• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

New USN CVL

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,394
Reaction score
385
Conventional propulsion also means that it could be built somewhere other than Newport News, wonder how much the cost of the Ford's come down if they seriously look at building a CV.

Yes. NASSCO could build the hull modules in San Diego, with final fit-out in Newport News if necessary. Going back to steam cats and hydraulic arrestor gear would save another $700M. Together that might bring the price down closer to $6B... IF (big if) the USN could avoid gold plating everything.
"Going back to" steam cats on a new design which is using gas turbines instead of a steam plant won't save no $700 million.
 

H_K

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
168
Reaction score
320
@marauder2048 Why?

IIRC, steam cats were envisioned for CVF FR using a pair of “donkey boilers” to generate steam. This is not particularly complicated or expensive, and nothing like a full steam plant requiring steam turbines and turbine generators. Also nothing like the big electric plant required for EMALS. That leaves the cost of the steam cats themselves, which are extremely cheap... the last shipset acquired for CVN-77 cost <$50M.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
501
the last shipset acquired for CVN-77 cost <$50M.
And then the supplier base that built it went away. EMALS is more or less $120 million per catapult.
That's not particularly onerous if they ever went for a 2 catapult version of the widened beam LHA-6.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
501
the last shipset acquired for CVN-77 cost <$50M.
And then the supplier base that built it went away. EMALS is more or less $120 million per catapult.
That's not particularly onerous if they ever went for a 2 catapult version of the widened beam LHA-6.
That's what I'm thinking also, EMAL's are the future.
And EMALS/AAG do permit billet reductions which post-Bonhomme Richard is probably one of the few
areas that the Navy is going to countenance.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
389
I think more importantly, EMALS allows a wider range of take off weights and accelerations, and especially with UAVs I think this will be very relevant. And if there's any hope of beefing up the lackluster CVWs, it's attaching UAVs and having spares just hanging in the rafters like and old WWII Yorktown. Take the wings off and hold the UAV in hanger like it was a disposable store like a drop tank, and sudden CVBG persistence just got super real.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
501
Take the wings off and hold the UAV in hanger like it was a disposable store like a drop tank, and sudden CVBG persistence just got super real.
Funny. That was the original J-UCAS (X-45a) vision: detachable wings and storage in a climate controlled container like an all-up-round.
 

mkellytx

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
210
Reaction score
192
the last shipset acquired for CVN-77 cost <$50M.
And then the supplier base that built it went away. EMALS is more or less $120 million per catapult.
That's not particularly onerous if they ever went for a 2 catapult version of the widened beam LHA-6.
That's what I'm thinking also, EMAL's are the future.
And EMALS/AAG do permit billet reductions which post-Bonhomme Richard is probably one of the few
areas that the Navy is going to countenance.
No kidding, it's not just if you can halve the cost of the initial purchase, but the carrying costs of 50 years of operations must be affordable. The sailor's salary is of course one of the biggest of these expenses. The ship's company Nimitz to Ford went from 3,500 to 2,600 which is positive. If the intent is a viable conventional alternative to the Ford's, then roughly 2,000 crew needs to be the ceiling, which seams almost reasonable given the Americas are 65 O's and 994 E's (1,058 total).

It all comes down to what the end goal of this effort is. If it is to replace the LHD/LHA with something more capable, then the bigger America's or something like CVF are the way to go. If on the other hand the idea is to put pressure on the higher end CVN's, hopefully something like an all electric CV-68 is an option...
 

H_K

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
168
Reaction score
320
I think more importantly, EMALS allows a wider range of take off weights and accelerations, and especially with UAVs I think this will be very relevant.

This is open of the most bogus arguments that is still being used to sell the benefits of EMALS.

Maybe in the early 2000s there was a vision of launching small Predator-type UAVs (~1 ton) from carriers to track terrorists. But every UAV since then has gotten bigger and bigger. You simply can’t cheat with physics... what the Navy always wants is more payload/range, and you can’t buy that with a small aircraft, manned or unmanned.

Anyway as is the C13 catapult is perfectly fine launching a 6-ton T-45. I don’t see a need to go smaller.
 

H_K

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
168
Reaction score
320
And EMALS/AAG do permit billet reductions

Those billet reductions are marginal. For example the catapult crews (operators + maintenance) aboard Charles de Gaulle are only 36 men for 2 cats.

You can get significant reductions elsewhere, even with steam cats: look at CVF FR which was to have 900-1100 ship’s crew. The focus was on across-the-board automation, from catering to supplies to weapons handling, watch standing etc.

