I watched Trump's speech onboard our newest carrier and when he mention the number of crew, it gave me pause. Why do our carriers still require such a large crew? With advances in automation, I would think it wouldn't take so many to crew a carrier. It's only 300 less crew than the Nimitzes that came before it. And, ironically, 10 fewer planes.

I believe Rhino has mentioned that they rarely sail with a completely full air wing, so the aircraft carried number is more theoretical.

There are some things that automation can't do:

Another thing automation can't do is damage control. No robots are fixing a missile strike or torpedo hit. These smaller crewed ships will succumb to less damage than a larger crewed ship.

Pardon me?

Here is the link:

https://www.facebook.com/White...os/1238745286213202/

41

quote:

Originally posted by TexasScrub:
Pardon me?

Is that a Fordian slip?

Those ships operate 24/7 while deployed. They need to have sufficient crew to man every function on the ship in that capacity. That's a LOT of people

quote:

Originally posted by Sgt Neutron:
There are some things that automation can't do:

Perhaps a zamboni?

When you think about it...what is really "automated"? Sure there is technology, however, we now need people to maintain/operate that technology along with most of the systems we've always had.

My son just got out of the Navy as an "IT" (Information Systems Technician). Now they have several shops of computer technicians to maintain the thousands of computers on the ship, the computer network, etc. They have technicians for the unclassified side and a whole separate group that takes care of the classified systems.

Plus, all that high-tech stuff needs constant maintenance to work properly. "Automation" is still unreliable (compared to having a manned presence), so they still need warm bodies to keep everything running.

quote:

It's only 300 less crew than the Nimitzes that came before it.

Press releases said it was 700 less than the earlier class of carrier.

Think of how much automation is necessary to make a fighter plane operable by a single pilot and consider how much that plane costs.

Think of how many valves there are on an aircraft carrier and be able to automate closing and opening every one of them.

Actually, as I'm writing, I'm realizing the bulk of the people needed on an aircraft carrier is maintenance work and emergency ops and support personnel to service those people doing the maintenance and emergency ops capability.

quote:

Originally posted by Orguss:
I watched Trump's speech onboard our newest carrier and when he mention the number of crew, it gave me pause. Why do our carriers still require such a large crew? With advances in automation, I would think it wouldn't take so many to crew a carrier. It's only 300 less crew than the Nimitzes that came before it. And, ironically, 10 fewer planes.

The whole less crew smart ship thing is one of the reasons LCS is what it is.

Yes, and of those 1000's, about 110 active pilots. Maybe less today.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:

quote:

Originally posted by TexasScrub:
Pardon me?

Is that a Fordian slip?

What you did there...

The Ship's crew is in the 3,000s. On a NIMITZ class, a fully loaded CVN is around 5500 persons. This includes the aviation squadrons, battlegroup staff, Destroyer Squadron staff, ect. To keep the ship working, the support staff is huge. Mess decks, a fully functional hospital, maintenance shops, those reactors, ect. I know the FORD class has some smart ship designs to reduce manning, but it wasn't drastic like the LCS.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Another thing automation can't do is damage control. No robots are fixing a missile strike or torpedo hit. These smaller crewed ships will succumb to less damage than a larger crewed ship.

This.

One of the hallmarks of USN ships is the ability to sustain damage and constructed to be survivable in the event of combat. Look at other country's navies and similarly classed ships are built very differently than USN ships; USN ships are manpower intense. While automation is fantastic to show off technological progress, it can be a problem when the ship absorbs a few hits, gets shocked from a nearby blast, throws things out of kilter and all that automation...ceases to work because conditions aren't perfect. See USS Stark, Samuel B. Roberts, Princeton, Tripoli, all survived because there was enough crew to handle DC.

There was some pics recently of the new Royal Navy's aircraft carrier, a lot of their ordinance is moved via automated carriages through passageways from it's magazines. One thought was, if the ship took a hard hit, and the bulkheads & deck got warped, those carriages would cease working, thus no movement of ordinance to continue the fight. Maybe they've got some manual failsafe mechanism but, too much automation just means more problems to monitor.

quote:

Originally posted by dave7378:

quote:

Originally posted by Sgt Neutron:
There are some things that automation can't do:

Perhaps a zamboni?

A friend of mine works for a company that designed and builds a deck cleaner for the navy. It cleans and vacuums, a carrier zamboni.

Give it a few years.

quote:

Originally posted by pedropcola:
Another thing automation can't do is damage control. No robots are fixing a missile strike or torpedo hit. These smaller crewed ships will succumb to less damage than a larger crewed ship.