Aircraft Carriers III

now recalled Yesterday at 8:25 AM

Jura said:

I took interest in the second sentence (I clipped off the rest of the banner to the right):

I'm in a hurry right now so put it here this way, it's from Facebook

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

·

Click to expand...

LOL indeed: Complement: Approximately 850

but I'm Battleships type so:




OK my lunch break is almost over

asif iqbal said:

Thanks forbin good info

So say 25 in hanger and 45 on deck

In theory they can host 70 x F35B or so

That is exclusively aircraft no choppers

Obviously to utilise air opps and adhere to the safety procedures the operational deployment will carry far less maybe the number should be 36 x F35B plus choppers to give 50 aircraft in total

Based on tonnage and dimensions this should be standard outfit I do not think that would comprise sortie rates

BUT that is increasing staffing levels which increases running cost and this is about efficiency hence the low numbers

Cutting to 12 or 24 x F35B in my opinion is on the bare minimum or below minimum

36 on each carrier gives 72 between the two

That's good air cover

Click to expand...

For duty these big CV desserves minimum 24 F-35B it is certain, in war time in 2025 36 will be available

Yes and too much speculation about price in media

Just under $5 billion we got 36 aircraft carrying carrier

Ford class over $10 billion carry 48 standard configuration

Ok we can up both to 48 and 60 but not realistic

50% of price 75% of aircraft BUT F35B less capable than F35C

However it falls apart on sortie rate comparison

QE surge sortie rate 110
Ford class 270 More than double

So STOBAR 50% cost 40% sortie rate compared to Ford

Why the disparity despite QE size? Because it's STOBAR and not CATOBAR

CATOBAR for QE would have meant angled flight deck simultaneous take off and landing very high Turn around time

CATOBAR QE easily 180-200 sortie rate on surge

only extra £1 billion turn QE to CATOBAR

So CATOBAR QE 180-200
Nimitz/Ford 240-270

Total cost 60%. ($6 billion vs $10 billion) while 75% capability when compared to Ford

Based on above a MASSIVE MISTAKE to cancel CATOBAR version of QE as sortie rates would make up for extra cost, as a matter of fact it works out cheaper with CATOBAR per sortie vs dollar

asif iqbal said:

Yes and too much speculation about price in media

Just under $5 billion we got 36 aircraft carrying carrier

Ford class over $10 billion carry 48 standard configuration

Ok we can up both to 48 and 60 but not realistic

50% of price 75% of aircraft BUT F35B less capable than F35C

However it falls apart on sortie rate comparison

QE surge sortie rate 110
Ford class 270 More than double

So STOBAR 50% cost 40% sortie rate compared to Ford

Why the disparity despite QE size? Because it's STOBAR and not CATOBAR

CATOBAR for QE would have meant angled flight deck simultaneous take off and landing very high Turn around time

CATOBAR QE easily 180-200 sortie rate on surge

only extra £1 billion turn QE to CATOBAR

So CATOBAR QE 180-200
Nimitz/Ford 240-270

Total cost 60%. ($6 billion vs $10 billion) while 75% capability when compared to Ford

Based on above a MASSIVE MISTAKE to cancel CATOBAR version of QE as sortie rates would make up for extra cost, as a matter of fact it works out cheaper with CATOBAR per sortie vs dollar

Click to expand...

I absolutely concur, and USN is making a similar miscalculation by continuing to purchase last century's F-18, and rolling back the F-35C purchases into the 2020s. That's NOT SMART, its time to make a firm commitment to move this mans Navy into the new century. Part of that is cold war thinking and using the former Soviet Union/Russia as the metric of threat, and rolling China back to a secondary threat tier.

That's a grave mistake as China is pushing the limits with their 4th Gens moving to the front of development. The Navy should realize that China is primarily in their court and the 5 Gen F-35C will keep us at the forefront of meeting that threat! without a robust 5 Gen force, the USN will be undergunned when the J-20 begins to be produced in meaningful numbers with their upgraded power plant..

The Ford class without a cutting edge air wing is an embarrassment equal to the QE class,,, with the QE its about the F-35 Bravo arriving slightly behind the QE, but with the USN, its a conscious decision, (a poor one), to roll F-35C acquisition back to the next decade. This bad decision making is compounded by the USN truncating its F-35 buy in favor of co-producing and purchasing last centuries old airplane, because that's easier and cheaper?

and that friends is another grave miscalculation!

