Okay. serious now. "obviously" evades most people. The problem is that most equate "airships" with no more than glorified balloons such as blimps and dirigibles. not surprising, since that is all that has ever been built..............thus far.
surprise, you could build a lighter-than-air "airship" out of concrete blocks, if you build it big enough. okay, do that in a somewhat lighter way......carbon foam and aluminum. make the airships' hulls several inches thick, make them amphibious. stronger materials means you can carry heavier, more powerful propulsion. jets. speeds to 175kts are
do-able, reasonable. and still no need for any runway whatsoever. decent speed, hover capability. virtually unlimited range and linger capability.
500' airship (built as above) could carry 200 ton payload, trick it out as you need.....drone carrier? VLS? ASW? simple cargo delivery? lots of utility in there.
oh...and did I mention........make em "stealthy" oh yeah.
Of course a Navy warship used to leave port in Bristol Fashion and all shipshape for deployment and when it returned months later looked pretty rusty.
Gave the Sailors and Officers a job to do while the ship made ready for the next deployment. Now they are either too high tempo or just not squared away.
In Junior High, I found a copy of a 1950s era skills book for seamen - full of such useful things as how to rig planks over the side for painting, climbing on boat booms, things that sailors did.
Apparently not any more....and red lead doesnt work with haze gray anymore.
As a ground guy. Don't get me wrong, I love the A-10, Love it! But there is a valid argument that it has a rough time in a peer/peer fight.
Did I say love the A-10? But can't the same thing be said about the CVN? Some for brushfire wars? Absolutely. Showing the flag? Deterring fights? Absolutely.
Perhaps the questions could be?
- must the surface Navy's offensive punch be centered on such a big target? Alternatives?
During a little civil disruption in Nicaragua in 1956 (I think it was) the US showed the flag by flying a cell of B47s up the main drag in the Capital.....
While I understand that azipod propulsion may not be sufficient for a carrier YET, but why wouldn't designers install some version of bow thruster to help with maneuvering?
Really what I question is the capacity of the industrial base to build and overhaul CVNs (and SSN) on time and budget. But considering the monopoly 2 contractors have on the process that’s unlikely to improve.
Bases can't go anywhere, jets and drones need bases close to the action and that can stay out of range.
Carriers are here to stay in one fashion or another until Unmanned fighter/Bomber aircraft come online and they can launch from subs maybe in 50 years from now.
I have always wondered if the cost of carriers (man, planes, maintenance, procurement) plus the risk of losing them is worth it. The navy might be better too buy more subs and frigates with the money. I also look to the future when we are more in debt can we afford carriers. Brittain has decided they can't afford a carrier and escorts at the same time as the support there welfare state. It will be the same for the US
If carriers are out of date due to vulnerabilities then so is any large surface vessel. So the only "replacement" for our carrier fleet is a large number of SSGN's, each with a large number of land attack cruise missiles.
The loss of capability enormous. No capability for tactical support. Limited command and control. And effectively no ASW or anti-surface capability. No AAW capability at all. How do SSGNs protect the convoy of troop ships going to reinforce Taiwan? They don't.
I can imagine scenarios where carriers can break a blockade of Taiwan. SSGNs aren't going to do that. Put simply, there's not much point to SSGNs in the wars we're likely to fight. There are lots of obvious use cases for carriers.
I'll need to read he book as the discussion leaves many questions. I am a firm advocate in the fundamental concept that we need cheap ships shuttling missiles up so the sensor and targeting network of ships can stay forward. That doesn't really clear up the aviation or sub-surface.
There are now serious proposals for distributed air wings using smaller surface vessels than supercarriers and even submarines. I strongly advocate NOT building any more "super-carriers" at all. An EW guy, I build sims of modern combat which are based on detection. These indicate that a small number of relatively difficult to hide gigantic ships are not likely to win a contest with the world's largest navy, the world's largest missile air force, and the world's largest winged air force. Doubly so because we cannot field many in theater at any given time.
Sal, I'm a reading guy. I don't normally do 'podcasts'.
I gave this episode of Midrats a listen. First time I've actually listened to Midrats.
This was fantastic!
I also find it amusing that the exact same concept Andy and I have been tossing around in the comment section - the magazine ship- is proposed as the ideal solution to keeping the Burke's in the fight.
Goes to show that it's not really that groundbreaking idea, but just common sense.
I purchased Lieutenant Commander Vandenengel's book on Kindle before I had even finished. listening to the full episode.
Jeff is too hard on the carrier in my opinion, (as someone who helped write a book on carriers,) but his book should be read by carrier enthusiasts and detractors alike as the questions he asked are good ones. Get Jeff's book
Obviously, the answer is AIRSHIPS!
hmmmm. ;)
Okay. serious now. "obviously" evades most people. The problem is that most equate "airships" with no more than glorified balloons such as blimps and dirigibles. not surprising, since that is all that has ever been built..............thus far.
surprise, you could build a lighter-than-air "airship" out of concrete blocks, if you build it big enough. okay, do that in a somewhat lighter way......carbon foam and aluminum. make the airships' hulls several inches thick, make them amphibious. stronger materials means you can carry heavier, more powerful propulsion. jets. speeds to 175kts are
do-able, reasonable. and still no need for any runway whatsoever. decent speed, hover capability. virtually unlimited range and linger capability.
