According to the
Global Security web site the US Navy studied the following:
Another cruiser alternative studied in the late 1980s was variously entitled a Mission Essential Unit (MEU) or CG V/STOL. In a return to the thoughts of the independent operations cruiser-carriers of the 1930s and the Russian Kiev class, the ship was fitted with a hangar, elevators and a flight deck. The mission systems were Aegis, SQS-53 sonar, 12 SV-22 ASW aircraft and 200 VLS cells. The resulting ship had a waterline length of 700 feet, a waterline beam of 97 feet, and a displacement of about 25,000 tons.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cruiser-cold-war.htm
Mission Essential Unit (MEU) is great moniker because w/o some sizeable combatant like a Cruiser/Carrier ie CG V/TOL you wont have what is essential for a mission accomplish and you essentially will not be able to accomplish most maritime missions.
W/o a large budgets, we might well start speaking Chinese at this point. Time is up as the saying goes. Retention of USN ranks needs quite an expensive overhaul yes, as a start.
"In a return to the thoughts of the independent operations cruiser-carriers of the 1930s and the Russian
Kiev class, the ship was fitted with a hangar, elevators and a flight deck." is exactly right. Carriers should carrying a 6th Gen A-12 (flying taco) stealth fighters (larger internal bay) bombers to make carrier worth paying for. Carriers and Cruiser/Carriers protected by close defensive and far offensive large sub/surface unmanned combatants (potentially attritable) would be far better than the arbitrary industrail complex of destroyers, frigates, and crusiers. LCS is for permissive environments.
The idea for combatants need low RCS given an adversary's access to sensor data in the 21st century is preposterous. A Heavy Combatants Cruiser/Carriers location will be known and that is the point.
There are not near enough VLS to sustain any real fight in the Pacific. Minus multiple 200+ VLS ships also equipt w/ Vertical guns and even, as it turns out, vertical missile launching EM guns (as developedt by LockMart some time ago) there is little chance of even surviving a Pac fight.
If we can't deconflict and synergize F-35 and various missiles including Cruise missiles we are already finished.
A CG V/TOL ship protected from decent anti-torpedo system (?) and multiple DEW (including restarted PBW tech) must be available to present too many variables for an adversary's C2 to manage. An extremely difficult offense renders a defense helpless. like football.
..will continue advocate a speedy nuclear powered Heavy Combatant (well within available material tech availale as a solution to traditional speed concerns, ie Nukes and material science "are magic" if there is the will. There is a lot BS being pushed by lazy bureaucrats.
Nukes could also power the proposed EM hull armor. Between PBWs and EM Hull armor nothing gets in.
Provided motivation the space and labor these Heavy Combatants Cruiser/Carriers can be produced in number. Plenty of workers and yards available if the there is sufficient intent.
A CG V/TOL may or not need a large horizontal gun (1000mile gun but..) and vertical guns are lower footprint and can get you into near space offering many options in addition to the VLSs.
A pure Arsenal Ship does not offer options including the all future V-22 variants including USMC/SOCOM assets nor horizontal launch un/manned aircraft including tanker UAS and attritable fighters.
Smaller ships are never going to challenge the decision cycle on an adversary like this type of Heavy Combatants. Smaller ship's w/ their lesser defenses and lighter hulls will simply defeated in detail as they are overcome one by one. Attritable USVs can take/block/intercept the threats.
If a AI C2 is to have the most success in Pacific fight, (it) needs the most options available on each ship. Even if you dont win fast (the likely outcome) you survive and likely fight full up again w/ the remaining ships. Either from outside or in frontal fist fight, your full multi-mission capable ready wherever and whenever culmination against an adversary occurs and operational exploitation begins.
From Grey Havoc's great find above
Priority A: Cooperative engagement in all mission areas;
integrated machinery systems; survivability and the ability to "fight hurt." (destroyers, frigates, and crusiers generally will not be able to as they are dependant daughters not independant crusaders)
Priority B: Embedded readiness assessment, mission
planning, and training; condition-based maintenance; torpedo
self-defense.
Priority C: co-location of ship control and combat information
center; access control and security; alternative (peacetime/
wartime) use of volume. (San Antonio class) Marines/ Specops/ Refuggees/ hospital space (Put America at sea again)
Priority D: Smooth topsides; new information management;
organic aviation and other off-board vehicles. (10:72)