I read somewhere, perhaps in RADM Gallery’s autobiography, that almost immediately after Pearl Harbor BUSHIPS descended on Kaiser Shipbuilding with a complete set of conversion plans for their C-3 cargo ship. That would have required a considerable amount of active thinking and planning.
Active thinking and planning by men who ran naval shipyards, and as a consequence, knew what they were doing. We don't have federal employees with the breadth and depth of knowledge that we did back then when the United States built naval ships in naval shipyards.
That expertise followed the ship construction work, to private shipyards. We could get into a whole new discussion about campaign donors and apparent corruption on Capitol Hill, but that would distract from the need at hand. I never ran a shipyard; I was always the guy down on the waterfront, sorting out the problems caused by some (only some) of the engineers and management who never actually looked at the bilges and the nooks and crannies of superstructure fan rooms.
First order of business - All acquisition program managers and PEOs to make an un-announced coveralls visit to their project. No PowerPoint slides. Just a swoop down to the deckplates for conversations with worker bees, with none of their upper management in attendance. EVERY freakin' pump room, switchboard, storeroom, A/C unit, bilge pocket, electronics maintenance space, and signal bag to be looked at in detail. Yes, that will take more than one day. But if the PM/PEO doesn't do that, he/she doesn't really know what they are delivering. That person is simply a time server, waiting on a pension and a nice board of directors job. One of my CO's said that if I hadn't actually touched the problem, I didn't really know what the problem was. He was right.
Back then, circa 1940, the US military started the initiative of scouting locations to build ships in small shipyards. Browns shipyard in Pensacola is an example. They were contracted to build landing craft and a few Liberty Boats. Thanks to Marshall having a clear vision of what was ahead. We need to empower our military to do the same. But we won’t. Like you said, not enough brainpower.
HA! just yesterday, enjoyed a video highlighting Kaiser company building these Casablanca in the Vancouver shipyards. 50 (FIFTY!) inside of 18 months......
instantly hearkened back to WWI, when Germany was pumping out zeppelin bombers to the tune of one every two weeks.......
yep. airships once again (NOT BLIMPS!).......have for years touted Kaiser company building the 150' diameter Honolulu geodesic dome inside of 22 hours, as an example of how to build modern, fully rigid hulled amphibious airships. flying UCAV carriers..........
Both we and the Brits have been fooling around with this idea since the early 1980s. The Brits actually improvised a shortie aircraft carrier using a container ship during the Falklands War. Afterwards we liked the idea so much we started a development program called Arapaho to do the same thing. Needless to say the program got captured by the system and never came to anything but an expensive failure, but it was a great idea and could easily be dusted off for the present day.
Given the current state of the procurement process, how long do you suppose that would take? I'd rather get a less-capable "gimmick" in six weeks or six months than a "proper" ship in six years...that is, if the paperwork even permits. YMMV.
The US doesn't have the capacity to keep the ships it already has in proper working order, partly because it lacks the infrastructure. Unlike the 1940s, there is not enough spare capacity to indulge ideas like this. It's not about best or good enough, it's about we're starting at less than zero.
"Spare capacity?" To do what...build a bunch of modular steel plates you can lay down on a containership deck? If we can't manage that we're in worse shape than I thought.
It's precisely BECAUSE our shipbuilding capacity is at such a low ebb that "gimmicks" like ARAPAHO are attractive alternatives.
Anyhow, the very topic under discussion--the "Jeep Carrier"--was itself a "gimmick" when it was introduced in WW2, as a means to provide limited air support to convoys that were out of reach of land-based ASW CAP.
No idea...but it would surely take a whole lot less time and money than trying to push a new ship design through the process, running an RDT&E program, competitively bidding out the production, and then waiting while the shipyards do their thing.
Assuming, of course that we even could, as @Billy correctly questions.
"However, the “decade of concern” school warns of a brewing war in the Western Pacific sometime centered on 2027. That’s not enough time to ramp-up even if Congress and the Executive Branch got religion this POM cycle."
