| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Northrop Grumman to build first new aircraft carrier class in 40 years |
| 2008-09-17 |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #17 The USA desires to begin and lead the exploration of deep space - the future CV will be a GLORIFIED HYBRID ARSENAL SHIP = FIRE SHIP [wid UV, GMD-BM, Marine Amphib/ABN + SPAWAR etc. "MOTHER SHIP" "SEA FORT" INTEGRATED MULTI-BATTLESPACE Capabilities]. MAG-LEV = SPAWAR DIRIGIBLES??? AFAIK the USN is NOT even certain how many of the new CVN-21's to build, includ AEGIS 21 Tech Escorts, nor wid what 21st Century Missions + Capabilities. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2008-09-17 20:44 |
| #16 rjschwarz: that's why I mentioned extra strong stabilizers. When the ships connect, they need close to fly by wire stabilization, all stabilizers acting as a team. The task is simplified somewhat by not needing to stabilize them as a group during forward momentum, since as a group, propulsion is just to assist stabilization. They break apart to move any great distance. Other advantages is that such a platform can provide refueling for aircraft unable to get in-flight refueling. They can also provide the transfer of people and cargo between different aircraft. Having a long than an aircraft carrier landing strip would permit non-CVN capable, and even non-Navy aircraft into the theater. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-09-17 20:39 |
| #15 I doubt McCain will build the Zooms. One maybe. But he knows the Navy is FUBAR and a good target for cutting. His problem is to find a Petraeus. Maybe Roughead is the guy. At least he blew the whistle on the Zoom. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-09-17 20:32 |
| #14 Meh, funding for the 3rd ZoomWalt is in the works to cover the cost overruns on 1st 2 hulls. Maybe it goes, maybe it don't. Ima read somewhere that the Zumz were old-fashioned technology demonstrators but couldn't be sold to Congress in that form. I dunno. Not certain if 500 million $ minesweepers (altho they are said to have the ability to run many tiny little uwvz) is the answer either. We'll see, hope I am wrong. |
| Posted by: .5MT 2008-09-17 20:20 |
| #13 Anonymoose, even in the calmest of waters wouldn't you have a ripple effect between the platforms creating a pretty dangerous landing area? Sounds crazy to me but maybe I'm missing something. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-09-17 17:33 |
| #12 Comments from a non-navy type. 1. Aircraft need more than a place to take off and land. That's why CVN's are so complex. 2. Pappy's right. 3. We have no alternative to carriers when we don't have landing rights nearby the area of operations. 4. Show of force works. Especially if they believe you will use it. 5. Stuff wears out and should be replaced if needed. |
| Posted by: tipover 2008-09-17 17:15 |
| #11 check recent articles ( various websites) about shortcomings for the DDG1000 class destroyers.inability to handle surface-to-air mission is an interesting development. The Zumwalt is a much-politicised, flawed successor to the fire-support ship. As such, the much politicised DD-1000 was never intended to have surface to air capabilities outside of being an 'extended magazine' for Aegis equipped platforms (something that the Spruance class was being refiited for 16+ years ago). Did I mention it's much-politicised? As for the CVN, it's not obsolete. Yet. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2008-09-17 16:12 |
| #10 I agree carriers are not dead, they will just be used differently. I'm not sure we need supercarriers though. You could probably build and run more than one of the smaller kind for the same price. Especially if the new tasks are disaster assistance (tsunami for example) and unmanned aircraft launch and recovery. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2008-09-17 16:10 |
| #9 Modern missiles need a fire control solution. The fundamental problem in attacking a CVN is getting that, and living long enough to use it. On paper, Carriers were obsolete 40 years ago. But carriers operate on WATER. |
| Posted by: Minister of funny walks 2008-09-17 16:08 |
| #8 The economy is not tanking. The financial markets are tanking. Wall Street has both overdone greed and stepped into a new era in which, like the recordeing industry and the MSM, many of its constituents are obsolete and superfluous. AIG was picked up by the Fed to prevent the economy from tanking. As yet the economy is not even in a recession. And if it does enter one, there is no reason to believe it will be out of line with the last two as long as the finance industry is stabilized. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-09-17 15:58 |
| #7 The way the economy is tanking.... will this happen? |
| Posted by: 3dc 2008-09-17 15:36 |
| #6 .5MT: check recent articles ( various websites) about shortcomings for the DDG1000 class destroyers. inability to handle surface-to-air mission is an interesting development. aircraft parking lot is interesting idea but i would like to know where we are going to get the reserve aircraft to park there; the Tomcats are scrap, the Intruders are gutted ( of common parts to support the Prowlers), and anything else that was 'flyable' has no logistics trail left (F-4, A-7E, A-4, F-8) and nobody left that remembers how to work on them. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2008-09-17 15:11 |
| #5 It is a truism that the military (being by nature a conservative organization) is always fighting the last war. Having said that, it may be that carriers are not obsolete yet. I still see a lot of uses for them, but not necessarily as the core of the naval force that they have been since WWII. |
| Posted by: DLR 2008-09-17 14:56 |
| #4 Yeah we've lost a heap of them recently. Need some more of those funky Littoral Combat thingies! Yeah! |
| Posted by: .5MT 2008-09-17 14:54 |
| #3 An strange idea I saw elsewhere could best be called an "aircraft parking lot". Inexpensive, low tech, ships with strong stabilizers, whose upper deck is a flat landing strip. Perhaps three to five such ships would move to an area of calm sea, between where the carrier or carriers are conducting combat operations, and the nearest land airport. There they hook up in line to form a landing strip perhaps double the size of a carrier. This accomplishes a whole bunch of things. To start with, if a carrier is hit by anti-ship missiles, such a platform would likely be within range of the carrier's aircraft, so would save the air wing in a forward deployed location. Second, if a carrier air wing was getting heavy losses and anticipated needing additional aircraft, a wing could be in "the batter's box", on the platform. It and the carrier's own wing would be able to use either carrier or platform as needed. For some aircraft, landing on a platform could be a one-way flight, so that section could detach and steam home. Otherwise it could be brought back to the carrier and craned aboard. Such ships could also provide quicker rearmament and resupply, receiving materiel from shore, carried by aircraft that could not land on a carrier. Importantly, they would not be combat vessels, but combat support vessels. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-09-17 14:49 |
| #2 The electrical generating capacity makes this a very interesting platform. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-09-17 14:29 |
| #1 Obsolete before being built. Aircraft carriers are a joke in the face of modern missiles. |
| Posted by: gromky 2008-09-17 14:25 |