The Ship Model Forum

Go with CODELAG instead of nuclear power, ditch the unproven technology (with the possible exception of EMALS), settle on a stable design *before* beginning construction.

Doing this will shave 40% off the cost of the CV and get you to ~$8.2B per hull which is more or less reasonable.

Take the $5.3B in savings and buy an air wing.

..

Sweet. A "cosmetically modern" version of the USS Midway would be pretty neat. What a beautiful project that will be!

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Would you want this ship to have the Ford island and phased radar arrangement or a conventional Nimitz class arrangement of the SPS and SPQ radars?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

Also, what kind of air wing would you be looking at for this CV?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance

I would say a phased array system for future proofing (depends on cost though). For airwing, 3 to 4 squadrons of Hornets with support aircraft.

Nothing has quite the attitude of the F-8 Crusader...

..

One of the best looking aircraft ever to grace a carrier's decks.

I believe the UK carriers were sized to carry up to 48 aircraft at a given sortie because that is what the US told them would be most useful in light of joint operations. I'm going to have to find the reference for that. Support aircraft might be 6 AEW and 4 Tanker UAVs, so by adding 4 or so helos (2 SAR, 2 ASW inner layer), you end with a max capacity at about 65.

So, I'd look to 48 plus support aircraft as full operations, and maybe 32 for normal deployment (at 16 aircraft per squadron, normally deploy with two with a third available for higher intensity/rotational operations). 4 AEW and 2 or 3 Tanker with 4 helos gives a normal deployment of about 43 aircraft.

Clearly from the 1970's-2000's I'd probably plan for a mostly F/A-18 wing, but today, I would assume an F-35C wing with UAV AEW and Tanker support.

The biggest weakness any CVW has today is range. Range was given up with the retirement of the A-6 and F-14. Hornet A/C has pitifully short legs, and E/F only adds about 100 nmi in radius. Hopefully some range comes back via the F-35C, but the shorter the range of the carrier aircraft, the closer the carrier has to be to the threat, increasing vulnerability, shrinking potential operation area, and decreasing reaction time to threats.

Range, Range, Range....

I know you had mentioned a CATOBAR carrier, but also basing on the America class (LHA-6).

So my mind is wandering toward an America-based all aviation ship - essentially remove the Marine landing force support facilities from the hull, downsize the island, and have it pack F-35B in large numbers. With more deck space from a smaller island, and a larger internal hangar without the need for Marine berthing and vehicle stowage, can we get a CHM (Carrier, Helicopter, Multi-role) which could pack 36 or more F-35B on a (heavily) modified existing conventional hull form which can be manned by 1500 or less?

It could switch wings to helicopters if the need arose, or run a combined wing of F-35B and ASW helos if needed for escort operations.

(I choose "H" in the type designation to reserve "V" = fixed wing aviation, for CATOBAR equipped vessels. The current "H"'s do operate VTOL aircraft).

As a 'swing role' ship this could augment CVNs with fixed wing aviation support (F-35B), or augment an ARG with more aviation, or operate as the basis for a sea control/escort group.

This may even be cheap enough to get near a 3 to 1 ratio for the CVN on total life cost.

Working...

Just say no to JSF...

Fascinating! What role do you see a helo wing filling?

..

This was spitballing, but the first two missions that came to mind for an all-helo wing would be disaster support and augmentation of USMC vertical lift.

A marinized attack helo is also a great addition for addressing small boat swarms in the littorals, V-22s for personnel extraction (be that hostage rescue or embassy evacuation) could also be a potential mission, but all of those operations don't have to be an all-helo wing.

Well, get a US producer for the Sea Gripen and then we can just build a BSAC-220 and be done with the whole thing.

Sea Gripen sounds viable, but I think the break even point is with a carrier between a Midway and a JFK in size.

..

Having some kind of long range or long duration strike aircraft would certainly be a bonus. Any particular air frame that might actually get built come to mind? I mean we could recondition A7 or even A6 aircraft, but what could we build or adapt that's new?

The big deal these days is that the Super-Hornet can hit targets with fewer munitions than the 80s and before. The F/A-18E/F can both act as tankers with the buddy store. Deep penetration of enemy defenses will be the domain of the F-35C. The F-35C combat radius in public documents is 615 nautical miles unrefueled. The F/A-18E is 390 nautical miles on an interdiction mission unrefueled. IIRC during generation 4 large amounts of internal fuel are considered a detriment. In air refueling is considered essential. The F-16 is short legged without drop tanks as is the MIG-29.

_________________
╔═════╗
║ Seasick║
╚═════╝