Big Wars, Small Ships: Alternative Navy

>Unmanned Vessels: While the Navy is experimenting with ever-larger Unmanned Surface Vessels (USVs) and Unmanned Underwater Vessels (UUVs), it doesn’t yet count them in its proposed battle force. CSBA, by contrast, calls for 40 “extra-large” USVs and 40 “extra-large” UUVs. While not replacing manned warships, these semi-expendable craft would play crucial roles in high-risk missions such as reconnaissance, electronic warfare (jamming tends to attract attention), and mine-sweeping. The Navy’s Expeditionary Fast Transports (formerly JHSVs) would be repurposed as motherships for unmanned craft.

My heart tells me this won't work out as intended, by virtue of the fact that justifying "semi-expendable" craft to congress or the populace in large numbers won't work. The automization alone to keep something as complex as a modern warship seaworthy and combat ready would be staggering.

>>32946241
Sounds like a good way to get supercarriers cut.

No thanks.

File: CSBA-vs-Navy-Force-Structure-Assessment.jpg (38KB, 636x496px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 636x496px

>>32946282

>While both the Navy and CSBA agree the fleet needs 12 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers` (up from 11 CVNs today), CSBA also wants to supplement the super-carriers with 10 smaller, conventionally powered “light carriers” (CVL). The CVLs would evolve from and replace current “big-deck” amphibious assault ships, sacrificing the capacity for landing craft in order to accommodate more aircraft.

It's not the super carriers that would be getting cut, it would be the flat-deck amphibious ships.

>>32946241
>>32946280
Some good ideas in there, worth some study. But there's also a lot in there which shows it was written by folks without a ton of experience planning and operating current USN mission responsibilities.

The 600-ton patrol corvette, for instance, is problematic. The Visby class is great for Sweden because their primary patrol responsibilities are literally their coast and the surrounding shallow, constrained waters. They very rarely send those more than 200nmi from the Baltic. Furthermore, their utility as a sensor node and interception picket in blue/brown water while operating with a large combat force like a CSG is, in the USN, almost entirely covered by tactical aircraft performing CAP, AWACS, LAMPS III choppers and SSNs (all of which simultaneously perform several other essential missions while they're at it). It's very hard to see where precisely such assets with limited sensor capabilities would be useful to a CSG.

A downgraded Visby might be just perfect for the Coast Guard in interdiction/patrol efforts in the Caribbean and Baja, though a cost/benefit analysis between them and fewer larger ships with a primary rotary wing aviation focus would need to be conducted to be sure. They're just not suited for travelling 6,000nmi to and from their patrol areas and sitting on their box for 6 months each time they leave home port.

CONT

>>32946241
>>32946725
Regardless of what might have been most efficient, or arguments over the utility of well decks on the LHD/LHA assets in the Gator Navy, the advent of the F-35B pretty much puts paid any discussion of a modern CVL revival. Remember that their comparative combat efficiency was inversely proportional to the increasing size of even tactical aircraft and launching needs of those aircraft. They were extremely useful during WWII, but the strict limitations of even the Midway class (a 45,000 ton dedicated flat top designated fleet carrier when built) by the mid-70's were apparent - it had to keep it's F-4s because it could not launch F-14s, S-3s or any sort of fixed wing AWACS. In modern naval aviation, there is a steep dropoff in fixed wing flight operations efficiency once you get below a certain tonnage.

What the USN needs more than anything in ship procurement (and they tell Congress this every time they ask) is the following, in order of importance:
>TIED: Ford teething issues ironed out and smooth procurement as each Nimitz retires + Enterprise replacement, VA class procurement at full tilt to help cover the already retired Sturgeons and fast retiring 688s, Ohio class replacement
>ASW and MCM coverage to replace the retired OHPs and retiring Avenger class (LCS)
>Tico and early Burke replacement/upgrade, currently the Burke Flt III program, with a subclass to replace the Tico expanded CSG fleet defense facilities needed within the next 10-15 years and no later. A clean sheet design is a priority, as soon as they shake out what works and what doesn't on Zumwalt
>Naval aviation upgrade/replacement project buys (F-35C and C-2 specifically). This is down here because the USN has the most recently bought tactical fighters of all the services and still has the F-18E/F buy as a stopgap option if necessary to preserve funding for the above projects

>>32946241
>>32946737
With the F-35B and eventual V-22 AEW&C and tanker variants, the USMC aviation on gator navy flat tops will be better set up than just about anyone for decades to come.

>>32946241
>>32946725
>>32946737
>>32946746
Oh, and one final note to leave you with -
When looking at naval procurement, or any procurement really, you have to be responsive to the immediate threat mix and conflict type you're caught up in (patrol, littoral ops, naval aviation strike inshore, etc. currently), and these are the needs politicians always tend to fixate on. They have to get elected in 1-5 years, after all, not in 10 years.

However, the USN in this case has to balance these needs against ensuring they have a fleet which can go toe to toe against any large conventional naval force on the planet while still maintaining minimum manning levels in their other responsibilities. Going toe to toe with a Russia or China means a serious and convincing force of large, blue water capable multi-mission combatants, robust naval aviation and maintaining the significant threat represented by the Gator Navy (remember just how much they accomplished in constraining Iraqi defensive and movement planning in 1991 just by being there and threatening invasion at the coast). The better equipped these blue water forces are, the less likely you'll be drawn into an actual expensive and possibly disastrous conventional naval conflict with any one of the other major players.

It's an old naval procurement problem that goes back to well before the Napoleonic Wars, though there we find another great example: the British navy never had enough frigates (or sloops of war, or brigs, or even packets, etc.) to cover their far-flung responsibilities and contain privateers and small raiding forces, communicate between naval forces and far flung possessions, plus scout for 1st-4th rate line of battle ships. This is because they were forced to build, maintain, man and deploy enough line of battle ships to keep the French and Spanish large fleets honest. It's always a challenge to balance the conflicting needs of a navy, no matter the budget.

CONT

>>32947108
Naval planners tend to err on the side of insurance against the biggest threats and abosrb/adapt to the smaller threats. For today's navy, that means increased focus on rotary wing aviation, distributed lethality and LCS hulls in the water taking up ASW, MCM and small combatant slack.

>>32946280
Think of all the onboard systems that would have to replicate the inter-ship rape level anon... so many robots.

>>32946280
>The automization alone to keep something as complex as a modern warship seaworthy and combat ready would be staggering.

There would be much less complexity without life support systems other than minimum required for maintenance.

>>32946241
>McCain has endorsed the light carrier idea,
Then I hate the idea.

>>32948959
>Propose light carrier
>becomes cost cutting alternative to supercarrier
that has McCain all over it

>>32946241

Bringing back light carriers is a good idea, but unmanned corvettes sound like something that's just waiting to be lost at sea. You can't make a ship "expendable" because even the smallest ship costs twice as much as a jet.

Perhaps the DoD should instead invest in ships that they don't intended to sink, like cruisers. Ships with more weapon systems have an advantage over ships with lesser systems, and that includes ASM. It's what makes the USN superior to other navies in the first place.

>>32949182
continue the burke swarm?

>>32950094
I think a modern cruiser would have a deck+hangar capable of a pair of H-60s and a few drones, as well as at least 125% the missile capacity of a Burke, modern sensors, etc., and even railguns if we can get the ones on the Zumwalts working.

>>32946737
>needed within the next 10-15 years and no later.
>A clean sheet design
Pick one.

File: LCS-Together-630x337.jpg (37KB, 630x337px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 630x337px

>>32946241

Oh wait, there is yet another proposed alternative force structure for you to ponder over:

>14 aircraft carriers
>160 destroyers & cruisers
>72 attack submarines
>New classes ranging from a missile-packed “magazine ship,” to diesel-powered submarines, to a heavy frigate to replace the Littoral Combat Ship, which would be cancelled.

http://breakingdefense.com/2017/02/414-ships-no-lcs-mitres-alternative-navy/

So far, the Donald Trump plan is the only one that keeps the LCS. Both the MITRE plan and the CSBA dump the LCS in favor of designing a larger, more heavily armed frigate.

