The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Fri Jan 22, 2021 9:15 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Modern CVV or CV
PostPosted: Sun May 18, 2014 11:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm
Posts: 114
I've been asking enough questions in everyone else's threads I figured it was time to start one instead of derailing others. I just don't see fiscal sustainability for the Ford class carriers, at least not at one to one Nimitz replacements. A smaller conventionally powered alternative like the old CVV concept or a Queen Elizabeth Class with the CATOBAR option. It's amazing how close those two designs are in length, beam and draft. I do think that going with an integrated electrical propulsion system is probably the way to go, better allowing EMALS and future energy weapons. As far as aircraft, probably 24-36 strike aircraft plus whatever AEW, ESM and ASW are needed. Since I'm going with CATOBAR, E-2D should be doable. I see these ships freeing up the larger carriers to go to the high threat areas like the western pacific.

Now the big question is how do I build the model?


Last edited by jasonfreeland on Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Modern CVV
PostPosted: Mon May 19, 2014 11:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
The CVV concept was/is limited by the size needed to safely operate aircraft, and the biggest size limiter today is the E-2D (length and strength of catapult stoke, length of landing deck, weight capacity of trap gear and lifts). Charles DeGaulle is an example of this - her landing deck was initially found to be too short for efficient operation of the E-2. So you are spot-on to mention that.

What if the AEW role was taken by a UAV instead - after all, the reason the Hawkeye is up there is to put an APS-145 overhead - why not do that on an unmanned platform, which could have a higher endurance and smaller deck requirement without needing to house crew aboard? Data link back to the carrier or group's AW for processing, and of course Link shares the information picture to everyone. An active AEW radar would be a first target in a hot conflict anyway.

Of course, the CVV does not have too much less equipment than the CVN, and that extra steel for CVN size does not cost that much effectively, so I am not sure you can get Newport News to give you an equipped CVV hull at a huge savings from a CVN. A CVV size that can be built by other yards may be needed to generate the competition for work, and thus cost savings, you may be looking for.

Crew, of course, is your largest cost. I've often wondered if we could/should man the CVNs to operate fewer hours per day or a lighter load around the clock, and only full man for 24/7 full wing operations at a later time - when augmented by additional personnel - a 'surge crew'.

As far as building the model, if you want it to look like the US CVV concept of the 70's you may need to cut a Nimitz class kit. I had also considered using an off-scale kit (I have an ARII 1/800 Midway I specifically bought for this purpose) to emulate the smaller carrier.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Modern CVV
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2014 1:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm
Posts: 114
I've wanted an AEW drone for a long time and the lower threat environment the CVV would operate in, would probably make it possible. I had toyed with the idea of a tilt rotor, but I don't know if it would have enough endurance. Something like the MQ-8C (a larger fire scout) would have enough payload and endurance for the job. An AESA setup on either outside pylon could also work. I still think we could get some savings by going with smaller hulls and less fancy systems. Give them the combat systems of an America class, gas turbine power and it should make a cost difference. How many crew does a reactor watch take? For that matter can we use the hull of an America with better propulsion and an angled deck?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Modern CVV
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2014 2:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3103
Great idea! I believe a Midway-class CV would be the way to go. A Midway type ship would accommodate an entire "modern" CVN airwing. Sure, the CVNs are fitted for 90+ aircraft. They deploy with 60. A Midway would do the same job.

Then, it's just a question about the rest of the ship's fit. Number of elevators, catapults, defenses, radars, etc. The Midway-class was built on the faster Montana-class hull and horsepower rating. That would likely produce what you need.

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Modern CVV
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2014 9:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:57 pm
Posts: 484
jasonfreeland wrote:
... Give them the combat systems of an America class, gas turbine power and it should make a cost difference. How many crew does a reactor watch take? For that matter can we use the hull of an America with better propulsion and an angled deck?


An America type of fit may be workable, I'd be curious to see if a SPY-1 would be cost/support effective when we consider it could probably perform the functions of multiple radars.

Turbine propulsion can save money on initial cost, but through life operational cost will have to take fuel consumption, support for that consumption (tankers, protection of those tankers to and from the operational area, time off station to refuel, etc). Burning fuel will also mean more internal volume will be dedicated to fuel for the ship itself. One of the strengths found on CVNs is the capacity for fuel and ordnance, which goes to the airwing. That being said, the airwing and the gas turbine mains will burn the same fuel, simplifying things, but it also means you eat ship and airwing endurance at the same time. A nuclear ship can re-position itself at will, and have all of the endurance for the airwing still available.

CONAG may be an option - one (or two lower power) reactor for cruise speed and ships services and MT30's or other GTs for boost of speed/ships services during high demand operations, or when the reactor needs to be down. But now, does that option increase complexity to the point where we are no longer saving money over the CVN (NUC and non-NUC engineering teams, maintenance pipelines and requirements which do not match between GT and Nuclear plants, etc)?

The personnel numbers for reactors are one facet of manning reactor cost - one large concern is that a NUC qualified crew member is much more expensive than a conventional crew member. So a direct match of numbers of engineering personnel may not be as simple as it seems.

