What about mid-sized cheaper carriers? (better cost per ton?)

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

Pages: 1 2

Herald1234 You can't buy a bird farm in isolation. 5/2/2007 5:17:41 AM

There are the costa of the surface, and subsurface escorts, as well as the birds you park into your bird farm. Double or treble the costs you program for your typical carrier.

Now ask yourself, is a 4 billion Pound ship more bang for the buck than a 6 billion Pound ship?

Given that you were planning to spend 10-12 billion Pounds more on three destroyers and frigates, one submarine, and approximately 46 aircraft of all types, you should've spent the extra 2-3 billion Pounds and slid a Nimitz into the water, along with a couple of dozen extra helos and F-35s to go with it. Pence wise is Pound foolish.

Herald

Quote Reply

rayott34 Cheaper per ton? 5/3/2007 4:05:19 AM

""There are the costa of the surface, and subsurface escorts, as well as the birds you park into your bird farm. Double or treble the costs you program for your typical carrier.""

Yes, you have to have support ships to work with carriers (and they cost money too), and yes, you have to buy the aircraft (more money) so there are other misc per carrier cost that raise overall cost if you get multiple decks. But be that as it may, if the costs are almost the same, I still think that three medium carriers are preferable to one super big one. More flexibility, less strain on one ship, not putting all your eggs in one basket, etc. Also, most medium sized countries that could consider a carrier already have a navy and an air force that would work together with any newly purchased carriers (countries like Germany, Italy, Spain, Australia, Japan, etc)

"Now ask yourself, is a 4 billion Pound ship more bang for the buck than a 6 billion Pound ship?"

The most recent US carrier was actually almost 7 billion pounds, and I think that the 4 billion pounds the brits are spending is for two ships carriers, not one (some one correct me if I'm wrong, I having a hard time getting info).

So, a better comparison would be, spend 4 billion (GBP) for two medium British carriers, or 7 billion (GBP) for one large US one.

Or, 6 or 8 billion for 3 or 4 medium British carriers, vs 7 billion for 1 large US carriers.

If Germany, for example, was going to sink 6 to 7 billion into carriers, and mix them in with their pre existing navy and air force, wouldn't spending 6 billion to buy 3 of the British medium carriers be better then spending 7 billion to buy a single US nimitz?

4 billion for two 65,000 ton Brit carriers (total 130,000 tons) = 30,770 GBP per ton

6 billion for three 65,000 ton Brit carriers (total of 195,000 tons) = about 30,770 GBP per ton

7 billion GBP (almost 14 million USD) for one 90,000 ton US nimitz= 77,778 GBP per ton.

Are the Brit manufacturers more efficient? Are my numbers incorrect? Are the British cost estimates for their planned carriers overly optimistic? Do the US carriers have lots of extra equipment that the Brit's wont have? I feel like I've got to have made a mistake somewhere, the production costs cant be that different between building carriers in the USA and UK.

Quote Reply

perfectgeneral CVF: Cheap as chips 5/3/2007 8:48:30 AM

The UK carriers will cost £3.9bn (or less) for the two because they have no equipment to speak of. Two lifts, no cats, no traps and no mini-city style facilities. That and they won't have nuclear reactors on board. They are so cheap that, if they don't go over budget, I'd like to see two more ordered.

Quote Reply

reefdiver 5/3/2007 11:35:12 AM

Is there much significance to the lack of nuke reactors on these smaller carriers? How does this affect operational capability? The large nuke carriers are less fuel dependent - how does this figure into the equation? I've recently read something about the US again even considering nukes for smaller vessels including CG(X) to gain more freedom from frequent refueling as well as more power for future DEW etc.

Quote Reply

Herald1234 5/3/2007 1:54:23 PM

""There are the costa of the surface, and
subsurface escorts, as well as the birds you park into your bird farm. Double
or treble the costs you program for your typical carrier.""

Yes, you have to have support ships to work with carriers (and they cost money
too), and yes, you have to buy the aircraft (more money) so there are other misc per carrier cost that raise overall cost if you get multiple decks. But be that as it
may, if the costs are almost the same, I still think that three medium carriers are
preferable to one super big one. More flexibility, less strain on one
ship, not putting all your eggs in one basket, etc. Also, most medium sized
countries that could consider a carrier already have a navy and an air force that would work together with any newly purchased carriers (countries like Germany, Italy, Spain, Australia, Japan,
etc)

"Now ask yourself, is a 4 billion Pound ship more bang
for the buck than a 6 billion Pound ship?"

The most recent US carrier was actually almost 7 billion pounds, and I think
that the 4 billion pounds the brits are spending is for two ships carriers, not
one (some one correct me if I'm wrong, I having a hard time getting
info).

So, a better comparison would be, spend 4 billion (GBP) for two medium British
carriers, or 7 billion (GBP) for one large US one.

Or, 6 or 8 billion for 3 or 4 medium British
carriers, vs 7 billion for 1 large US carriers.