I’m pretty sure that likewise most of the manpower reductions on CVN-78 come from elsewhere, though I haven’t seen a detailed breakdown.
 
Last edited:

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
72
Possible option for conventionally powered electric dive propulsion system for CVL?

DRS developed a 36.5MW compact Permanent Magnet Motor for the Zumwalt Integrated Power System, problems during testing resulted in alternative choice of induction motors for Zumwalt IPS.

The new Columbia SSNB(X) propulsion system is a new electric drive system, presuming using the same DRS PMM 36.5MW?, thou Columbia motor had overheating problems during its land based trials, said to have been sorted.

If CVL were a two shaft design to keep costs down, would think max speed would be ~ 26 knots, 73MW, for a ~75,000t ship, you could fit tandem motors per shaft (as the QNLZ) for 30 knots, 146MW. The rule of thumb is that you need to double the power to increase speed by 4 knots, speed is expensive, increasing the cost, would the CONOPS for CVL require 30 knots?

If using GTG's to supply the electric power eg LM600 etc, will need careful design as GTs are gas guzzlers if not operating at 90+% rpm, partly why Zumwalt IPS system has two 36MW MT30 GTGs and two 3.8MW RR4500 GTGs connected to same bus so as to be able to optimize use of the appropriate GTGs for power as and when required, the other disadvantage are the large intakes and exhausts for GTs. The QNLZ IPS uses MT30 GTGs and DGs.

Would think from what little cost info disclosed nuclear reactor generators would much be more expensive than any GTGs or DGs option, nuclear requires special/expensive shipyard facilities, there is only the one shipyard capable of building nuclear carriers in the US, NNS. CVNs need costly mid life RCOH, when Navy planned to cancel Truman, saving cost of RCOH, variously quoted as $5.5 - 6.5 billion, the nuclear refuelling cost was not broken out but expect $1to 2 billion, also mention was made of $2.5 billion cost on end of life, due to the costs incurred with the disposal of the highly radioactive reactors. lastly nuclear reactors said to need higher manning with higher pay rates.

PS DOT&E reported Ford crew as 4,656 to 4,758, original plan was 4,476, Nimitz 5,200
 
Last edited:

H_K

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
168
Reaction score
320
If CVL were a two shaft design to keep costs down, would think max speed would be ~ 26 knots, 73MW, for a ~75,000t ship, you could fit tandem motors per shaft (as the QNLZ) for 30 knots, 146MW. The

Here’s some trials speeds from Queen Mary 2 (76,000 tonnes, 1030 x 135ft or 314x41m wl):

29.65 knots on 86MW (4x 21.5MW)
27-27.5 knots on 64.5MW (3x 21.5MW)

So 27 knots should be possible on 2x 36.5MW electric motors from DDG-1000.

As you point out, a mix of gas turbine and diesel generators is better than an all-gas turbine plant, as it offers more balance in terms of fuel economy, weight and volume distribution... heavy diesels deep down, light gas turbines under the island(s) to reduce intake/uptake volume). Also diesels lessen the turbulent airflow problem for aircraft on approach.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
501
And EMALS/AAG do permit billet reductions

Those billet reductions are marginal. For example the catapult crews (operators + maintenance) aboard Charles de Gaulle are only 36 men for 2 cats.

You can get significant reductions elsewhere, even with steam cats: look at CVF FR which was to have 900-1100 ship’s crew. The focus was on across-the-board automation, from catering to supplies to weapons handling, watch standing etc.

I’m pretty sure that likewise most of the manpower reductions on CVN-78 come from elsewhere, though I haven’t seen a detailed breakdown.
EMALS/AAG were second only to the improved reactor/electric plant in billet reduction aboard CVN-78.

Those other CV designs are taking huge risks in accepting automated damage control aboard a carrier.
The typical damage control complement aboard a CVN is 1100 personnel.
Post-Bonhomme Richard, there's not going to be much acceptance of that.



PS DOT&E reported Ford crew as 4,656 to 4,758, original plan was 4,476, Nimitz 5,200
That's total complement including aircrew. KPP for billets was 2391 (O) 2791 (T) with current estimate at 2716.
 

Ron5

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
74
Reaction score
61
That's one reason the QE2s have such a low nominal aircraft complement -- that's what they can carry while maximizing sortie generation. Paradoxically, adding more aircraft might actually reduce sortie rates.

