Military Tech & Politics

[McAvoy]

[Admin Note: Topic split off from What if... Part 4]

Not so much with money. Without getting too deep into politics, people who has affected the world with their greed for more money and used that money to change how they got that money, are still remembered for what they did.

..Actually I will get into some politics. During the early 1990's the US Navy had this multi-billioniare program called the A-12. Screwups and more politics later the A-12 projected was dumped. But all that money that went into the R&D for that prgram sucked up all the money for the F-14D program. The US Navy wanted their entire fleet plus additional planes to be F-14D. Instead we ended up getting a mixed fleet of F-14A, B, and Ds. So the US Navy had no future planes for the next ten years. The US Navy instead decided years later that they had three options, until what eventually the F-35 comes out A). Build a whole new plane, would cost so much money that Congress would never authorize it. B.) Build a new F-14E type ranging from modest avionics upgrades all the way to what some call a F-22 killer. This would also cost alot of money. C.) Upgrade the stagnating F/A-18C into a newer version of F/A-18E/F.

The US Navy as most of us knows took the last option. The US Navy didn't like this but there was a very specific and singular reason for it. Dick Cheney is on the pay roll of Boeing who builds the Super Hornet. He hates Grumman who builds the F-14. So the Super Hornet was choosen instead, which in many areas is an inferior plane to the Tomcat. He even around 1997-1998 ordered the tooling for the Tomcat to be destroyed, which years later he explained it was so that Iran would never get their hands on it.

End of rant, but I could go on.

However despite the propaganda that the US Government and the Navy say that the Hornet is such a superior plane to the Tomcat, mostly everyone will tell you that this simply B.S.

[*zeo]

Um, just to clarify Cheney was defense secretary in April of 1989 when he put the F-14 on the hit list of things to be discontinued as the US government proceeded to do major cut backs at the end of the cold war.

Grumman was the company that build the Tomcats but after 1989 they quickly went into decline and were acquired by rival Northrop Corp in 1994. The merged company became known as Northrop Grumman Corp. So the original company is already gone.

The A-12 was an attempt to replace the A-6 back in 1988 but was so horribly mismanaged that they mercifully killed it in 1991, leading to a requirement for an alternate long-range strike fighter which first became the A-X and later the A/F-X program but this too died in 1993.

The F-14 has thus long been on the chopping block but the first attempt to replace it resulted instead in the Airforce's F-22, so that failed.

And there is in fact a danger of parts getting into the hands of Iran and it's fleet of F-14's. There was for instance an unexplained theft of parts from where they store old aircrafts here in the US and that is what I think prompted the destruction of said equipment before they too could fall into the wrong hands.

Remember, the Associated Press reported back in January 2007 that buyers for Iran, China and other countries had exploited gaps in surplus-sale security to acquire sensitive U.S. military gear, including F-14 parts.

It really doesn't help that the US is one of the biggest weapon sellers in the world. Though some would argue the destruction of those parts was more symbolic than practical, it can also be argued as being necessary.

Anyway, by the mid 90's the Navy still had the problem of replacing the retiring A-6 and early hornets and so committed to a longer ranged advanced Hornet derivative as an interim type that we now call the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. The F-14 was also slated to be replaced as its combat role became less and less important.

The Aegis missile defense system for example, since the Tomcat was primarily a defensive weapon system itself, lessened the need for the Tomcat.

So politics aside, it's just a simple matter of economics that the F-14's are being replaced. The Tomcat is over 20 years old now after all and the F-18's are newer tech, more reliable, and easier to maintain. The threat the Tomcat was originall designed for, to intercept soviet bombers, no longer exists after all.

As it is the Navy spent well over $2.5 billion on upgrading the combat role of the F-14 as is to extend their usefulness. It would cost Billions more to keep them in service.

In fact a proposal of near $10 billion was made to effectively upgrade the Tomcats but the Navy declared it unaffordable. The Chairmen of both the Senate and House subcomittee's on Appropriations and the Armed Services Comittee's of both houses were extremely critical of the proposal and even the later ones that sought to limit the proposal to just the F-14D's.

Truthfully the upgrades would have been inadequote to the goal of giving the Tomcats F-15E capabilities and would not let them fully fill the role of the Super Hornet either. So was just too little too late for the Tomcat as far as the Navy was concerned. Never mind the Super Tomcat F-21 proposal.

Though in a perfect world I agree, the Tomcat could have been upgraded and continued to serve for decades more but too much time had been wasted on other projects and the military budget is still nowhere like it had been during the height of the cold war.

Never mind all the military budget cuts the Clinton administration had put through, there was even a point that the military almost ran out of bullets for live fire testing. Let alone spend billions on aging military aircrafts.

The SH cost per hour flying time is even roughly half that of the Tomcat, which is a huge chunk of cost of operation.

While the main argument for the Tomcat has been its range, but in today's Navy range isn't as important since most missions will be over land instead of over large expanses of the sea. Any long range missions will thus be carried out by Tomahawk (range of 1,300km, which is 100 km further than the F-14's max) or Air Force bombers.