Better late than never. The best time to rebuild the shipbuilding industrial base was ten years ago, the second-best time is today. China is not going to go away if we avoid war in the 2020s, we will certainly need more shipbuilding capacity in the 2030s no matter what happens.
Do not let the imperfect be the enemy of the good. "The best time to rebuild the shipbuilding industrial base was ten years ago, the second-best time is today."
The trouble is we have to rebuild the entire production chain from the forges and smelters right up to the final assembly yards. Hopefully we have enough time to do it --- but you are right, there is no better time to start than right now. Even if it would have been better to start 10 years ago.
There are resources we aren't using, but its smaller yards. Edison Chouest, Westprot yachts, Gulf Craft LLC. If we had containerships barge yards could build modules to drop into the ships.
I'm with you. I really liked the trees with yellow ribbons between the 'NO OLF" signs going down Rte 10 in eastern VA. Message was clear "We're with you, as long as it doesn't affect us."
Ingalls has all that already and they have a history of building SSNs. Two Skippies, three 594s and a gaggle of 637s. They would need assistance to gear up for the nuclear work and the SUBSAFE QA, but it could be done. And since the USCG's National Security Cutter is winding down (and LPD 17 might do so as well), Ingalls will have spare capacity and will need the work.
"According to ARAPAHO project manager Lt. James Mulquin (Naval Reserve, ret.), the main ingredients are:......." An LT as a project manager? Man! The Navy must have seriously wanted this project killed off. An LT is not going to have any weight on Capitol Hill.
"But some major negative concerns about ARAPAHO come from the Navy itself, such as: Will it compromise money set aside for fleet expansion? Will it compromise the purchase of high-performance aircraft? " ---- Same excuse for decades. Also, I wonder if the Gerald O'Rourke mentioned in that 1981 article is any different than our Ronald O'Rourke of CRS fame.
Look's like Captain Gerald O'Rourke was an honest-to-God Commanding Officer unlike our Ronald O'Rouke. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1991/january/special-command "Captain O’Rourke enjoyed two officer-in-charge assignments (VC-4 Det 44N and VF-101A), and four commands (VF-102, VF-121, the USS Wrangell [AE-12], and the USS Independence [CV-62]"
Not enough beam, debatable draft. Won't even fit the Turkish carrier. Our inland waterways should be focusing on the LSM/LAW or a new corvette. Plenty to do, let's get it right.
We should just grab a design from Philly or NASSCO, maybe AMFELS Brownsville. If not that, Maersk had a design some years back for the Brazil market that would fit either Philly or Nassco graving docks.
Excellent! Double hulled tanker with foam filled in the empty stace would allow them the extra buoyancy, too. Someone at the NWC suggested this…the results speak for themselves..current leadership could f* up and do no worse..
The idea of using container ships as aircraft carriers or anti-aircraft missile batteries is the type of innovative thinking Americans are known for. We saw this in 'Nam when the Brown Water Navy modified the LCM-6 for a large variety of combat and support roles.
The hard part is implementing those ideas in the face of woke leadership who seem to be more interested in social experimentation instead of combat effectiveness.
I walked by the ATTU commission pendant and plaque today at the National Naval Aviation Museum. She was laid down in March of 44 and commissioned in June of 44!
To your questions:
1. It would take years to neck down the aircraft to be used, requirements, identify a shipyard and award a contract. My best estimate is 4-5 years before first keel is laid or converted.
2. Depends on type aircraft to be used. F35’s are hard on a flight deck. Feasible to build 3-4 decks ahead of time and prepare to ramp up capacity as build outs occur. I assume no more than 10 ships.
3. This is likely easier. 6-10 months.
4. Absolutely can be manned with a mix of active and reserve. There was an actual method of half ship manning in the interwar years. Meaning the ship was crewed by an active duty/reserve mix of undermanned billets. It was intentional. Minimally manned to absorb the full strength manpower when possible.