The UK CVF's were designed for a capacity of 36 JCA plus 14 helos (ASW plus AEW) giving a total of 50 aircraft. Sustained FJ sortie rate was stated as 72 i.e. an average of 2 per, surging to 90 for short periods. Aircraft in excess of these numbers could be carried but the impact (positive or negative) on sortie rates hasn't been stated.

50 large modern aircraft on a 65k ton carrier is perfectly respectable.

As an aside, RAND advisors to the UK MoD have been blamed for the short lived but wasteful UK 2010 decision to switch one of the CVF's to CATOBAR. Personally speaking, I find their carrier analysis documents (as posted above) to be rather poor. For one thing, assuming US STOVL carriers would have no AEW because there are no STOVL aircraft in the USN inventory is absurd. There aren't any USN F-35B's either so they would have to be bought, as could a STOVL AEW solution.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
389
AEW is a mission that doesn't translate well to STOVL. Outside helos, about the only off the shelf solution that could be had is installing a radar on a version of the MV-22. And even that is a very limited platform in terms of altitude (not pressurized).
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
501
The UK CVF's were designed for a capacity of 36 JCA plus 14 helos (ASW plus AEW) giving a total of 50 aircraft. Sustained FJ sortie rate was stated as 72 i.e. an average of 2 per, surging to 90 for short periods.
Must be incredibly short hop sorties since those CVFs carry about half the JP-5 of the LHA-6.

For one thing, assuming US STOVL carriers would have no AEW because there are no STOVL aircraft in the USN inventory is absurd. There aren't any USN F-35B's either so they would have to be bought, as could a STOVL AEW solution
Agreed. The AEW argument has always been the red herring.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
501
AEW is a mission that doesn't translate well to STOVL. Outside helos, about the only off the shelf solution that could be had is installing a radar on a version of the MV-22. And even that is a very limited platform in terms of altitude (not pressurized).
Towed aerostats.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
389
That seems even less ideal than a helo. Could the MQ-4's MFA be used in an air to air mode? It wouldn't be organic to the task force but the loiter time would probably allow for a 24/7 orbit. The ventral mounting is sub optimal but at 60k feet it would be looking down on other aircraft anyway.
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,610
Reaction score
1,762
AEW is a mission that doesn't translate well to STOVL. Outside helos, about the only off the shelf solution that could be had is installing a radar on a version of the MV-22. And even that is a very limited platform in terms of altitude (not pressurized).
Towed aerostats.

If you don't mind dragging along an ocean-going tug to tow the aerostat.

Aerostat_ship_Atlantic_Sentry_(15004011277).jpg
 

Colonial-Marine

Fighting the UAV mafia.
Joined
Oct 5, 2009
Messages
720
Reaction score
74
I'm rather doubtful of the benefits of these CVLs. The country should be able to afford 11 or 12 CVNs and if that isn't enough then perhaps the Navy has too many global commitments. There seems to have been a lot that has been mismanaged with the Ford class but that hardly proves we should give up on making large nuclear powered carriers.

I do think we aren't using our CVNs to their full potential. The F-35C will be useful I'm sure but there is need and the capacity for a larger and more capable fighter.

If CVNs are doomed by the threat of anti-ship missiles of all types (and I don't believe they are) there is no reason CVLs would not be. What the USN needs is new surface combatants to serve as the escorts of the carrier battle group and there unfortunately doesn't seem to be much talk about the subject beyond the FFG-62 class. Those are of course more focused on other roles than protection of the fleet against airborne threats.

Perhaps there is room for a CVL design capable of operating the F-35B, helos, and UCAVs to supplement the CVNs but in my opinion that is only worth discussing once the USN has a firm plan for these other areas.
 

H_K

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
168
Reaction score
320
Must be incredibly short hop sorties since those CVFs carry about half the JP-5 of the LHA-6.

Not sure where you get that number. CVF carries 8,600t of fuel, which subtracting DFM/F76 for ship’s fuel needs leaves around 4,000 to 5,000 tons of JP5.

This is equal or better to LHA-6 which carries 1.3M gallons (4,000 tons) of JP5.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
501
Must be incredibly short hop sorties since those CVFs carry about half the JP-5 of the LHA-6.

Not sure where you get that number. CVF carries 8,600t of fuel, which subtracting DFM/F76 for ship’s fuel needs leaves around 4,000 to 5,000 tons of JP5.

This is equal or better to LHA-6 which carries 1.3M gallons (4,000 tons) of JP5.