File: USS America.jpg (404KB, 2560x969px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 2560x969px

>>32946241
We've literally already tried this and it doesn't work.

>>32950195
>magazine ship
Oh man, those would pair fantastically with F-35Bs for a USMC MEU.

>>32950202

The fact that internet commandos like to bitch about it doesn't make the USS America a bad ship. It's the future.

>>32950231
>It's the future.
The only other ship that will share the no-well-deck design is the USS Tripoli. All of the remaining Amphibious Assault Ships on order are being built with well decks. I don't think the Navy agrees with you.

>>32950265

>The only other ship that will share the no-well-deck design is the USS Tripoli

That was before the 355-ship navy plan was accepted. Expect to see a lot more of those ships.

>>32946280

And it seems to me that big "semi-expendable" drone ships would have to accomplish missions more important than recon/EW/de-mining, like penetration attacks against high-value targets.

>>32950195
>>32950207

Don't worry, I'm sure the government will make sure to pick the worst choice.

>>32950179
You'll see a clean sheet design with keel laid within the next 15 years. This is beyond doubt.

>>32950362

Recon/EW/de-mining are very important jobs though.

>>32950195
>Both the MITRE plan and the CSBA dump the LCS in favor of designing a larger, more heavily armed frigate.
Then they've pretty much entirely missed the point of the LCS. If they don't replace it with something that does MCM and ASW, the USN is still fucked.

>>32950292
It takes a good number of support ships to make up an Expeditionary Strike Group. Adding another ten light carriers would require an equal number of submarines and at least a pair of escort ships each. That's fifty ships right there averaging something around $2.5 billion a piece, and doesn't even account for light surface combatants that they'd probably want to add to each strike group to improve their resilience against swarm attacks that LCS doesn't quite manage to counter. Designing around a large number of strike groups and carrier battle groups is going to be very expensive for a non-wartime fleet.

>>32950431
This. This is the other reason why, if you're going to build a fixed wing CATOBAR carrier, it might as well be a supercarrier. You have to devote the assets to protect it either way. Might as well get the most bang for all that buck.

>>32950554
>>32950431

The light carriers that the plans speak off would be replacing the amphibious carriers already in service, not the huge nuke-powered super-carriers.

>>32950411

Yeah but for big (expensive) maybe-expendable assets? Doesn't seem like you'd be getting your money's worth. Maybe for mine sweeping.

>>32950884
Come again? I thought the plan was to augment the existing Amphibious fleet with ten additional ships, not to do a blanket swap of amphibious ships with their well decks for a fleet of light carriers - which seems particularly unwise with the certainty of amphibious landings in a hypothetical war in the South China Sea.

>>32950944

>The CVLs would evolve from and replace current “big-deck” amphibious assault ships, sacrificing the capacity for landing craft in order to accommodate more aircraft.

>>32950939
Going back to the late 80's, three of the last five seriously combat damaged USN ships were minestrikes. MCM is a big fucking deal, especially when you do so much business in constrained waters like the Persian Gulf, SCS and ECS.

>>32950989
Words fail me. That is a really, really stupid idea when the marines are more likely than they have been in years to actually conduct an amphibious invasion.

>>32950944

>I thought the plan was to augment the existing Amphibious fleet with ten additional ships

The CSBA plan replaces all future LHD/LHA ships with "light carriers" which would basically be upgraded versions of the USS America. The MITRE plan advocates for something similar to that as well.

>>32951024

>McCain has endorsed the light carrier idea, but the Navy and Marines are skeptical, preferring the flexibility of current big-decks.
With that said, a replacement would probably take 30 years anyway. We'll have time to invade Iran and China before then.

>>32951024
On the other hand, the San Antonios exist... I don't think I like leaving expeditionary capacity out of the Amphibious Assault ships, though.

>>32946737
> the advent of the F-35B pretty much puts paid any discussion of a modern CVL revival.

I don't see how that is
Just build the CVL on a modified commercial hull, they build massive ships for like 100 million dollars.

Cheap doesn't necessarily mean small.

Ohio class replacement should be cancelled ASAP, thats gonna be a boondoggle and massive waste of money.

>>32951342
Commercial hulls aren't designed to keep floating or not break up with massive holes blown into them, or to mitigate how far the damage spreads.

File: USNS_Lewis_B._Puller_(T-ESB-3)_at_Naval_Station_Norfolk_on_20_April_2016.jpg (1MB, 1714x1285px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1714x1285px

>>32951342

>Just build the CVL on a modified commercial hull, they build massive ships for like 100 million dollars.

Isn't that basically what an Expeditionary Mobile Base is?

>>32951342
Jesus fuck. This asshole again.

Go fuck yourself.

>>32951342

>Ohio class replacement should be cancelled ASAP, thats gonna be a boondoggle and massive waste of money.
When will you be accepting your Nobel Peace Prize for global nuclear disarmament?

>>32951406
Thats a pretty small hull
And I think they paid like 500 million dollars to convert it

>>32951404
Except thats bullshit, commercial hulls are fairly durable too, nor do they constantly burn to the water line, and military hull that takes a hit is just as much out of combat as any commercial hull.

>>32951342

Nuclear deterrence is not acceptable to compromise on. If anything the program should be greatly expanded. 12 SSBN submarines isn't enough.

>>32951436
>>32951424
You don't need to spend hundreds of billions dollars building single use SSBN's to have nuclear deterrence.
More land nukes, and putting nukes on carriers/burkes/tico's is ample.

>>32951451
>>32951451

If anything, the "land nukes" are the ones that should be cancelled. It makes more sense to have your nukes and your country kept separate IMHO.

http://www.ploughshares.org/issues-analysis/article/its-time-retire-icbm

>>32951342
>>32951433
>dumb nigger doesn't realize it's not the hull that's expensive, it's all the systems in the hull
>dumb nigger has been facefucked multiple times on /k/ by people who have actually been in a ship before, but keeps coming back with the same exact bullshit
>dumb nigger too goddamn dumb for this gay earth

sometimes I really fucking hate /k/

>>32951499
>dumb nigger doesn't realize it's not the hull that's expensive
Except the hull IS expensive
The Burke hull is like half the price of the ship

They are being built in shipyards that could never in a million years build a cost competitive commercial ship

And since you start with an expensive hull, they keep packing in all the other bullshit to end up with a REALLY expensive ship.

>>32951556
>The Burke hull is like half the price of the ship
Great source you have there. I'd love for you to explain to me how EM sensors, EW, FC, VLS cells and weapons, deck guns, SeaRAM, aviation facilities and choppers, sonar processing and hardware, comms and crypto gear and processing and finally all the DC systems make up less than half the cost of the hull altogether. Go ahead. Try.

>They are being built in shipyards that could never in a million years build a cost competitive commercial ship
>And since you start with an expensive hull, they keep packing in all the other bullshit to end up with a REALLY expensive ship.
Someday, you autistic shitstick, you might finally get it through your retarded skull just how different military and civilian shipbuilding is. And on that day, the realization of what a complete faggot you've been all these years might literally drive you insane. God, I hope I'm there to see it.

>>32951635
>General Dynamics Bath Iron Works (BIW) is being awarded a $2,843,385,450 fixed-price incentive firm target (FPIF) contract for the design and construction of four DDG 51 class ships, one in FY 2013 and one each in FY 2015-2017. This award also includes a contract option for a fifth ship.

>Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII) is being awarded a $3,331,476,001 fixed-price-incentive firm target (FPIF) contract for the design and construction of five DDG 51 class ships, one each in FY 2013-2017.

700 million dollars a hull is pretty goddamn expensive.