So Cheney may have started it but it has been a demise long in coming and was hardly singular. Never mind all the missed opportunities of the 70's that could have let Grumman fix and improve the F-14 design that would have saved it from its present fate.

Though the amount of money they are throwing at the SH is also very lopsided to the point other projects like the F-35 are suffering but then again the military has rarely used its money entirely wisely.

The Carriers themselves may start to be phased out if the Navy doesn't seriously start thinking of a complete redesign of future carriers. The military needs of the future will be significantly different from what they are now.

[McAvoy]

I can tell you for a fact that Super Hornets are not as reliable as a Tomcat. yes they are much easier to maintain, but they break much more often. Tomcats were heavily built up specifically designed as an interceptor and a fighter. It was meant to take on damage. Super Hornets and to a lesser extent the Hornet do not have nearly the robustness of the Tomcat. On my last cruise we were averaging for every one flight hour, between 18 at the lowest to 95 man hours. That is more or les equivilant to a Tomcat. These planes are the Lot 27s so they were only built 2005. Whereas the Tomcats before that were around 20 to 30 years old.

As far as the reliability that is propaganda. There are also a quite a few design errors in the Super Hornet as well. One of the bigger ones are the insulation for the fuel cells (when they go up in higher altitudes, the fuel sometimes will turn into slush and wear down the fuel valves) and the canopy.

Also let's not forget that they were upgrading Tomcats up until their last flight. For instance VF-213 during their 2005-2006 cruise already had the ROVER system installed but when they transitioned into the Super Hornet which are Lot 27s and Lot 28s, they had to get that installed as well.

F-14 has always been on the chopping block since they first came out. It was one of the reasons why the Navy got Hornet. Their high cost and they are cvonsidered to be the first Super Fighter. In fact actually there was a study done in the mid 80's that it would take 189 Tomcats to do the job of 290 Eagles.

The F-14A that was all know was actually not even supposed to be the production run. There were problems with the engines which were going to be used for the proposed F-14B. That got cancelled and the F-14B we know is actually another term for F-14+.

As far as upgrading the Tomcat into modern standards at least with avionics would not cost as much as let's say the first generation Super Hornet's. They were nothing more than larger Hornets with the same avionics outfit for the most part. It took the next 7 years to achieve what the Super Hornets have today. Upgrading the Tomcats could take the same approach. Yes, the airframe is old, which IMO is the only good reason why they shou;d have gotten rid of the Tomcat.

As far as the carrier design is concerned, read Norman Friedman's US Carriers, History and Development. The whole super carrier song and dance has been like this for the past 50 years. It's really not going to change. In fact the only thing I see changing is the number of carriers out to sea. We are already down from 12 carriers to 11 carriers with the decommissioning of the JFK last year.

[*zeo]

Yes but the cost of upgrading is far higher today than it has been in the past, so the old song and dance is far more important. The changes of the last 50 years will be nothing to the changes coming now.

Remember since the end of the cold war there has been less and less need for Carriers. As the requirements of the military are changing significantly with ever increasing emphasis on urban warefare I really don't see Carriers existing as they are now more than a few more decades.

Though to many that may seem like a lot of time but it takes years to decades for any real change to get through. So they have to start now!

Technology especially is advancing at a far greater rate than before and it'll take more than a simple upgrade to keep Carriers practical for the future.

As for the Tomcat, I think you're forgetting it had far more flaws when it first came into service. In fact pilots initially hated it when it first came into service. After all it was rushed in after the F-111 failure. A lot of its flaws have cost lives over the years. But over time those problems have been mostly fixed and thus the disparity.

Never mind those you saw in service did not have all 20-30 year old parts in them, not to mention they kept building new ones up to the early 90's as even after 1989 the government still commissioned Grumman for 8 more before fully canceling them. So its more like the F-14 model has seen nearly 30 years of service rather than every single model of them being that old.

Really, just look at the history of say a weapon like the M-16. The first version sucked big time and had G.I.'s practically throwing them away because they were so bad. But over the years they fixed those flaws until now it is a highly reliable and respected weapon.

The SH's are new, relatively speaking since some serious tech modifications have been made from previous models in the series, and just like any new piece of military hardware it has its share of flaws that need to be fixed. Boeing Co. in particular manufactured bad parts for the F/A-18 SH that wore out too fast, which cost a lot to fix and was doubtful not the only part they messed up.

So it's not so much the design but how it was build that is the problem with present fleet.

And more problems are still popping up but that's because it's development was also rushed, in terms of the components that make it up, to fill in the void of the rapidly retiring fleet of older jets and the ever widening role of the SH.

It is also a matter of technology, the reliance of which is greater now than it has been in the past and as such the lack of proper development has left pilots with a serious need to know how to re-wire their ****pit on the fly and/or compensate for equipment failure. But these problems would have plagued the Tomcat as well if they had been upgraded with those same systems.

So I fully believe what you say about them needing as many man hours as the Tomcat, but believe it or not the Navy still saves money on them and that's their bottom line.