If Germany, for example, was going to sink 6 to 7 billion into carriers, and
mix them in with their pre existing navy and air force, wouldn't spending 6
billion to buy 3 of the British medium carriers be better then spending 7
billion to buy a single US nimitz?

4 billion for two 65,000 ton Brit carriers (total 130,000 tons) = 30,770 GBP
per ton

6 billion for three 65,000 ton Brit carriers (total of 195,000 tons) = about
30,770 GBP per ton

7 billion GBP (almost 14 million USD) for one 90,000 ton US nimitz= 77,778 GBP
per ton.

Are the Brit manufacturers more efficient? Are my numbers
incorrect? Are the British cost estimates for their planned carriers
overly optimistic? Do the US carriers have lots of extra equipment that
the Brit's wont have? I feel like I've got to have made a mistake somewhere, the production costs cant be that different between building carriers in the USA and UK.

1. Your British shipwrights are clean slating a design. They've not designed a large carrier in 40 years and it shows. They've fouled up the CVF horribly. Having the assistance of the crew that designed the CdG didn't help matters. Example- your flight deck is a horrible layout for moving, positioning, and parking aircraft. It drives down sortie rates.

2. What idiot came up with the two island solution because you didn't know how to trunk funnels over the side?

3. US shipbuilding is in serious trouble. Even British shipyards appear to be efficient by comparison. Expect to see a severe US government mandated shakeup in that industry soon.

4. Bigger carrier =cheaper carrier per cubic meter. You pack in more planes and you pack in more supplies per replenishment cycle. Nuclear powerplants are compact and efficient which drives down fuel costs. It also means your aviation gas bunkers, consumable stores, magazine spaces, and compartmentalization is more thorough.

On a cost per ton use basis I'm betting a Nimitz will cost the USN 2/3 TO USE what a Queen Elizabeth is going to cost the RN operationally. That is a big bite out of the RN operating budget.

5. Like the CdG, two torpedoes and the CVF is a fish reef. You should remember that. It would take four cruise missiles of the Yakhont family to kill her. The CVF, aside from unspecified passive countermeasures, has no defense at all. She will need plenty of bodyguards. Those Type 45 destroyers you better build in quantity and equip with a decent SAM urgently.

6. The CVF is a political carrier. Too many design compromises the RN made to get something into the water to replace the Invincibles.

7. Beadle at Navy Matters covers this extensively. Aside from certain select journals I find his site to be one of the most comprehensive and best informed on navy matters in general and on the RN in specifics. You should really read what he has to say. he tries to get his stuff official and

Quote Reply

Herald1234 Slight follow up. 5/3/2007 3:30:31 PM

9. When you talk about an aircraft carrier you must consider internal usable volume but you must also consider square hanger deck parking footage. From what I see the CVFs have nice tall hangers which helps when you work on aircraft from workstands but that square footage is a big problem. The parking space for the airgroup is SMALL for a carrier that tonnage and volume.

10. The hydrocarbon chemical powerplant takes up a huge amount of usable volume in a CVF that a properly designed fission powerplant does not. You burn up a lot of increasingly expensive fuel to push that sixty thousand tonne hull through the water. That fuel should be going to your aircraft.

11. The correct design for a VTOL carrier is buried somewhere in the CVF but I don't see it now. When you foul up elevator placement and make your ship a huge radar return target by the way those two islands are placed and designed I have to wonder. .....

12. I did mention that compartmentalization was an issue? Small ship with huge compartments=damage control problem after it gets hit. A huge carrier with lots of compartments means you have a honeycomb strategy at work. Instead of a fishreef you become a dockyard case. Cref USS Benjamin Franklin as opposed to HMS Ark Royal.

13. One more thing to consider----Mwatts. Your powerplant is eventually going to be called upon to power really powerful EM catapults, DEW weapons and some esoteric electronics that require huge amounts of electricity. A naval nuclear reactor can handle that load continuously. Not so easy with CODAG or other types of propulsion schemes.

Herald

Quote Reply

stingray1003 5/6/2007 8:31:00 AM

Everybody would love a Nimitz or two. But not all navies have the man power, the docks, with nuclear facilities, the political will, the money, etc etc..

CVF does have some design flaws. Only able to hanger (absolute max) 24 aircraft is a huge one IMHO. Given the type of seas its going to operate in and travel through, over long distances (longer than US carriers), decking aircraft for transists is a big no no. (not to mention as stealth becomes more important you will want to keep them in good condition below decks.

Honestly, 30-35 aircraft hanger would have been fantastic. You could have 24+ aircraft comfortably below decks, during sorties with plenty of space for maintence. Should have really gone with CATOBAR launch too...

But then again look at cheaper ships like the Spanish BPE. 300 million euro gets you into a F-35B Carrier with hanger space for 20 aircraft. Crew of 200, birthing for 1200!. And has a flooding dock! Seems like a bargin, and Spain built thailand a carrier for $150 million bucks! Hence why Australia is getting two BPE's.

