NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Naval Air Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

The Politician Class Carriers Evolve

April 11, 2009: The USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77) has successfully completed its sea trails and been accepted by the U.S. Navy. The Bush will spend the rest of the year training, and doing some modifications and fixes on equipment, as a result of the sea trials. The Bush will be ready for its first deployment in about a year.

The Bush is the last of ten Nimitz class carriers. The first one entered service in 1975, and is currently set to serve for 49 years before decommissioning. All of the Nimitz class carriers are similar in general shape and displacement. But over four decades, each new member of the class received recently developed equipment. This stuff was installed in older Nimitzs eventually, as they went in for maintenance. The Bush, the last of the Nimitz class, has a lot of new gear that wasn't even thought of when the first Nimitz entered service. The first ship of next class of carriers, the USS Gerald R Ford (CVN 78) will be about the same length and displacement of the Nimitz ships, but will look different. The most noticeable difference will be the island set closer to the stern (rear) of the ship.

The USS Ford, is expected to cost nearly $14 billion. About 40 percent of that is for designing the first ship of the class, so the actual cost of first ship (CVN 78) itself will be some $9 billion. Against this, the navy expects to reduce the carriers lifetime operating expenses by several billion dollars because of greatly reduced crew size. Compared to the current Nimitz class carriers (which cost over $5 billion each to built), the Fords will feel, well, kind of empty. Lots more automation, computer networking and robots. The Bush has a lot of this automation already.

By the time the Ford enters service in 2015, even more of the crew will be replaced by robots than is the case in the Bush. The Ford will have about half as many sailors on board. Carrier based UAVs are also on the way. Work on flight control software for carrier operations is well underway. Combat UAVs (UCAVs) weight about 20 percent less than manned aircraft, and cost 20-30 percent less. They use less fuel as well.

While the navy would prefer to design and build the first generation UCAVs for use on existing carriers, these smaller and cheaper aircraft go together well with smaller and cheaper carriers. This means the Ford class may be the last of the big carriers. That's because UCAVs mean you can get more aircraft on a carrier, and that creates a traffic jam type situation. Moreover, the widespread use of smart bombs means you need fewer bombers over the target. A 50-60,000 ton carrier, with three dozen F-35Bs, UCAVs, UAVs and support aircraft, can be as effective as a Nimitz with 70 F-18s and support aircraft. Thus the Ford class may not completely replace the Nimitz class on a one-for-one basis. The sharply rising cost of building American warships may force the adoption of a smaller, cheaper, carrier class. Much like the Seawolf subs were replaced by the Virginias and the DDG-1000 is being replaced by, well, something smaller and more affordable.

The Nimitz class could also be called the "Politician Class." All ten carriers were named after political figures who helped the navy, except for the lead ship, which was named after the World War II Pacific commander, Admiral Nimitz. Some of these namesakes were contemporary politicians, and some of those were still living. Naming ships after living persons is rare, but not uncommon. George Washington had four warships named after him before he died. In fact, over a dozen U.S. warships were named after notable revolutionary period leaders. Up through the U.S. Civil War, about one American warship a decade was named after a living person (usually a politician). In 1900, the first modern U.S. submarine was named after the fellow who developed it (John Philip Holland). Throughout the 20th century, especially after World War II, warships were named after living people, mainly politicians who were helpful to the navy. So far this century, five warships have been named after living Americans. These were USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) in 2001, USS Nitze (DDG-94) in 2004, USS Jimmy Carter (SSN-23) in 2004, USS George H. W. Bush (CVN-77) in 2006 and USS Wayne E. Meyer (DDG-108) last year. The last one is interesting, as admiral Meyer is, well, a geek, and the man most responsible for development of the Aegis air defense system. American carriers go to war surrounded by Aegis equipped ships, for protection against enemy aircraft and ballistic missiles.

 

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article MORALE: South Korea Is The New Germany


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Squidley    Other modern warships named after living people    4/12/2009 8:42:04 AM
Also USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70)  USS Hyman Rickover (SSN-709) and USS John Stennis (CVN-74)
 
Quote    Reply

oOOOo    USS Peanut   4/12/2009 11:11:43 AM
Did Jimmy Carter actually help the Navy? Though he was in the Navy for a time, it would take some strong convincing for me to think he helped the Navy in any way shape or form - other than by resigning his commission. Perhaps he didn't screw the Navy quite as deeply as he screwed the the other services. I have read (here, most likely) that naming a sub after him was actually a dark joke.
 
