The Ship Model Forum

[quote="MAJOR-B"]Yes your point about cost is valid. However, since both ships have been scrapped in the real world. What replacement do you suggest. As far I know no CV is mothballed at present time. My best suggestion would be the midway. It would need to have a major overhaul to include updating the engineering plants, support systems and electronics. She can handle AEW, ASW and Air support mission. As you stated the air wing states the function of the carrier. So how big is your air wing 40-70 planes vs the 90+ on a CVN.[/quote]

I advocate a slightly larger CVA sized, conventionally fueled carrier.

According to Norman Freidman, CVA-67 was designed around an air wing:
14x F-4 (or TFX/F-14)
24x A-4
12x A-6
9x A-3/A-5
6x E-2
3x RF-8

Note that those 9 A-3/A-5 represent 18-20 "normal aircraft" deck spots; the total wing could be about 80 aircraft.

..

Actually both Kitty Hawk & JFK have not been scrapped. They are both still in reserve, KH in Bremerton & JFK in Philadelphia. And CV-62 is also in reserve in Bremerton as well. Both KH & JFK are up for becoming donated to used as museum ships. The last I read KH will stay in reserve until the new USS Ford CVN-78 is commissioned in late 2016. If funds have not been raised by the groups trying to turn her into a museum by then, KH will be towed to TX to be scrapped. CV-62 is also scheduled to be scrapped late in 2016. Not sure of the status for JFK for a deadline on to have funds raised to be a museum...

As for the $13 billion to build a carrier. With the new Ford Class. The USS Ford CVN-78 will cost around that. And CVN-78 being the first of the class, construction cost are high. But, with lessons learned from her construction, CVN-79 & CVN-80 will have lower construction costs due to more efficient techniques and etc... Not sure how much savings will come from those lessons, but 79 & 80 are to cost less...

Thomas

Yes your point about cost is valid. However, since both ships have been scrapped in the real world. What replacement do you suggest. As far I know no CV is mothballed at present time. My best suggestion would be the midway. It would need to have a major overhaul to include updating the engineering plants, support systems and electronics. She can handle AEW, ASW and Air support mission. As you stated the air wing states the function of the carrier. So how big is your air wing 40-70 planes vs the 90+ on a CVN.

[quote="MAJOR-B"]Good day,
I appear to be lost in this thread. You start of taking about returning to duty a non nuclear CV. Then it focus on I guess would be ships that would serve on support duty for the CV. I really think that a midsized CV could be very useful. However, you have all the current experts stating that a CV must be nuclear for range. However, they seem to forget that air craft need fuel just like ships. An no matter how you design a CV you limited storage area for JP-5. So do you need a carrier the size of kitty hawk or JFK. What about using the LHA America hull with a plug and angle deck verse an axial deck What you think?[/quote]

Carriers are all about the air wing, everything follows from that.

The CVAs were proven ships able to operate AEW aircraft (E-2s), strategic heavy attack aircraft (A-3s and A-5s), EW aircraft, reconnaissance aircraft, and ASW aircraft like S-3s; it is altogether unclear that LHA America, designed around hauling vehicles and USMC cargo, will approach anything like the efficiency or effectiveness of a Forrestal or Kitty hawk.

Moreover, it seems that LHA America will cost 50-75% of what a modern (non-nuclear) CVA will cost.

I am not impressed by 2-3 squadrons of F-35s with no AEW, no EW, and other critical aircraft.

Also never mentioned in this debates is the lack of escorts to support these smaller carriers. The escort requirement is not dependent upon the size of CV - in fact, the WWII USN found it necessary to operate 3-4 CVs in a task force to provide proper screening. This concern also argues for a larger carrier.

My concern is value for the money: I do no believe that a reworked LHA is the right answer, at $13 billion, the CVN is pricing itself out of business, and to my eyes, a $6-7 billion 21st century JFK looks to be the sweet spot.