3,000,000 liters of F-44 (JP-5) -> 750,000 gallons.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
501
If CVNs are doomed by the threat of anti-ship missiles of all types (and I don't believe they are) there is no reason CVLs would not be.
Ship RCS is more or less quadratic in displacement.
CATOBAR launch and recovery is both readily detectable and unmistakeable to OTH radars.
Infrared signature is heavily dependent on projected area; carriers are pretty much all normals so smaller is better.
Acoustically, CATOBAR carriers are (EMALS notwithstanding) horrible.
 

Ron5

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
74
Reaction score
61
If CVNs are doomed by the threat of anti-ship missiles of all types (and I don't believe they are) there is no reason CVLs would not be.
Ship RCS is more or less quadratic in displacement.
CATOBAR launch and recovery is both readily detectable and unmistakeable to OTH radars.
Infrared signature is heavily dependent on projected area; carriers are pretty much all normals so smaller is better.
Acoustically, CATOBAR carriers are (EMALS notwithstanding) horrible.

Are you saying Ship's RCS is proportional to ship's displacement? If so, I think you are incorrect.
 

Ron5

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
74
Reaction score
61
Must be incredibly short hop sorties since those CVFs carry about half the JP-5 of the LHA-6.

I do not see a relationship with the two data points: how often the ship has to refuel vs how far the aircraft can fly.
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
72
I'm rather doubtful of the benefits of these CVLs. The country should be able to afford 11 or 12 CVNs and if that isn't enough then perhaps the Navy has too many global commitments. There seems to have been a lot that has been mismanaged with the Ford class but that hardly proves we should give up on making large nuclear powered carriers.

Assuming the driver for a CVL compared to CVN’s, is to try to bring carrier costs back to 1980's levels to enable Navy to fund larger and more balanced fleet? Modly instigated a study into future CVL, killed off when he left, CVL brought back in the new 30 year shipbuilding plan which was the work of DoD/CAPE, not the Navy. The Navy original 30 year shipbuilding plan killed off by Esper Sec of Defense as too expensive.

In October 2019 Modly Assistant Sec of the Navy when addressing reporters at the Military Reporters and Editors annual conference said “Going back to the ‘80s, when we had the 600-ship Navy // the carrier strike group has always been a large expense for the Navy but that today it constitutes a much larger percentage of the bill. In the 1980s, the carrier strike group cost about 14 percent of the total Navy operating cost. Today it’s 31 percent."
 

H_K

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
168
Reaction score
320
Assuming the driver for a CVL compared to CVN’s, is to try to bring carrier costs back to 1980's levels to enable Navy to fund larger and more balanced fleet? In the 1980s, the carrier strike group cost about 14 percent of the total Navy operating cost. Today it’s 31 percent."

Yes this is the crux of the issue - the modern carrier force has become too gold plated to its own good (much like the rest of the USN surface combattant force).

Sadly I don’t think smaller carriers are the answer. They may be part of the answer, but what is needed is a complete 360 rethink of how the USN does carrier warfare:

- Propulsion: Nuclear power is simply uneconomic. The USN needs much better reasons why it continues to cut into other higher priority items like hull numbers to pay for such a capability.

- EMALS, AAG and the fancy new weapons elevators are uneconomic, much like all the other electromagnetic toys that have never proven their worth (rail gun etc). The USN needs to revisit why steam cats and hydraulic systems won’t do until the technology matures.

- Manning is still way too high.

- Shipyards: it’s time to put pressure on Newport News’ monopoly on carrier building. Give some / all the work to other yards like NASSCO.

- Build rates: Investigate the benefits of increasing the build rate.

- Simpler, not smaller, carriers: Maximise systems commonality with other ships (like DDG-1000 propulsion and FFG(X) sensors and combat system). Aim for as few bespoke systems as possible, ruthlessly eliminate any hint of gold plating.

- Reduce forward presence: if this can be done by fewer CVBGs or smaller CVBGs then do it to save on operating costs.

- Increase focus on dual carrier ops for high-intensity warfare... stop trying to cram all the capability you need in only one hull.

If the above approach comes back with a recommendation for slightly smaller, cheaper carriers (60,000-80,000 tons), then so much the better, but don’t start with carrier size as the main objective.
 