But it also all boils down to the fact the F-14 was a long range interceptor that was fairly specialized despite the attempts to modify it over the years for a wider combat role. Mass alone made it a heavy jet that was better suited to long range battle than close range dogfighting.

What the military thinks it needs now is more of a compromise between the A-6 and the F-14, which the F-18 SH is basically intended to be. They are even going to replace the EA-6B Prowler with the EF-18B Growler next year.

On the plus side the newer jets are more stable at slower speeds which makes certain combat manuevers easier. The L.E.X. especially makes the SH stand out, allowing it to perform high angles of attack that would cause other jets to stall as well as make extremely tight turns over a large range of speeds.

Hell the Blue Angels use the F/A-18A, so there is no question on how well they fly.

It's just the emphasis on making it cheaper that screwed up a lot of the parts they put into it. The engines for example aren't vectorable, but the flap design works well enough for the Mach 2 specs requirement. Even if the top speed is offically only mach 1.8.

Basically it is just that between budget concerns and compromise, until something better comes along, that the Navy set itself up with the SH's as they are.

And really, the Navy brass had a lot to do with that decision as well. So you can't blame the whole thing on Washington.

But this debate is a lot like the actual topic, getting any branch of the military to admit to a mistake would be like getting Anubis to admit to himself he was wrong.

And trying to get them to admit that mistake would be similarly problematic to one's positive outlook on their future.

As in both cases you wouldn't have none

Though the military would be less messy about it

[McAvoy]

Yes, the Navy is saving money on the Super Hornet, right now. But what I am getting at is that the Tomcat with all it's flaws back in the 70's and 80's didn't start to fall apart like everyone says until around the early 90's. And that's because of age. Hornets are very much like Tomcats now except they break much more often and they are a between a Tomcat and a Super Hornet in terms how hard they are fix. Hell in order to get to the ECS systems they have to drop the centerline tank to get to it. The Super Hornet is on top instead which has it's ups and downs.

In the end, the Super Hornet is not as reliable as the Tomcat was and will continue down that path as the airframes get older. Hell, look first generation Super Hornets. VFA-211 has Lot 23s I believe and they just got off cruise and the Navy is already wanting them to be upgraded to the Lot 29s or Lot 30s. VFA-143 has already been told to start designing a F-35 color scheme and they transitioned back in May 2005.

It took 30 years for the Tomcat to be as reliable as it is today which I understand, but for the Super Hornet to achieve that would take a redesigned engine, AMAD, newer canopy design, new ECS system, more reliable Radar, and a multitude of smaller things. That is alot of money and from what I understand alot of what I mentioned above has been on the first generation Super Hornet since 2001. Obviously it's taking awhile for the Navy to fix the Hornet problems.

The F-14 engines were never fully fixed but they got them to the point where they hardly stall anymore. The whole problem was fixed when they came out with the F-14B and D. The amount of work that went into the Super Hornet could have gone into the Tomcat and wewould have gotten a much superior plane overall. It would have been much more expensive, yes but the Navy would not have made so many compromises it does now. One glaring one is that the Super Hornet is incapable of bombing with low cloud cover, but that's the design overall. The Tomcat did this but that's because it had much higher speed so it could bomb much lower than the Super Hornet could.

As far as Carriers are concerned, no one is seriously thinking about redesigning the carrier yet. Look at the British with their Queen Elizabeth class super carriers. They are very close in size to the Nimitz class. Incidently, the US and the British governments want to incorporate the new British carriers with the US fleet. Which is something I agree with since military technology is getting way too expensive even for the US. The new Ford class Super Carrier is very similar to the Nimitz class but introduced a few modifications. One is the removal of the fourth elevator aft of the island. Remember that these Super Carriers were designed back in the 50's to accomodate the much larger dimensions wise and weight wise bomber aircraft. But overall not alot has been changed since the USS Forrestal. Hell the Nimiz herself is almost 40 years old. The Enterprise herself is being retired in 2013, (which from what I am hearing now, the island will be moved onto the newer Enterprise of the Ford class, but that is just rumor).

But the whole politics vs. Navy has always been around since the 1880's. Read about the early US Battleships like the Texas, Maine or Indiana class. Hell the Iowa is politically motivated design, but overall she is about the equal to the much larger Yamato class.

[*zeo]

It took 30 years for the Tomcat to be as reliable as it is today which I understand, but for the Super Hornet to achieve that would take a redesigned engine, AMAD, newer canopy design, new ECS system, more reliable Radar, and a multitude of smaller things.

You mean what they are already setting up for the F/A-18E and F Super Hornet variant with?

The one with all the new improvements that is slated to replace the present F/A-18C and D?

Really, the Tomcat was an improvision too. The failure of the F-111B to fill the role of an interceptor left the Navy no choice.

Early Tomcat engines had a tendency to burst into flames or stall but they still pushed it into service before the developers could even manage a "But it's not ready"!

I truly understand where you're coming from McAvoy but this is really just history repeating itself. Many in your position would have said the exact same things when the Tomcat was first introduced, if not worse.