6. Manpower in this area would be a scaled back CiC on a CV. I would expect 3 watch teams to man the CIC. You would need around 20 OS/CT/FC and 3 -4 Watch Officers. For the airwing: If the entire ship is UAS, expect at least 4 operators per UAS. Presume we go with 30 mid size UAS like tiger shark, or heron, you would need a smaller operating team than maintenance. When I ran a UAV flight operation after I retired fro the navy we had 4 UAS pilots and 4 payload operators. We had 16 maintenance techs heavy in avionics. We were ground based but our footprint was scalable for a DDG flight deck.
The key issue for manpower size would be engineering and support manpower below the 1st deck.
We sort of have that in the works with the new ASO (airborne systems operator) warrant officer program the navy is experimenting with. Talked to a few of these non traditional warrants,(they are selected from enlisted rates and straight off the street to OCS). The MQ -25 will be loaded with a camera and datalinks. The operational concept is still being developed. They will operate as a detachment under a URL 1320 as the OIC. Who owns paper on them is not known. For now it’s CAG.
Amen - there's too much fanatical belief that the Great Datalink In the Sky will never fail us. Bring back a manned asset (Viking 2.0?) to pick up the organic tanking / fixed-wing ASW / cruise missile truck missions.
Dad served on the USS Croatan, CVE-25, a Bogue class carrier, as a Bosun's Mate. Its last big cruise was moving the helo's of the 1st Cav to Vietnam in 65
We do not need to beat the war drums against China to encourage our nation to build a capable naval fleet. It may not be China who we need to defend against. We are an island nation, dependent on trade. It is essential to our survival as a nation that we have a Navy able to defend us against any threat, anywhere. Consider this, if China turned peaceful tomorrow, would we want to stand down the U.S. Navy? Of course not. The wooden walls of Athens have defended this nation for all of our history. If the threat from China went away, there would be other threats.
It was a Chinese philosopher who wrote, “In war, prepare for peace; in peace, prepare for war.” But, if you are anti-China, consider De Re Militari by the 4th Century writer Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus. "Igitur quī dēsīderat pācem, præparet bellum." ("Therefore let him who desires peace prepare for war.") Eighteen hundred years later, the maxim still rings true.
The lesson of history is that the nation which has armed itself is less likely to need to resort to force than the nation that is unprepared. We don't need a strong Navy because we are going to war, we need a strong navy so we don't go to war.
Unfortunately, US history doesn't back up the concept of preparation for war outside of a cognizable threat. America's default setting is isolationism and slips into it whenever threats recede. You see massive defense cuts and drawdowns following every single war. And frantic ramp ups before the next conflict. We only got the 1940 Naval Act because of the start of WWII. And China is a serious threat that warrants a buildup. And next time the US will not have the luxury of a two year warning to get ready.
America's default setting seems to be carving out huge new peace dividends to be slathered on vote-getting strategies to keep a pampered beggar class voting to retain feckless bums in office.
They are a little bit bigger, but i would bring back the Iwo Jima-class LPHs. They operated Harriers and Sea Stallions and were refitted with two Sea Sparrow launchers and two Phalanx CWIS. Resizing the ship to carry a reinforced company of Marines would make more room for the hanger deck.
She's too big. The navigation limit on the Seaway is 740 feet overall length, 78 feet of beam, 26 feet 6 inches of draft, and 116 feet above the waterline. That's still plenty of volume.
Some years ago before I began my Crusade for "Lightning Carriers" . . . a study of 'Kaisers Coffins' and others was conducted. My Goodness . . . I had no idea there were so many during WWII. At the end of the war we had more than 100 carriers, and most were of this variety. Some better than others but they were Everywhere after 1943-44.
Wiki has a good article on them under 'Escort carrier' and there are multiple videos on Youtube by many different naval historians and officiados (light carriers, escort carriers, baby flattops, etc.). The USS America (LHA-6) Class that is aviation-centric is probably our best comparison today, and they cost a whole lot less than a CVN (any flavor). IMHO we should buy at least ½ dozen Aviation-Centric “Lightning Carriers” to supplement our eleven (11) bird farms. The Unified Combatant Commander Concept was designed around 15 carriers used during peacetime. Because we continue to reduce the number from that 15 carrier design all manner of maladies plague our naval forces from lack of maintenance due to skipping maintenance availabilities, to . . . can’t be in two places at once.