Last edited:

Ron5

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
74
Reaction score
61
If everyone starts with same assumption that the number of aircraft that have to be deployed is fixed, the answer will always come back that the most cost effective solution is large carriers. All the RAND reports make that assumption so they always come back with the same recommendation i.e. keep doing the same. Which means more and more expensive carriers.
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
97
Reaction score
72
Assuming the driver for a CVL compared to CVN’s, is to try to bring carrier costs back to 1980's levels to enable Navy to fund larger and more balanced fleet? In the 1980s, the carrier strike group cost about 14 percent of the total Navy operating cost. Today it’s 31 percent."


If the above approach comes back with a recommendation for slightly smaller, cheaper carriers (60,000-80,000 tons), then so much the better, but don’t start with carrier size as the main objective.

Agree, Navy must first decide on the CONOPS for carriers.

The first supercarriers were the ~82,000t Forrestal class designed to be able to launch the A3 Skywarrior, ~70,000 lb gross weight / MTOW 82,000 lb, to deliver a 10,000 lb nuclear bomb with A3 Skywarrior's 1,000 mile radius of action, previously largest carrier the Midway class ~64,000t.

As mentioned earlier by TomS "Against the very modest ASCM threat posed by the Iraqis, the Navy elected to operate its carriers no closer than 300 nmi away from Kuwait City" Understand the Navy current thinking is “distributed maritime operations” with the carriers operating 1,000 miles offshore so that they can operate effectively from outside the range of Chinese /Russian anti-access/area denial, A2/AD, systems. That at the moment seems unlikely with SH or F-35 with their limited range even with the future MQ-25. Navy recently awarded Boeing a contract to study a very-long-range, high-speed strike weapon that could be carried by the SH.

One alternative mode of operation have seen mention of with the carriers forced to operate at 1,000 mile range to avoid enemy A2/AD was to use its a/c, F/A-XX?, to provide air cover for its cruisers and destroyers as they attack closer inshore to launch their Tomahawks, depending on the number of large surface combatants in the CSG could number ~1,000 Tomahawks per attack with its 1,000+ mile range and in the future Next Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW). If that CONOPS thought feasible would a ~65,000t CVL be adequate to operate SH, F-35 and F/A-XX?
 

shin_getter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
257
Reaction score
211
Those other CV designs are taking huge risks in accepting automated damage control aboard a carrier.
The typical damage control complement aboard a CVN is 1100 personnel.
Can a modern Carrier get back into the fight after a bad hit before the war is over given the sheer complexity?

One alternative mode of operation have seen mention of with the carriers forced to operate at 1,000 mile range to avoid enemy A2/AD was to use its a/c, F/A-XX?, to provide air cover for its cruisers and destroyers as they attack closer inshore to launch their Tomahawks
Given the number of defensive systems needed to keep the formation alive, it doesn't look like a economical solution compared to bombers and submarines (including lower cost UUV/float upward missile pods)? Dueling with TELs seems like a losing proposition overall.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
389
Those other CV designs are taking huge risks in accepting automated damage control aboard a carrier.
The typical damage control complement aboard a CVN is 1100 personnel.
Can a modern Carrier get back into the fight after a bad hit before the war is over given the sheer complexity?

That seems entirely dependent on the damage received (and where it is received). They are certainly designed to do such - the power and drive train are split out such as to be redundant and there are multiple catapult systems widely separated. Damage to the landing area or arrestor system could preclude any quick return to service however.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
501
If CVNs are doomed by the threat of anti-ship missiles of all types (and I don't believe they are) there is no reason CVLs would not be.
Ship RCS is more or less quadratic in displacement.
CATOBAR launch and recovery is both readily detectable and unmistakeable to OTH radars.
Infrared signature is heavily dependent on projected area; carriers are pretty much all normals so smaller is better.
Acoustically, CATOBAR carriers are (EMALS notwithstanding) horrible.

Are you saying Ship's RCS is proportional to ship's displacement? If so, I think you are incorrect.
The standard free-space ship RCS in m^2 is approximated by:

σ = 52 * f ^(1/2) * D ^(3/2)

D is the full-load displacement of the vessel in kiloton
f is the radar frequency in MHz

You'll find it used pretty much..everywhere.
 

Attachments

  • Application_Note_RCS_Calculation_for_Ship.pdf
    740.4 KB · Views: 16

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
501
I do not see a relationship with the two data points: how often the ship has to refuel vs how far the aircraft can fly.
Aircraft carriers cannot typical replenish fuel while conducting high intensity flight ops and longer aircraft distances imply greater fuel consumption per aircraft.