Remember most of the F-14 problems weren't solved until the F14D's came out. So I totally believe everything you are saying about how much service the F/A-18 requires.

But this is all because, thanks to bad planning and development management the Navy finds itself in the exact same place again as it had 30 years ago and had to force the F/A-18 into fulfilling a role much larger than originally intended.

This is a prime example of why I say they have to start thinking about a total redesign to the Carriers now. By the time they actually need them to serve will be way too late and would force the same sort of bad compromises to get them into service.

You know full well how long it takes just to build a Carrier, but any redesign has not only to be properly designed but thoroughly tested out and that can take decades in of itself and that is even if they don't scrap the design and restart from scratch.

It's a problem not even limited to the Navy either, all branches are effected by the Brass making looney decisions and not letting the actual engineers make the choices of where and how the budget is spent.

Frankly, it's amazing how good our equipment is considering all the unnecessary hurdles it took to develop them and then make them effective. It's one of the reasons I elaborated about the M-16's for example.

The history of the military is filled with examples of mismanagement and improvations where proper design was needed.

But really, you want reliable then they should come up with a variant of the F-15 that could be used on a Carrier. Those things can take a licking and keep on ticking. There was even a case of an Israeli pilot landing with just one wing. I'd like to see either the Tomcat or Super Hornet pull that trick off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1aKxAN7bAs

[McAvoy]

You mean what they are already setting up for the F/A-18E and F Super Hornet variant with?

The one with all the new improvements that is slated to replace the present F/A-18C and D?

Both actually. The only difference between the ones that replaced the Tomcats and the ones that will replace Hornets is the Radar and avionics. From what I understand they are going to replace the canopy with a much better design. But that is just rumor.

Really, the Tomcat was an improvision too. The failure of the F-111B to fill the role of an interceptor left the Navy no choice.

Early Tomcat engines had a tendency to burst into flames or stall but they still pushed it into service before the developers could even manage a "But it's not ready"!

You are right about that. But if you think about it, the Hornet has been like this for the past thirty years. YF-17 was enlarged to the Hornet then enlarged again to restore many of the abilities anf features lost from the redesign from the 17 to 18.

As far as the engine goes, well... the engine was pretty powerful... maybe it was so powerful it sucked the blades into itself...

While I agree that the current design is too large for what the Navy is planning such as the F-35 which can launch vertically, you still have to remember that it took decades for the Navy to realize that going with a smaller carrier does literally mean smaller capabilities.

[*zeo]

Actually if you look at the latest issue of popular science the Navy has already officially commissioned the development of three new vessel types (I already knew about these for quite some time but it's nice to see pictures). One of which can be viewed as a mini-carrier as one of its mission package includes the launching and landing of drone aircraft on its own V shaped runway deck.

Apparently the Navy sees that the future requirements will be varied and are incorporating mission specific packages that the vessels can be equiped with on the fly. But all these plans will take about 30 years to complete and they still haven't addressed the issue of what to do about the Super Carriers, aside from keeping 11 going pretty much as they are for the next 30 years.

Course the mindset is probably not to bother until the needs of the fighter crafts change, but history shows just waiting more often than not is a bad idea.

As for the Hornet, we have to remember it wasn't originally intended to replace the Tomcat, since at the time they had other candidates. So it has gone through a bit of redesign as well, as you noted, which means you can't just lop it up as 30 years of the same. The craft has evolved significantly and is not the same as when it started.

In comparison it took them a decade to get the F-14 properly working too, and just like the hornet the F-14 had been in development for years before they accelerated their adoption into the fleet.

Hell, the Tomcats didn't even get into real combat until the 80's, despite being in service for years at that point, and the F-14D didn't show up overnight either. So for a good portion of that time the F-14 had more than its share of problems.

The F/A-18 is going through similar development pains and the F/A-18E and F are also getting all knew engines and a host of other improvements, so at least some, if not all, of the issues you mentioned will be addressed pretty soon when these variants finally come out.

The new engines they have been working on for example have already been tested and reinforced so even if damaged a loose turbine blade will not damage the rest of the craft and they are more powerful than the present engine models.

So toughness and reliability will increase, though like I said before I'd still like to see if either a Tomcat or SH can fly with only one wing like an F-15 can

In any case the SH is only an intermediate solution as tthe US Navy intends to buy 480 F-35Cs to replace the F/A-18A, -B, -C, and -D Hornets. So the SH only has to last long enough to see that happen, starting 2012.

Though only the F-35B is a virtical take off model, and will mainly replace the Harrier but it too will replace the F/A-18 as well. The F-35C will still need a runway but has wider wings for slower take off speed, greater range (twice the fuel economy of the F/A-18) and reinforced landing gears for carrier use. The F-35A will be for the airforce and will be a traditional take off model and will be the only one equiped with an internal GAU-22/A 25mm cannon (both other types will only have this as an external mount), which means with its high maneuverability that it is primarily intended to replace the USAF's F-16 Fighting Falcons, beginning in 2013, but also can replace the A-10 Thunderbolt II starting in 2028.