We gave up our fast Carrier Strike Groups when we let go the CGNs . . . and now we do not have enough CVNs. The ARG/MEU/MAGTF/ESG has filled in for now. Perhaps more USS America (LHA-6) Class Aviation-Centric “Lightning Carriers” could help. In fact a Light Carrier Battle Group based around a "Lightning Carrier" with a DDG-51 as 'AW', and a slew of Frigates could be just the thing in the future for response in a low intensity environment. I really am tired of U.S. Armed Forces always killing ants with sledgehammers.
Last time I checked there are still 8 NMCBs and 1 ACB...
I read somewhere, perhaps in RADM Gallery’s autobiography, that almost immediately after Pearl Harbor BUSHIPS descended on Kaiser Shipbuilding with a complete set of conversion plans for their C-3 cargo ship. That would have required a considerable amount of active thinking and planning.
Active thinking and planning by men who ran naval shipyards, and as a consequence, knew what they were doing. We don't have federal employees with the breadth and depth of knowledge that we did back then when the United States built naval ships in naval shipyards.
That expertise followed the ship construction work, to private shipyards. We could get into a whole new discussion about campaign donors and apparent corruption on Capitol Hill, but that would distract from the need at hand. I never ran a shipyard; I was always the guy down on the waterfront, sorting out the problems caused by some (only some) of the engineers and management who never actually looked at the bilges and the nooks and crannies of superstructure fan rooms.
First order of business - All acquisition program managers and PEOs to make an un-announced coveralls visit to their project. No PowerPoint slides. Just a swoop down to the deckplates for conversations with worker bees, with none of their upper management in attendance. EVERY freakin' pump room, switchboard, storeroom, A/C unit, bilge pocket, electronics maintenance space, and signal bag to be looked at in detail. Yes, that will take more than one day. But if the PM/PEO doesn't do that, he/she doesn't really know what they are delivering. That person is simply a time server, waiting on a pension and a nice board of directors job. One of my CO's said that if I hadn't actually touched the problem, I didn't really know what the problem was. He was right.
Back then, circa 1940, the US military started the initiative of scouting locations to build ships in small shipyards. Browns shipyard in Pensacola is an example. They were contracted to build landing craft and a few Liberty Boats. Thanks to Marshall having a clear vision of what was ahead. We need to empower our military to do the same. But we won’t. Like you said, not enough brainpower.
HA! just yesterday, enjoyed a video highlighting Kaiser company building these Casablanca in the Vancouver shipyards. 50 (FIFTY!) inside of 18 months......
instantly hearkened back to WWI, when Germany was pumping out zeppelin bombers to the tune of one every two weeks.......
yep. airships once again (NOT BLIMPS!).......have for years touted Kaiser company building the 150' diameter Honolulu geodesic dome inside of 22 hours, as an example of how to build modern, fully rigid hulled amphibious airships. flying UCAV carriers..........
Kaiser built 1490 ships during WW2
Both we and the Brits have been fooling around with this idea since the early 1980s. The Brits actually improvised a shortie aircraft carrier using a container ship during the Falklands War. Afterwards we liked the idea so much we started a development program called Arapaho to do the same thing. Needless to say the program got captured by the system and never came to anything but an expensive failure, but it was a great idea and could easily be dusted off for the present day.
Gimmicks like these are a poor substitute for a proper shipbuilding program.
Given the current state of the procurement process, how long do you suppose that would take? I'd rather get a less-capable "gimmick" in six weeks or six months than a "proper" ship in six years...that is, if the paperwork even permits. YMMV.
Current procurement process won't get you a gimmick in six weeks or six months.
<shrug> Have it your way. But it's poor strategy to make the best the enemy of the good enough.
The US doesn't have the capacity to keep the ships it already has in proper working order, partly because it lacks the infrastructure. Unlike the 1940s, there is not enough spare capacity to indulge ideas like this. It's not about best or good enough, it's about we're starting at less than zero.