GAB

Good day,
I appear to be lost in this thread. You start of taking about returning to duty a non nuclear CV. Then it focus on I guess would be ships that would serve on support duty for the CV. I really think that a midsized CV could be very useful. However, you have all the current experts stating that a CV must be nuclear for range. However, they seem to forget that air craft need fuel just like ships. An no matter how you design a CV you limited storage area for JP-5. So do you need a carrier the size of kitty hawk or JFK. What about using the LHA America hull with a plug and angle deck verse an axial deck What you think?

[quote="Guest"]My personal preference would be centreline Macks...[/quote]Me, too!

[quote="Guest"]with the Harpoons mounted as on the CG-47's i.e. eight (8) missiles on the stern with a cluster of four pointed on each beam. This would maximize the positions available for SLQ-32, Outboard, Phalanx (up to four, I think), and other stuff. Given the size of the ship, I think a total of sixteen (16) Harpoons is entirely reasonable (need to find a spot for the other eight). I think the Tomahawks would be in some of the Mk 41 VLS cells (eight forward, eight aft as the minimum fit.).[/quote]I would cluster the Harpoons together like on the Iowas instead of trying to jam some aft. Instead, I would utilize the aft helo hangar for 2 HH-60 helos.

[quote="Guest"]I think this needs some drawing work to see what would work out best, perhaps what would look best (there is something to be said for the saying "if it looks right, it is right!").[/quote]I did up several shipbucket drawings with 2 Mk71 8"/60, 3 61-cell Mk41, 16 Harpoon, and an Mk74 NTU FCS. However, the unsolicited update to Windows 8 crashed my hard drive and lost everything :mad_1: :mad_2:

So, my question to you is, when I make a model of this ship, should I make it as an early 1990 version or 10 years later in the 2000s?

[quote="Guest"]I think I'll try to rough something out, post it and see what you think.[/quote]I look forward to it, mate!

[quote="navydavesof"][quote="Guest"]Thanks. I wonder which CGN superstructure was referred to? CGN-36 (California) and CGN-38 (Virginia) are the candidates that come to mind given the inferred time period as I see it (Mid to Late 1980's).

M. A. Rozon[/quote]Rozon,

Good question! I didn't ask. Perhaps it would be safe to assume Virginia, since they were deactivated at NNSY, where that NAVSEA base is. Of course, then it's a question where the stacks would have gone and what they would have looked like.

Center lined stacks like their former configurations or off set like the Sprucans? Stacks and masts or MACKs? Where would you put the Harpoons?

What do you think, Rozon?[/quote]

My personal preference would be centreline Macks with the Harpoons mounted as on the CG-47's i.e. eight (8) missiles on the stern with a cluster of four pointed on each beam. This would maximize the positions available for SLQ-32, Outboard, Phalanx (up to four, I think), and other stuff. Given the size of the ship, I think a total of sixteen (16) Harpoons is entirely reasonable (need to find a spot for the other eight). I think the Tomahawks would be in some of the Mk 41 VLS cells (eight forward, eight aft as the minimum fit.).

I think this needs some drawing work to see what would work out best, perhaps what would look best (there is something to be said for the saying "if it looks right, it is right!").

I think I'll try to rough something out, post it and see what you think.

Regards.

M. A. Rozon

Bigger Guns, MORE POWER!

[quote="Guest"]Thanks. I wonder which CGN superstructure was referred to? CGN-36 (California) and CGN-38 (Virginia) are the candidates that come to mind given the inferred time period as I see it (Mid to Late 1980's).

M. A. Rozon[/quote]Rozon,

Good question! I didn't ask. Perhaps it would be safe to assume Virginia, since they were deactivated at NNSY, where that NAVSEA base is. Of course, then it's a question where the stacks would have gone and what they would have looked like.

Center lined stacks like their former configurations or off set like the Sprucans? Stacks and masts or MACKs? Where would you put the Harpoons?

What do you think, Rozon?

[quote="navydavesof"][quote="Guest"]This caught my eye for "what if's" and "might have beens". Is it possible to get more information and sources? During what time period was this considered?

