MAJOR-B wrote:
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?
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