Fire watches are required on the other side of the bulkhead during welding ops on USS ships.

quote:

Originally posted by smlsig:
On another note I’m not really concerned about the Russians as they are almost a third world country (albeit with nukes) but I was wondering about the Chinese. How many carriers do they have and how many are they building?

Their second one, Shandong - their first entirely homebuilt - is currently undergoing sea trials. It's essentially a slightly improved copy of Liaoning with room for about eight more aircraft, a wider flight deck and shorter island for more deckspace, a revised bridge layout with separate flight control and fleet command levels, and active electronically scanning radar.

They are also building two of a bigger type with catapults rather than skyjumps, supposed to be about 85,000 tons and with the capabilities of the 60s US Kitty Hawk class. The first is planned to be launched next year and enter service in 2023. They have reportedly tested both steam and electromagnetic catapults, but while the ships are supposed to have integrated fully electric propulsion, I'm doubtful they can go directly to electromagnetic catapults given all the trouble the US had with the new technology on the Ford class.

Metal has already been cut for the next follow-on, which is supposed to be a full-on nuclear-powered supercarrier of 100,000-plus tons to enter service in the late 20s. Allegedly up to four are planned. Whether they'll be able to or not, doctrinally it would make sense for them to operate a total of six carriers. Given the conventional wisdom that for any one deployed, one is in overhaul and one working up, they could then have one in the Pacific and one in the Indian Ocean at all times to secure sealanes from and to China.

Then there is the whole separate question of what aircraft they would operate from CATOBAR carriers. It's not so easy to turn land-based fighters into carrier aircraft; and that's before we come to special mission types like carrier-borne early warning and anti-submarine.

quote:

Originally posted by f2:
Fire watches are required on the other side of the bulkhead during welding ops on USS ships.

And hopefully the fire watch isn't sleeping. Or in Russia, blind drunk on vodka.

Banshee: China may be rethinking their commitment to carriers.

https://thediplomat.com/2019/1...s-carrier-ambitions/

That's interesting, had't heard that. Shouldn't come as a surprise of course; China's slowing economy has been well-covered for some time, and the pace of the construction program always looked overly ambitious - taking the next step before lessons learned from the previous design could be possibly incorporated. I just thought when making the previous post that they probably depended in large part on openly or covertly obtained knowledge about US carriers.

In essentially every major war the "main" tech of the previous war gets supplanted.

Sail by steam
Wood by ironsides
Battleships
Aircraft carriers will be next.

They're big, expensive, complicated, and with either improvements in submarines or the small size of drones some new technological approach is too likely to rain horror on the carriers should another full scale hot war truly emerge.

The carriers are awesome at projecting power, conducting humanitarian missions, and leading a war effort in which the opponent has no ability to challenge air and sea supremacy (Iraq).

quote:

Originally posted by ChuckFinley:
Aircraft carriers will be next.

That’s my prediction, but what would it take for that to actually occur? When/why would the top Navy leadership say, “Okay, that’s enough. We don’t need such behemoths in the modern world, and they are actually a financial, tactical, and strategic liability”?

(I’m not, BTW, saying that myself because I don’t know enough about the matter. But history has demonstrated that even when such things are true, it often takes a major event to make it obvious enough that everyone involved will accept it.)

Well if that is the metric then the next actual world war will kill us all. When you look at Wars in prior centuries and then see the massive buildup and casualties from them to the First World War the difference is mind boggling. Then ramp it up again to WWII and the reality is that if the world ever goes down that path of all out war, then we will all wish we stuck to arguing about plastic straws.

Aircraft carriers will be relevant for quite awhile. Even in all out war they probably will be good to have. Short of that though they are wonderful tools.

The old battleship argument is kind of silly. Battleships were instantly outdated because there was no way for them to keep up with technology. Aircraft carriers can adapt. They have a built in ability to shift their mission and loadout and future air wing composition to suit the current needs. Battleships never could do anything like that and they are dead.

Subs are amazing. They too are limited though. Hard for subs to defend a amphibious landing or defend airspace. They can deny an area and they can deliver warheads but they cat do what a carrier battle group can deliver.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
That’s my prediction, but what would it take for that to actually occur? When/why would the top Navy leadership say, “Okay, that’s enough. We don’t need such behemoths in the modern world, and they are actually a financial, tactical, and strategic liability”?

Aircraft carriers will be around for quite a long time, having a mobile piece of sovereign airfield is incredibly valuable. Smaller and more numerous carriers will likely be the direction as budgets and sustainment costs continue to spiral upward, and force the hand of the decision makers. We'll likely see the return of full-time Surface Action Groups, as projection/presence ops will continue while carrier availability is managed even tighter than it currently is. The challenge for the USN will be to find a carrier design that balances overall costs, op tempo expectation, and maintenance availability.

