The real question with the QE-class is would the British Admiralty feel that it was a viable solution if they could not rely on the US Navy with its big, full capacity, carriers to back them up?  They learned the hard way in the Falklands how important that would be.

There are plenty of indikators of faulty planning - f.i. those mentioned here: Zumwalt and Seawolf. Very few promotions in those projects.

 

But the real depression comes when they face budget cuts - they are all-right for now; but when replacements are slower to come by.

Furthermore: Defence expenditure is not going to be the economic regulator it used to be. MEDICARE has been introduced to replace it.

 

Also please look at past threads where better minds than me describe in convincing detail
why the Nimitz is the size it is, you are making assumptions that are too simplistic imv.

 

R

The Nimitz Class do not even carry the number of  aircraft they are designed to as it is. Plus the Navy is even reducing the number of its carrier air wings.

 

Precision munitions, stealth etc all reduce  sortie rates per mission  which reduces the number of aircraft needed

 

A 65,000 ton carrier as opposed to a 100,000 ton carrier not only makes good fiscal sense it makes good military sense-which needs to be more of the same thing.

 

If the cost of your 100K  only lets you have 2 or  maybe three of them  when a 65K carrier would let you have maybe 3 or 4 of them which makes more sense when you consider availability up time and the inability to be two places at once.

 

 

Riiight, and I'm sure the Pentagon will be shocked to discover how stupid they've been.. 

 

Also please look at past threads where better minds than me describe in convincing detail


why the Nimitz is the size it is, you are making assumptions that are too simplistic imv.

 

R

The Nimitz Class do not even carry the number of  aircraft they are designed to as it is. Plus the Navy is even reducing the number of its carrier air wings.

 

Precision munitions, stealth etc all reduce  sortie rates per mission  which reduces the number of aircraft needed

 

A 65,000 ton carrier as opposed to a 100,000 ton carrier not only makes good fiscal sense it makes good military sense-which needs to be more of the same thing.

 

If the cost of your 100K  only lets you have 2 or  maybe three of them  when a 65K carrier would let you have maybe 3 or 4 of them which makes more sense when you consider availability up time and the inability to be two places at once.

 

 

They don't carry a large wing in peacetime but they have the ability to rapidly increase deployed airframes to more than DOUBLE that of the 65kt carriers. Saying that sortie rates don't need to be as high as possible because of munitions is a pointless argument as it ignores the fact that under duress the rate needs to be as high as humanly possible, that added functionality might be missed in a Taiwan straits conflict, sorely missed, they might even now be at the very brink of avoiding saturation against PRC tactics - a 65kt carrier makes crap financial sense as it is virtually the same price as a Nimitz with a fraction of the capability, you also overlook two more important points, you NEED a set amount of destroyers and support craft PER carrier anyway, so building big makes more sense in that any savings you would (in theory, not reality) make by building smaller will be more than offset by requiring the same amount of support per carrier - and last but not least the SIZE of the Nimitz class is a key part of their survivability if hit - almost nothing in maritime construction scales linearly.

 

Seriously guys there's older threads on this same board that explain this in far better detail.

 

R 

 

 

 

The Nimitz-class is far to large for present needs - but you just don't saw them in half and get the double number: You are stuck whith the ones you've got.The critique of the Ford-class is, that it has taken a historical wing size as dimentioning. This is a mistake:

 

a) The same mission effect can be achieved today with fewer aircraft and fewer sorties - which translate into a smaller carrier with a smaller complemet (some savings due to newer technology has apparently materialised in the Ford-class,)

b) The flexibility with fewer and bigger carriers is less than more and smaller carriers.

c) The USNavy is just getting rid of the one-ship Enterprise class - one ship classes are expensive - building and maintaining. For building the sistership effect is about 10% for civilian vessels last time i looked.

d) Taking your figures: 2 big carriers cost the same as 3 smaller. If the 10 Nimitz-class are replaced on a one for one basis with a Ford class. You could instead have 15 smaller carriers - but that is exactly what you won't get, as the need for carriers is (maybe 13 - including an extra reserve at sea at any one time). This will give a carrierreplacement - measured in Ford-class cost: Big carriers 9.1 Ford-class (not 10 due to sistership savings) Small carrier (7.9).- just to give an indication of significance - say about the cost of one Ford-class.