[McAvoy]

So toughness and reliability will increase, though like I said before I'd still like to see if either a Tomcat or SH can fly with only one wing like an F-15 can

Yes and no. The Tomcat can fly with a partial wing missing. The Tomcat's entire body is shaped like a wing and in combination of rather powerful engines, it can fly back to the carrier or base.

When the Hornet was designed the Navy didn't want the B or D because it was afraid the B and D would be viewed as a replacement for the Tomcat which was still new at the time.

While I agree many of the flaws in the Super Hornet will be eventually addressed, some of it can't. In fact today we found several cracks around the intake. This is a big deal, since pieces of the intake can break off and go right into the intake and FOD out the engine.

[Thunder Demon1472669266]

Which is bad enough. And if that happens on a sortie...

Well, 'fireball' might not be enough to describe it. And for all of their redeeming qualities, all of the planes have some flaws in them.

And within the thirty years they need for to complete the plans, things will have changed a lot by then. The Super Carriers (typed 'SCs' here on out) are incredibly large. Even if they wait, retrofitting them to fit the needs of the new era's. With CVN-79 and CVN-80 yet to be named (CVN-78 being designated USS Gerald R. Ford), both replacing one carrier, the older Nimitz class carriers would need a refitting well before the 30 years expire.

As for planes, like I said, every type has some sort of flaw. Here's the thing: any new technology will have some sort of problem that will cause all sorts of problems and wreak havoc all over the place.

I've said this to a lot of people I know, but for what I'm studying at uni, both pilots and I are in the same business. Just on opposite ends of the stick, so to speak. I'll be designing 'em, they'll be flying 'em. I, however, have a far less potentially fatal job.

[*zeo]

Yes and no. The Tomcat can fly with a partial wing missing. The Tomcat's entire body is shaped like a wing and in combination of rather powerful engines, it can fly back to the carrier or base.

But clearly not with the whole wing missing?

While I agree many of the flaws in the Super Hornet will be eventually addressed, some of it can't. In fact today we found several cracks around the intake. This is a big deal, since pieces of the intake can break off and go right into the intake and FOD out the engine.

Actually the intake was changed from the C & D, which used a oval intake, to the E & F's angular intake design. Ergo, it could be fixed if they bother to do so with another redesign. The Cracking is probably due to the increase use of composite materials. They tend to be brittle and carrier duty tends to be brutal on brittle material, but that's probably why they are planning, well it's on paper, the F/A-18H which will have many of the capabilities of the Tomcat like the advance radar it was famous for.

In any case, it's just to keep the fleet going untill the F-35's can take over and should already be picking up some of the slack starting 2012. So the SH probably won't be around 30 years from now.

In terms of future proofing though, I think modular designing is the way to go. That way a vessel can become mission specific and upgraded on the fly by simply changing it's modules. At least one of the three ships described in that issue of popular mechanics was modular.

Similarly a Super Carrier could also be designed with this in mind. The main thing it would need would be an adaptive power system that can enough energy for the increasinly energy orientated equipment the future vessels will be equiped with. Ranging from propulsion to railguns. And ports equiped with the ability to change those modules as needed.

So the capabilities of the ship would be determined by the type of module it is equiped with and that can be swapped out with a newer or different module as needed.

It'll be more efficient if nothing else.

[McAvoy]

Well carriers will always be refitting for the newest piece of technology and aircraft. That's part of why the Navy spends billions of dollars on refitting them. Such as the Ike just completed a four year refit cycle that cost the Navy I believe so don't quote me around 2 to 3 billions dollars. But that was also due to having to getting it's first 'refill' for the reactors.

Hell back in the 1970's all of the super carriers had to be refitted before they could use the F-14. That was much more involved then lets say reftting for the F/A-18. The Tomcat's exhaust was far more powerful than the F-4's so it would blow down/ or burn up the Jet Blast Deflectors right behind the catapults. Hell, the F-14B and D was not allowed to go into full afterburner (and is the only plane that can do this without afterburner) while on the catapult for a few reasons. One, the F-14 on full afterburner will outrun the catapult which might cause the catapult to finally catch up with the F-14 and rip off the nose landing gear. Two, the afterburner will melt the Jet Blast Deflector and push it down. Three, there was no need to go on full afterburner because that is the quickest way short of putting holes in the fuel cells of burning up fuel very rapidly.

In all actuality, there is not alot of improvements mechanically that would think there would be for a 30 year old design like the F/A-18A and the F/A-18E. It's mainly computers nowadays that make the big leaps. But even then most of the time it's either software that can be loaded on the plane or swapped out like a box. Sort of like upgrading your RAM on the computer.

The new Ford class, USS George Bush and USS Ronald Reagan are all designed with the above in mind with much extra space designed and allotted for computer upgrades and future integration that no one has thought of yet.