"Spare capacity?" To do what...build a bunch of modular steel plates you can lay down on a containership deck? If we can't manage that we're in worse shape than I thought.
It's precisely BECAUSE our shipbuilding capacity is at such a low ebb that "gimmicks" like ARAPAHO are attractive alternatives.
Anyhow, the very topic under discussion--the "Jeep Carrier"--was itself a "gimmick" when it was introduced in WW2, as a means to provide limited air support to convoys that were out of reach of land-based ASW CAP.
What about a complete set kit ready to pop and weld to a Container ship?
Would that take the same amount of time if the program started today?
No idea...but it would surely take a whole lot less time and money than trying to push a new ship design through the process, running an RDT&E program, competitively bidding out the production, and then waiting while the shipyards do their thing.
Assuming, of course that we even could, as @Billy correctly questions.
Based on the products of current "proper shipbuilding programs" a substitute couldn't be any worse and might be better.
"couldn't be any worse"
US Navy: "Hold my beer".
"However, the “decade of concern” school warns of a brewing war in the Western Pacific sometime centered on 2027. That’s not enough time to ramp-up even if Congress and the Executive Branch got religion this POM cycle."
Better late than never. The best time to rebuild the shipbuilding industrial base was ten years ago, the second-best time is today. China is not going to go away if we avoid war in the 2020s, we will certainly need more shipbuilding capacity in the 2030s no matter what happens.
Do not let the imperfect be the enemy of the good. "The best time to rebuild the shipbuilding industrial base was ten years ago, the second-best time is today."
Amen.
The trouble is we have to rebuild the entire production chain from the forges and smelters right up to the final assembly yards. Hopefully we have enough time to do it --- but you are right, there is no better time to start than right now. Even if it would have been better to start 10 years ago.
There are resources we aren't using, but its smaller yards. Edison Chouest, Westprot yachts, Gulf Craft LLC. If we had containerships barge yards could build modules to drop into the ships.
The bigger trouble is the NIMBYs and EPA who would raise holy hell if someone attempted to build a smelter or forger someplace.
Note: I "like" this comment because I agree with it... I don't like any part of it!!
I'm with you. I really liked the trees with yellow ribbons between the 'NO OLF" signs going down Rte 10 in eastern VA. Message was clear "We're with you, as long as it doesn't affect us."
Ingalls has all that already and they have a history of building SSNs. Two Skippies, three 594s and a gaggle of 637s. They would need assistance to gear up for the nuclear work and the SUBSAFE QA, but it could be done. And since the USCG's National Security Cutter is winding down (and LPD 17 might do so as well), Ingalls will have spare capacity and will need the work.
The US plans to re-fight WW2 except with China.
Units, men and women and ships will die, while the US gets up to speed.
We won't have time and the mainland will get bombed this time.
Ah... the 20th century Navy and the crazy ideas that were investigated. PHM's we bad enough, but this?
https://www.csmonitor.com/1981/0106/010636.html
"According to ARAPAHO project manager Lt. James Mulquin (Naval Reserve, ret.), the main ingredients are:......." An LT as a project manager? Man! The Navy must have seriously wanted this project killed off. An LT is not going to have any weight on Capitol Hill.
"But some major negative concerns about ARAPAHO come from the Navy itself, such as: Will it compromise money set aside for fleet expansion? Will it compromise the purchase of high-performance aircraft? " ---- Same excuse for decades. Also, I wonder if the Gerald O'Rourke mentioned in that 1981 article is any different than our Ronald O'Rourke of CRS fame.
Look's like Captain Gerald O'Rourke was an honest-to-God Commanding Officer unlike our Ronald O'Rouke. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1991/january/special-command "Captain O’Rourke enjoyed two officer-in-charge assignments (VC-4 Det 44N and VF-101A), and four commands (VF-102, VF-121, the USS Wrangell [AE-12], and the USS Independence [CV-62]"
And a great writer too! His memoir about flying F3D Skyknights over Korea is one of my favorites: https://www.amazon.com/Night-Fighters-Over-Korea-ORourke/dp/1557506531
Panamax? Suezmax? Seawaymax?