>>32951740
>700 million dollars a hull is pretty goddamn expensive.
Plus designing in and installing 20 times the number of systems per ship as a civilian ship (the systems themselves might not be included in the price, but the design work to get them into the ship and playing nice all together and working is), a shit ton more redundancy, a shit ton more DC, a shit ton more testing and sea trials and a metric fuckton more oversight and interference/changing priorities from the DoD and Congress.

You seriously have no fucking clue what goes into designing a warship. Stop posting.

>>32951804
They should have 10 built in Korea just to price it out

File: ted-cruz[1].jpg (168KB, 2125x1594px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 2125x1594px

>>32951861

Dude just stop posting.

>>32951861
>They should have 10 built in Korea just to price it out
Each Atago class cost 1.4bn in Japan, and that's the closest thing to a foreign built Burke. Korea built the Sejong class ships for 923m apiece and while it has Aegis and some other bells and whistles you might see on a Burke, it's also lacking many more things or replacing some of the more expensive systems with Korean-developed knockoffs. They're very solid ships, but they're not Burkes. Also, that's the cash price the ROK paid, and does not include the tax and sideways subsidy agreements they had with the builders (things not available as compensation in a US built ship).

If Japan or Korea were contracted to build a full up Flt III Burke, they'd easily come in within 10% of current US builders.

>>32950207
In theory yes, but in practice you're usually better off with a bunch of Burkes because you're only gonna be using the magazine ship for shore bombardment against an enemy that can't shoot back because it's too valuable to risk.

File: japcv.jpg (69KB, 600x422px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 600x422px

>>32951928
>Each Atago class cost 1.4bn in Japan, and that's the closest thing to a foreign built Burke.
We should have a thread about the Japanese Navy sometime.

File: 1113449381.jpg (103KB, 904x573px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 904x573px

>>32952005
>In August 2015, a new subclass of the Atago-class, dubbed the 27DDG Destroyer, was announced. With an empty displacement of 8,200 tons and utilising COGLAG propulsion, the new class is intended to be equipped with both a laser based point defense system (developed by the Technical Research & Development Institute) and provision to be fitted with a naval railgun also currently under development by Japan. The first two ships of the new class are expected to enter service in 2020 and 2021 respectively.

Also, Japanese railgun development?

>>32951024
Amphibious invasion is likely to be helicopter born at first. And remember, this is only one of three ships in an ARG. The other two still have well decks. It's basically arguing for a continuation of the LHA-6 class instead of diverting into the LHA-8 subclass.

>>32952844
Not him, but it was my understanding that the reason they went back to well decks was because they couldn't get heavy equipment (like tanks) to shore with just aviation assets.

>>32952875
They went back to well decks because people thought that it would be a net loss in capability. They made this decision before LHA-6's first deployment, so they don't really know at all.

And yes, without a well deck, the LHA-6 class can't deliver heavier equipment, such as tanks, to shore. However, an ARG consists of three amphibious ships. Only one of these is a big deck amphib. These other two ships always have well decks, and could deliver that gear anyways. Honestly, it's a big tradeoff, and until later this year when LHA-6 deploys with F-35Bs on board, we won't be able to determine which is the superior choice, or even if there is an objectively correct choice.

Personally, I think the LHA-6 is the way to go, and the LHA-8 subclass is missing out on a lot of potential capability. The amphibious landings of the future will likely be done by helicopters or V-22s. With that in mind, I think the superior aviation capability is worth the slight loss that is losing a single well deck of three.

>>32952875
They knew that long before they ordered LHA-6 and LHA-7. The idea was that a couple specialized air assault ships would be useful in planning opening stages into landlocked countries like Afghanistan or dropping well into a coastal country to take control of IADS or C4SIR nodes.

They would operate alongside the well deck ships, perform slightly different missions and once boots were ashore they could be quickly reconfigured from land bases to dump rotary wing transports in favor of air support vehicles like the F-35B and rotary wing gunships for a surprising amount of extra effect on targets. This while the well deck air wings continued to focus on logistics and transportation in addition to limited ground support.

In a big invasion scenario like the one threatened in 1991 against Iraq, or while dropping in to say hello to a landlocked country like Afghanistan, the LHA 6/7 ships become force multipliers for the Gator Navy, and even potentially frees up more USN CATOBAR assets to work deep interdiction, CAP, fleet defense, recon, etc.

Flexibility is the word, anons. And the word is good.

I ran a series of scenarios posted to /k/ a while ago which showed that carriers had become obsolete.

>>32952997
To add to this anon's point, LHA-6 and LHA-7 might not necessarily be the be all end all of big deck amphibs. In a single MEU environment, you might be giving up a bit too much. However, let's start throwing multiple MEUs together. Take three MEUs and make a MEB. You now have a situation where you have plenty of well decks, and the extra aviation capacity would be very much welcome. They did this in the Gulf War, and found it was great. Furthermore, as anon said, it's got a lot of room for MEB and above staff to actually run the damn thing. So my opinion- even if the LHA-6 design isn't followed for all of its successors, the aviation focus of the LHA-6 is something which fits in well into a larger force.

>>32953050
Anon please. Those were a fun couple of weeks, but we both know you aren't him.

>>32953069
Actually, I am him.

In fact, my scenario stands. Still.

>>32953061
>Furthermore, as anon said, it's got a lot of room for MEB and above staff to actually run the damn thing.
I didn't remember to make that point, actually, but it's an excellent and very important part of the puzzle.

>>32948903
>life support
>a fucking ship

dude

>>32953135
Life support for humans includes the following:
>shelter
>food
>water
>air
That includes the galley, mess, bunks, NBC atmo considerations for some ships, many, many damage control systems and design features, water storage/production, food storage/preservation, basic living/working space considerations like passageways which allow quick, safe motion, plus supplementary considerations like entertainment and civie communications for crew to loved ones.

A drone needs none of these things.

Next time, think before you post.

>>32952875
They COULD get the heavy equipment to shore but they don't want to build gliders to be snatched off the deck of the amphibs

>>32952996
>The amphibious landings of the future will likely be done by helicopters or V-22s.
This is a stupid thing to say
Neither of those can penetrate any amount of anti-air, they are vastly more expensive than a boat while carrying less/burning more fuel, and they only carry light infantry

In reality they will do an amphibious landing via the army + airdrop because the marines are useless

File: shrugging girl.jpg (201KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

201KB, 600x600px

>>32953135

I'm sorry, did you just imply that ships don't need life support systems? If that was your intention, then you should really stop posting because you very clearly don't know anything about engineering and you've probably never set foot on a boat either.

>>32953210
>implying your memes can stop the truth
It is objectively true at this point. The range of V-22s means you can likely find the chink in the enemy's IADS, providing they have one set up, and provide entry into it. Chinks in said IADS can be made via the other aviation assets on the ship (F-35Bs), those from CVs, or cruise missile fire from the escorts, or possibly even NGFS if the Zumwalt had its shit done and/or when the HVP is fielded.

Yes, you start with light infantry. They are your preliminary force, which takes and holds important positions before your armor can land and link up with them. The enemy will be hard pressed to maneuver on them with armor, because once again, you have aviation assets in place that can easily interdict said armor. In case you didn't know, interdiction is where the main damage of airpower is felt, not CAS.

I mean, you're baiting anyways, so I don't know why I'm bothering, but others might somehow believe you.

>>32953406
>chink
i see what you did there

File: 1485488109942.gif (2MB, 405x320px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 405x320px

>>32946334
>Unmanned subs

I see a lot of utility in unmanned ships in future warfare. You can perhaps have a drone with just electronics or radar while offloading the weapons to a separate ship. Since electronic signals tend to attract a lot of attention, the drone will keep people out of harm's way while doing reconnaissance. The USN could close the AESA gap by building cheaper drones with such radar without having to build a gigantic destroyer. Lots of ideas to float here, guys.