The CVF just doesn't seem to spec out like a 65,000+ ton ship should. I would have gone with hanger space for 32 aircraft, crew of 450, birthing for 1,800. Mucho expensiveo for the capability. Maybe it will, everything is pretty vauge at the moment. Maybe a way of getting more money later.

Quote Reply

bsl some additional considerations 5/6/2007 9:55:54 AM

Herald,

Great answer; lots of specifics.

Might add that if a designer (being held at gunpoint by civilian bureaucrats, no doubt) wants to steal some
low hanging fruit in cost reduction, he can reduce manning by applying a variety of techniques civilian
shipping uses but navies, traditionally, do not. Carriers tend to suck up huge numbers of crew and
each additional crew member means more volume to support him inside the hull, more supplies to keep
him going, and more checks cut every pay cycle.

Some of this move to reduce manning is going on in the USN, with the new LCS designs.

Still, those large numbers didn't accumulate because political admirals were trying to place their
in-laws' families and this way of cutting costs risks a number of bad outcomes, including reducing
sortie rate and, especially, reducing damage control capabilities.

As far as nuclear power is concerned, there are a couple of considerations against which haven't been
mentioned:

First, even in the USN, you don't get nuclear TGs. The surface escorts are conventionally powered, and this
tends to lead to mismatched capabilities. The carrier has a higher maximum speed than it's escorts, which
can lead to some, um, interesting tactical outcomes, with the carrier outrunning it's escorts. Generally not
a great idea. And, while reducing the supply issues for the carrier is worthwhile, you still need the tankers
for the escorts, so while you gain quantitative reductions in logistical support elements, you don't really
eliminate the basic problems.

But, a larger practical issue is political. There are real questions about the utility of a platform whose
risk of power plant spillage could lead political leaders to refuse to place in harm's way. No European
country, not even France, wants to deal with the political fallout of a spill of fissionables (pun intended).
In Britain, the obvious risk is likely to be a major red flag the first time nuclear propulsion is seriously
proposed. It could destroy political support for the whole project. Knowing this, there aren't many
British politicians who'd propose it.

Quote Reply

french stratege 5/6/2007 10:53:37 AM

Title. Like the CdG, two torpedoes and the CVF is a fish reef. You should remember that. It would take four cruise missiles of the Yakhont family to kill her. The CVF, aside from unspecified passive countermeasures, has no defense at all. She will need plenty of bodyguards. Those Type 45 destroyers you better build in quantity and equip with a decent SAM urgently.

I doubt it would need only 2 torpedoes and 4 Yakhont to sink CDG which has 3000 tons of armor protection and is well compartimented.However I agree that CDG is too small.

I would favor a 60 000 tons nuclear carrier with 2 or 3 catapults like proposal of DCN for our second carrier which was not choosen.

They favored conventional propulsion for political resaons and also because nuclear carrier seems to have too much maintenance time.

It is obvious for CDG where reactors are small and so are used closer to their maximum output compared to a sub, and so the fuel has to be changed every 6/7 years.

However new SSBN/SSN do not need to reload fuel.It could be possible for a carrier.

Whatever size of carrier , you have a single landing track and I think that nuclear 60 000 tons carrier with 50/60 planes and a single life fuel (or two maximum) are an optimum.

A 60 000 tons nuclear carrier should not cost more than 3 B$ (Cdg costs 3 B? but including a billion in R&D).

I prefer 3 *60000 tons carrier instead of 2* 90 000 tons.

Nuclear threat still exist.

On cost: US new carrier cost include R&D but also your naval shipyard are totally non competitive.Price are twice than in France and probably 60% more than in UK.

Quote Reply

Herald1234 5/6/2007 11:23:20 AM

I doubt it would need only 2 torpedoes and 4 Yakhont to sink CDG which has 3000 tons of armor protection and is well compartimented.However I agree that CDG is too small.

I would favor a 60 000 tons nuclear carrier with 2 or 3 catapults like proposal of DCN for our second carrier which was not choosen.

They favored conventional propulsion for political resaons and also because nuclear carrier seems to have too much maintenance time.

It is obvious for CDG where reactors are small and so are used closer to their maximum output compared to a sub, and so the fuel has to be changed every 6/7 years.

However new SSBN/SSN do not need to reload fuel.It could be possible for a carrier.

Whatever size of carrier , you have a single landing track and I think that nuclear 60 000 tons carrier with 50/60 planes and a single life fuel (or two maximum) are an optimum.

A 60 000 tons nuclear carrier should not cost more than 3 B$ (Cdg costs 3 B? but including a billion in R&D).

I prefer 3 *60000 tons carrier instead of 2* 90 000 tons.

Nuclear threat still exist.

On cost: US new carrier cost include R&D but also your naval shipyard are totally non competitive.Price are twice than in France and probably 60% more than in UK.

I don't have any doubts. Better built ships were sunk with much less. I was being GENEROUS.

Herald

Quote Reply

1 2