Current Deepwater problems....

 

You need to keep up Thomas.  Those were original data points to address your original errors. Again when we FIGHT in the Arctic, we will use aircraft and subs with which we patrol now, NOT icebreakers. We don't fight or think the way the rest of the world does when it comes to sea-power or sea-control. Mahan is our naval theorist, not Colbert, or Gorshkov, who was an incompetent ass. 

 

As to why I cited Pacific lessons, its because the future naval conflicts will be Indian Ocean, and Pacific with CHINA as the enemy, not Russia. If you noticed this weekend's US scram-dart test, you'd know why... Large aircraft carriers are the only hulls that could survive such kinetic impactors and still launch aircraft after they are hit.

 

As for your wetted area argument... nonsense. Nobody has repealed the laws of physics.  

 

News article on scram-dart.... 

 

H.

 

I was thinking about the USS Cole bombing, that kind of damage would be much more serious against Queen Elisabeth class then the Nimitz class.

 

But I still want to remind Thomas that the choice of the design fit the need of USN. And again, i would rather see, if budget is restrained, less Carrier fleet than more less capable one. 

 

"I would rather see, if budget is restrained, less Carrier fleet than more less capable one."

 

Should be read as:

 

I would prefer to see less carrier fleet that a more fleet compose of lesser ship.

"I would prefer to see fewer carrier battle groups than a greater number based around less-capable carriers"

 

And I agree with the above - while Thomas is doubtless correct in his assumption that future budgets will require (potentially severe) military spending cuts I would guess that the USN would simply field a smaller number of Nimitz/Ford CBG's - it might be that 10 are not necessary for future strategic requirements but it does seem to me to be far more efficient to build the battle-groups around the assets with the greatest capacity, capability and survivability you can and then surge as necessary.

 

The current number and capabilities of AAW/ASW escorts is almost certainly based upon some pretty intensive simulation of credible threat scenarios, just because a carrier is QE-size the defensive task is identical or worse if air-wing capabilities are reduced.

 

R

Do you honestly think there will be a replacement on a one to one basis!

 

The problem is not what You or I want - because neither of us are going to get what we want.

There is neither conflict nor money for Your solution. I doubt very much that China will last (as a naval force) to the end of this decade - let alone for the next 40 years.

There obviously hasn't been intelligence for my solution - but 20 wasted years.

 

Hopefully the Kennedy will be scrapped - after being killed by the 2012 budget.

There will be whining and grinding - an a smaller carrier will be laid down at around 2020.

 

The problem is, that the USNavy is dying.

There will be a reevaluation of US Policy - because the present cannot be financed. It wasn't because Libya could not have be whacked by the Enterprise with one hand in the pocket.

 

 

Do you honestly think there will be a replacement on a one to one basis!

The Chinese want to put a Potemkin fleet to sea? What was the lesson of the The Great White Fleet? That was the Theodore Roosevelt Lesson. Put a Potemkin fleet to sea into navigation and show the flag practice and soon it develops TEETH. From that new capability accrue  the benefits of sea-power.  The PRC bandits mean business.

 

:Part 1

Hopefully the Kennedy will be scrapped - after being killed by the 2012 budget.

The Kennedy will become a fish reef.

 

And You have the temerity to lecture me on arctic warfare and naval strategy???????

 

"US will fight in the arctic with aircraft and submarines."

 

Jesus wept!

 

As if that possibility had not been considered? What the hell do You think those Bears out of Murmansk were doing? Poachfishing? And the Soviet Subs under the ice? Collecting sea shells?

 

There just MIGHT be a reason for the Thetis-class toting both SAM and depth charges! That is what the don't restrict in information.

Please spare me any more of your insights.

Thomas, this is why you aren't doing well in this discussion. Herald, LB, Reactive, and others have all laid down very specific reasons on why your opinion that the supercarrier is dead is flawed. You have very specifically failed to address their points or have only addressed the parts you wanted. Even now with your last reply you chose to ignore all of the excellant points Herald just laid out about the USN and what it is doing right now and instead are once again trying to dictate who can and cannot address you and arguing something about fighting in the Arctic.

 

BTW, who exactly are we supposed to be fighting in the Arctic? What enemy do the Danes have today with naval access to the Arctic Ocean?
Now who was it that was building ships for fighting the last war again?

If I were just now coming into this discussion, just based on your tone I wouldn't be inclined to take your side or even listen to your position even if it were unassailably accurate.

It has been shown that the 100k ton supercarrier is more survivable, more capable, more persistent, and as of now more cost-effective than the 40-50k ton medium carrier, especially when you factor in operating costs, support vessels, etc.

I find that I agree with RedParadize; I would rather have a fewer number (8) of more capable GF's than a larger number (~16) of QE-clones. Not least because the cost of operating that many mini-me CBGs would break the defense budget for the next 20 years.