Is the Aircraft Carrier as a Capital Ship already obsolete?

Norfolk said:

... while I reject the notion that the submarine can replace the aircraft carrier, I still believe that submarines should be given priority for resources over aircraft carriers to the extent that once sufficient resources have been made available for a submarine force capable of defending one's coasts, only then is it time to allocate the resources necessary to develop power-projection capabilites based upon carrier strike groups.

Click to expand...

Norfolk, you might enjoy this pic. Purely hypothetical and fictional. But in the course of the major war described in mu novel series, a wholly submersible Amphibious Assault and Carrier Strike Group is developed. Here's a rendering of the same:



That's a 40,000+ ton submersible aircraft carrier (with two EMALS), a 40,000+ ton submersible Amphibious Assault vessel, a SSGN, and a Seawolf and a Virginia class for escort duties.

Imagine several of those submarine carriers and amphibious assault vessels arriving and surfacing, wholly unannounced and unknown off a hostile coast.

Anyhow, just for your interest. FYI, there is a good thread about that book series here on SD HERE

Finding the carrier, tracking the carrier, targeting the carrier, and then getting sufficient resource on the carriert to overwhelm its defenses are ALL huge tasks. Do not think that after the shooting starts that these nations will have satellite coverage either...they very likely will not.

Click to expand...

In the past, the US has both overtly and covertly, provided recon and other Intelligence to countries its supported. I think it would be rash to suppose that your strtegic competitors would not provide the same to a state that they wished to support, along with other forms of advisory and technical assistance.

In respect to competing manufacturers claims, I deal enough with manufacturers and their claims to take all such with a very large dose of salt.

The fact that such ASM's are being invested in so vigoursly, around the world, even over and above aircraft, is testimony that many have at least great faith in these systems for their security.

Jeff Head said:

Norfolk, you might enjoy this pic. Purely hypothetical and fictional. But in the course of the major war described in mu novel series, a wholly submersible Amphibious Assault and Carrier Strike Group is developed. Here's a rendering of the same:

[qimg]http://www.jeffhead.com/dragonsfury/US-SSCVN-TF.jpg[/qimg]

That's a 40,000+ ton submersible aircraft carrier (with two EMALS), a 40,000+ ton submersible Amphibious Assault vessel, a SSGN, and a Seawolf and a Virginia class for escort duties.

Imagine several of those submarine carriers and amphibious assault vessels arriving and surfacing, wholly unannounced and unknown off a hostile coast.

Anyhow, just for your interest. FYI, there is a good thread about that book series here on SD HERE

Click to expand...

Thanks Jeff,

While I have a few doubts over just how quiet(!) an aircraft carrier submarine would be, I have little doubt that if something like the task force you have depicted arrived off someone's shores with less-than-social intentions it could be a source of some consternation to the unsuspecting host. There are some possibilities in this picture...[Norfolk rubs hands with glee].

SampanViking said:

The fact that such ASM's are being invested in so vigoursly, around the world, even over and above aircraft, is testimony that many have at least great faith in these systems for their security.

Click to expand...

Whilst I am no longer of the opinion that the "carrier-killers" are probably the cure-all answer claimed by armaments manufacturers as to the threat of surface ships in general and aircraft carriers in particular, and there have been more than a few doubts raised over the course of time about Russian quality-control, there may yet (only real war of course could prove it one way or the other) be a few surprises if these weapons are underestimated by those who may face them, and entirely discount their alleged potential.

Jeff Head said:

Many of us share the concern about the lack of long legged ASW (read S-3) capablity on the carriers and are as convinced as you that it was not only shortsighted, but dangerous.

One potential alternative may be a Osprey variant at some point.

Having said that, the surface escorts that a CSG has are effective, particularly using their helos, in extending the ASW coverage. Even more so are the SSNs that accompany each carrier. Usually there is at least one LA class boat...in my view, there should always be two, and maybe three LA Class boats for a CSG in war time...and in war time or a high threat environment, something like that may well be the case.