Though one thing is for sure is that carriers are very useful in what they are, mobile airfields. Back in the late 40's the US was going to build the UNited States which would have been the world's first super carrier although it would have been a flush deck design (no island). However the newly formed Air Force thought that future wars would be fought with nuclear weapons and that bombers would do a better job. During the 1960's and 1970's the Navy was looking into what they called the CVV program which was basically a carrier around the same size (tonnage and dimensions) as the USS Midway. That was dropped in favor for more super carriers because they found out that building a smaller carrier would not proportionally save money as it should, in fact per ton it was cheaper to build bigger carriers. Then during the DVX program which became the Ford class, the Navy went from basically an updated CVV design to an updated Nimitz class design to a double angle design (a second angled lfight deck opposite of the island which would make the island in the middle of the ship), which the design would have been far larger, being around 1,200 feet and weighing as much as 150,000 tons.

The problem with planes is that you cannot design a jack of all trades plane that excells at everything. The F/A-18 is supposed to be this but it is a master of none. Look at the flight deck of the 80's with a whole bunch of aircraft types. Many believe this is height of the power of the Navy where all specialized planes do their own thing and actually excel at it. The biggest problem was parts. There was no commonality with that many different planes. Which is why within five to six years the carriers will have five squadrons of Hornets, (2 F/A-18A or C, 1 F/A-18E, 1 F/A-18F and 1 F/A-18G). That means five squadrons can share the same parts and the carrier itself can devote less space to individual parts for different planes whereas now they can devote space to the same exact thing such as OBOGS concentrators, engines, the ever malfunctioning APU, and various avionics.

Hell in my own rate, it makes it easier in that I can now go on to five different squadrons without being briefed on what type of eejection seat it uses. Though personally, I don't need to be briefed since the Prowlers use GRU-7 type of ejection seats and the F-14B used them.

[*zeo]

Well carriers will always be refitting for the newest piece of technology and aircraft. That's part of why the Navy spends billions of dollars on refitting them. Such as the Ike just completed a four year refit cycle that cost the Navy I believe so don't quote me around 2 to 3 billions dollars. But that was also due to having to getting it's first 'refill' for the reactors.

The type of refitting I'm talking about goes far beyond anything you have seen in the present fleet. Modular design literally allows you to have a single ship with the capabilities of being adapted for hundreds of different specific jobs.

And it's not like the Navy hasn't been thinking about this for awhile already. A couple of years ago they even considered an idea of having multiple ships that can travel fast meet at a desired location anywhere in the world and physically link up to form an entire floating airport. With scalable capacity!

They dropped it as being too ambitious and presently too expensive but something like that will come out in the future eventually.

Hell back in the 1970's all of the super carriers had to be refitted before they could use the F-14. That was much more involved then lets say reftting for the F/A-18. The Tomcat's exhaust was far more powerful than the F-4's so it would blow down/ or burn up the Jet Blast Deflectors right behind the catapults. Hell, the F-14B and D was not allowed to go into full afterburner (and is the only plane that can do this without afterburner) while on the catapult for a few reasons. One, the F-14 on full afterburner will outrun the catapult which might cause the catapult to finally catch up with the F-14 and rip off the nose landing gear. Two, the afterburner will melt the Jet Blast Deflector and push it down. Three, there was no need to go on full afterburner because that is the quickest way short of putting holes in the fuel cells of burning up fuel very rapidly.

Emphasising the need for a modular design, which could have allowed for such an upgrade within one day at a dock by just switching modules of the flight deck. Everything could just be build on land and then slapped into place. No need to tear the old parts out if they just come out and slide the new parts in.

In the future the rate of technological improvement will only increase. Ship design has to adapt to those rapidly changing specs.

The new Ford class, USS George Bush and USS Ronald Reagan are all designed with the above in mind with much extra space designed and allotted for computer upgrades and future integration that no one has thought of yet.

Extra space only gets you so far, flexibility of design will also be called for eventually. Though the Navy will use the present fleet for all its worth and so will put off any major redesign until the technology pressure becomes overwhelmingly obvious.

The problem with planes is that you cannot design a jack of all trades plane that excells at everything.

Not with the present designs or construction methods but a modular design could be made that could indeed allow a ship model fit every need, it'll just swap out part/modules for each specific trade it will be required to perform.

The F-35 is getting pretty close to that ideal with common parts and airframe, even though the three variants will each have different capabilities. It just isn't modular yet so isn't flexible and is still regid in its design specs.

Eventually though modular designing will be seen in all design aspects of technology in the future. Computers are already heading that way, they got cellphone patents with modular design already, as well as some gaming handhelds. Car manufacturers are also working on a modular design platform in which the core of the vehical will be used for all car types sold by the company.

Not to mention the possibilities with nanotechnology and new construction methods already being pioneered now. It's just a question of when the Navy and other military branches start taking advantage of that technology and whether the technology is mature enough at that point to fulfill their needs.

[Juggernought]

I'm continually amazed by the depth in knowledge held by ppl on this site...I'm a pilot and even i don't get so deep down when talking on the subject. Lol, all gud tho, very interesting to see these two fire away.

[*zeo]

Thanks Juggernought, McAvoy has a lot of hands on experience and is very smart to boot with a good background knowledge on Naval history. His views are the practical reality as they exist now.

I'm the guy heavy into technology and my view is more on the potential and history revelance.