Current USN nuclear carriers have enormously large magazines, which means they can remain on station for weeks at a time without resupply conducting sustained cyclic combat operations, this is one of the major short-coming of the big deck amphibious ships. Being nuclear powered not only reduces the amount of machinery, fuel and ducting space just for the ship, but increases fuel and magazine size for the air wing, a problem the rest of the world's carrier have to deal with. The new British carriers made a number of compromises there, that might bite them in the rear should a major damage control situation happen. Nuclear power also allows the carrier to remain at flank or, near flank speeds for long durations, making life difficult for enemy targeting sensors, submarines and their weapons. This is another short-coming of the LPH ships as their hull-form and propulsion doesn't allow for the necessary sustained high-speed that carriers operate at.

EMP resistant & hack-"proof" drone technology will allow the ships to reduce in size, while increasing strike capacity and sustainability of intensity of operation, as one potential example.

Swarming autonomous attack and defensive drone technology already exists and could take on forms that are close to unimaginable to day.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by ChuckFinley:
Aircraft carriers will be next.

That’s my prediction, but what would it take for that to actually occur? When/why would the top Navy leadership say, “Okay, that’s enough. We don’t need such behemoths in the modern world, and they are actually a financial, tactical, and strategic liability”?

One thing that *could* do that (I’m not saying it will, I hope we don’t get there) would be if in a new major conflict they are targeted and taken out very quickly. I don’t know of any current tools that could be used to do that, but if they were developed (or already exist and I just don’t know about them), they could render carriers obsolete. Carriers are an awesome tool, but if you can’t protect them they’d just be a liability.

Personally, I hope that the tools are not out there that carriers can’t be defended against. Even more, I hope that we don’t run into a conflict where an adversary would make that great an act of war. Shooting down an opposing fighter is an act of war, but there’s a good chance leaders on both sides could/would blame it on an overzealous pilot and have the chance to de-escalate. Blow up a floating city and kill several thousand American sailors and it is hard to see de-escalation as an option...

Aircraft carriers are currently unrivaled in projecting power when not in a hot / peer level war - which we haven't had since WW2. Often just the sight of a carrier and her airwing filling adversaries radar screens is enough for them to 'chill the fuck out'. I've seen it happen.

Yes the USAF can fly bombers / fighters, but they rely on host nation permissions (and even then it can tip off observers that something is up). Yes they can launch from the USA around the world - with several weeks notice and about all the tankers they have. But a mobile piece of US territory like a carrier still has uses.

I'm sure that aircraft carriers have weaknesses in a true peer 'war' and may be vulnerable to submarines / ballistic missiles / other threats. But at the same time don't forget there is likely plenty going on behind the scenes to defeat those threats as well and keep the CVN effective.

Eventually I can see them being replaced by more modern 'battleships' that have swarms of smart drones, when that kind of tech is available in decades.

But until then, whenever something happens around the world, POTUS will continue to ask "where are the carriers?".

quote:

Yes the USAF can fly bombers / fighters, but they rely on host nation permissions (and even then it can tip off observers that something is up). Yes they can launch from the USA around the world - with several weeks notice and about all the tankers they have. But a mobile piece of US territory like a carrier still has uses. 

Just take Operation El Dorado Canyon as an example. A-6 bombers launched off a carrier in the Med and had a short in/out trip. USAF F-111s, flying from the UK, had to fly all the way around France (which refused overflight permission) and then all the way back. The carriers provided a MUCH more responsive option.

quote:

Originally posted by ChuckFinley:

Swarming autonomous attack and defensive drone technology already exists and could take on forms that are close to unimaginable to day.

Right. Counter UAS is a big deal right now. I wouldn't be surprised if a motivated bad guy with a 3D printer hasn't whipped up his own batch already.

A drone with the same range and weapons capability as a manned aircraft will be close to the same size. So you'll need the same size ship to launch and recover them.

A carrier is only as good as the aircraft it launches, and we've given up range on the current generation of planes flying off of them. We need to get that back. When the F-22 came out, there was a proposal for an FB-22, with a bigger wing (carrying more fuel) and bigger weapons bay. It never happened for the AF. But the Navy should be looking at a naval version of that (or at least that concept.)

quote:

Originally posted by ChuckFinley:
EMP resistant & hack-"proof" drone technology will allow the ships to reduce in size, while increasing strike capacity and sustainability of intensity of operation, as one potential example.

Swarming autonomous attack and defensive drone technology already exists and could take on forms that are close to unimaginable to day.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
A drone with the same range and weapons capability as a manned aircraft will be close to the same size. So you'll need the same size ship to launch and recover them.

As with all military technology, the truth about your true statement is true.... for now....

LINK

Sea Robin and other public domain visible tech can be adapted with existing technology to deploy mini-attack anti-personnel drone swarmsn as well as other forms of asymmetrical strikes.

Advancing materials, battery, fuel technology will likely yet change the minimum lethal size requirements, as well as range, evasion, and counter-measure capabilities in ways that today still seem like science fiction.