Putting Tomahawks on a carrier at the expense of having them on the shooters limits operational flexibility.

If you're referring to EW3's comments, then take note of his handle..... ;)

The U.S. has been the most successful operator of Aircraft Carriers in all of history.  For 60 years the U.S. has had a complete monopoly on designing, building, and operating Super Carriers.  If VLS was a viable cost effective solution they would be included.  VLS does not have a place on an aircraft carrier, not with the doctrine the United States follows.  

I'm aware of what an EW3 was. They're now CTTs. I didn't serve during the Cold War. Born too late. But I have served in the USN for the last 15 years. I've risen through the enlisted ranks and into the officer ranks. Like the EWs I served in a "tactical" enlisted rating. I'm not an engineer, but I am a student of strategy and tactics and a user of the systems.

Well, I was trying to avoid coming to the conclusion that you are a pompous ass, but if you insist on it, I must believe you.  A rarity among naval acquaintances of mine, but who am I to disagree in the absence of any contrary evidence?


OK let me try again.  I have written papers on RMS Titanic.  I have built models of RMS Titanic. 

RMS Titanic, sir, did not suffer a shaft seals event.  The collision was forward, complications including a single hull of defective (brittle) steel and bulkheads that were not watertight.  I will not trouble you with further details unless you want illustration that the shaft seals on the Titanic were aft, and that aft is the opposite of forward.  Don't be shy, you just let me know if you need me to DRAW YOU A DIAGRAM.  Nothing's too good for our boys in the service!

If you mean that holes in the bottom of the boat tend to let in water and make sinky, I won't argue the point.  In fact I will cheer your firm grasp of this principle, which in fact has been at issue elsewhere on SP boards - kill modes in WWII, shells/bombs striking from above, vs. torps hits between wind and water.

Incidentally, if you want to hide behind your sooper-sekrit clearance and make an unsupported assertion, I will be happy, nay, delighted to believe you, if you tell me that a CVN cannot suffer a shaft seal event.  What joy!  But I feel bad for our enemies that they wasted all that money on wake homing torpedoes.
Well, most recently, I wrote my thesis on Organization and Management in the Royal Navy.  I candidly admit to never having been on an exploding AOE and I look forward to your sea stories of same (and how glad I am that you survived). 

I trust they will all begin "No s--t..."

I'm not asking you to validate your credentials, as I think the merit of anyones contribution lies in the quality and persistency of their logic.  It does more to cement and reinforce than anyones self proclaimed credentials.  So, I'm not questioning your competency either as the tone of debate indicates that you're "clued up".  My point was dismissing EW3 (if that was what you were doing) when he also has a history that is also demonstrated.

Fixed?

Just exactly what is your battle experience, Lieutenant?  I think you mention to Herald or WC or GF or EW3 or somebody that you weren't around for the Cold War.  So then, Commander, I suppose you are ignorant of the Iran-Iraq War and Operation Earnest Will?  Did you know, Captain, that the Bridgeton, a Kuwaiti tanker reflagged by the US to gain US naval protection, and several others, were struck by mines in the Gulf?

They didn't sink.  I don't know what you have in mind as "withstanding damage" but that would seem to be the first thing, Admiral.  That is, not to sink.

The funny thing is that if you had any discernible reading comprehension skills, you'd see that we are substantially in agreement.  That is, I don't believe in bolting on VLS to a ship with a specialized mission, i.e. a carrier.  But as long as you can push a swab or haul on a rope (or, since I heard you made officer, order men to do so), I suppose you don't need to. 

This is exactly what I have been saying.  If your carrier group lacks VLS capability, the carrier is not the place to add them.  It is neither the most effective nor the most cost-effective solution. 

If you don't wish to simply add more of the conventional missile cruiser, destroyer or frigate to your carrier or battle group, then an arsenal ship is a potential alternative.  I don't pretend to defend the notion against all comers, but part of the flaw in the alternatives that have, AFAIK, been considered and rejected, is that they were intended to be do-all and be-all behemoths that, quite naturally, spiraled into unsustainability.  A thousand VLS cells - semi-submersible - stealth - railguns - no doubt warp drive.

The whole jolly point of the Cooperative Engagement Capability is that you don't need to replicate the whole Aegis infrastructure aboard every ship.  The VLS barge or freighter (and the use of "barge" should remind you that this is hardly serious, as I said, I was snarking Yimmy to begin with) needs only a limited set of electronics to add missiles to the basket, as long as one SPY radar in the group survives.  So the additional VLS cells can go on any hull that has a practical amount of room for them. 

What kind of hull has lots of room?  A freighter. 

Now yes, a VLS freighter (VLSF) of whatever sort is not as survivable as a warship.  Indeed, that is a sacrifice that must be made, to pay say $100M for a 50K dwt hull.  (Or to pay nothing but as the British do, use STUFT if necessary.)  Whatever COTS survivability techniques can be affordably used are desirable, of course.  They have been working on that problem awhile.

I thought I had made it clear, the chief sacrifice made to gain this capability is that the VLSF cannot act independently.  And yes, escort speed would add to the price.  The VLSF would exist solely to beef up existing battlegroups.

Case in point:  China/Taiwan.

Remember Singapore in WWII?  The British said something like, 'One Tommy can whip ten Japs.  Unfortunately there were eleven Japanese.' 

What are we afraid of in dealing with China in say a Taiwan scenario?  That while ten ships with 1000 VLS cells can deal with say 900 incoming missile/aircraft threats (assume arguendo 90% Pk) or shore targets, unfortunately, there could be 910 vampires.

And in a 300-ship fleet (313?  250?  200?)  perhaps there aren't any more surface warfare ships to spare.

Well, there's the Arsenal Ship.  The chief expense is the ammo.  I take the idea one step farther by using best-of-breed COTS hulls and, in fact, a modular approach to scale VLSF to almost any practicable size of hull.  To a dozen, two dozen hulls if you need ten thousand VLS, or if you need to cover a really long swath of coastline.

I ain't going to send it into 5-inch range of the shore, and I ain't sending her alone.

Who gives a damn if it sinks?  Your carrier with these precious wake homing torps would also be out of action even if it didn't sink.  VLSF can at least launch at zero knots.  By the time you have beat the bubble, I sincerely hope VLSF has fired empty.  Then the best thing it can do is screen the carrier or the lead Tico from incoming fire.  Don't even reload it.  Just commandeer another freighter in Taipei or Apra or Subic Bay or Cam Ranh Bay or wherever, load it up with VLS that you flew in or POMCUS'd, and move on station.

What is this crap about having to protect two ships instead of one?  You don't protect a ship.  You sanitize a battle space.  Nothing within the bubble lives without per