So much potential design work cost can be great (maybe driving this idea to an "Americanized" Queen Elizabeth, whose design work is mostly what we may be looking for), but not limiting in the whif world.

Naval Aviation News from 1979 has an article starting on page 8 about the CVV, and it includes a comparison chart I like:
http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/backiss ... /jul79.pdf

Edit to add:
Another nice comparison chart, including the BSAC-220 which is a concept I've always liked:
Image
http://s233.photobucket.com/user/OPEX-A ... 5.jpg.html


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Modern CVV
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2014 7:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm
Posts: 114
I'd seen that article and agree on the QE class, but I was trying to keep it to US designs. I figured they would be more likely to be built, but maybe BAE could build it in an American yard? On they SPY-1, are there any left from the decommissioned Ticos? I kind of like the FCS-3 system that the Japanese use but again would we buy it? Does anyone make an America class model yet?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Modern CVV
PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2014 1:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Houston, Texas
The Aegis combat system Mk7 from each of the five first Ticonderoga class ships has been scrapped. The phased arrays have been removed and placed in to the maintenance pool of arrays for all SPY-1B/D radars. The production line for the current AN/SPY-1D(v) is still open and a new set would be easier than putting an old one in to a new ship. Another option is the AN/SPY-3 Dual Frequency multifunction radar going into the USS Gerald Ford, DDG-1000, and the flight III Arleigh Burke. If your building a new carrier this would be the first choice.

_________________
╔═════╗
Seasick
╚═════╝


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Modern CVV
PostPosted: Sat May 31, 2014 7:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm
Posts: 372
I really like the idea, but wonder if a JFK sized hull would not be a better cost/performance trade-off.

I also make the point that if e-mals ever gets sorted out, I single long catapult for the E-2 may be possible.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Modern CVV
PostPosted: Sat May 31, 2014 8:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm
Posts: 114
Busto963 wrote:
I really like the idea, but wonder if a JFK sized hull would not be a better cost/performance trade-off.

I also make the point that if e-mals ever gets sorted out, I single long catapult for the E-2 may be possible.


My thinking on this is to leverage current designs that are in production, that's why I was leaning towards the America class hull. The QE class is pretty good too, but it's not a US design so I have no idea if the navy would go for it. EMALS works to my knowledge and I was thinking of one cat being longer, so good call.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Modern CVV
PostPosted: Sat May 31, 2014 9:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm
Posts: 372
jasonfreeland wrote:
Busto963 wrote:
I really like the idea, but wonder if a JFK sized hull would not be a better cost/performance trade-off.

I also make the point that if e-mals ever gets sorted out, I single long catapult for the E-2 may be possible.


My thinking on this is to leverage current designs that are in production, that's why I was leaning towards the America class hull. The QE class is pretty good too, but it's not a US design so I have no idea if the navy would go for it. EMALS works to my knowledge and I was thinking of one cat being longer, so good call.

Okay, we are talking the same thing.

The CVV was quite a bit smaller and less capable and that threw me off.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Modern CVV
PostPosted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 12:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Houston, Texas
The original CVV program died after some realizations put it down and stuck a fork in it.

1. For a 100 million more FY1979 dollars more you could buy another JFK. $100 million was small in comparison to the total cost of CVV ($1.5 billion FY1979 dollars) A far more capable ship.
2. The ship's company was nearly the same size as Nimitz / JFK classes. Only the air wing was smaller. So you were buying the same amount of infrastructure to support a smaller air wing.
3. The Carter administration was told by the House in Senate that they would never authorize a CVV. These committees had Democrats in majority and they both told carter either a Nimitz class, a repeat JFK, or the highway.

_________________
╔═════╗
Seasick
╚═════╝


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Modern CVV
PostPosted: Sun Jun 01, 2014 6:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:38 pm
Posts: 3103
Seasick wrote:
The original CVV program died after some realizations put it down and stuck a fork in it.

1. For a 100 million more FY1979 dollars more you could buy another JFK. $100 million was small in comparison to the total cost of CVV ($1.5 billion FY1979 dollars) A far more capable ship.
2. The ship's company was nearly the same size as Nimitz / JFK classes. Only the air wing was smaller. So you were buying the same amount of infrastructure to support a smaller air wing.
3. The Carter administration was told by the House in Senate that they would never authorize a CVV. These committees had Democrats in majority and they both told carter either a Nimitz class, a repeat JFK, or the highway.

Seasick,

Was this CVV similar to a Midway or was it a more capable platform? For instance, would an angle-deck Midway have been similar to the proposed and seemingly expensive CVV?

_________________
Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Modern CVV
PostPosted: Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm
Posts: 372
navydavesof wrote:
Was this CVV similar to a Midway or was it a more capable platform? For instance, would an angle-deck Midway have been similar to the proposed and seemingly expensive CVV?

CVV would be roughly the same size, presumably with better aircraft maintenance facilities, but shorter, only two catapults, two-screws, and slower speed.