Quote    Reply

Squidley       4/12/2009 12:15:48 PM

Did Jimmy Carter actually help the Navy? Though he was in the Navy for a time, it would take some strong convincing for me to think he helped the Navy in any way shape or form - other than by resigning his commission. Perhaps he didn't screw the Navy quite as deeply as he screwed the the other services. I have read (here, most likely) that naming a sub after him was actually a dark joke.

It is a dark joke.  SSN-23 is a "special projects' submarine, equipped for lots of "black? capabilities.  It carries on the "cable tapping" legacies of the Parche,  the Seawolf and Richard Russell. Carter did however let the Navy run its special operations without his usual political ineptness and military micro-management.

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       4/12/2009 12:56:42 PM

Did Jimmy Carter actually help the Navy? Though he was in the Navy for a time, it would take some strong convincing for me to think he helped the Navy in any way shape or form - other than by resigning his commission. Perhaps he didn't screw the Navy quite as deeply as he screwed the the other services. I have read (here, most likely) that naming a sub after him was actually a dark joke.
Rumor has it that he was a FU there, too: so he was "encouraged" to find a different line of work.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Gerry       4/12/2009 10:51:00 PM
I personaly dispise anything named after a "Politician". We should have named the carriers after a higher class of people, perhaps the "Mata Hari",  "Sandpaper Sally",  or the "Monica Lewinsky" anything but the bottom feeders of a cess pool.
 
Quote    Reply

greyghost       4/12/2009 11:08:09 PM
  Should name carriers after enlisted marines
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Rubbish   4/13/2009 7:35:44 AM
It's simply ridiculous to state 3 dozen F-35Bs and UCAVs can be as effective as 70 F-18s as "bombers" assuming all aircraft are carrying the same weapons given there is no UCAV that can carry anything like the load of an F-18 and very real limitations of any UCAV bomb truck.  The X-45 was canceled by the USAF and the X-47 is a demonstrator and carries 1,000 lb.  The X-47B is a test program and according to NG the aircraft would be able to carry 4,500lbs in it's internal bay.  What the bring back limit is I have no idea.
 
Given a specific mission a UCAV can be more effective than another given airframe such as an orbiting bomb truck carrying very light loads for long duration.  However this does not remotely justify the blanket statement made in the article.  Exactly how effective the F-35B will be as a bomb truck compared to an F-18 is also a tad problematic given no parameters.  Frex, is it public knowledge what the bring back capacity of an F-35B is given a vertical vs arrested landing?
 
Smart bombs make all aircraft more effective.  The B-52 with a targetting pod and JDAMs is orders of magnitude more effective than one simply carrying dumb bombs in many missions.  It will be far in the future for a UCAV(s) to carry 30,000lbs as cost effectively as a B-52 even though it certainly might be more capable in many strike missions far earlier.  
 
Quote    Reply

J3       4/13/2009 8:42:45 AM
With the end of Nimitz production, here are some factoids that may interest:  (1) Between 10/55, when the Forrestal was commissioned, and 9/68, when the Kennedy was commissioned, we commissioned 9 super carriers (For., Indep., Saratoga, Ranger, Enterprise, America, Kitty Hawk, Constellation, and Ken).  That is one carrier about every 17 months!  Between 5/75 when the Nimitz was commissioned and 1/09 when the Bush was commissioned we commissioned 10 Nimitzes, or about one every 40 months.  Between 10/55 and 1/09 we commissioned a total of 19 super carriers or bout one every 33 months! 
 
