

posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 12:09 AM
Thanks for your posts Gentlemen,

Paperplane its good to see you again as it has been awhile. Yes I agree about the CAD system They managed to get alot of complex piping in a very small place on this boat but obviously left out the concept that someone has to get in there and fix it if it leaks or fails for some reason. It was difficlut enough on the older LA designs. I have myself modified many a tool to get a particular job accomplished. Hopefully process of time much of this will be ironed out.

Yes Zaphod..I agree ..input from all people involved in a job would be wonderful. A huge balancing/juggling act to be sure but it would pay dividends in the long run. A user friendly design..all the users..what a novelty.

Thank you Gentlemen,

posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 05:42 PM
Ch1466, what do you think is an effective manner to retain our power projection, naval superiority, and budget since the new CV project "is a joke"?

Look up SWATH (Small Waterplane Area Twin Hull) and STAC (Stealth Trimaran Aircraft Carrier) and then REREAD my post.

I basically told you what the superior hull design is. Even as I outlined what a commercial diesel-electric propulsion system would do to provide reduced cost decks in the kinds of numbers to once again have two carriers in every ocean basin without 'gappage'. And without plummeting retention thanks to overlong cruises.

As for the concept that naval superiority is going bye-bye, the question is when it was it ever necessary?

In WWII, the Allies lost some 300,000 men in the Pacific due to a desparate desire to own islands that they would not hold for more than a few months after war's end. Never mind the superiority of mine and submarine action in decisively decapitating Japans naval and merchant marine force, isolating her almost completely. Never mind that if we had retaken Guam or Wake, we could have had the ability to reach the mainland AND forced the traditional 'Warplan Orange' fight which /also/ would have required the Japanese to commit to a fight that they _could not win_ in the mid Pacific (after Midway).

Never mind that the /overwhelming/ number of sorties flown in support of both Vietnam AND Korea were landbased in a mix of tactical and strategic platforms. Never mind that REFORGER was a hoax that would _NEVER_ have worked because 20 knot RORO'ing your boat vs. a threat that outnumbers you on the ground 7:1 with _in theater_ forces and has 60mph rail lines going back 2,500 miles to other TVD military districts is going to force the nuclear ceiling threshold breach regardless (Imagine Desert Storm in a builtup highway network, courtesy of old Adolph).

The same holds true of Desert Storm and the Balkans and all the non-sense over Iraq since. Indeed, the SOLE time the USN 'contributed greatly' to a U.S. warplan was when they did Prarie Fire and Eldorado Canyon and that was only because we refused to use Team 117 and had no Secret Squirrels to avoid the Alpha Strike option altogether (even here it should be noted that most of the USN assets never 'went downtown').

And finally, YOU TELL ME: Where the hell was the USN from 9/11 when WE were 'bombed'. And 10/10 when festivities officially began?

The Sixth Fleet has the Atlantic and the Med. The 5th fleet has the Red Sea, Arabian Gulf and IO. The Seventh Fleet has the Pac and IO overlap. And in the THIRTY DAMN DAYS it took them to get their sh*t in one sock UBL and Co. could and probably /did/ _roller blade_ out of AfG.

Patriotic Duty that arrives too late is _worthless_, even in the 'OOTW' which effectively is what OEF was and OIF remains.

Build more old style carriers? (Cost to service them goes through the roof)

No it doesn't. 'Cost to service' is relative to the USN preference of using ancient maritime technologies rather than converting completely to modern day civil marine systems for ships services. A very large crude carrier gets by with as few as 80 men. Never more than 200. And though they don't have an airwing with all of /it's/ massive inefficiencies; the ability to switch out Blue:Gold styled crews at levels of half a thousand rather than 2,500-3,200 is both a laudable and _achievable_ goal. As soon as you switch from the ludicrously expensive (ask Hanford what the 'next 1,000 years' worth of CVN disposal is going to run U.S.) and COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY.

Because a modern diesel electric/azipod system can get you a sustained cruise of 17-19 knots over 6-9,000 miles ('there and back again' for a container ship transiting the Pacific between slave labour in the Far East and Consumers in the USA). And you don't NEED thirty knots in an age of satellite overhead (can't escape it). Nor to launch aircraft with WOD requirements in the 20-30 area (the wind blows all the damn time out to sea).

Do nothing? (Kiss naval superiority goodbye.)

The USN is a dated and anachronistic power projector which has an /incredibly/ hard time taking airpower more than about 120 miles inland. The reason is largely to do with inefficient subsonic cruise aircraft and the inability to self-target without the Blue Suit controlled heavy E-jets.

Until they can take the fight 1,000nm inland with at least 10 on-station S-CAPs (Sensor Orbits) WITH bombs onboard, available at least 15hrs out of every day. THEY ARE WORTHLESS.

That said, the basics of COP (Continuous Overhead Presence) in a theater is having decks able to support the activity and in turn airwings large enough to sustain the sortie rates. Decks cannot survive inside 'Littoral Bounds' of white water and as soon as you take them deep blue you have added another 200-400nm to their radius penalty for survival.

