The return of the light carrier?

A place to talk about all things military, paramilitary, tactical, strategic, and logistical.
User avatar
MiddleAgedKen
Posts: 2607
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:11 pm
Location: Flyover Country

Re: The return of the light carrier?

Post by MiddleAgedKen » Sun Apr 07, 2019 3:22 am

Yep. That's why I asked how many UNREPs we could stage at one time.

Edit to add: Excuse the brain fart -- by "avgas," I meant "JP," or whatever the hell the stuff is that F-35s can't leave home without. :)
Watergate didn't have a body count.

User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 3570
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: The return of the light carrier?

Post by Vonz90 » Sun Apr 07, 2019 4:22 pm

MiddleAgedKen wrote:
Sat Apr 06, 2019 5:11 pm
How much avgas would a light carrier lug along? How many UNREPS can we sustain at once?
Neglecting that Avgas no longer exists in the US Navy, any carrier UNREPS at least daily when in a heavy operational cycle, even the nukes. They could go longer if course, but everyone freaks if fuel and ordnance levels drop below 90% or so.

Langenator
Posts: 1015
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: The return of the light carrier?

Post by Langenator » Sun Apr 07, 2019 8:29 pm

I don't think there's any reason it couldn't be done...they built several nuclear cruisers back when (see Wiki, and the technology is better now. And nuclear subs exist.

My guess is that they determined the economics didn't work for ships smaller than fleet carriers. Maybe the political economics, as well - people getting all wiggy about nuclear after 3-mile Island, etc. Small surface combatants as home ported in a lot more places than the nuclear carriers.
Fortuna Fortis Paratus

Precision
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 6:01 pm

Re: The return of the light carrier?

Post by Precision » Mon Apr 08, 2019 12:30 pm

The micro gen3+ nuke plants would be a huge win for anything smaller than a Nimitz class. Put 2,3,4 of them in as needed and off you go. replace them in their entirety every 3-5 years.
In other words, leverage the knowledge of the private sector to improve military.gov. Then when the tech is proven there bring it to my neighborhood to run my lights and fridge.
"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not." ~Thomas Jefferson
My little part of the blogosphere. http://blogletitburn.wordpress.com/

User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 3570
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: The return of the light carrier?

Post by Vonz90 » Mon Apr 08, 2019 7:14 pm

Precision wrote:
Mon Apr 08, 2019 12:30 pm
The micro gen3+ nuke plants would be a huge win for anything smaller than a Nimitz class. Put 2,3,4 of them in as needed and off you go. replace them in their entirety every 3-5 years.
In other words, leverage the knowledge of the private sector to improve military.gov. Then when the tech is proven there bring it to my neighborhood to run my lights and fridge.
I am a former nuke SWO, did both my EOOW and SWO on a nuclear cruiser (CGN-37 USS South Carolina). Those reactors were basically what you would want, but don't go there. The costs are prohibitive, including both the up front and the maintenance, the life cycle costs go through the roof.

Langenator
Posts: 1015
Joined: Sun Jun 27, 2010 2:10 pm

Re: The return of the light carrier?

Post by Langenator » Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:15 pm

Like I said, I'm sure someone at Big Navy has done the accounting and decided nukes didn't work, cost/benefit wise, for smaller surface ships. (Subs are a different matter - the ability to stay under until they run out of food is a HUGE benefit, worth the costs, at least for blue water subs.)

My question is, when did they last re-look the numbers, in light of newer reactor tech?
Fortuna Fortis Paratus

MarkD
Posts: 3969
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:59 pm

Re: The return of the light carrier?

Post by MarkD » Mon Apr 08, 2019 11:11 pm

Langenator wrote:
Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:15 pm
Like I said, I'm sure someone at Big Navy has done the accounting and decided nukes didn't work, cost/benefit wise, for smaller surface ships. (Subs are a different matter - the ability to stay under until they run out of food is a HUGE benefit, worth the costs, at least for blue water subs.)

My question is, when did they last re-look the numbers, in light of newer reactor tech?
Or they got the promise of a nice job to say so in the last couple decades navy .

But I'm skeptical about politicians disguised as officers.

User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 3570
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: The return of the light carrier?

Post by Vonz90 » Tue Apr 09, 2019 2:46 am

Langenator wrote:
Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:15 pm
Like I said, I'm sure someone at Big Navy has done the accounting and decided nukes didn't work, cost/benefit wise, for smaller surface ships. (Subs are a different matter - the ability to stay under until they run out of food is a HUGE benefit, worth the costs, at least for blue water subs.)

My question is, when did they last re-look the numbers, in light of newer reactor tech?

Or they got the promise of a nice job to say so in the last couple decades navy .

But I'm skeptical about politicians disguised as officers.
Whatever. The money out the door showed the difference, which is why the nuke cruiser went away (and Rickover basically fought to ensure they had less firepower than the conventional ones).

The biggest difference is manpower. A gas turbine or diesel ship has about half of the crew requirements. It was not a big deal on the 50-60's but these days crew are as expensive as ships.
Last edited by Vonz90 on Tue Apr 09, 2019 5:27 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
D5CAV
Posts: 2118
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:48 am

Re: The return of the light carrier?

Post by D5CAV » Tue Apr 09, 2019 5:08 pm

g-man wrote:
Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:34 am
I have a particular bone to pick with the F-35. We were prepping to field them when I was a young AF Capt., specifically charged with coming up with the by-career-field-and-year-group RIF numbers for the officer side of the house. To meet the reduced endstrength on the enlisted side, they literally just turned off accessions for almost 6 months.

The F-15 took 4 years from 1st flight to entering service. The 35 took 10, and they're currently arguing over who's going to pay to fix the corrosion problems with the smaller-than-advertised fleet currently in the inventory. The damn things require network access to push system updates, and known network vulnerabilities haven't been addressed. And that's just the open-source issues.


AF leadership pushed and pushed and pushed to get their toy, and overall capability, manning, and morale suffered because of it.
I know nothing about the F-35, but it is in the news today: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-04- ... er-pacific

Again, I'm an old horse soldier, so maybe "disappeared from radar" is good from a "stealth" perspective, but I'm pretty sure not returning to base is a bad thing.
None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Post Reply