Why the US needs CVNs vs CVs

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

M4A3E2(76)W RE:Why the US needs CVNs vs CVs 6/19/2003 12:31:52 AM

Makes sense to me.

Quote Reply

Shaka of Carthage RE:Why the US needs CVNs vs CVs 6/19/2003 8:46:10 AM

Its not like the US is gonna build more CVs. The two current carriers under construction are CVNs. This new concept carrier CVN-21(?) is also nuclear. But you've got to understand a few things. The CVN doesn't need to refuel. Its a moving target in other words, much harder to hit. But who out there is the threat? Forget that part for the moment though. Ever hear of AvGas? Aviation fuel? The aircraft on a carrier need to be refueled from tankers every 4 or 5 days when they are used for sustained bombing operations (the way we use them now). So this "enemy", still needs only take out the tankers to stop the aircraft. Carrier could still move of course. That, a few years ago, was the whole argument between CVNs and CVs. Since there is no "enemy" threat (like a Japan in WWII) that requires "maneuver" warfare, whats the difference if a tanker arrives every 4 or 5 days, versus 2 or 3 days (CV carrier)?

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:Why the US needs CVNs vs CVs SHAKA 6/19/2003 8:55:15 AM

Valid point

Quote Reply

The Objectivist RE:Why the US needs CVNs vs CVs 9/29/2003 4:30:48 AM

--Since there is no "enemy" threat (like a Japan in WWII) that requires "maneuver" warfare, whats the difference if a tanker arrives every 4 or 5 days, versus 2 or 3 days (CV carrier)?-- What are the detriments of nuclear propulsion?

Quote Reply

Thomas RE:Why the US needs CVNs vs CVs 9/29/2003 5:00:24 AM

Finally I found the thread, thanks Objectivist. The main argument for nuclear propolsion is the ability to produce steam in sufficient quantity.

Quote Reply

macawman RE:Why the US needs CVNs vs CVs 9/29/2003 5:06:30 AM

I think the No# l issue with CVNs vs CVs is that they are far more costly initially. link It would be interesting to see a cost study of what carrier petroleum fuel would cost over the 40 to 50 year life of a large deck carrier vs nuclear fuel and the additional safety cost requirements. I am fairly sure that the operational capabilities are more important than operational costs for the US Navy at this point of time.

Quote Reply

macawman What are the detriments of nuclear propulsion? 9/29/2003 7:17:25 AM

Some of the significant differences between nuclear and conventional steam propulsion plants are: 1. Cost: Nuclear plants are far more expensive to build, maintain, operate, and dispose of. Fuel costs are actually lower for a conventional plant, considering the costs of a refueling overhaul for a nuclear powered ship. Manning levels are higher for a nuclear plant, as are training costs. 2. Flexibility: Nuclear plants require very heavy and complex foundations and shielding. This has a very significant influence on hull and machinery design. Conventional plants can be configured with many more options. 3. Efficiency: Conventional plants use superheated steam (that is, steam whose temperature is well above the vaporization point at a given pressure). This results in smaller turbine size and greater BTU content per pound of steam. This allows the use of smaller turbines to attain the same power levels. This also eliminates much of the "carry over" of contaminants that can erode and/or foul turbine blades. Nuclear plants use steam that is closer to its saturation point, and this results in greater turbine maintenance requirements. 4. Redundancy: Due to the high cost of reactors, modern nuclear plants are limited to two reactors, while conventional plants for capital ships may have up to eight boilers. The discrepancy in redundancy is obvious. 5. Diplomacy: (Sigh, I really hate this one!) Some "friendly" countries will not allow port visits from nuclear powered vessels. This could be significant in the event of battle damage. 6. Range: Nuclear, no contest. 7. Survivability: The actual survivability of the two designs is similar, with the nuclear plant being somewhat better protected, while the conventional plant is much easier to repair (including "jury rigging" in extremis). 8. The nuclear plant has a smaller above surface IR signature, and possibly a lower radar image, as a result of the elimination of stacks and stack gasses. Al Minyard link

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Why the US needs CVNs vs CVs 9/30/2003 5:57:24 PM

"Since there is no "enemy" threat (like a Japan in WWII) that requires "maneuver" warfare, whats the difference if a tanker arrives every 4 or 5 days, versus 2 or 3 days (CV carrier)?" Of all the arguments raised, this is the weakest. 1)It means, given the figures cited, halving the number of tankers needed to support the ship. 2)The suggestion that there is no danger to a TF needing or providing replenishment is just wrong. 2a)How many potential enemies have submarines? Every one is a potential threat to even a CTG, let alone a replenishment group. And, the capabilities of submarines are increasing, markedly, right now. Ask Thomas about the new generation of German, air independent propulsion conventional boats. 2b)Land based air? Destroying the replenishment force for a CBG can be a mission kill in a real war setting. That makes the replenisment groups priority targets, and if an enemy doesn't have enough power to take on the big, bad,CBG head-on, it might sneak around the corner to beat up on it's little brother. 3)Does anyone seriously propose waiting until an enemy develops a threatening ability *before* bothering to address the threat? When lead times for construction of carriers are far more than a decade, this isn't just monstrously silly, it's suicidal.

Quote Reply

Final Historian RE:Why the US needs CVNs vs CVs 10/3/2003 6:19:32 PM

Seems to me that mostly CVNs, with a few CVs for those diplomatic issues, would be the way to go. Seems as if you guys covered everything that I knew.

Quote Reply