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