We're both right about what we are saying, I'm just pointing on how this reflects on history perspective and where we're going with it.

[Juggernought]

Yea it's good to see both view points, the guys behind the scenes are really working hard to astound us at every turn. A friend of mine works at the Tyndal AF base where some of the F-22's are based. Those things are amazing, and 90% of the tech on there is classified...and the thing that got me was that they have to put numerous limiters on them so that the pilots would be able to fly them. There is a very slow but gradual stream of variants of those technologies trickling into commercial and general aviation even now. So i'm sittin there in the ****pit flying in total cloud cover...at night...and still my screen is able to give me where i am relative to everything, terrain elvations, weather etc etc. Pretty amazing, and they have upgrades yet to come.

[McAvoy]

Thanks Juggernought, McAvoy has a lot of hands on experience and is very smart to boot with a good background knowledge on Naval history. His views are the practical reality as they exist now.

Thanks. For clarification if anyone is interested I am an AME which means I work on ejection seats, LCS, ECS and oxygen systems. I worked on F-14B, F/A-18E and F/A-18F.

Not with the present designs or construction methods but a modular design could be made that could indeed allow a ship model fit every need, it'll just swap out part/modules for each specific trade it will be required to perform.

The Super Hornets already have this ability though not quite modular. For example that the Super Hornets can refuel other planes with the ARS pod which allowed the SH to replace the S-3. Or they could equip it with the SHARPS pod. The ATs can also reprogram the avionics for specific missions.

One of the biggest problems with a modular design for a Navy ship is the structural design which gets extremely complicated the bigger the ships gets especially when it gets to the size of a super carrier. Right now the flight deck is considered part of the main structural element of the carrier that is almost on the same scale of importance as the ship's keel. Without the flight deck, the ship would twist excessively. Ships longer than around 800 feet need fairly deep girders to maintain their ridgity in the seaway.

Though I can see modular designs in destroyers or cruisers. (Actually the whole distinction between destroyers and cruisers is muddled).

[*zeo]

Apparently customizeability is the wave of the future.

Here's some examples:

http://www.gunslot.com/guns/magpul-masada (This gun can be customized on the spot and even fire different types of ammo depending on what parts you slap together for it.)

http://www.defensereview.com/modules.ph ... le&sid=975

http://www.popsci.com/military-aviation ... s-tomorrow (Example of the Navy's new concept of Modular Bays so the ship can quickly be customized for different types of missions) http://www.baesystems.com/Newsroom/News ... 63127.html

You are right that it will be harder to put such systems on a Carrier but not impossible. There are far stronger building materials being developed and constructions methods are always being improved. It'll just take a new way of thinking to properly design such a vessel.

In part they will be putting some advances in the next CVNX-1 Carrier slated to replace the USS Enterprise in a couple of years, primarily an improved electrical system that would also better allow for customization as power can be delivered efficiently wherever it is required. The steam catapult is to be replaced with an electro-magnetic aircraft launching system (EMALS), as well as an electro-magnetic aircraft recovery system. As you can well imagine such systems will shave a lot of weight and greatly reduce the wear and tear of day to day Carrier activity.

The improved electrical system will allow it to quickly adapt to new technology as it comes out.

It's only the CVNX-2 that's still up in the air as to whether they just improve on the CVNX-1 or do a complete redesign, so we'll see if they adapt more modulation or not.

[McAvoy]

Actually what you are talking about the Ford class. The USS Gerald Ford will replace the Enterprise, and the CNX-2 will replace the Nimitz. The G. Bush will replace the ****ty Kitty. The CVNX-1 also will have only three elevators, new type of reactor that is lighter that is more maintainence friendly and is supposedly better in fuel than the older reactors from the Nimitz class (though there are two types of Nimitz classes). It also has the improvements carried over from the Bush and Reagen like the bulbous bow for more bouyancy in the bow. It is also part stelathy too so it doesn't show up on radar.

Oh it is not in a couple of years, more like five years in 2013 which shows how long it takes to build a carrier.

...but what I would really like to see the Iowa class recommissioned so I can cross-rate and serve on one of those ships. Unfortunately they are way too expensive for the Navy.

[*zeo]

It was originally slated for 2012 when it was still called CVNX-1 and may be delayed as long as 2015. And yes the new reactor is going to be very impressive, with a three fold increase in available electrical energy from a smaller and easier to maintain design. And they take full advantage of it with the new electrical power grid and generations layout.

Here's a more good summary description for those who are interested...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._ ... ft_carrier

In part modular design is what they have done with the electrical system, so the ship can take damage and still provide power wherever it is needed as well as allow complete customization of the ship's interior as equipment becomes pretty much plug and play. One of the advantages of modulations is automation and simplicity. So in part they've taken the first steps in this direction as they try to lower costs while keeping flexibility and combat readiness.

Like you said, it may be difficult to employ full modulation is such a large vessel but it seems they've managed to at least make it so the equipment onboard can be handled modularly.

