CVO (other than supercarrier)

[Precision]

I know we have bashed my idea before, but I still don't see the failing.

CVO for 2020

Essex Class carrier size with a 9 degree angled deck layout.

Length - 850-880 foot
beam - 90 to 125 at maximal width of deck
Draft - 25 ft empty 29 ft loaded
Displacement – 35,000 tons empty 39,000 tons full

Propulsion
triple S8G nuclear reactors
60,000 shp each for a total of 180,000 shp available
Able to cross connect steam
twin to quad shafts
or
Single A1B nuclear reactor
140,000shp

max speed 36 knots running at 85% on all 3 reactors
Max speed 33 knots A1B reactor
single S8G reactor max speed 15 knots

CATOBAR
3 launch steam catapults
and
3 arrestor wire sets

Radars
lots

point defense
12 Rim-7 Sea Sparrow
2 Phalanx CIWS

Air Squadrons
24 Attack - 3 electronic suppression – 3 early warning radar – 2 logistics – 6 ASW fixed wing – 6 large drones

Navy mission
2 x 8 F/A-18C Navy pilots – Attack
1 x 8 F/A-18C Marine pilots – Attack
3 EA18G Growlers – electronic suppression
3 E-2C Hawkeyes – radar extenders
2 C-2 Greyhounds - logistics
6 HH-60H Seahawks – ASW
6 drones TBD in type
multiple small drones

Marine mission
12 Attack - 3 electronic suppression – 3 early warning radar – 4 logistics – 14 fixed wing Attack -
6 ASW fixed wing – 6 large drones

1 x 6 F/A-18C Navy pilots – Attack / CAP
1 x 6 F/A-18C Marine pilots – Attack
3 EA18G Growlers – electronic suppression
3 E-2C Hawkeyes – radar extenders
4 C-2 Greyhounds - logistics
6 HH-60H Seahawks – ASW
14 AH-1Z Cobra - Fixed wing Attack
6 large drones TBD in type
multiple small drones

Rough cost of ship would be $2 B compared to $14 B for the new Ford Class.

Make 7 of these for the cost of one Supercarrier. I think it is a huge advantage for multiple threats, flexibility, smaller missions...

The idea works even better with F-35's but I figured the little carriers would get the legacy parts.0

I am not even married to nuclear propulsion, but it does give great legs.

edit - cross posted to my blog.

[Precision]

It's weak on force protection...

Of course the solution to that is two carriers per CBG; one tasked to power projection, one to force protection.

Also, I'm not sure if the size of the hull is sufficient for the force structure you've suggested here, when you account for maintenance, hangarage etc...

Ships that converted from prop planes to jets went from about 120 to about 70 capacity in that hull. I am suggesting 40ish. Not a naval planner by any means, but I think the size verse complement would work. I am also no married to the numbers, this is white paper territory. Just showing what could be done for a much lower price, and create less cost to deploy with more flexibility.

I agree 1 ship BG is NOT a great idea versus any real threat. Put 7 of them together and it should WIN vs a Ford class hands down.

Park a CVO battle group of 2 CVO's and support ships off Somolia, then watch the pirate activity DIE. For that matter, against the pirates, put a single CVO with Hawkeyes extended along with 2 destroyers and 3 frigates and watch it DIE. Two of those groups roving...

[Mike OTDP]

I seriously question the cost. Very seriously. $2 billion is way low...probably by a factor of five.

Much of the price tag associated with the Ford class went into a completely new design. New hull form, new reactor, new electronics, new catapult, new arresting gear, new everything. Follow-on ships will be considerably cheaper.

There's an adage...ship steel is cheap. A larger ship costs less per ton than a smaller vessel. With a carrier, this is especially true, and particularly important. Ship dimensions limit what aircraft can be flown from it - and remember that a ship ordered in 2013 will commission around 2020...and will retire from active service in 2070. I'd put the money into a flexible design.

No. The Navy has tossed the small CV idea around for forty years. It keeps cropping up...and the hard realities keep shooting it down.

[blackeagle603]

Ship dimensions limit what aircraft can be flown from it -

...and dramatically affect stability of the deck.

