Here's a NG artist drawing of the new CVN.



Enlarge

check this out-
http://www.rand.org/pubs/documented_briefings/DB272/DB272.pdf#search='new%20gas%20turbine%20CVX'

The rand site is worthless unless you want to read a 100 pages of gobilty gook about what and why study is being done. WE WANT MORE PICTURES / DRAWINGS. I would love to see an overhead to see how elevators are located on this puppy.

This month's Naval Institute Proceedings had a very thought provoking article (I believe it was written by Stansfield Turner, a retired 4 Star Admiral, and former Director of Central Intellegence), which makes a case for NOT building another CV, on the premise that it is no longer worth putting money into an item that by the time it would be completed, (probably a good 6-8 years) that carriers will be obsolete.

My initial reaction was November Foxtrot Whiskey, but he DOES make some interesting arguements.

The thing I still can't get past is that there is no way to avoid the fact that the US is, and always will be a maritime nation, and given our dependence on shipping to survive, our ability to protect commerce and project power via the sea can never go away. Hard to imagine being able to effectively do that without something like a carrier. But times do change.

Tom

I'm curious....obsolete based on what. 31 years ago when I was at the I and then went to Bragg for ROTC Camp they tried to tell me the tank was obsolete. Some PFC at a demostration held up a LAW and tried to tell me this was a tank killer. I burst into laughter and was admonished for "insulting" the instructor who "knew " more than I did.

Regarding the obsolescence of Carriers, As long as we need to get another countries permission to put aircraft on their soil, I believe the Carrier will be relevant. Unless of course our future airware strategy is based on UAV's launched off of some kind of barge

just my 2 cents
Rob

The current Navy fleet is an interesting mix Carriers for Strategic control and air strike capability and Destroyers as hunter -killers. I precommed the USS Laboon and I can tell you it would be foolish to underestimate the lethality of modern DDG's - that being said I miss the Tenders and all the auxiliaries. When I joined in ’88 the fleet was well balanced there were all kinds of vessels from river to super Carriers to oilers and tugs- now it’s carriers and destroyer/cruiser- and of course the gator fleet.

I think that's the drift of the arguement. At present, the usual way to project power inland (when we haven't been invited ashore) is using manned aircraft, and with most of the relevant areas of strategic interest within reasonable flight distance from carriers off shore (with some refeuling thrown in) the carrier is the ticket.

I believe the discussion is around the increasing capability of other systems, such as UAVs as well as things like cruise missles to conduct strikes, that were nowhere nearly as capable 10 years ago, and gain more capability all the time. Add in the factor of never having to worry about losing pilots and perhaps there is something in the discussion. The bottom line is, if AIRCRAFT are replaced as the method for projecting power, then an aircraft CARRIER doesn't have much purpose.

But there still are missions that only manned aircraft can conduct, so I doubt we'll see the carrier disappear from the seas anytime soon.

I wonder whether this discussion isn't similar to that which was taking place up until December 7th, 1941 with respect to the Battleship.

Tom

Every time we come up with a new "shootin' iron" we are told the old one will become obsolete. I believe I heard the infantry and tanks were going to be replaced by strategic bombing at the end of WW 2. We were told in the early 70's that Tanks were going to be obsolete due to suitcase saggars, TOWS and Dragons

You will always need the man on the gound to do the dirty work. He will alawys need the direct support of tanks and flying things to achieve victory. I' ll be long molded away in my grave before we see the demise of the super-carrier