I frankly doubt if, even with UCAVs, we have the technology to survive in a Chinese Threat of 2050. Because they will come at us with maneuvering aeroballistics at Mach 8-12. And Supersonic Cruise AShM under 200ft AGL.
And moored CAPTOR type mines. And hunting minisubs using AIP and pack attack kamikaze-supercav technologies. Guided on by ROTHR and Overhead and endurance ASST drones and picket buoys (longline low-F capable) of their own. Targeting will be continuous and the /lag/ between acquisition and fires release will be minutes rather hours if not days.

Which means that ALL THE EFFORT put into making the Air Navy the /only/ Navy will be for nought in a 'real war'.

At the same time, we have YET to prove we have what it takes to fireman-fights-sudden-blaze STOMP on an MRC or SSC/LIC action with less than a fortnight of deliberation. Hell, we can't even do rescue ops in our own waters under a week.

Which means 'you might as well' negotiate for the really capable forces (the ones with all the budget dominance and sensor horizon control) to come in and do the job right, while saving Americans wasted tax dollars.

Learn to read before you criticize my alternative to a nuke-happy navy that isn't THERE to do the job. Then start to THINK about the 20-30 years down the road scenarios where those boats might actually have to FIGHT against an enemy that may well be our match or even superior as a technologic warfighter. And realize that, even with my systems, you may be at a level of /sophisticated intensity/ whereby you are reduced to WWII levels of 'Stalin Was Right' acknowledgment. In that he who wishes to win must be willing (and able) to lose more assets than his enemy can kill. Something which does not, cannot, WILL NOT, /ever/ apply to a big deck force construct.


posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 06:09 PM

Why? Does the US Navy Really NEED a Super-Carrier? Don't they have them 'nuff already?

A very good question. The USN _does not_ need a new super carrier because 'OPP' or Overland Power Projection in the face of a dedicated IADS is largely a thing of the past and Maritime Superiority (the so called 'blue water mission') has /never/ been anything but a phantom.

That said, if the USN was to be humble and accept an SCS or CVE/S capability, combined with a UCAV's ability to loiter for upwards of 10-12hrs without relief at upwards of 1,000nm, they could generate a truly useful ability to put small smart bombs (X8 per jet) and more importantly a 'white tower' sensor mode over each and every foot patrol in AfG which would then have BOTH 'fair warning' of troops moving up to contact in small ambush conditions. AND a '30 seconds or your next one's free' (the average in OIF was 17 minutes) BOTOT.

All within a 20-30 airframe deckload and 20-40K tonnes of displacement.

Move this up to 'super sized' deckloads of 70-100+ jets (something that the existing CVN fleet could easily do at a much reduced deployment load, for the next 50 years) and you have a /limited/ ability to support the USAF in strike warfare in an MTW/MRC type conflict (OIF).


posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 06:59 AM

Originally posted by ch1466
A very large crude carrier gets by with as few as 80 men. Never more than 200.

Your kidding right!!! a modern VLCC never has more than about 30 people aboard and some have been designed to work with a crew as low as 12. Where did you get those numbers from?

posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 01:06 PM
Correct on the manning. The US Navy is behind the curve on manning when it comes to its combat ships. They are trying to come up to speed but are still far behind the curve. Automated systems are not as fast catching on as are so with the commercial end. You do have this alot on submarines because there is limited crew space. There are of course combat considerations involved in this line of thinking concerning manning.
There were some VLCC ships built here along with some LNG carriers years back. When reading the specs I was surprised at how few crew members manned these ships compared to US Navy ships.

Another intresting sidelight to learn about was the Cruise Ship buisness and manning. Yearly here there is a influx of Cruise Ships which come in for maintnence prior to the Thanksgiving/Christmas cruise period. I worked on this evolution for a couple of years before I really thought about what I was seeing with my own eyes. There are alot of foreigners ..mostly orientals working in the below deck or engine room spaces on these ships. I realized that most of them know very little about how the ship actually works. They are directed in their labors by a engineer to do this or that ..remove this or that ..but the whole concept of how it works they dont know. I surmised it must be pretty much the same in the non engine room areas..below decks. The service trades so to speak.
This awareness convinced me that I never want to go on a ocean liner cruise ..ever. This was confirmed for me about 7 years back when a newly constructed oceanliner caught fire in a stern paint storage room. There seemed to be some confusion among the crew as to actually what their jobs and responsiblitys actually were in an emergency situation..some of them were panic stricken and confused.
By the way ..this ship was repaired here at Newport News Shipbuilding.
Nevertheless..this awareness confirmed for me that I am not intrested in a ocean liner matter how automated the systems are. Ive seen a number of new ocean liners come in to this yard for repairs since then but none of them convinced me to cruise with them.


posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 06:39 PM
Obviously the USN does not agree with Ch1466 because they are in fact proceeding with design and preparing for construction. It is good that we finally are producing a new wave of naval projection vessels to cover the upcoming gap when the 50/60's vessels are due to end their service lives.

You can argue a carrier taskforce is an excellent target and its a waste of money and time, but so is a tank platoon if you look at it this way, or a squadron of bombers, or even a company of infantrymen. Lets just build small robots to do everything.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in