What-If modern CVV or CV

[SumGui]

Nothing wrong with one more analysis (however simplistic) confirming a stance.

Updating the JFK design would have cots - new much lower manning requirements, updated equipment and berthing needs, completely new engineering plant - the US Navy has said 'no' to boilers for some time now (would multiples of the DDG-1000 plant work?), etc. That will not be cheap.

The biggest cost would probably be the "if she's new, she should have the newest everything, like EMALS, and..., and.... "

The crew requirement must be dropped, in addition to hugely lower construction cost, in order to make any alternative to the Ford appealing. That might not be as doable on a vessel the size and airwing of a JFK.

A smaller carrier may also get political traction: "I can get that one built in MY district...", "They only put 60 aircraft onboard anyway, why are we building for 90?", and it would appeal to the anti-military representatives "It will limit how many aircraft they can make a case for in the future", "less money for a carrier means more money for MY programs..." etc.

More an more I am leaning toward a modified LHD/LHA hull for 'all aviation' - but not CATOBAR. F-35B and helos. That the Navy might support, as they could sell it in addition to CVNs, not instead of. Accept the lower capability as a match for lower cost, and you'd still be able to get 24-36 F-35B (depending on how much design work you want to pay for) on what should be three vessels at an equivalent cost and crew of a Ford.

Yes it isn't a CVN, it does not have all the CVN capabilities, but it is three decks where one deck would have existed before, and would probably handle many situations releasing the CVN for more important roles, and it could always work with a CVBG or ARG, or even be the center of it's own SAG.

In the WHIF world we do not always have to accept reality - and I've always liked medium carriers - that's why I have a CVA-01 in my collection, and will add a Charles De Gaulle and QE when available. Still looking for a good CV-41. Probably would buy a CVV if it was out there.

[carr]

..

[Busto963]

Returning to a very broad level analysis. A smaller carrier would, as various people have said, fill a lesser role than a full size carrier. As such, it would not need to have everything a full carrier does.

The lesson learned from CVV is that the "cheap" carrier turns out to be not much cheaper, and much less effective than its alternative; which can be had for 10-15% more.

That said, I am convinced that the CVN as the Navy sees it, has priced itself out of business (as has the rest of the military), and the LHD end of the spectrum is too limited by the capabilities of its rotary and VSTOL aircraft.

At some point with low capability carriers, it becomes more practical to simply operate cheap COIN aircraft out of land bases and be done with it. Or slap a flight deck on a supertanker, operate EM314s and or OV-10s off of it and Bob�s your uncle.

It may be heresy, but years of Vietnam air ops off Yankee Station could have just as easily been flown from bases in South Vietnam. I am increasingly concerned that much of the capability we buy at massive cost is oriented towards chasing illiterate people around the third world with little benefit other than giving our politicians and pundits some response to the 24-hour news cycle.

If we are looking for a capability that is useful in a conventional war, CATOBAR fixed wing aircraft seem to be the only way we are going to get range, payload and other desirable qualities for the air wing. Something along the JFK with CODELAG seems to offer the most performance for lowest marginal cost.

[navydavesof]

These recent points make me think that an America with an angled deck, two catapults forward and none off to the side, a conventional version of a GHWBush or Ford Island, 2-3 elevators, 3 arresting wires, sponsons to support a SeaRAM/Millennium Gun combination and deep sponsons to support a single Mk41 VLS module per side (replacing the MK29 Sea Sparrow launchers) increased SHP to bring her up to 28 knots, an enlarged hangar bay, and the existing LHD communications suite should provide the ship with everything it needs to be a pseudo Midway without the fleet speed.

I wonder if the airwing would benefit from a small wing of F-35s being there for high threat strike/target softening making the way for the F/A-18E/F/Gs (and A-10s!) to come in and deliver the heavier strike power the F-35s cannot, no matter how many F-35s you have.

[Busto963]

These recent points make me think that an America with an angled deck, two catapults forward and none off to the side, a conventional version of a GHWBush or Ford Island, 2-3 elevators, 3 arresting wires, sponsons to support a SeaRAM/Millennium Gun combination and deep sponsons to support a single Mk41 VLS module per side (replacing the MK29 Sea Sparrow launchers) increased SHP to bring her up to 28 knots, an enlarged hangar bay, and the existing LHD communications suite should provide the ship with everything it needs to be a pseudo Midway without the fleet speed.

I wonder if the airwing would benefit from a small wing of F-35s being there for high threat strike/target softening making the way for the F/A-18E/F/Gs (and A-10s!) to come in and deliver the heavier strike power the F-35s cannot, no matter how many F-35s you have.

The biggest benefit to a KittyHawk/JFK is the ability to buy enough tocombine it with one or two other carriers for true 24/7 flight operations.

Once you get to that size, there is almost no benefit to eliminating two catapults: the cost savings is negligible, and although their use is not emphasized in current operations, battle damage or other casualty suggest this is a feature worth having.