If everyone starts with same assumption that the number of aircraft that have to be deployed is fixed, the answer will always come back that the most cost effective solution is large carriers. All the RAND reports make that assumption so they always come back with the same recommendation i.e. keep doing the same. Which means more and more expensive carriers.
The last RAND study ended up recommending a Forrestal sized CVN LX which has a smaller embarked airwing than the POR CVN-80+.
 

David N

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Apr 7, 2007
Messages
7
Reaction score
9
The issue for debate is how the UK CVF got the core crew size for a 75,000 ton carrier to below 800?
The level of ammunition handling automation (and its apparent success) stands in stark contrast to the issues with Ford's ammunition lifts. (Hint the UK built a prototype on a rolling bed to test the engineering before installing it.)
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
389
That is a fair question that I personally have always wanted to know. How is the crew of the RN carrier that thin? If it is a lesser level of DC, fine, that's part of the equation. But the discrepancy is so large, why is the USN paying for 2-3 times as many crew? It isn't nuclear power, because that is one of the most drastic cuts in the Ford class compared to Nimitz. So it has to be more of a basic operating principle.
 

Thorvic

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2006
Messages
639
Reaction score
108
That is a fair question that I personally have always wanted to know. How is the crew of the RN carrier that thin? If it is a lesser level of DC, fine, that's part of the equation. But the discrepancy is so large, why is the USN paying for 2-3 times as many crew? It isn't nuclear power, because that is one of the most drastic cuts in the Ford class compared to Nimitz. So it has to be more of a basic operating principle.
The QNLZ are a smaller less complex ships powered by Gas Turbines and Diesels to an electric drive system. So no Nuclear reactor, no steam plants. no arrector gear and no Steam Catapults to man nor have the additional manpower needed to support those specialist crews. Note that the Fords have reduced manning compared to a Nimitz but they still have the additional hardware to support.
Another aspect is the difference in the Navies, the USN is a big recruiter and manpower is an asset it has to spare so can make ample use of it, whereas the RN has a limited manpower availability so has to use them as efficiently as possible
 

Foo Fighter

I came, I saw, I drank some tea (and had a bun).
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2016
Messages
1,917
Reaction score
805
I find it difficult to believe any high level conflict between peer nations will last more than about sixty days. Logistics alone would make it difficult and political will goes only so far. Getting a badly damaged carrier back into action in that timescale would seem to be a low probability event. IMOHO of course and I am not an expert by any means, I am just using logic and what I have seen here and elsewhere.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
757
Reaction score
389
That is a fair question that I personally have always wanted to know. How is the crew of the RN carrier that thin? If it is a lesser level of DC, fine, that's part of the equation. But the discrepancy is so large, why is the USN paying for 2-3 times as many crew? It isn't nuclear power, because that is one of the most drastic cuts in the Ford class compared to Nimitz. So it has to be more of a basic operating principle.
The QNLZ are a smaller less complex ships powered by Gas Turbines and Diesels to an electric drive system. So no Nuclear reactor, no steam plants. no arrector gear and no Steam Catapults to man nor have the additional manpower needed to support those specialist crews. Note that the Fords have reduced manning compared to a Nimitz but they still have the additional hardware to support.
Another aspect is the difference in the Navies, the USN is a big recruiter and manpower is an asset it has to spare so can make ample use of it, whereas the RN has a limited manpower availability so has to use them as efficiently as possible
The Ford class has nuclear reactors but it has zero steam auxiliaries from what I understand. There are cats and traps but non of it is steam related. That's a lot of the decreased manning from the Nimitz class. It still has I think twice the crew of the RN carriers, excluding air wing. The deck crew is definitely still going to be bigger but the RN and USN clearly have different ideas about manning; QE has I think half the crew and is hardly half the displacement or air wing.

EDIT: I think the deck crew is part of the air wing, but again the USN CVW is more than twice that of the RN. That at least makes some sense in that cats and traps is always going to be a lot more manpower intensive.
 

mkellytx

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
210
Reaction score
192
Here's JP-5 for the combustion chamber, screen captures from Midway and Saratoga's Booklets of General plans looking at the flight decks and engineering spaces gives some baselining for 60,000 and 80,000 ton carriers. CV-41 Flight Deck.JPG CV-41 Engine Rooms Side View.JPG CV-41 Engine Rooms Top View.JPG CV-60_Flight_Deck Top View.jpg CV-60 Engine Rooms Side View.JPG CV-60 Engine Rooms Top View.JPG

And the original Saratoga since she was electric drive.

CV-3 Engine Room and Electric Motors.JPG
 

Similar threads

Top