MAKE THE SEAWAY ANOTHER SUEZ!
Seawaymax, because once we get Bartlett up in Lorain and Lordstown, they can expand onto surface ships.
Unless the Great Lakes freeze over.
Minor detail and inconvenience.
Mighty MACKINAW will rush to the rescue. With just one heavy icebreaker in all the Great Lakes, what could possibly go wrong?
Not enough beam, debatable draft. Won't even fit the Turkish carrier. Our inland waterways should be focusing on the LSM/LAW or a new corvette. Plenty to do, let's get it right.
That's why we need to increase the size of the St. Lawrence Seaway.....
We should just grab a design from Philly or NASSCO, maybe AMFELS Brownsville. If not that, Maersk had a design some years back for the Brazil market that would fit either Philly or Nassco graving docks.
Excellent! Double hulled tanker with foam filled in the empty stace would allow them the extra buoyancy, too. Someone at the NWC suggested this…the results speak for themselves..current leadership could f* up and do no worse..
The idea of using container ships as aircraft carriers or anti-aircraft missile batteries is the type of innovative thinking Americans are known for. We saw this in 'Nam when the Brown Water Navy modified the LCM-6 for a large variety of combat and support roles.
The hard part is implementing those ideas in the face of woke leadership who seem to be more interested in social experimentation instead of combat effectiveness.
I walked by the ATTU commission pendant and plaque today at the National Naval Aviation Museum. She was laid down in March of 44 and commissioned in June of 44!
To your questions:
1. It would take years to neck down the aircraft to be used, requirements, identify a shipyard and award a contract. My best estimate is 4-5 years before first keel is laid or converted.
2. Depends on type aircraft to be used. F35’s are hard on a flight deck. Feasible to build 3-4 decks ahead of time and prepare to ramp up capacity as build outs occur. I assume no more than 10 ships.
3. This is likely easier. 6-10 months.
4. Absolutely can be manned with a mix of active and reserve. There was an actual method of half ship manning in the interwar years. Meaning the ship was crewed by an active duty/reserve mix of undermanned billets. It was intentional. Minimally manned to absorb the full strength manpower when possible.
6. Manpower in this area would be a scaled back CiC on a CV. I would expect 3 watch teams to man the CIC. You would need around 20 OS/CT/FC and 3 -4 Watch Officers. For the airwing: If the entire ship is UAS, expect at least 4 operators per UAS. Presume we go with 30 mid size UAS like tiger shark, or heron, you would need a smaller operating team than maintenance. When I ran a UAV flight operation after I retired fro the navy we had 4 UAS pilots and 4 payload operators. We had 16 maintenance techs heavy in avionics. We were ground based but our footprint was scalable for a DDG flight deck.
The key issue for manpower size would be engineering and support manpower below the 1st deck.
Just some food for your thought exercise.
Develop an unmanned flying radar antenna, that relays it's information to the CIC?
We sort of have that in the works with the new ASO (airborne systems operator) warrant officer program the navy is experimenting with. Talked to a few of these non traditional warrants,(they are selected from enlisted rates and straight off the street to OCS). The MQ -25 will be loaded with a camera and datalinks. The operational concept is still being developed. They will operate as a detachment under a URL 1320 as the OIC. Who owns paper on them is not known. For now it’s CAG.
There are over 1/2 dozen ZPY-X radar configurations that can perform this function. Unmanned E-2 on the cheap, and throw in some ESM too.
Unmanned works well against goat herders and skinnies on technicals, not so much against near peer and above.
Amen - there's too much fanatical belief that the Great Datalink In the Sky will never fail us. Bring back a manned asset (Viking 2.0?) to pick up the organic tanking / fixed-wing ASW / cruise missile truck missions.