[SumGui]

Today's visit to the LHS saw a 1:800 CV-63 by Arii (there is evidently also one from Academy)

measuring that out as if it were 1:700 would yield:

LOA: 935'
Hull Beam: 113'
FD Width: 246'

Scaling the displacement would yield 51000 tons and 72000 tons for displacement.

Alter the size of the island (or take a 1/700 from another kit), reduce the elevators by one forward of the bridge and re-size them, and you may be pretty close to a CVV.

[Cliffy B]

I have the Academy kit and plan on doing basically just that. The design in Friedman's CV book, SCB 100.68 the FY 68 ASW CVS suites that kit VERY nicely. I always liked the design sketch because it looks like a smaller version of the mid-life versions of the CV-41s. Those 1/800 kits are perfect fodder for 1/700 whiffs. Same goes for a slew of 1/600 kits.

[Busto963]

Back to the air wing: do not forget a new COD/Tanker/patol aircraft!

Perhaps something along these lines (with tail hook and folding wings of course):

[navydavesof]

Back to the air wing: do not forget a new COD/Tanker/patol aircraft!

Perhaps something along these lines (with tail hook and folding wings of course):

70759_c27j_71.jpg

Don't forget about A-10s, too, folding wings of course.

[SumGui]

Viking based COD

http://news.usni.org/2014/04/08/lockhee ... king-roles

[Busto963]

Viking based COD

http://news.usni.org/2014/04/08/lockhee ... king-roles

It is a very good idea, but is still basically an all new aircraft. Really, only the wings, engines and flight controls are reused. And this is still just kicking the can down the road.

Given the effort, I think that a new aircraft that shares more design philosophy with a C-27 has much more potential utility as COD, tanker, maritime patrol, and inter-theater transport.

There are a lot of COTS solutions for turning C-130s into MPA aircraft(door and pylon mounted sensors) and even gunships (Harvest Hawk), while retaining the basic cargo capability. The "replacement COD" should leverage these solutions.

The British FOAS-CALM (note the missiles are launched from the ramp):

[SumGui]

Not a fan of a prop powered tanker for fast movers. Yes, I know it can be done in some cases, but speed and altitude are actually important for tankers.

Always been a fan of the S-3 Viking, but not really sure how they are going to save much money on a program using old parts certified to what will essentially be a new aircraft.

[Busto963]

Not a fan of a prop powered tanker for fast movers. Yes, I know it can be done in some cases, but speed and altitude are actually important for tankers.

Agree, but there is nothing preventing a turbofan or propfan design either.

The key point is for the designers to get a little bit out of the myopic zone, and look at what others have and are doing in the cargo transport and tanker realms.

Now for your imagination the YC-14 with landing speeds as low as 59 knots, and could lift an M-60 tank!

A smaller version would be ugly enough to be a C-2 replacement!

[jasonfreeland]

I picked up a 1/800 Academy CV-63, so I get to figure out how to customize models myself . I think the biggest challenge is going to be the island, any suggestions? I would like to go with an enclosed setup as much as possible, like the Ford setup. Anyone know the panel sizes on the SPY-3/4 radars?

[Busto963]

I would like to go with an enclosed setup as much as possible, like the Ford setup. Anyone know the panel sizes on the SPY-3/4 radars?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm

[jasonfreeland]

I would like to go with an enclosed setup as much as possible, like the Ford setup. Anyone know the panel sizes on the SPY-3/4 radars?

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... -specs.htm

Thanks, I ended up having to subscribe. I'll have to pull down as much data as I can in the $.99 trial period.

[Timmy C]

Note that SPY-3 is scaleable - so you're not necessarily stuck to a particular size if you're willing to sacrifice some range or resolution.

[jasonfreeland]

Note that SPY-3 is scaleable - so you're not necessarily stuck to a particular size if you're willing to sacrifice some range or resolution.

Yeah I know on scalability (but thanks) I was mainly looking for reference for the Ford island. I may try building it via 3d printing and needed a reference point.

[navydavesof]

Note that SPY-3 is scaleable - so you're not necessarily stuck to a particular size if you're willing to sacrifice some range or resolution.

Yeah I know on scalability (but thanks) I was mainly looking for reference for the Ford island. I may try building it via 3d printing and needed a reference point.

Building it with sheet styrene is so much easier, man. Just scratch it. I certainly will for my "one-day" USS America CV conversion!

[navydavesof]

So, Mr. Freeland, what do you have in mind? Are you going to go with a shortened Nimitz-class model? Are you going to use a Kirov and build a hangar and flight deck on it to make a Western modified Kiev-class? Are you going to go as small as modifying a Slava CG with a hangar and flight deck? That might work, too!

I think I would get a Nimitz model and cut a plug out of it the length of an aircraft elevator + 1/2". That should shorten your flight deck and hull up to meet the requirements you're talking about. Then, you could literally use the kit parts to build up the CVV you're talking about.

I accidentally placed an order for all the parts I need to make my own version of a modern "reduced cost CV" in 1/350 as well the other night. Damn you, Mikes Harder Lemonade!!!