Search this Topic:
Jul 6 17 1:13 PM
Jul 6 17 1:24 PM
Jul 6 17 2:11 PM
Jul 6 17 4:45 PM
Spoz wrote:Do you require service ratings? Of course you do! It's hard to overstate the effect in morale of not having a ships store; it's more efficient to have laundry done in bulk; and have you ever thought how many cans need crushing when you're feeding 4 meals per day to a crew of more than 5000?
And yet submarines have operated for a hundred years with none of those things. A ships store...you're in the middle of the ocean. Beyond toiletries what do you need to buy (you should have brought enough toiletries with you to last a few months...if your too stupid the plan that far ahead should you be working on a Flight deck?). Bulk laundry is why you have a Division Laundry Queen. A bank of water efficient washers and dryers would work just fine. Departments have set laundry days. Engineering day is also the day any PMS is done on the machines (that should improve the efficiency of getting the MRCs done and the system back on line). Cans? Cans of what? Coke/Pepsi? Soda machines work just fine along with bug juice, milk, and water. Besides, that stuff is junk and the sailors would be a lot healthier not drinking it anyways.
This is why your manning on these ships is ridiculously high.
Jul 6 17 5:36 PM
Jul 6 17 7:26 PM
Jul 6 17 8:37 PM
Jul 7 17 1:28 AM
Jul 7 17 6:21 AM
vicvega wrote:any kind of clean-sheet design "medium" carrier complete with cats and traps is a complete unmitigated waste of time, money and effort. The last time this was seriously looked into the cost savings between procuring a medium carrier and a repeat conventional CV were so minimal as to not be worth the effort.
Jul 7 17 2:38 PM
Jul 7 17 7:24 PM
Jul 7 17 7:33 PM
Jul 7 17 10:26 PM
HK wrote:vicvega wrote:any kind of clean-sheet design "medium" carrier complete with cats and traps is a complete unmitigated waste of time, money and effort. The last time this was seriously looked into the cost savings between procuring a medium carrier and a repeat conventional CV were so minimal as to not be worth the effort.
Not quite true... the Navy's arguments were biased as they emphasized absolute capability without adjusting for air wing size.
While there is no doubt that a repeat CV-67 could carry more of everything, it also had to support more aircraft than a medium CVV. The Navy's own numbers showed that per aircraft carried, CV-67 actually had 2% less aviation fuel, 11% less maintenance space, 17% less magazine volume, and 23% less ordnance than CVV. That's entirely due to the fact that CV-67 had a 37% larger air group (153 vs. 112 A-7 equivalent spots), without a commensurate increase in internal aviation volumes... so CVV's aviation capability was pretty darn good once you adjusted for air wing size.
So 3 CVVs could bring the same number of aircraft to the fight as 2 CV-67s, and then some...
The question then became, were the cost savings of CVV worth it? The Navy argued no, because CV-67's upfront procurement cost was only 11% higher than CVV. Operating costs were also 30% higher, so over a 30-50 year lifecycle the real difference was more like 20%. Given that, 3 CVVs would cost 2.5 CV-67s, while only providing 2.2 CV-67 air wings, which meant that CV-67 was actually ~12% cheaper per aircraft carried.
Done deal...at that point CVV was dead.
But wait! Then the Navy, instead of buying repeat CV-67s, doubled down on CVNs. And as we later learned, nuclear power costs A LOT MORE. The Navy's own numbers for GAO show that CVNs cost 25-50% more to procure upfront, and 10-15% more to operate (versus a repeat CV-67). Let's call that 10-20% extra cost over a 50 year lifecycle. This was confirmed by later French studies which showed nuke carriers being 13-19% more expensive. The GAO argued that the real difference was much higher, but let's give the Navy the benefit of the doubt.
Anyway, at this point you start wondering whether CVNs may actually be more expensive per aircraft carried than a good old CVV... while offering what? Fewer flattops to deploy, similar maintenance/magazine capacities (per aircraft). The CVN's only real edge being the extra aviation fuel (about 80% more per aircraft), and theoretically "unlimited" endurance although in practice every escort needs to refuel every couple of days, as does the CVN to replenish JP-5 and ordnance. And all that's before the cost blowouts of the Ford class, which make a clean-sheet approach even more appealing.
Jul 8 17 12:24 AM
Jul 8 17 1:46 AM
Jul 9 17 3:53 AM
Jul 9 17 4:14 AM
Jul 9 17 4:57 AM
Jul 9 17 6:11 AM
Jul 9 17 10:30 AM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.