Asif you're wrong on so many levels mate, for example QE is not a STOBAR carrier, it's a a STOVL carrier! There is no barrier assisted recovery on her. Secondly to convert QE to CATOBAR would have involved the following..
£1.8 billion to convert POW, QE too far on to be retrofitted, 200 plus compartments alone and would have resulted in one carrier instead of two.
The sortie rate on QE with 36 Daves is comparable with a Nimitz in the first 2 days of war.
The F35B has the range of a Hornet and Rafale (roughly), apart from the obvious AEW disadvantages QE is the most powerful carrier class in its current form after the Nimitz class.

Having a fun debate on a facebook group at the moment with regards to the two island design. I'm cool with it myself, but out of curiosity I mocked up a picture a few days ago (posted earlier on this thread) of how she'd look with just one island, in the conventional aft position. As the French decided to be awkward about this when they designed the CdG, and Thales had a big hand in the design of both ships, I thought I'd try it their way and see what everyone thought: Original; American style; French style. Enjoy!

delft said:

How much would building a second production yard cost? How much would training the builders cost?

Click to expand...

Well, if it was a national imperative, they would move personnel between the two yard to train the new people.

But it would be expensive...and would only occur in a national imperative situation...like we had in world War II.

As it is, Newport News does a GREAT job. They are, without a doubt IMHO, the most experienced and advanced carrier building group on earth.

They have been doing it continuously since the first purpose built carrier in US History, CV-4, the USS Ranger, which they built. The Langley and the Saratoga and the Lexington were all conversions (CV-1 thru CV-3).

Newport News has been continuously building carriers since starting the USS Range in 1931. Thats 86 years of continuous building...including all of the Nimitz class and now the first two Ford class.

The history is astounding for that company. Here is a short description:

1934: Newport News launches the first American ship originally designed as an aircraft carrier: USS Ranger (CV 4).

1938 – 1941: Newport News builds the Yorktown-class carriers; USS Yorktown (CV 5), USSEnterprise (CV 6) and USS Hornet (CV 8).

1942: All threeYorktown-class carriers win the Battle of Midway in June of 1942, putting the US Navy on the offensive against the Japanese in WW II. USS Enterprise (CV 6) became the most decorated ship in US Navy history, participating in all but two of the WW II carrier engagements.

1942 – 1946: Newport News builds the first seven ships of the Essex-class Fleet Carriers. The 24-ship class, the largest US aircraft carrier class built, become the WW II Fast Carrier Task Forces in the Pacific. The Essex-class carriers, with modernization, serve through the early 1970s and the Vietnam War.

1945 – 1947: Newport News builds 2 of the 3 Midway-class “battle” carriers; USS Midway (CVB 41) and USS Coral Sea (CVB 43). Both ships serve into the early 1990s.

1955: Newport News builds the first super carrier USS Forrestal (CVA 59) 1955. The four-ship class, including the Newport News-built USS Ranger (CVA 61) are the first carriers built with angled landing areas on their flight decks and designed to operate jet aircraft.

1961: Newport News builds the first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier: USS Enterprise (CVN 65)

1964 – 1968: Newport News builds the carriers USS America (CV 66) and USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67).

1972 – 2008: Newport News builds all Nimitz-class carriers, 10 in all.

2008 – present: Newport News builds Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), the first of a new class of carriers.

That's 86 years of continuous carrier building.

The current USS John F. Kennedy is the 30th carrier they have built in that 86 year history, and the USS Enterprise (CVN-80) which will follow the new JFK, will be the 31st.

An amazing history.

Air Force Brat said:

I absolutely concur, and USN is making a similar miscalculation by continuing to purchase last century's F-18, and rolling back the F-35C purchases into the 2020s. That's NOT SMART, its time to make a firm commitment to move this mans Navy into the new century. Part of that is cold war thinking and using the former Soviet Union/Russia as the metric of threat, and rolling China back to a secondary threat tier.

That's a grave mistake as China is pushing the limits with their 4th Gens moving to the front of development. The Navy should realize that China is primarily in their court and the 5 Gen F-35C will keep us at the forefront of meeting that threat! without a robust 5 Gen force, the USN will be undergunned when the J-20 begins to be produced in meaningful numbers with their upgraded power plant..

The Ford class without a cutting edge air wing is an embarrassment equal to the QE class,,, with the QE its about the F-35 Bravo arriving slightly behind the QE, but with the USN, its a conscious decision, (a poor one), to roll F-35C acquisition back to the next decade.