Thanks in Advance.

M. A. Rozon

Bigger Guns, MORE POWER![/quote]Nope, no more info. I learned this talking with NAVSEA engineers in 2006. However, it's a good start![/quote]


Thanks. I wonder which CGN superstructure was referred to? CGN-36 (California) and CGN-38 (Virginia) are the candidates that come to mind given the inferred time period as I see it (Mid to Late 1980's).

M. A. Rozon

Bigger Guns, MORE POWER!

[quote="Guest"]This caught my eye for "what if's" and "might have beens". Is it possible to get more information and sources? During what time period was this considered?

Thanks in Advance.

M. A. Rozon

Bigger Guns, MORE POWER![/quote]Nope, no more info. I learned this talking with NAVSEA engineers in 2006. However, it's a good start!

[quote="navydavesof"]

NAVSEA said the heavy cruisers [i]Albany [/i]and [i]Columbus [/i]could have been reconditioned to be NTU Tartar-D ships mounting Mk71 and Mk45 guns with 128 Mk41 VLS at the cost of $800 million, but the Navy would rather spend that $1.6 Billion toward reactivating the 4 Iowa-class battleships and rebuilding their supply structure. Those cruisers would have had their super structures cut down to the deck and re-built like the CGNs forward of the midline and Spruance helo hangar aft of the centerline. My understanding is that the most challenging part of that would have been reconditioning the propulsion plant. Years of poor maintenance made those ships worn and tired.

[/quote]

This caught my eye for "what if's" and "might have beens". Is it possible to get more information and sources? During what time period was this considered?

Thanks in Advance.

M. A. Rozon

Bigger Guns, MORE POWER!

[quote="carr"]WHY?

This entire discussion has been about the mechanics and logistics of reactivating carriers and/or building smaller carriers. That's fine but it misses the two main, related points:

1. It's all about the air wing
2. What will they do?

Before I go any further, let me clearly state that I am not for or against any of the ideas put forth, thus far. I can't be since none of them have come with a rationale...

How's that for a wet blanket on the discussion? :heh:[/quote]

Party pooper! :big_grin:

Another point for consideration about Navy air wings is that the pre-WWII planned pilot attrition rate was 25% per month of combat according to Dr. Friedman in his book on U.S. carriers.

Also, the VF squadron strength was 14-16 aircraft back in the Vietnam era, not 8 ship F-35 squadrons.

And the mythical Common Support Aircraft, and even rarer F-14 replacement?

How is that for a wet mattress! :heh:

Just bring back the whale (EKA-3B) and all will be well!

[quote="michik"][quote="navydavesof"]
I super doubt they would remove all of the catapult system and replace it with the EM version, waaaay too much work.
[/quote]

Sorry for being mistakable: My reply was strictly aimed at Bust963's previous post
[quote="Busto963"]
What the Navy really needs to do is revisit the CVA concept and start building a 21st century version of the JFK/KH class with CODLAG [/quote]

Michi[/quote]
I completely missed your point.

GAB

..

[quote="navydavesof"]
I super doubt they would remove all of the catapult system and replace it with the EM version, waaaay too much work.
[/quote]

Sorry for being mistakable: My reply was strictly aimed at Bust963's previous post
[quote="Busto963"]
What the Navy really needs to do is revisit the CVA concept and start building a 21st century version of the JFK/KH class with CODLAG [/quote]

Michi

I am pretty convinced the Navy would pull electronics (SPS-49/49/SPQ-9B) from recently decommissioned ships off the shelf to re-equip these ships. At the MOST they would use the rotating versions of the radars Ford class is receiving. Then the COMs suite would be upgraded to the most recent system. VLS ESSM? Not likely. They would likely use the Mk29 launchers and convert them to fire the ESSM and then install Phalanx Block 1B and RAM.

I super doubt they would remove all of the catapult system and replace it with the EM version, waaaay too much work.

