U.S. Navy Asks Huntington Ingalls for Pricing on Two New Aircraft Carriers

gcaptain/Reuters ^ | March 19, 2018 | Mike Stone

[rbmillerjr]

How would the US project force in sea lanes to keep the seas open if China decides that its artificial islands and disputed islands give them the right to shut down the Pacific sea lanes?

If you think our Carriers are obsolete, please put forth a plan to project force in the Pacific.

[Tallguy]

Drones are coming. Imagine an LHA/LHD hull that launches drones vrom a VLS cell and makes arrested recoveries of certain larger airframes. LHD’s are as large as an ESSEX-class carrier but cheaper in relative terms.

[Forward the Light Brigade]

How about small jeep carriers to carry Drones and copters? Or, a submarine carrier? At least one that could launch drones? Or A battleship/carrier armed with powerful railguns, with drones, fighters, copters, rockets.

[Sequoyah101]

Argue with yourself because I’m not.

[cva66snipe]

I say build four conventional instead of two nukes. Several things to consider. They can build a stronger hull with technology obtained from CV66 Sinkex. You have a faster building time, faster qualifying time, faster training times, and faster recovery from mass causalities.Four carriers would give each coast a two carrier boost.

Major point though. OPEN ANOTHER EAST COAST HOMEPORT. Mayport was a CV berth. Super Carriers are not as easy to sink as some seem to believe. CV66 had to be deliberately scuttled with pre placed explosives before it finally sank. Before that it took substantial deliberate hits to obtain data for the Gerald R Ford.

[Tallguy]

I think when you talking drones... especially cheap, non-recoverable drones... every ship is potentially a ‘carrier’.

[BroJoeK]

Tallguy: "While it’s true that we have lost no carriers since the commissioning of the Essex-class, the statistic does not get at “operational kills” like the USS Franklin.
Struck by 2, 500-lb bombs and numerous secondary explosions she limped back to Pearl & then the Brooklyn Navy Yard for extensive repairs."

Thanks for mentioning USS Franklin, lucky CV-13.
It's an example of rugged construction and a heroic crew saving a ship that would otherwise have sunk.
No other major ship I know of ever survived such a beating.

Tallguy: "Carriers are regularly taken out of service for 3 - 4 years for nuclear refueling and refits."

Nuclear ships have unlimited range, regardless of oil prices or availability.
For that they have to be refueled once in a while, what is it, 25 years?
And didn't I read somewhere the newest ones are intended to run their full lives without?

Tallguy: "Severe battle damage?
They’ll decommissioned and scrap, I suspect."

No way to tell today.
Remember the USS Franklin was repaired for return to the fight, thankfully not needed, war was over.

[BroJoeK]

sarge83: "Carriers serve a purpose but they are vulnerable to diesel electric subs I suspect."

Any ship is vulnerable to any attack, submarine, surface, air or missiles, if not properly defended.
Carriers are only intended, as ships, to provide final defenses against whatever's out there.
First lines of defense are the picket ships and submarines of the carrier's battle group.
If they do their jobs, then the carrier will not need to do it for them.

sarge83: "The F-18 needs longer legs to project power further out from the carrier itself like the old Turkey Tomcats."

The F-18e combat radius is put around 450 land miles, the F-35 maybe 750 miles, but both can refuel in the air making their effective range much greater.

sarge83: "If we can protect the carriers, great, if we truly cannot we might need to consider smaller flatops at less cost."

First, protecting navy ships is not some kind of option -- maybe we will, maybe we won't! -- it's a requirement, first, last and always, it must be done, regardless.
If certain ships cannot be protected against certain threats then they must not go where those threats are imminent, unless we're willing to lose them for some higher purpose... Pearl Harbor comes to mind, not recommended!

Second, we have plenty of smaller flat-tops already, conventionally powered, they go by the category name, Amphibious Assault Ship -- LHA, LHD, LPD, etc.
Individually they are more powerful than the carriers of almost any other nation, but we don't call them "carriers" because, well... they're not, really.

I think a lot of posters here decry the alleged vulnerabilities of our carriers, as if they were old First World War battleships all lined up in a row at Pearl Harbor and today is December 6, 1941.
I don't believe it, not now and even less in the future, if those responsible are allowed to do what must be done...