A JFK would be a better value...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Modern CVV
PostPosted: Fri Jun 06, 2014 3:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm
Posts: 114
Busto963 wrote:
navydavesof wrote:
Was this CVV similar to a Midway or was it a more capable platform? For instance, would an angle-deck Midway have been similar to the proposed and seemingly expensive CVV?

CVV would be roughly the same size, presumably with better aircraft maintenance facilities, but shorter, only two catapults, two-screws, and slower speed.

A JFK would be a better value...


What hull design is kind of the question here, as in what is economical and make the best sense. If it could be 3 CVV to 2 Ford, or even better 2 CVV to one Ford I think it would be worth doing. I think we all know the 3 to 1 ratio required for deployments and more hulls would make a difference. Not all conflicts require a full CVBG, things like piracy patrols could use the aviation support but don't need the full marine complement of the current amphib fleet. That type of mission could also benefit from fixed wing patrol craft like the E-2 or even refurbed S-3 Vikings configured for ASuW. As a side note, I would really like to see the S-3s brought back or something similar procured. We need the tanker support they provided and a long duration patrol craft is just so darn useful.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Modern CVV
PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 8:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm
Posts: 372
jasonfreeland wrote:

What hull design is kind of the question here, as in what is economical and make the best sense. If it could be 3 CVV to 2 Ford, or even better 2 CVV to one Ford I think it would be worth doing. I think we all know the 3 to 1 ratio required for deployments and more hulls would make a difference. Not all conflicts require a full CVBG, things like piracy patrols could use the aviation support but don't need the full marine complement of the current amphib fleet. That type of mission could also benefit from fixed wing patrol craft like the E-2 or even refurbed S-3 Vikings configured for ASuW. As a side note, I would really like to see the S-3s brought back or something similar procured. We need the tanker support they provided and a long duration patrol craft is just so darn useful.


Jason I think you are very much on the right track, only two minor nitpics:

1) Why call the ship a CVV instead of simply a CV? Your are proposing a modernized CV not the unbuilt CVV.

2) JFK, Kittyhawk et al operated full CVWs with many more aircraft (~90) than today's CVNs (~60). The CVN-78s are really optimized for sortie generation versus flex-deck alpha strikes. Sortie generation is great for low end combat, but I suspect that in a Korea type scenario, flex deck operations will be the norm, and airwings will be decimated making alpha strike a needed factor. Also note that if I am correct, we need more and larger carrier wings.

I suspect that the right CV to CVN mix is 3 to 1, with the less costly CVs pushed to forward bases and the CVNs held back.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Modern CVV
PostPosted: Sat Jun 07, 2014 7:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm
Posts: 114
I called it a CVV simply because it seemed to match the program, I'm not married to the designation. On the CVW size, I was thinking these decks match the current ones better than the CVNs we are buying. Why buy a 100,000 ton CVN for 4 squadrons of F-18s?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Modern CVV
PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2014 8:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 6:18 pm
Posts: 372
jasonfreeland wrote:
On the CVW size, I was thinking these decks match the current ones better than the CVNs we are buying. Why buy a 100,000 ton CVN for 4 squadrons of F-18s?

Answer: sortie generation.

Current naval emphasis is on sortie generation, which is fine for protracted low intensity warfare, but is completely inadequate for a major war. Against a competent, well equipped enemy we must be prepared to deliver alpha strikes - a contrary requirement to current thinking. Also, the reality is that against a competent opponent, air wings are going to get cut to pieces - which is why we need 90+ aircraft on the decks of those carriers, and need more air wings than carriers. Moreover, the USMC should not be rounding out the airwings, but instead be an extra reserve of Squadrons to either be pushed forward to austere bases, or to fill out carrier air wings as we loose aircraft.

I am not advocating attrition warfare, but attrition *will* be a factor in a full up war.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Modern CVV
PostPosted: Sun Jun 08, 2014 11:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:31 pm
Posts: 1780
..


Last edited by carr on Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Modern CVV
PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Houston, Texas
The CVV would have been a second rate CV straight from the get-go. In USN service they would have ended up being over worked. Their air wing to small to conduct operations the Midway and JFK were capable of at the time. At the time a revised JFK design with better labor saving design features would have done much better with an acceptable increase in cost. The Theodore Roosevelt was built with modular construction which adjusted for inflation was much less expensive than the methods used for the first three ships. Once the infrastructure for modular construction was built the cost of Washington and Lincoln were even lower than T. Roosevelt. That's how the Navy solved the problem.

One other item:
The French Navy wanted a larger carrier than the Charles DeGaulle. The national legislature forced them to build it in a Naval Shipyard and the limiting factor became the maximum size of the slips and dry docks available.

The Soviet Union's Admiral Kuznetsov was a political design, and they knew less about what they were doing than the French, much less.

_________________
╔═════╗
Seasick
╚═════╝


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Modern CVV or CV
PostPosted: Wed Jun 11, 2014 2:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm
Posts: 114
Since the designation of CVV seems to be a hot point, I edited the title to include CV also. I'm really just looking for a cheaper smaller carrier to complement the Fords.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 92 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group