Scratch your fixed wing ASW assets. Add another AEW platform. Takes a min of 4 to do anything useful 1 is always below for phase. Keeping 3 up with even PMC backend systems to support a full days cycles is a non-trivial task.

[Aglifter]

What about something to launch "swarms" of drones? It seems like that might be more useful against the kind of threat we now face.

Something simple, and cheap, and able to deal w. being attacked by a swarm of simple and cheap.

Say, launch 1000 against 100 targets, have people selecting targets, and tasking say 10 to each target, which could sync w. one another to attack from a variety of angles, so that if the target tries to dodge, etc it still gets intercepted.

[Precision]

Ship dimensions limit what aircraft can be flown from it -

...and dramatically affect stability of the deck.

Scratch your fixed wing ASW assets. Add another AEW platform. Takes a min of 4 to do anything useful 1 is always below for phase. Keeping 3 up with even PMC backend systems to support a full days cycles is a non-trivial task.

Not challenging your greater expertise, but from all accounts the Essex class was a very stable platform. Perhaps that meant very stable for the time / stable for prop jobs.

For ASW work, I cribbed those numbers form the Nimitz class. Open source data says they run 4-6 ASW choppers.

For AEW, take out 2 attack planes / choppers and replace with 1 AEW. Fair enough.

[Precision]

I seriously question the cost. Very seriously. $2 billion is way low...probably by a factor of five.

Much of the price tag associated with the Ford class went into a completely new design. New hull form, new reactor, new electronics, new catapult, new arresting gear, new everything. Follow-on ships will be considerably cheaper.

There's an adage...ship steel is cheap. A larger ship costs less per ton than a smaller vessel. With a carrier, this is especially true, and particularly important. Ship dimensions limit what aircraft can be flown from it - and remember that a ship ordered in 2013 will commission around 2020...and will retire from active service in 2070. I'd put the money into a flexible design.

No. The Navy has tossed the small CV idea around for forty years. It keeps cropping up...and the hard realities keep shooting it down.

Open source info says building a Essex class today would run just over $1 B. I figured adding in the extra / superior radars etc would add on another $1 B. Then lets say another $1B for the nukie plants. So we call it $3 B vs $10 B for the last Nimitz class or $14 B for the Ford class. Not exactly expendable but certainly less costly and more flexibility in the fleet.

I say make 7 Ford Class and 6 Essex II class for the same money (or less) as 10 Fords and have a much more flexible navy.

I also think part of the problem with shooting down less than Supercarrier ships, is MIC combined with newest shiniest combined with Congressional corruption.

[Kommander]

What about something to launch "swarms" of drones? It seems like that might be more useful against the kind of threat we now face.

Something simple, and cheap, and able to deal w. being attacked by a swarm of simple and cheap.

Say, launch 1000 against 100 targets, have people selecting targets, and tasking say 10 to each target, which could sync w. one another to attack from a variety of angles, so that if the target tries to dodge, etc it still gets intercepted.

If China was smart this is what they would be doing instead of trying to catch up to US carriers.

[Aglifter]

Is this how a railgun platform would work? Launch swarms of "smart bombs"?

Seems like you could get them quite cheap - as I recall - and prices "SHOULD" have come down - it was $25K/GPS bomb during the beginning of Iraq.

So, for the cost of one $100MM fighter, you launch 4000 bombs.

I know they're working on automatic chain guns, etc to try to stop missiles and bombs, etc - but

A) I don't know that would be able to stop 4000 bombs - and, I assume that would be enough to take out a carrier group - aside from the subs.

B) I don't think our enemies have the ability to mount that type of chain gun. But, it could, I think, deal with situations like the Iranian navy, etc.

[blackeagle603]

As for Essex class being stable... Compared to what it replaced? Yeah.

Talk to pilots who flew off Coral Sea and Midway and compare to their time flying off Forrestal class and later. There's stable and then there's stable. Size matters.

Soviet cold war tactic we prepped for included them flooding the zone with drones. Israel did it too v. Syria in the great Bekka Valley Turkey Shoot. Israel lost something like 6 drones. Syria lost 80+ aircraft. Israel E2-C had more than a little to do with that.