I do not believe the S-3s have been destroyed either. Within the next few years, if there were a large, at sea war situation, or as the threat intensifies (particularly lets say around Taiwan) you may well see them reactivated. Hopefully, something is on the drawing board to replace them as well.

Click to expand...

Can anyone advise what has happened to the former S-3 production tooling. I understood that it was mothballed rather than dismantled when the original contract ended but I can't track down the source of that info so maybe my memory is playing tricks. If the tooling is still in existence an upgraded version of this aircraft could be put back in production if circumstances require.

Tas

I don't know what happened to the Viking tooling. I do know that the S-3's in the Arizona desert are in some sort of state of preservation. Perhaps they could be brought back but I doubt it...

Tasman said:

Can anyone advise what has happened to the former S-3 production tooling. I understood that it was mothballed rather than dismantled when the original contract ended but I can't track down the source of that info so maybe my memory is playing tricks. If the tooling is still in existence an upgraded version of this aircraft could be put back in production if circumstances require.

Tas

Click to expand...

I'm pretty certain that the tooling was destroyed in the early 1980's when Lockheed failed to get any export orders. I also fail to remember where I read that, but it was on the internet just about 2 months ago or so. Try Navy League, they may either have an article themselves, or a link to a place that does.

Norfolk said:

I'm pretty certain that the tooling was destroyed in the early 1980's when Lockheed failed to get any export orders. I also fail to remember where I read that, but it was on the internet just about 2 months ago or so. Try Navy League, they may either have an article themselves, or a link to a place that does.

Click to expand...

(Also for Tasman and Popeye and Norfolk)

I know in Dec 1998 there was an official study and proposal for a service life extension program for the Vikings. At that time the tooling was still in existence. I have not heard either way since then, but I believe it is probably still in existence. (I hope it is.)

I know that I read about and heard about the F-14 tooling being destroyed. Perhaps that is what is remembered. But that happened in the 1990s I believe.

Jeff Head said:

(Also for Tasman and Popeye and Norfolk)

I know in Dec 1998 there was an official study and proposal for a service life extension program for the Vikings. At that time the tooling was still in existence. I have not heard either way since then, but I believe it is probably still in existence. (I hope it is.)

I know that I read about and heard about the F-14 tooling being destroyed. Perhaps that is what is remembered. But that happened in the 1990s I believe.

Click to expand...

If the S-3 tooling still exists, and in a condition that allows it to be used again, then if something happens, there's still a tried-and-true remedial measure for the Navy (provided those with the necessary skills can be recruited and properly organized into a production line.) This is potentially good news.

Norfolk said:

If the S-3 tooling still exists, and in a condition that allows it to be used again, then if something happens, there's still a tried-and-true remedial measure for the Navy (provided those with the necessary skills can be recruited and properly organized into a production line.) This is potentially good news.

Click to expand...

I've spent a frustrating period of time trying to find the source for my recollection of the Viking tooling being mothballed but I've had no success.

According to Vectorsite Lockheed was still proposing new build versions in the early 1990s so it seems that the tooling was still around at that time.

* In the early 1990s, Lockheed proposed new production of a dedicated tanker version of the S-3B, of course known tentatively as the "KS-3B". It was similar in concept to the KS-3A, though it was to use a buddy refueling pod to carry its hose assembly instead of having it built in. The Navy didn't bite on this idea either, and it never got to the demonstration stage. A proposal for an airborne early warning (AEW) version of the Viking was another non-starter.

Click to expand...

Given the time that has elapsed since the last S-3 was built I must concede that it now seems unlikely that the tooling (along with the necessary skill base) would still be available.

I agree with comments that the absence of a long range ASW aircraft is a shortcoming in the current carrier inventory so hopefully the Osprey or a new design will be developed to fill this role.

I've been fairly busy with a work contract since this thread opened and whilst I have been following it I have not had much time to post. It seems to me that the USN carriers are still the USA's weapon of choice whenever tensions escalate. As such I think the carriers are still entitled to be considered capital ships and are a long way from being obsolete.

Tas