>>32953406
>The range of V-22s means you can likely find the chink in the enemy's IADS, providing they have one set up, and provide entry into it
Ok? Now you have deployed a few hundred light infantry in the middle of nowhere
You can't support them, you can't reinforce them, you can't resupply them

You can't do an AMPHIBIOUS INVASION this way, this is for small scale raids only

>you have aviation assets in place that can easily interdict said armor.
And here's the fantasy of "Well we just own the skies and we don't actually need ground forces"

>>32946334
You know, I look at the blue lines in that pic, the USN wishlist, and I see the 66 SSNs and 104 DDG/CGs, and it really drives home to me just how little current USN leadership respects Russian and Chinese SSBN technology and projected force levels. I mean, their SSNs, too, but nothing gets SSNs built like a fucking scary class of SSBNs built en masse.

That, more than anything, tells me what we hear publicly from ONI and other sources about the Type 094 being as loud as a Delta III and the Type 096 not looking much better might actually be close to their best data. It also tells me they're looking at the glacial pace of Russian SSBN/SSN construction, and looking at the classes, and really not popping a sweat yet.

Me, I'd really love to see at least 80 SSNs and 16 SSBNs plus another 4 SSGNs built off the Columbia hull like the Ohio SSGN conversions, but maybe that's just me. I like seeing one of the two major ASW and anti-ship striking arms of the USN as strong as possible.

>>32953645
I've deployed anywhere from a battalion to a brigade level force there over the course of several trips, WITH ARMOR ON THE WAY. I can support them, via my airpower. The enemy cannot move on my forces there, because they'll get interdicted en route. Like I said. I keep a supply line open through the air while other forces land on the beach and link up to the waiting infantry.

>You can't do an AMPHIBIOUS INVASION this way, this is for small scale raids only
Bullshit you can't.

>And here's the fantasy of "Well we just own the skies and we don't actually need ground forces"
Let me ask you a question. Do you know why the Allies weren't crushed on the beaches of Normandy when nearby German forces, including tanks, counterattacked? I'll give you a hint. Interdiction. Some of it was planes. Some of it was planes spotting for ships. All of it was incredibly effective. Not necessarily in killing, which they were plenty good at anyways, but in blunting the attacks altogether. And this was back when the only sensors you had were the Mk 1 Eyeball.

Interdiction hits the enemy when they are most vulnerable- when they are transiting the roads. They have to stop and take cover or else they will be destroyed. Now do note that. If they take cover, they'll likely survive. The problem is they can't move. So no, airpower alone will not win the war. However, airpower makes it so that your enemy can't move, letting your ground forces defeat him in detail because he is unable to attack in strength, unable to reinforce anything, unable to supply in bulk, unable to retreat.

>>32953744
Oh I'm sorry, 2 MEBs is the proposed total in "proper" ARG shipping. Make that landing a Division(-).

>>32953744
If you are freely able to do this shit near the shore, flying V-22's/choppers around, landing LCAC's/LCU's

Then you could have just brought an LST, for a fraction of the price, and land a proper armored brigade
Airpower only works when you MASSIVELY overmatch the enemy in every regard.

This strategy would have FAILED at normandy or inchon.

>>32953810
Not this again. Please, we've had this argument many times. You get BTFO each time.

>>32953831
How many times does this US chopper fetish have to result in dramatic failures until they give it up?
This has NEVER been done before, and they've had choppers for a while now.

>>32953810
Not him but no, it didn't fail. He's right. For every paratrooper plane landing guys in Normandy there was something like 2-4 planes running CAS, tactical and strategic bombing campaigns near the coast to isolate German forces.

>>32953844
>This has NEVER been done before, and they've had choppers for a while now.
Uh, Afghanistan? We choppered SAD/JSOC people in before even the first airstrikes.
Just about every JSOC operation for the last 20 years?
Grenada?
Rotary wing gunships were the first aircraft into Iraqi airspace in Desert Storm, before the EF-111s, F-15Es or F-117s, taking out early warning radar sites, so I think we can partially count that as well.
2003 invasion of Iraq saw rotary wing assets again first in country (not including the Dora Farms strike) with the Nightstalkers destroying 70 OPs, followed by an all-up air assault on, you guessed it, choppers.
Dozens of air assault operations in Vietnam, most of which were successful
If we count Airborne as the precursor to modern air assault tactics, even Normandy counts partially to the total

Just because you keep screaming it does not make it true.

>>32951342
I nearly forgot about this fucker.

>>32950231

Because the usn saying "don't build any more like these" really shows how it's the future and internet commandos are stupid, amirite?

>>32954152
Moreso Congress and a bunch of other old out of touch people who are active in raising their voices. Truth of the matter is that no one knows if it's worth it or not.

>>32954152
>Because the usn saying "don't build any more like these" really shows how it's the future and internet commandos are stupid, amirite?
That's not what they said. They said, "Build us two, because they seem like really useful clubs to have in the bag, in addition to the standard well deck ships."

File: F35 over carrier.jpg (2MB, 3000x2155px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3000x2155px

>>32950202
>We've literally already tried this and it doesn't work.
Only because it doesn't have a ramp.

>>32954528

This

For anyone who wants to examine what potential you could get out of a "lighter" carrier just look at the QEs. Big margins for later growth, automation and thus lower crew requirements, whilst retaining significant capability.

There's not many carriers that can sustain 72 sorties per flying day with only a fighter force of 36.

>>32955814

110 sorties per day with 36 fighters, 200 with surge conditions, wiuth surge being considered in the ralm of 45+ aircraft.

72 sorties per day is with the 24 F-35 "standard" mixed wing.

>>32951485

If you remove the main counterforce target which would absorb nearly all enemy nukes, then what will the enemy target instead?

>>32956937

Why would you want to intentionally design your deterrence in such a way that would encourage an adversary to nuke vast amounts of land in the Midwest? If all the nukes are in submarines, then the other side has no reason spam nukes at locations inside the US. All their attention would be focused on the ocean. Of course, this would require a much larger number of SSBN. Something like 30 ballistic missile submarines.

Just build more Burkes in the short term, while queueing up a Tico replacement, be it Zums or some new Guided Missile Cruiser.

Oh and lots of attack boats. Virginias everywhere.

>>32957319

>Tico replacement

There is no reason why cruiser and destroyer need to be separate designations.

File: USS America.jpg (1MB, 3000x2173px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2173px

>>32954528
>>32955814
>>32955901
The reason the America doesn't have a ramp is because it's designed to maximize BOTH rotary wing and STOVL operations. It's a bit less efficient with F-35B operations, but it gets 3 more lift off/landing spots for spotting up to 8 simultaneous rotary wing aircraft on deck at once for takeoff (in spite of being just under 60% the size of the QE). This is extremely important for a carrier focused on air assault, as opposed to one focused on fleet carrier operations. Much higher rotary wing sortie rate, much higher rotary wing turnaround rate. Pic related, as is pic in next post for contrast.

Different mission, different priorities, different design. They'll both be excellent at their respective jobs.

File: HMS_Queen_Elizabeth.jpg (283KB, 1600x1130px)

283KB, 1600x1130px

>>32957380
QE for comparison

>>32957329
Not necessarily a huge reason, but it does make things simpler. The main difference between the two is role in the fleet - Ticos have the added comms, processing, berthing and work spaces for the CSG fleet defense command staff to command air, AShW and ASW operations for the strike group. Burkes do not. Any Tico replacement needs this added space and equipment to replace Ticos in the fleet, and it'll probably be designated a CG just for easy reference to keep them separate from standard Burkes and people can know at a glance which command ships are where.

If you don't believe me, go look up the various CSGs and the former ESGs, and ask yourself why there is always one single Tico with every single one, no more and no less.

>>32957380
>USS America
Why are modern ship names so full of autism?

File: USS_America_CVA-66.jpg (109KB, 800x555px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 800x555px

>>32957431
>Why are modern ship names so full of autism?
Anon...