 

 

 

 

 

Even if you accept the idea that two CBGs are sufficient for a Taiwan Straits (I don't, let alone the idea that they could be both available and on station in time), you're out of your mind if you think they're sufficient for the conflagration thereafter.

You say the number of decks should be 13, and that the mission requirements (low sortie rates) could be met by a QE class.

Well then: stipulate a drop to 10 CBGs, and a relative sortie rate of Nimitz:America class of 4:1; QE:America 2:1.

F-35Bs/tactical UAVs off perhaps a dozen ESGs get you there, with a big chunk of the other overlapping capabilities that you'll need for the same likely mission in the package already. Figure STOVL and strategic UAVs into the picture as well.

With these deck numbers the smart course is to regulate the rate of production of Ford, not start over with a QE design. Even if down the road you decide you need a QE built around EMALS, the less risky evolutionary path is to build it in numbers in big decks first.

A USN small deck CATOBAR today is a solution looking for a problem.

One thing that gets lost in all this is that each carrier task force requires the same number of escorts so having say 1.5 to 2 times as many smaller carriers to "save" money actually costs more money due to the increased escort requirements along with the crews.  Frankly the SSN construction schedule alone makes this a non starter.

 

The notion that every requirement can be met by 30 strike aircraft on a QE as opposed to up to 60 on a Nimitz class is illogical on it's face.  If the requirement for tactical aircraft has decreased then exactly why would anyone consider cutting the most versatile force, the carriers, and ignore the more limited land based aircraft?  Exactly how many thousands of USAF tactical aircraft do we require in relation to carrier air?

 

It's simply ridiculous cutting the carrier force to "save" money due to a perceived need for less aircraft while keeping thousands of land based USAF tactical fighters.  How exactly does not argue that a 30 aircraft carrier is good enough but the USAF somehow requires thousands of fighters?

You have to defend the task force - if the russian suddenly decides to break out of Murmansk - or Sct. Petersburg.

 

I'll let You into a little secret: They WON'T - somebody has seen to that.

 

But You point to another overlooked point: Why use destroyers? Why not frigates?

What is the need for oilers?

 

But You could look to what the Air Force did.

 

We have established that the USNavy has comitted one costly planning blunder after another.

 

The Air Force keep their B-52's in service - pilots will fly the aircraft their great grandfathers flew. They are expensive to operate - true; but how often is there a target worthy of  a 3 aircraft B-52 cell? China? Oh yes - untill China breaks up in a civil war. No! China is an enemy that will be starved into submission - the Midwestern cornfields are a potent weapon.

The B-2 will take care of the remaining missile siloes.

 

On the lighter side: The Air Force developed the F-15/F-16 hi-lo concept admirably into the F-22/F-35 concept.

The concept is partly a whole new (for airforces) tactical concept - and brand new fighters.

 

For starters the F-35 is translating a smaller required payload into increased range, where the economic engine is a big help.

I'll let You into another secret: The best way to avoid radar detection is to fly where there is no radar!

This coupled with the F-22 with its huge range and speed that actually makes the use of an active tactical reserve IN THE AIR.

 

This has led to a closure of Air Bases around the world. I can promise You, that Ramstein is a shadow of itself. Karup is hiring out hardned aircraft shelters.

In the Iraqi wars they used bloody Incirlik (serendiptiously halfway correctly spelled) half a continent away!

The british with the Harrier tried to do away with airfields - in a costly way. Why not fly past them? Keflavik hardly has the right spanners these days. (Yes I know it is a NAS)