Dad served on the USS Croatan, CVE-25, a Bogue class carrier, as a Bosun's Mate. Its last big cruise was moving the helo's of the 1st Cav to Vietnam in 65
We do not need to beat the war drums against China to encourage our nation to build a capable naval fleet. It may not be China who we need to defend against. We are an island nation, dependent on trade. It is essential to our survival as a nation that we have a Navy able to defend us against any threat, anywhere. Consider this, if China turned peaceful tomorrow, would we want to stand down the U.S. Navy? Of course not. The wooden walls of Athens have defended this nation for all of our history. If the threat from China went away, there would be other threats.
It was a Chinese philosopher who wrote, “In war, prepare for peace; in peace, prepare for war.” But, if you are anti-China, consider De Re Militari by the 4th Century writer Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus. "Igitur quī dēsīderat pācem, præparet bellum." ("Therefore let him who desires peace prepare for war.") Eighteen hundred years later, the maxim still rings true.
The lesson of history is that the nation which has armed itself is less likely to need to resort to force than the nation that is unprepared. We don't need a strong Navy because we are going to war, we need a strong navy so we don't go to war.
AMEN!
Unfortunately, US history doesn't back up the concept of preparation for war outside of a cognizable threat. America's default setting is isolationism and slips into it whenever threats recede. You see massive defense cuts and drawdowns following every single war. And frantic ramp ups before the next conflict. We only got the 1940 Naval Act because of the start of WWII. And China is a serious threat that warrants a buildup. And next time the US will not have the luxury of a two year warning to get ready.
America's default setting seems to be carving out huge new peace dividends to be slathered on vote-getting strategies to keep a pampered beggar class voting to retain feckless bums in office.
They are a little bit bigger, but i would bring back the Iwo Jima-class LPHs. They operated Harriers and Sea Stallions and were refitted with two Sea Sparrow launchers and two Phalanx CWIS. Resizing the ship to carry a reinforced company of Marines would make more room for the hanger deck.
The CIC complement of her operation crew would be pretty close to scale for Phib’s proposed CVE
Maybe bring back the old trainable Sparrow launchers, modified for ESSM?
And as a Buckeye, thanks for supporting us becoming an important shipbuilding state again, Commander!
Living on the Great Lakes, I have wondered about a PAUL R TREGURTHA based escort ship.
She is big enough to be a carrier of lots of UAVs, and loads of ordnance.
You would have to find someone who could build something that big, of course.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Paul_R._Tregurtha
She's too big. The navigation limit on the Seaway is 740 feet overall length, 78 feet of beam, 26 feet 6 inches of draft, and 116 feet above the waterline. That's still plenty of volume.
CDR Salamander,
Some years ago before I began my Crusade for "Lightning Carriers" . . . a study of 'Kaisers Coffins' and others was conducted. My Goodness . . . I had no idea there were so many during WWII. At the end of the war we had more than 100 carriers, and most were of this variety. Some better than others but they were Everywhere after 1943-44.
Wiki has a good article on them under 'Escort carrier' and there are multiple videos on Youtube by many different naval historians and officiados (light carriers, escort carriers, baby flattops, etc.). The USS America (LHA-6) Class that is aviation-centric is probably our best comparison today, and they cost a whole lot less than a CVN (any flavor). IMHO we should buy at least ½ dozen Aviation-Centric “Lightning Carriers” to supplement our eleven (11) bird farms. The Unified Combatant Commander Concept was designed around 15 carriers used during peacetime. Because we continue to reduce the number from that 15 carrier design all manner of maladies plague our naval forces from lack of maintenance due to skipping maintenance availabilities, to . . . can’t be in two places at once.
We gave up our fast Carrier Strike Groups when we let go the CGNs . . . and now we do not have enough CVNs. The ARG/MEU/MAGTF/ESG has filled in for now. Perhaps more USS America (LHA-6) Class Aviation-Centric “Lightning Carriers” could help. In fact a Light Carrier Battle Group based around a "Lightning Carrier" with a DDG-51 as 'AW', and a slew of Frigates could be just the thing in the future for response in a low intensity environment. I really am tired of U.S. Armed Forces always killing ants with sledgehammers.
Just my 2ȼ.
TORCH OUT
I'm all for a light carrier but as the British have found with the QE2, VSTOL is not enough. 2 cats, angled deck minimum.