File: SCN_0033.jpg (964KB, 1024x819px) Image search: [Google]

964KB, 1024x819px

>>32957431
>not knowing there was a shitty kitty class CV named America
>not knowing what a proud old bitch she was

>>32957291
Anon is correct in that having spots out in Bumfuck, North Dakota absorb counterforce nukes where there will be very, very few civilian casualties comparatively is a good thing.

Also, the only ICBMs still in US service are the Minuteman III LGM-30 missiles, each having only three MIRVs and striking three targets if all three are loaded as bombs and not PENAIDs. There are currently only about 450 of these active, which means a maximum of 1,350 delivered payloads.

A single Ohio class carries 24 Trident II D5 SLBMs, each with up to 12 MIRV borne nukes (though it's currently treaty limited to 8 per missile). This means a theoretical maximum of 288 nukes per boat, which means that for current USN SSBNs to completely replace/surpass the current ICBM forces in throw weight, only 5 more boats would be required. 8 boats if you factor in readiness rates.

However, giving the enemy a juicy, out of the way conterforce target plus START I and NEW START treaties make this impractical and improbable. The US is limited to only 288 deployed SLBMs and 1,152 total SLBMs deployed, and ICBMs are accounted separately. So under the current treaty structure we couldn't replace ICBMs with SLBMs even if we wanted to. From a cost standpoint, this isn't such a bad thing. We've got more than enough throw weight to keep people shitting their pants, but we don't have the added cost of building/operating more SSBNs plus the SSNs to keep track of all the extra Russian SSBNs which might be built or put back in commission. ICBMs are a hell of a lot cheaper to keep an operate.

>>32957431
>Why are modern ship names so full of autism?
Why are you such cancer?

>>32957599

>spots out in Bumfuck, North Dakota absorb counterforce nukes where there will be very, very few civilian casualties

That's still land inside the United States. The deterrence system should be designed in such a way that the enemy has no incentive to throw nukes at any part of the country in an exchange.

>A single Ohio class carries 24 Trident II D5 SLBMs

Columbia-class SSBN will hold 16 Trident II D5 SLBM per ship. That's 1/3 fewer missiles, so more submarines would be needed to get the same amount of kilotons. And of course, you'd also want to have a larger number of operational SSBN submarines than the minimum acceptable number.

>>32957673
>That's still land inside the United States. The deterrence system should be designed in such a way that the enemy has no incentive to throw nukes at any part of the country in an exchange.
Anon, that's not how it works. In any large scale exchange, nukes will be coming toward the US, regardless of whether ICBMs are on the mainland or not. Control centers, leadership, other prime conventional counterforce targets, etc. All these things will be targeted.

The idea is to let targets which have already launched their payloads and are out in the middle of nowhere absorb as much of this as possible, thus increasing the chance of other essential targets receiving fewer and more manageable targeted nukes.

>Columbia-class SSBN will hold 16 Trident II D5 SLBM per ship. That's 1/3 fewer missiles, so more submarines would be needed to get the same amount of kilotons.
Partially true, even if you account it by number of MIRVs, not kilotons. With the outstanding CEP accuracy of US BMs, kiloton numbers mean a lot less than they do for the Russians because we always strike much closer to the intended target.

>And of course, you'd also want to have a larger number of operational SSBN submarines than the minimum acceptable number.
Again, this is treaty limited. That's why the Columbia class has fewer total missiles per boat, to spread out the treaty max of SLBMs to more boats, making it harder to kill them all before launch. Remember that, due to treaty limitations, the current Ohio class boats carry about 60% of total max payload. This is a waste of operational funding, so it would only make sense to design the new force to reflect out treaty limitations, which historically seem to only reduce over time. It's in everyone's interest that they don't increase - Russia doesn't have the money to completely abrogate NewSTART and get into another SSBN pissing match with the US, and the US doesn't want to start spending more than 4% GDP on defense again.

>>32954528
What's with the black streak over the top of the F-35?

>>32957431
Let's see your definition of autistic names and not.

>>32958461
>inb4 British shitposting about HMS DESTROYIFICATOR and HMS ASSFISTER compared to USS Giffords

File: 1477684372801.png (228KB, 738x673px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 738x673px

>>32958515
holy fucking kek

File: 1456600572190.jpg (146KB, 851x630px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 851x630px

>>32958515
>HMS ASSFISTER
confirmed british

>>32946280

We've been using drone aircraft for 30 years and nobody bats an eye.

Now you think people will throw a fit when we have drone boats and subs? Get the fuck outta here.

>>32958967
There's a pretty big difference between drone aircraft being remote piloted from taxi to landing and a semi-autonomous ship which is supposed to receive conditional order sets (patrol route plus if/then conditionals governing reactions to sensor hits, high sea states, shoaling, etc.) and require little if any actual direct remote piloting.

It's an enormous state change in both AI complexity and legal complications.

>>32958126
The lift fan generates a lot of heat when it's in use?

>>32960231
It's a fan, not a jet. No exhaust heat. And that's the wrong side of the jet for exhaust scoring. Probably a fuel or hydraulic line leak.

>>32957380

>It's a bit less efficient with F-35B operations, but it gets 3 more lift off/landing spots for spotting up to 8 simultaneous rotary wing aircraft on deck at once for takeoff (in spite of being just under 60% the size of the QE).

The QE is capable of 10 helo spots though.

>>32955901
>200 with surge conditions

I haven't seen anything to suggest this, anything you can send my way? Ok if you don't, I know how it is.

>>32960309
>The QE is capable of 10 helo spots though.
Look at the pic here >>32957385. Count the spotting markings on the deck. 6 total. The ramp eats the four which might have been on the bow, and the two islands plus two elevators might have been rearranged to give one more spot on starboard stern of the deck, but I suppose there were other priorities/not necessary.

As I said, it's optomized for fixed wing flight ops, sortie turn around rate and deck parking. Not simultaneous usable fixed wing ops spotting.

>>32960342
It'd be mighty goddamned impressive, considering that's about the maximum surge rate of a Nimitz.

>>32960309

>The QE is capable of 10 helo spots though.

The QE is a 70,000 t carrier. It has plenty of extra room to have both a ramp and a large number of helicopter spots. The America is a much smaller vessel which needs as much empty deck space as possible, so a ramp is not an option.

>>32960455
It should also be noted that the entire deck is not reinforced and heat treated for F-35/V-22 landing - look at the pic here and note the darker deck colour where the landing spotting marks are.

In an absolute emergency, they might land two more helos (not F-35s) on the elevators, but the entire bow would be unusable for rotary wing landing while underway. Perhaps a single chopper could land just forward of the bow island if the ship were absolutely still, and even then there would be a significant risk.

It is simply a matter of different priorities in deck design, deck flow and flight ops priority.

>>32960514
forgot to link back to pic: >>32957385

File: CwutpWSWIAExqs_.jpg (202KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 1200x900px

>>32960363

Ah, no he's alluding to the fact currently there's only 6 spots marked out, but there's space for 4 more. Though the article is slightly old and there's been progression in it, I just can't find anything off hand.

proofs if required :D:D:D
http://aviationweek.com/defense/royal-navy-widening-scope-carrier-use

>>32960382

Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if QE could match that number, but the caveat with that is QE probably wouldn't be able to sustain that for any lengthy period relatively to a Nimitz. HMWHS is a wonder of god, it's an Amazon™ warehouse style system. You could run the entire munitions system with only 12 people!

And that wouldn't be necessarily a munitions or fuel issue, but the crew being utterly ruined from sorting at that rate.

>>32960514
>It should also be noted that the entire deck is not reinforced and heat treated for F-35/V-22 landing - look at the pic here and note the darker deck colour where the landing spotting marks are.

You're talking that digital image too literal. Artistic impression and whatnot.

>>32960582
http://aviationweek.com/defense/royal-navy-widening-scope-carrier-use
>Studies are being carried out by the U.K. Defense Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) to see if the ship can operate safely with more landing spots than the six currently planned. Harding suggests that by adding a further four landing spots, the ship will be able to lift a company-sized unit of troops (up to 250 soldiers) in a single group lift using medium helicopters. “This is possible,” Harding said. “We just need to decide how we paint the lines on the flight deck.”