Click to expand...

Well, they are not rolling back all acquisitions to the 2020s. They are reducing the purchases by about 15 aircraft (F-35Cs over the next three years), but then they pick right back up...and we will still have enough to go IOC, to have the needed test squadron and training squadron, and to equip two carriers by 2020.

Right now, the following have either been delivered, or are off the line and awaiting delivery for US forces (these numbers do not include our allies deliveries).

136 F-35A for USAF
68 F-35B for USMC
26 F-35C for USN

This year, the US deliveries will include:

48 F-35A for USAF
18 F-35B for USMC
8 F-35C for USN

I believe 2018 looks like this:

44 F-35A for USAF
19 F-35B for USMC
8 F-35C for USN

These two years is where the main part of the slow down is occurring (2017 and 2018 where the US Navy is losing about 12 aircraft that would have been delivered). It stays low for 2018 too, because in 2019 it does this (the US Navy loses another four over the original)

48 F-35A for USAF
16 F-35B for USMC
10 F-35C for USN

So, by the start of 2020 the US Navy will have 52 aircraft and will reach IOC. Originally we would have been at 65 or so aircraft. But, that's still enough to equip a test squadron, a training squadron, and two carriers with 16 aircraft each.

But then, in 2020, it starts to pick back up

48 F-35A for USAF
20 F-35B for USMC
12 F-35C for USN

2021

60 F-35A for USAF
24 F-35B for USMC
14 F-35C for USN

2022 on

80 F-35A for USAF
25 F-35B for USMC
20 F-35C for USN

By the end of 2025 the US Navy will have 158 F-35Cs, enough to equip eight carriers with 16 aircraft, and have the testing and training squadrons active.

I expect by 2030, each US carrier will have 20 F-35Cs, and that will be a great thing...but in the early 2020s you will see 2, then 3, and then 4 carriers in quick order with 16 F-35Cs...going to, as I say, 8 carriers by 2025.

BTW, the 2018 prices will be: (including the engine):

F-35A: $83.4 Million
F-35B: $108.1 Million
F-35C: $93.3 Million

That's pretty amazing stuff. At that price, the US will be buying F-35As for equal to or less than the current high-end modernized F-16s!

So, yes, we are being stupid by decreasing any F-35 purchases...but not as stupid as the MSM and progressives, and alt-left want you to believe...or more precisely put, not as stupid as they would like us to be.

Here's some good reading. Some of it is long...but I like to get into these details:

2014 Congressional Research service F-35 Report


2016 Congressional Research service F-35 Report


Generally, the Congressional Research group is much more even handed and suportive of the program and these two reports, while long, are good reading.

F-35 Service Acquisition Report


Then there is this:

F-35 Joint Strike Fighter: DOD’s Proposed Follow-on Modernization Acquisition Strategy by the GAO

(Remember, under Obama (sadly) the GAO became politicized and it is going to take time to weed those critters out and have people in there who are actually FOR the US doing the right thing, instead of almost the opposite. When you read the 2014-2017 GAO reports, their analysts were literally trying to do everything they can to slow down and reduce the program...blatantly).

But with a new Sheriff in town, I expect we will see a differing analysis in the near future:

cockneyjock1974 said:

Asif you're wrong on so many levels mate, for example QE is not a STOBAR carrier, it's a a STOVL carrier! There is no barrier assisted recovery on her. Secondly to convert QE to CATOBAR would have involved the following..
£1.8 billion to convert POW, QE too far on to be retrofitted, 200 plus compartments alone and would have resulted in one carrier instead of two.
The sortie rate on QE with 36 Daves is comparable with a Nimitz in the first 2 days of war.
The F35B has the range of a Hornet and Rafale (roughly), apart from the obvious AEW disadvantages QE is the most powerful carrier class in its current form after the Nimitz class.

Click to expand...

So your saying CATOBAR QE would not have been more capable than STOBAR QE? How old are you 14 or 15? Stick to looking at photos

asif iqbal said:

So your saying CATOBAR QE would not have been more capable than STOBAR QE? How old are you 14 or 15? Stick to looking at photos

Click to expand...

No I'm a 43 year old man who's been on a VIP tour of QE and knows what he's talking about, what I'm saying is a STOVL QE class is good enough, because it means two carriers instead of one. I rather fancy you are the one acting like a prepubescent fanboy and it's not a STOBAR carrier, THERE ARE NO WIRES ON HER!!