(2) From 1950 thru mid 1960s, the Navy operated a mind-numbing variety of carrier aircraft, mainly fighter/strike: FH-1, F2H, F3H, F4H (F-4), F3D, F4D, F9F (panther and couger), F11F, FJ-1,-2.-3, and -4, F8U (F-8), A2J,  A3J, A3D, A4D (A-4), A-6, and A-7.  The Navy's designation system was different from the AF's.  Instead of just saying A plus # for attack (like A-10), B plus# for bombers and F plus # for fighters, the Navy used a complicated system which identified the type, manufacturer and sequence of the aircraft type for each manufacturerer.  Thus the famous Phantom II was originally designated F4H-1; F for fighter, 4H meaning the fourth fighter produced by McDonnell (H being the letter symbol for that manufacturer), and -1 meaning the first version of the fourth figher produced by McDonnell.  This and the Navy's huge variety of fighter/strike aircraft drove then Def Sec Robert MacNamara batty. So, he forced the Navy adopt the AF ID system (hence F4H became F-4) and to reduce the number of aircraft types on carriers. After years of effort, the Navy has today rationalized its figher/attak planes to one type with 2 varients (FA-18A-D and E/F). 
 
(3) The super carriers were orginally built to compete with the AF for a chunk of our atomic warfare force.  By 1960, the Navy operated hundreds of nuclear strike aircraft which could reach the periphary of the Soviet Untion and in some cases much more deeply into the SU.  These included 12 squadrons of what the Navy called "heavy" bombers (A3D sky warriors, AF version being B-66), and numuerous squadrons of A4D Skyhawks, which were originally designed for one-way atomic mssions. I have read that during this time the Navy's Skywarriors were more in numbers than all of the Russian bombers which could hit the US. 
 
All of this changed with the advent of the Polaris sub, which gave the Navy a much larger chunk of the country's nuc attack force than the carriers did, and Pres Kennedy's change of US defense strategy from massive nuc retaliation to emphasis on conventional forces.  The Navy rapidly modified its nuc planes for conventional use, particularly the Skyhawk (which it later replaced with the A-7 Corsair II), cancelled the A3J Vigilante as a replacement for the Sky Warrior and used it instead for recon, and introduced the A-6 Intruder.  All of these were widely used over North Vietnam and beyond.  The Nimitzes were delayed until 1975 partly because of delays in the nuc power system but  also because of design changes made as result of experience over North V with conventional bombing.  Among other things, the Navy found that its supers (as well as the old Essex/Ticos and Midways), did not have the capacity for lengthy systained air bombardment.  I have read that the Nimitzes were designed with enough space for av gas and weapons to operate continuously for two weeks.
 
Finally, I doubt the Fords will be built.  The EMALS (electo magnetic aircraft lauch system) is no where near ready and the cost of converting the Ford to steam is crazy and brings none of reductions in life cycle costs that EMALS promises.  But mainly we do not need these unique behomoths in the numbers we have had with the very expensive sophisticated planes they carry, nor can we afford them.  The future looks like smaller carriers, such as the new America class, flying multi-mission F-35s in smaller numbers.  This is why Gates put so lmuch empahsis on the F-35, I think.  We shall see. 
 
Quote    Reply

ker       4/13/2009 10:27:16 PM
"Combat UAVs (UCAVs) weight about 20 percent less than manned aircraft, and cost 20-30 percent less. They use less fuel as well."
 
I think this could be elaborated on.  UAV's use less fuel per hour of flight.  They uses less fuel per pound of ordance deliver a given distance. 
 
But that less than half the story.  What % of Navy flight hours are training?  UAV oporators can train w/o burning fuel.  There for the total tons of fuel consumed per target serviced or hour of air cap provided is dramaticly lower.
 
Quote    Reply

jastayme3       4/13/2009 10:41:15 PM
Isn't naming warships after politicians somewhat vulgar? Great Statesmen are an exception of course but not grubby day to day politicians. Admittedly there is ample precedent as British named new discoveries after Admiralty bureaucrats.
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector       4/13/2009 10:55:19 PM
"Combat UAVs (UCAVs) weight about 20 percent less than manned aircraft, and cost 20-30 percent less. They use less fuel as well."
I think this could be elaborated on.  UAV's use less fuel per hour of flight.  They uses less fuel per pound of ordance deliver a given distance. 
But that less than half the story.  What % of Navy flight hours are training?  UAV oporators can train w/o burning fuel.  There for the total tons of fuel consumed per target serviced or hour of air cap provided is dramaticly lower.


Valid points, Ker.  Good call given available information and parameters.

v^2

 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy