Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

A major design consideration for USN is the ability to maintain a bombing campaign against some small or medium sized country.

Click to expand...

The United States has become increasingly entwined in the business and security issues with the rest of the world. Our economy and security depends upon our protecting our overseas interests as well as encouraging peace and stability around the globe. Forward presence by U.S. Navy aircraft carrier battle groups and amphibious ready groups helps us accomplish this. As former Secretary of Defense William Cohen stated: "If you don't have that forward deployed presence, you have less of a voice, less of an influence." The U.S. Navy is engaged. And engaged means being there.

As example, on 11 September 2001, USS Enterprise (CVN 65) had just been relieved from being on station in support of Operation Southern Watch. She was heading south in the Indian Ocean, beginning her trip back to homeport in Norfolk, Va., when, on television, they saw the live coverage of attack on the World Trade Center, then on the Pentagon. Enterprise, without an order from the chain of command, put the rudder over, executed a 180-degree course change and headed back to the waters off Southwest Asia. Enterprise then remained on station in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, launching air attacks against al Qaeda terrorist training camps and Taliban military installations in Afghanistan. For approximately the next three weeks, aircraft from Enterprise flew nearly 700 missions in Afghanistan, dropping hundreds of thousands of pounds of ordnance.

The carrier battle group, operating in international waters, does not need the permission of host countries for landing or overflight rights. Nor does it need to build or maintain bases in countries where our presence may cause political or other strains. Aircraft carriers are sovereign U.S. territory that steam anywhere in international waters — and most of the surface of the globe is water. This characteristic is not lost on our political decision-makers, who use Navy aircraft carriers as a powerful instrument of diplomacy, strengthening alliances or answering the fire bell of crisis. As former President Bill Clinton said during a visit to the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt, "When word of crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident the first question that comes to everyone's lips is; where is the nearest carrier?"
The carrier battle group can not only operate independently but it presents a unique range of options to the President, Congress and Secretary of Defense. By using the oceans — more than 70% of the earth's surface is ocean — both as a means of access and as a base, forward-deployed Navy and Marine forces are readily available to provide the United States with a rheostat of national response capabilities. These capabilities range from simply showing the flag — just a presence — to insertion of power ashore. The unique contribution of aircraft carriers to our national security was best expressed by Gen. John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said during a visit to USS Dwight D. Eisenhower, "I know how relieved I am each time when I turn to my operations officer and say, 'Hey, where's the nearest carrier?' and he can say to me 'It's right there on the spot.' For United States' interests, that means everything."

Click to expand...

PLAN would call that interfering in the affairs of that country and won't provide this capability in the
next half dozen or more carriers. So it doesn't need magazine space for these bombs and missiles.

Click to expand...

delft said:

The question, that isn't asked any more is, Why are the US victim of so many terrorist attacks?
It is because the US uses its tremendous military might to maintain and occasionally install dictators
and otherwise direct the policies of countries in its own interest, in violation of the Charter of the UN that was mostly written by US diplomats.
I'm here not interested in the morality of this. I just notice that the support for the Saudi government let incensed Saudi citizens to sacrifice their lives, and that of three thousand other people, to try to do something about this. This is the counterpart to Popeye's quote.

It is clear that only one country can be play this game. If there are two with similar power they will hinder the use of force on this scale. China will not build super carriers like the US because they can't us them in the way the US is. They are in the first place interested in deterring US interference in internal Chinese affairs, i.e. Taiwan. Next they want the freedom of navigation in East Asia to be protected by themselves together with other East Asian countries, because they have a greater interest in the matter than any country not living in the neighborhood. Then they want freedom of the seas everywhere.

In short, there is one global super power or there is none. With the development of US finances, which tphuang so neatly described as a Ponzi scheme, we are on our way to the second. In the mean time economic development in Asia and South America will ensure, that a new global super power cannot arise.
In that situation aircraft carriers will more closely resemble the Sea Control Ships that weren't built some forty years ago than the super carriers of today.

Click to expand...

As for the 40,000-ton US LHA/LHD type, I’m not sure that they have actually been used much for operating AV-8.

Click to expand...

The last but one of the LHA 1 class, the NASSAU, will decomission this spring before a replacement is even ready. Retirement at the age of 32 for a US ship of that size does not, by the way, signal a very successful construction programme.

Click to expand...

franco-russe said:

As for the 40,000-ton US LHA/LHD typea, I’m not sure that they have actually been used much for operating AV-8. And there are, as far as I can understand, any plans to expand the fleet beyond the current 10. The last but one of the LHA 1 class, the NASSAU, will decomission this spring before a replacement is even ready. Retirement at the age of 32 for a US ship of that size does not, by the way, signal a very successful construction programme. The successors, AMERICA class LHA 6-7, appear to be going to be the only of their class, at least for the next many years.

Click to expand...

franco-russe said:

You seem to be forgetting Japan, which had not only defeated China 1894-95, but also Russia 1904-05, hence may well be qualified as militarily competent.

Click to expand...

franco-russe said:

Interesting and good point about the carrier of tomorrow being more akin to Admiral Zumwalt’s planned SCS of the 70’s than to the NIMITZ class. But there is obviously a lower limit beyond which you cannot go if you wish to operate fast jets. The CHARLES DE GAULLE at 42,000 tonnes is a minimum, and if the French decide to build a second carrier (I think they will not), it would be substantially larger. As Obi Wan Russell points out, steel is not that expensive.

As I recall, the British were thinking about a 50,000 tonne-ship when they started planning the CVF and ended up with the 65,000-t QUEEN ELIZABETH. When or if the Chinese decide the build a nuclear carrier, they will likely have a 75,000-ton ship, as I think they will use the ULYANOVSK design as a basis (I do not believe that China can yet design a carrier from the bottom up: even for the new destroyers and frigates – 052 and 054 – they almost certainly had foreign, i.e. French, design assistance).

Smaller carriers, incl. the planned SCS and the US LHA’s and LHD’s mentioned, rely on VTOL aircraft which may soon not be available. When the F-35B’s two-year probation period is over, I think it will be cancelled by Gates’ successor (since he did not have the guts to do it himself). That will not only create problems for the US amphibious community, but for a lot of other people, too.

The interesting Italian design, for instance, the CAVOUR, will appear rather stupid without the F-35B, once their Harriers are finally scrapped. On the other hand, as it has an improveable ski-jump, perhaps they could use it for conventional take-off. If the Russians (and soon the Chinese) can launch FLANKERs from a 105 m runway, there seems to be no reason why other people cannot do the same (something to reflect upon for the Japanese, as they finalise plans for the two 22DDH ships).

As for the 40,000-ton US LHA/LHD typea, I’m not sure that they have actually been used much for operating AV-8. And there are, as far as I can understand, any plans to expand the fleet beyond the current 10. The last but one of the LHA 1 class, the NASSAU, will decomission this spring before a replacement is even ready. Retirement at the age of 32 for a US ship of that size does not, by the way, signal a very successful construction programme. The successors, AMERICA class LHA 6-7, appear to be going to be the only of their class, at least for the next many years.

Click to expand...