This is from back in 2013. They've long since decided that 6 was the maximum spotting points they could safely regularly operate. The pic up here >>32957385 is the finalized deckplan.

>You're talking that digital image too literal. Artistic impression and whatnot.
I'm pretty sure it's the finalized deck plan slide from the BAE/MoD presentation when they publicly presented the final manning and flight ops plan. I do know when they modified the plans to deal with the point heat/reheat issue back in 2014 they did not modify the entire deck for obvious reasons.

>>32946746
>V-22 AW&Cs

Please tell me this is going to be a thing

>>32960655
Pretty sure they decided to go with the Merlins for now. I do know the USMC is gunning for a tanker variant of the V-22, and I really think it'll only be a matter of time before they build an AEW&C variant for the US Gator Navy ships. The sheer utility of being able to lily pad one out to screening/detached Burkes and LCSs seems like a complete no brainer.

>>32960655
It's not guaranteed, but I'd suspect something similar will be made at some point. There's a pretty neat Italian-made AESA radar that you can slap on the sides of just about anything. The USN just procured some for the MQ-8s. Interestingly, you know what the system is called? The Osprey.

>>32960655

Both the USMC and RN have a need and want for it.

USMC will be join for QE's flight trials, unsure if V-22 will be joining them, but I know for sure that both USMC Bees and V-22 will be joining QE for her first operational deployment.

RN want to show the MoD and brass the utility of the V-22s, I know the SAS are already making use of them. RN have them set on the shopping list, just need to prove it first.

>>32960363

http://aviationweek.com/defense/royal-navy-widening-scope-carrier-use

"Studies are being carried out by the U.K. Defense Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) to see if the ship can operate safely with more landing spots than the six currently planned. Harding suggests that by adding a further four landing spots, the ship will be able to lift a company-sized unit of troops (up to 250 soldiers) in a single group lift using medium helicopters. “This is possible,” Harding said. “We just need to decide how we paint the lines on the flight deck.”

Literally just a matter of line painting, it's capable of it.

>>32960382

Not outwith possibility, the Nimitz' maximum surge is much higher than 200, closer to around 240 if they surge.

The QE, with 36 F-35B, has long been stated as capable of 110 sorties in a day.

The "200" number is more of a projection aim, given no-one's really tested the ship to its limits of plane numbers yet, but the first captain has gone on record stating that it can have "almost twice the number of aircraft" if they really go for it. Measurements put that as entirely possible that the carrier could handle 50+ F-35B on it. So approaching something around 20% less than a Nimitz when they go balls out is pretty numerically accurate

File: V-22 single spot ship.jpg (89KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1280x720px

>>32960686
Pic related

>>32960737
>Literally just a matter of line painting, it's capable of it.
You missed the part where they were working on whether or not it was safe to operate that way. They decided it was not.

>Not outwith possibility, the Nimitz' maximum surge is much higher than 200, closer to around 240 if they surge.
Normal max operating rate for a Nimitz is 120-140 (depending on Nimitz subclass). The maximum any carriers have exhibited in a combat scenario was during the first days of the Desert Storm air war, when USN carriers averaged 2.0 to 2.1 sorties per day per aircraft. For a Nimitz, that would mean something certainly below the 200 mark.

In April 1998, there was Surge 97, in which Nimitz did 192 surge sorties per day following 6 days of 700 total sorties followed by a 16 hour stand down then a surge lasting 5 straight days. However, to achieve this, they were fully topped up on stores and under "augmented manning", which means they were significantly over manning requirements to get those numbers. Also, the sorties were all less than 200nmi, some less than 100nmi.

In 2001, the USN upped the surge benchmark to 207 sorties per day and in 2006, with the S-3s and F-14s retiring, the USN claimed (but has not yet demonstrated) a maximum surge sortie rate over four days of 230 sorties per day (again, 200nmi or less per sortie - an important limiting factor). As no jet carrier on the planet has ever produced over 200 sorties in a day yet, I am still slightly skeptical.

It should also be noted that in Surge 97, they achieved a 4.5 sortie per day rate on their F-18Cs, partially due to the massive extra manning help and topped off supplies. For the F-18E/F and F-35C, however, this number would necessarily be lower. N88 planning factors for the F-18E/F put it at 2.0 sorties per day, for instance.

All this is not to entirely refute your understanding on the matter, but to point out that sortie rate numbers should always be taken with a grain of salt.

File: aircraft-carrier-deck-coating.jpg (63KB, 1200x714px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 1200x714px

>>32960514
>>32960642

Ah, no dude the whole thing has been treated.

https://www.castolin.com/monitor-coatings/article/diverse/monitor-coatings-19500m-coating-uk-navy-s-biggest-ship-history

>The Thermal Metal Spray System consists of a metallic compound of aluminium and titanium. It was specially designed for large scale preparation and application. It will be melted and sprayed on to the decks of the carriers covering an area in excess of 19,500m2. Additionally it will need to perform for the 50 year lifespan of the ships.

https://www.castolin.com/monitor-coatings/article/diverse/monitor-coatings-19500m-coating-uk-navy-s-biggest-ship-history

>Activities included: the development of techniques required for large scale preparation and application of a Thermal Metal Spray System (TMS) over an area in excess of 19,500m2, the development of technologies acceptable for large scale application and long term support for the two carrier decks - See more at: https://www.castolin.com/monitor-coatings/article/diverse/monitor-coatings-19500m-coating-uk-navy-s-biggest-ship-history#sthash.Snq3vVRk.dpuf

>>32961488

Doublelinked there, the brandy is getting too my head.

http://www.ddcoatings.co.uk/1275/new-deck-coating-hms-queen-elizabeth-aircraft-carrier

>>32961488
And the deck joining reinforcement to counteract the heat/reheat cycle?

>>32961526

You'd assume so. There's nothing to indicate that they haven't reinforced the lighter coloured deck sections.

>>32946241
>Listening to a pilot

Of course a pilot thinks the navy needs more planes. The way a marine thinks it needs more assault ships.

Let the pilots design carriers and let the marines and surface warfare guys design theirs ships.

>>32953677
>That, more than anything, tells me what we hear publicly from ONI and other sources about the Type 094 being as loud as a Delta III and the Type 096 not looking much better might actually be close to their best data. It also tells me they're looking at the glacial pace of Russian SSBN/SSN construction, and looking at the classes, and really not popping a sweat yet.

It also helps that the upcoming Virginia boats with the Payload Module are going to carry 1/3rd the Tomahawk of the converted boomers, (which is a lot of fuckin tomahawks,) making them, effectively, SSGNs. That can be reconfigured for different missions, too. >>32957380

>The reason the America doesn't have a ramp is because it's designed to maximize BOTH rotary wing and STOVL operations. It's a bit less efficient with F-35B operations, but it gets 3 more lift off/landing spots for spotting up to 8 simultaneous rotary wing aircraft on deck at once for takeoff (in spite of being just under 60% the size of the QE). This is extremely important for a carrier focused on air assault, as opposed to one focused on fleet carrier operations. Much higher rotary wing sortie rate, much higher rotary wing turnaround rate. Pic related, as is pic in next post for contrast.

This. To clarify, they give up the well deck that usually holds a hovercraft or two landing ships, and they get a lot more hangar space - America and the follow-on LHA will have 22 aircraft. An LHD (normal amphib ship with the well deck) can carry 7 fixed-wing (plus a few choppers, iirc.)

Ramp, big hangar == dedicated light carrier.
No ramp, big hangar == Decent light carrier but still breddy good at the amphib assault role via helos (and F-35s to nuke shit that might kill helos)
No ramp, well deck == strictly amphib assault with attack choppers/harriers on it, dedicated landing vessel.