500' airship (built as above) could carry 200 ton payload, trick it out as you need.....drone carrier? VLS? ASW? simple cargo delivery? lots of utility in there.
oh...and did I mention........make em "stealthy" oh yeah.
(search for/see...."NIDS 2002 hypothesis")
As soon as one is built that can do the job, we'll talk
So, they're put together rusty......
Some say, that's what Swabbies are for.
Rusty is made unrusty with Jet Blast and buckets of Prop wash.
Apparently not in the modern US Navy
Yes, it is sad to see.
Of course a Navy warship used to leave port in Bristol Fashion and all shipshape for deployment and when it returned months later looked pretty rusty.
Gave the Sailors and Officers a job to do while the ship made ready for the next deployment. Now they are either too high tempo or just not squared away.
In Junior High, I found a copy of a 1950s era skills book for seamen - full of such useful things as how to rig planks over the side for painting, climbing on boat booms, things that sailors did.
Apparently not any more....and red lead doesnt work with haze gray anymore.
They must not use the Bluejackets manual anymore.
Probably hire contractors who have a Union to do the jobs.
As a ground guy. Don't get me wrong, I love the A-10, Love it! But there is a valid argument that it has a rough time in a peer/peer fight.
Did I say love the A-10? But can't the same thing be said about the CVN? Some for brushfire wars? Absolutely. Showing the flag? Deterring fights? Absolutely.
Perhaps the questions could be?
- must the surface Navy's offensive punch be centered on such a big target? Alternatives?
- How big?
- How many?
- manned with manned aircraft? Of what range?
During a little civil disruption in Nicaragua in 1956 (I think it was) the US showed the flag by flying a cell of B47s up the main drag in the Capital.....
Got the point across...
Edit: Maybe Venezuela?
Jeep Carriers.
While I understand that azipod propulsion may not be sufficient for a carrier YET, but why wouldn't designers install some version of bow thruster to help with maneuvering?
Carriers have utility. It’s the airwings that need a spanking. Need a long range air defense fighter.
Long range strike might be helpful too.
Better air to air refueling, the Unmanned Tankers will hopefully fix that.
Really what I question is the capacity of the industrial base to build and overhaul CVNs (and SSN) on time and budget. But considering the monopoly 2 contractors have on the process that’s unlikely to improve.
Bases can't go anywhere, jets and drones need bases close to the action and that can stay out of range.
Carriers are here to stay in one fashion or another until Unmanned fighter/Bomber aircraft come online and they can launch from subs maybe in 50 years from now.
I have always wondered if the cost of carriers (man, planes, maintenance, procurement) plus the risk of losing them is worth it. The navy might be better too buy more subs and frigates with the money. I also look to the future when we are more in debt can we afford carriers. Brittain has decided they can't afford a carrier and escorts at the same time as the support there welfare state. It will be the same for the US
If carriers are out of date due to vulnerabilities then so is any large surface vessel. So the only "replacement" for our carrier fleet is a large number of SSGN's, each with a large number of land attack cruise missiles.
The loss of capability enormous. No capability for tactical support. Limited command and control. And effectively no ASW or anti-surface capability. No AAW capability at all. How do SSGNs protect the convoy of troop ships going to reinforce Taiwan? They don't.
I can imagine scenarios where carriers can break a blockade of Taiwan. SSGNs aren't going to do that. Put simply, there's not much point to SSGNs in the wars we're likely to fight. There are lots of obvious use cases for carriers.
I agree. But the only thing that could do ONE of the CVN's missions, and not be as "vulnerable" as the CVN is claimed to be, is an SSGN.
I'll need to read he book as the discussion leaves many questions. I am a firm advocate in the fundamental concept that we need cheap ships shuttling missiles up so the sensor and targeting network of ships can stay forward. That doesn't really clear up the aviation or sub-surface.
There are now serious proposals for distributed air wings using smaller surface vessels than supercarriers and even submarines. I strongly advocate NOT building any more "super-carriers" at all. An EW guy, I build sims of modern combat which are based on detection. These indicate that a small number of relatively difficult to hide gigantic ships are not likely to win a contest with the world's largest navy, the world's largest missile air force, and the world's largest winged air force. Doubly so because we cannot field many in theater at any given time.
Going back to escort CV's and a smaller wing with more UACV. carriers may evolve into CG size ships.
Sal, I'm a reading guy. I don't normally do 'podcasts'.
I gave this episode of Midrats a listen. First time I've actually listened to Midrats.
This was fantastic!
I also find it amusing that the exact same concept Andy and I have been tossing around in the comment section - the magazine ship- is proposed as the ideal solution to keeping the Burke's in the fight.
Goes to show that it's not really that groundbreaking idea, but just common sense.
I purchased Lieutenant Commander Vandenengel's book on Kindle before I had even finished. listening to the full episode.
Jeff is too hard on the carrier in my opinion, (as someone who helped write a book on carriers,) but his book should be read by carrier enthusiasts and detractors alike as the questions he asked are good ones. Get Jeff's book