Honest, it's turning the ships back on, re-arming them, and SLEPing them for another 15 years of service. Easy but long day.
:thumbs_up_1:

Which operational EMALS is almost a conditio sine qua non for (of course, you could install a donkey for the catpults, but what price would that be to pay in terms of weight, space, and personell?).
How close is it to being 24/7 by now?

[quote="navydavesof"]With the worries about CVNs being sunk by Chinese DF-31 missiles without warning, how do we think we can respond to such a threat? Reactivating a LOT of aircraft for sure, but what about the ships?

How about we dig into the CV fleet and bring back the few CVs we have in shape? Of course the battleships would be the first things we consider, because they can be easily reactivated, but the CVs....those would take time! The [i]John F Kenedy[/i], a ship that was passed over for maintenance overhauls for over a decade, and the [i]Kitty Hawk[/i], a ship that was an FDNF asset for a considerable amount of time, both have issues, but both can be repaired.

An update to them would be an interesting proposition.[/quote]

What the Navy really needs to do is revisit the CVA concept and start building a 21st century version of the JFK/KH class with CODLAG (the diesels based upon large commercial diesels). As Dr Friedman noted, carriers were the last class of ship that the Navy thought of putting reactors in...

Seriously, think about this from logistics standpoint and you realize that even CVNs are limited by the AO/AOE The planes and escorts run on oil based fuels - the CVA can burn its substantial aviation fuel tankage if it really needs to haul butt.

We *should* be able to do this for $7 billion (Carr is probably rolling on the ground laughing, but we *should* be able to do this). :big_grin:

These are not replacements for CVNs. The idea is that we should always be building a CVN or CVA (every 4 years).

Operationally, the CVAs would be forward deployed and the CVNs would be the surge force.

Its funny that when I was a pup, the CVNs were outnumbered by the conventional carriers (and the JFK operated more aircraft than the CVN-78... to include the EKA-3B)!

GAB

[quote="navydavesof"][quote="Seasick"]JFK is in awful shape, Kitty Hawk might be possible. The ships would need a overhaul on a level higher than the old SLEPs. But if it was done, the islands would need to be modified to current standards. SPY-3 or SPY-4 radars low observable mast, VL ESSM, RAM. New sponsons, new railings, lots of stuff replaced. Be interesting.[/quote]That would be a pretty interesting configuration for sure! In order to make all of those mods to work, they would need to do a full SLEP, like you suggested, that didn't just add just another 10-15 years to their service lives but a BB WIP modernization that would have added 25 years to their service aka more of an RCOH the CVNs receive, renamed as a "ReConditioning and OverHaul".

From what the Navy says, the [i]Ford [/i]is likely the only one who is going to get the static phased arrays. Instead, the successors will get a single rotating antenna, more like a super SPS-48 to save money. It's always less expensive to have 1 or 2 arrays rather than 3-6. The low-observable mast would be pretty easy, and the ESSM could be better accommodated using the existing Mk29 launchers. RAM and Phalanx Block 1B are easy installations. The real difficulty would be in the guts of the ship. While the common readers know I am a battleship reactivation logistics guy, brining back a CV would require a lot more effort and time.

NAVSEA said the heavy cruisers [i]Albany [/i]and [i]Columbus [/i]could have been reconditioned to be NTU Tartar-D ships mounting Mk71 and Mk45 guns with 128 Mk41 VLS at the cost of $800 million, but the Navy would rather spend that $1.6 Billion toward reactivating the 4 Iowa-class battleships and rebuilding their supply structure. Those cruisers would have had their super structures cut down to the deck and re-built like the CGNs forward of the midline and Spruance helo hangar aft of the centerline. My understanding is that the most challenging part of that would have been reconditioning the propulsion plant. Years of poor maintenance made those ships worn and tired.

To the point, CVs could be reconditioned in a similar manner. They know what's broken on the mothballed CVs. They would just need to start soon, have a plan, and execute it.

However, I think with the proper modifications to those CVs, it would be worth it.

Hooyah, Seasick![/quote]

So the Navy is interested in reactivating the battleships???