>>32963521
>America and the follow-on LHA will have 22 aircraft
For the America:
>The typical aircraft complement is expected to be 12 MV-22B transports, six STOVL F-35B attack aircraft, four CH-53K heavy transport helicopters, seven AH-1Z/UH-1Y attack helicopters and two Navy MH-60S for air-sea rescue.
>She can carry about 20 AV-8Bs or F-35Bs, and two MH-60Ses[5] to serve as a small aircraft carrier
TLDR: variable, but capped at about 20 fixed wing when going mini-carrier, or 6 fixed wing and 20 choppers in multirole.

>An LHD (normal amphib ship with the well deck) can carry 7 fixed-wing (plus a few choppers, iirc.)
For LHA-8+ it's unclear what the final aircraft compliment limits will be, but they're supposed to be about 70%-80% what the America can do.

File: USS_America_(LHA-6)_off_Pascagoula_in_2013.jpg (3MB, 4256x2832px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4256x2832px

>>32946241

The America and its sister are going to be outstanding warships when they're finished. The light carrier idea is something that should be seriously pursued, with America and Tripoli serving as models for future CVL. The F-35B gives this type of ship far more striking capability than was previously possible and that should be capitalized on.

>>32960655
V-22's are too expensive and shitty, probably now

>>32964487
>future CVL
Not until we get working AEW&C and tanker V-22 variants, at least. If we're going to call it a CVL, it needs to have organic fixed wing AWACS.

>>32964557

These ships would be supporting the larger, more capable CVN "super" carriers, not replacing them.

>>32964549
* none
oops

>>32964487
America's are way too expensive to be a CVL, whats the point of a carrier 1/3rd the price of a super carrier that has no catapults & carries less than 1/3rd the aircraft?

>>32964627

The F-35B makes the lack of catapults much less of an issue.

>>32964610
There's not much point to a CVL concept unless you're building a CSG around each one and sending them off to operate as independent entities capable of taking the load off Nimitz class carriers or handling smaller flare-ups or patrolling NFZs, like the QE might. If you're just trying to get more aircraft per CSG, you just assign a second CSG to the OA or get the USAF to beef up their wings at local TACAIR bases.

>>32950195
You know, I cant help but think the Independence-class LCS would look better with the Freedom-class' superstructure.

>>32950202
Think less this and more CVA-67.

>>32951499
But what about modernized Elco boats?

>>32958461
USS Deathdark Doomblood

>>32952077
IJN vs PLAN soon?

Nah, not yet.

>>32964676

The point of the CVL is to perform the same kind of role already filled by LHD/LHA and other flat-deck "amphibious" ships but giving up space for landing craft in favor of expanded aviation facilities.

>>32967591
>The point of the CVL is to perform the same kind of role already filled by LHD/LHA and other flat-deck "amphibious" ships but giving up space for landing craft in favor of expanded aviation facilities.
You either don't understand what mission set LHD/LHAs are for or what mission set CVLs are for. I suggest you do a little reading on both, and then stop and ask yourself which niche, which hole in our order of battle, would be filled by a CVL. Ask yourself whether mission sets are under addressed or if it is simply a matter of coverage and hulls in the water.

Don't forget to ask yourself if you're behind the CVL concept just because it seems cool, or if there is a real, legitimate need to throw that many resources in build, manning, maintenance and aircraft at a significant force of CVLs which would cost more than any entire navy in the world except the top 7 or 8.

>>32946737
C-2 is being replaced by V-22s

>>32968146
That's what I was talking about. I just didn't phrase it well.

>>32953178
>A drone needs none of these things.

They are also far more specific and exacting about what they DO need. If a ship is damaged the human crew can operate without life support systems being operational (water/food brought in from other ships, respirators/suits for dealing with toxic chemicals, being careful/uncomfortable if living/working spaces are damaged). Humans can also be swapped out relatively easily if they need to be replaced, they can even train each other to operate systems redundantly.

You seem like a serious anon, surely you aren't suggesting that technology has advanced to the point where robotic systems are going to be better able to resist battle damage than a human crew?

>>32968624
>You seem like a serious anon, surely you aren't suggesting that technology has advanced to the point where robotic systems are going to be better able to resist battle damage than a human crew?
Not even close. No drone would be worth a shit in a serious, complicated DC situation. A fire? Probably fine depending on where it is. A mine or battle damage with serious hull damage and a fire? Probably fucked.

I was responding directly and specifically to that anon's incredulity that life support considerations in a sea going ship involve volume, mass, complexity and power requirements.

To be clear, I think we are still some ways out from semi-autonomous subs and surface ships being sent out on armed patrol. The legal issues alone are absolutely staggering, and the technology, while impressive and advancing, is not quite there yet for sending an armed drone halfway around the world, patrolling a box and being expected to have the target discrimination and judgement not to cause an international incident or be so hampered in protocol as to be ineffective.

As sensor nodes, they could be very, very useful in the near future, though. We're just not to the point where we should be planning on them replacing warships.

>>32960949

>whether or not it was safe to operate that way. They decided it was not.

[Citation needed]

>>32946241
Wow, people in this thread are ridiculous
>not wanting modern battleships
>not wanting a mix of big guns and 150+ VLS cells

>>32968756
>[Citation needed]
At this point, he's made a claim based on a years-old article that they could turn around, repaint the deckplan and voila have 8-10 spotting stations for rotary wing ops/STOVL landing. I'd say the burden of proof is on him to show that the 6 spotting mark configuration they went with was less than they could safely operate just for shits and giggles, and because they enjoy operating below capacity and periodically repainting their entire deck plan.

>>32968796

You claimed they found that it was unsafe.

I'm asking you to post a source stating that. The source he posted was very clear that all it takes is a repainting to modify it for increased helo operations if a carrier's TAG specialises it for that mission, and stated that it was capable of it. Normally this wouldn't be the case due to them being more F-35B heavy instead of helo heavy.

So I'm asking you to show proof that they found it was unsafe.

>>32958967
>>32959866
maybe make them have human oversight at all times
one guy can watch 30 ships do diddly squat and then when one has something attention-worthy happen he can focus on that and take control if necessary

>>32969145
>You claimed they found that it was unsafe.
The performed deckflow and flight ops studies to determine what safe operating configuration would be. Then they released the final deckplan to the public. Ipso facto configurations with more stations were below whatever operational safety floor they set.

Saying they can just *poof* repaint the deck and gain 160% operational spotting stations and flight ops flow ignores the simple logical question: if they found operating that way acceptable, why didn't they just do it that way in the first place? More spotting is better, right? So there is clearly a reason they didn't go with that configuration, be it safety, hampered deckflow, efficiency, whatever. As safety was specifically mentioned as the limiting factor in anon's quote about the deck studies they did, one can assume safety played a large part in their reasoning to go with what they did.

>>32969346

>why didn't they just do it that way in the first place?

Because its primary role is as an F-35 carrier. The increased helos ops are for whichever one happens to be performing the amphibious assault role. You lay it out to suit the role, and especially on the first carrier, its role isn't going to be that at first. They stated very clearly that its capable of it.

Still waiting on your proof that they found it unsafe rather than just "in my opinion", which is all you're giving. You've been shown proof saying one thing, but you haven't shown any proof to show the opposite at all. "Your opinion" and "I assume that" isn't a source.

>>32969346

The original source said very clearly,

" to see if the ship can operate safely with more landing spots"

Then.

"This is possible."

>>32969314
I think /k/ has a fundamental problem with the inherent differences between a tactical aircraft drone and a drone ship or sub.

The amount of sensor information alone is orders of magnitude more complex with a ship. You'd need a team of people on each one just to sort out what is happening. And leaving it so they team doesn't "look" at the feeds until the drone spots something doesn't really work, either. In the time it would take them to work out what was happening, it might be too late to engage incoming threats.

We're also talking about a huge difference in cost. A Reaper costs 16.9 million. ACTUV, which is ONLY ASW SENSORS and doesn't even include surface or air search sensors or weapons to engage anything, will at best case be 20 million per copy. Add in weapons and AA/SUW sensors, you've got a much larger ship than 145t and a shit ton more money. An operational all-up version of the combat drones OP's report suggests would be at least 150 million per copy.

>>32969418
>Because its primary role is as an F-35 carrier.
Right. So exactly what I said all the way up here >>32957380
>Different mission, different priorities, different design. They'll both be excellent at their respective jobs.
before anon got autistic about what the QE will and won't do.

It's designed to maximize fixed wing STOVL efficiency. Period. It has fewer operational rotary wing spotting points. Fact. How is this so difficult to conceive?

>The increased helos ops are for whichever one happens to be performing the amphibious assault role.
Only one will be deployed at any given time unless there's an emergency surge. Are you telling me now that each will have a very different operational profile? Because I would love to see any kind of source suggesting that.

>They stated very clearly that its capable of it.
Nope. The quote, one more time for the short bus >>32960737:
>"Studies are being carried out by the U.K. Defense Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) to see if the ship can operate safely with more landing spots than the six currently planned.
Then later, in reference to the difficulty of the modifications if deemed safe:
>“This is possible,” Harding said. “We just need to decide how we paint the lines on the flight deck.”
And then, what do you know. They finalized the deck plan with 6 spotting markers.

Do the math, anon.

>>32969438
Way to try and monkey fuck the context of the actual comments. See above.

The anon above implies that it's just a matter of deck paint, when the quote he posted CLEARLY states they were doing studies on the feasibility and safety of such a plan. Then, guess what, 6 spots.

How is this so difficult to understand?

How about either of you two provide a single bit of proof from project literature or mockups showing this 10 spot configuration? How about you prove it's even a viable option now, 2.5 years after the interview that anon posted?

>>32969418
>>32969438
Come off it, you tosser. That article was from over two years ago. If I quoted F-35 specs and wish list items from four years before IOC (2011) as if they were done facts today, you'd rightly be calling me a fucking idiot.

>>32968796
>>32969145
>>32969346
>>32969418
>>32969438
>>32969576
>>32969593

Hi, I've drunk too much to get fully comprehend what ya'll saying, but there's plenty of sources indicating that it can be done, just need to google hard enough.

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/GD_2.pdf

>Six deck landing spots are envisaged, but the deck could be marked out for the operation often medium helicopters at once, allowing the lift of a company of 250 troops. The hangars are designed for CH-47 Chinook operations without blade folding and the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor. The hangar deck measures 155 by 33.5 metres (509 by 109.9 ft) with a height of 6.7 to 10 metres (22 to 33 ft), large enough to accommodate in excess of twenty fixed and rotary wing aircraft. Believe me, it feels cavernous.

As far as my understanding goes, that airlifting company number is very well circulated so it stands to reason that it is still possible. If you note the anon said that he couldn't find anything off hand immediately and that the source was slightly dated.

Basically the F35 is gonna revive the Harrier Carrier concepts.

>>32970168
>https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/GD_2.pdf
March 2014. Even older than the above quote. Again, before the safety and deck flow efficiency studies were complete.

>>32970236

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/why-your-cvf-should-not-moonlight-as-your-lph/

Give the fact they've said there's enhancements for the second in the class, PoW for amphibious assault/LPH role, that will be rolled out to QE on her refit, I would think those results have been favourable. It's just that program concurrency hasn't allowed for the extra "four" spaces to be kitted out on QE.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/555607/2015_Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review.pdf

>We will enhance a Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carrier to support this amphibious capability.

And if you disregard the SDSR, well, I don't know what else I can say. That's the highest form of proofs for the British armed forces.

>>32970399
>It's just that program concurrency hasn't allowed for the extra "four" spaces to be kitted out on QE.
It's literally a matter of deck paint and the deck flow manual/training. There's no "kitting out".

>http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/why-your-cvf-should-not-moonlight-as-your-lph/
There is nothing in that article about modifying deck markings or increasing helo ingress/egress spotting. Only about loadout.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/555607/2015_Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review.pdf
>November 2015
Ok. Though, again, nothing about deck spotting.

>And if you disregard the SDSR, well, I don't know what else I can say. That's the highest form of proofs for the British armed forces.
It's a great source. But again, it says absolutely nothing about the specific spotting capacity on the QE flight deck, and it was completed before the deck flow and safety studies were complete and the final deck plan was released.

You're going to have to dig a little deeper, anon. You're arguing that a clearly superior configuration was somehow simply not chosen for shits and giggles in spite of the fact that the final design has already been released. And you're doing this with old sources from before the relevant decision making process was complete or sources which are not directly relevant to this specific question.

>>32970501

Buddy you're saying a lot that I'm not saying.

>It's literally a matter of deck paint and the deck flow manual/training. There's no "kitting out".

Really, so nothing has to change with the deck lighting system or software changes?

>There is nothing in that article about modifying deck markings or increasing helo ingress/egress spotting. Only about loadout.

There's:
>The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) is currently evaluating how many helicopter spots the QEC could safely support. It seems likely that up to 10 Merlins could be launched together, allowing a full company of around 250 Marines to be transported in a single lift.

>Ok. Though, again, nothing about deck spotting.

No, but it indicates that there's amphibious assault enhancements to be done for QE that have been/are being applied to PoW. And you know what those could be? Further landing spaces for a company.

So it indicates that study is on going, most likely waiting for the results from flight trials. But gives they've said there's enhancements for this role, you'd think that this would be the biggest, no?

>You're going to have to dig a little deeper, anon. You're arguing that a clearly superior configuration was somehow simply not chosen for shits and giggles in spite of the fact that the final design has already been released. And you're doing this with old sources from before the relevant decision making process was complete or sources which are not directly relevant to this specific question.

And there's quite literally no such thing as the "final" design for QE. They're not done with them. There's still a good number of things to be implemented like the containerised CAMM launcher or sorting it out for the overall room for 72 aircraft.

>>32970619
>>The Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL) is currently evaluating how many helicopter spots the QEC could safely support. It seems likely that up to 10 Merlins could be launched together, allowing a full company of around 250 Marines to be transported in a single lift.
I missed that. But again, you miss the present tense of the verb "EVALUATING". It says nothing about the ship in its current configuration having that capability. Which is what I've been noting this entire time.

>So it indicates that study is on going
Um, no. That SDSR was from 2015. They've already released the final deckplan.

>And you know what those could be? Further landing spaces for a company.
Then where are the deck spot markings for such a thing? Outside of a severe emergency, rotary wing does not land on a moving ship whilst ignoring deck markings.

>And there's quite literally no such thing as the "final" design for QE. They're not done with them. There's still a good number of things to be implemented like the containerised CAMM launcher or sorting it out for the overall room for 72 aircraft.
Anon. I asked for a very simple thing: find me current, good sourcing from AFTER the deck safety and efficiency study was completed about the QE deck plan which would support the idea that it will have ten deck spots. You claimed there were sources all over the place. You've yet to produce one.

If you're going to argue that such a configuration is fact, then you'll need to support it with actual data.

File: dnsc9501588fb3.jpg (67KB, 478x720px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 478x720px

>>32970399
You've just used a source with declarative statements like the following:
>http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/why-your-cvf-should-not-moonlight-as-your-lph/
>CGI showing Chinook helicopters aboard HMS Queen Elizabeth. The Chinook can lift a lot more than a Merlin but is slower, has shorter range and less protected. They are not properly marinized and don’t have folding rotors like the Merlin. Embarking a lot of Chinooks for an extended deployment would be possible but problematic.

If they can't even do basic homework like that, what makes you think anything they have to say about project flow will be accurate? Pic very much related.

Every CH-47 after the D variant has folding rotors, and every UK variant after HC Mk3 was supposed to also have these modifications, including the 14 new-built Mk6 variants based on the US CH-47F. The entire UK CH-47 fleet is being upgraded to HC Mk4-5 now, by the way.