I don't believe the CVNX-2 has been named yet as its design and specifications are still up in the air. Though last I heard it would emphasis agility compared to previous carrier designs. Possibly a complete redesign like the dual hull designs they've been considering lately, I believe the twin hull design is referred to as Swath.

Not really a new design, like going back to ancient civilization days, but the Navy has been experimenting with it for everything from stealth ships to battle ships in the last several years.

The twin hulls makes the ship harder to sink, more stable at sea, faster, and more maneuverable. Carriers have to be wide anyway, so that could be a good design to use. Even helps with relatively shallow water so the vessel can operate closer to land.

There are many ways they could improve the vessel design really.

[McAvoy]

It's unlikely that the CVN-81 will be something different than the Ford class. It costs too much money to design a carrier from scratch. It's one of the reasons why the Nimitz class has been building for 30 years.

[*zeo]

And the USS Enterprise is over 50 years old.

I understand that but I never said the CVN-81 would be anything but a Ford class.

"X" Stands for the Navy just like X-Plane stands for the Airforce. Until they give it a final official designation it can be any number they want.

The F-35 was originally considered for F-24 for example.

For the foreseeable future the Ford Class will be the way they go.

CVNX-2 is for all intents and purpose right now just the design designation for a possible future design that will eventually replace the Ford Class.

The only reason it's the CVNX-2 is because the Navy considered both at the same time.

Just like they can have multiple X-Plane designs competing. But just because they choose one doesn't mean the other is just dropped, especially if the other one is the more advance design.

They even considered CVNX-2 over the CVNX-1 but they couldn't wait for the technology and as you said a total redesign would be expensive. So they went with the CVNX-1 design, which became the Ford Class.

The CVNX-2 is now the only CVX program (as you probably know N just stands for nuclear which may change in future designs) and could take decades for them to work out all the design details before it gets considered again for the next Carrier Class.

[McAvoy]

Well, the US Navy always do Navy studies since 1886. They did during the battleships design process and hell they did before the conversion of the Lexington and Saratoga conversions. They ironically designed the carrier of 1918 to 1919 based on the battlecruiser design studies that was eventually going to be the Lexington class battlecruiser. Though it was an earlier design with the 10x14"/50 caliber, with 24 boilers (and seven funnels) as opposed to the final design of the 8x16"/50 caliber, with 16 boilers. Hell they even proposed instead of the proposed six that one of two wcould be converted into aircraft carriers. Many think that the Lexington class aircraft carriers could have been built differently, but in reality they would have been built similarly, though slightly different due to the advanced construction state of the battlecruisers.

During the 1930's there were multiple design studies which also included the USS Hornet which the Navy found that the Hornet was indeed too small to be effective. Of course battleship design studies were done all throughout the 1920's and 1930's.

But the biggest problem is that the US Navy could afford to build up to 17 fast battleships, two North Carolina class treaty batleship, four South Dakota treaty battleships, six Iowa class fast battleships, five Montana class super battleships, 24 Essex class Fleet carriers, and five Midway class Fleet Carriers. Nowadays the Navy can afford to built only a carrier every three years, so it really cannot afford to build an untested design. CVNX-2 I can tell you will continue for a long time. But the CVNX-1 is already the Ford class which will replace the Enterprise and various Nimitz class carriers.

[*zeo]

Actually that depends on what ship class you're referring to. For Carriers yes, you are correct that they can't afford to do more than generational redesigns, though the CVNX-2 could still be a completely revolutionary design, it was after all part of their design considerations to go with something completely new to future proof the design.

The CVNX-1 (Ford) was the compromise design, which just improved the interior design and some ship construction methods to lower overall costs without going with untested and possibly expensive redesigns. They even lowered the total crew requirements by about 300. So should be good for the next few decades and save the Navy some much needed chunk of their budget for other concerns. Congress should be happy

But remember our Navy is also competing with other countries and status quo can only be maintained so long before some serious redesign gets seriously considered despite the cost. They just put it off for a few decades.

For the smaller vessels though they are doing fairly constant redesigns and experimental ship types. Such as stealth ships, different hull designs like the Swath, etc. We're getting new ships for everything from the cost guard to battleships. Some of which are completely revolutionary in design.

Especially with new weapon systems like railguns, which present and older ships simply can't use since they don't have the power systems required. As well as other developing systems like drones, etc. that will seriously change how battles are done in the future.

Though admittedly much of these new technologies will still take years before we see more of them. I think by the time your kids are ready to join up that the Navy will look very different from the way it does today.

[McAvoy]

CVNX-1 may have been a compromize but it was a good one. Even by 2013, the US Navy would still have the need for normal carriers and the Ford class would have been good enough even at that time. This is no longer of the US Navy of the 40's and 50's where they can spend huge amounts of money on coventional and non-conventional designs.

The US Navy for the past 100 years has always been on the forefront of naval developments. They may not have developed them originally, but they matured them. The superfiring turret for their first dreadnought, the South Carolina class allowed for a ship to have equal firepower to other nations dreadnoughts on a fraction of the size and one less turret due to better placement. It was the Russians who came up with the idea of the superfiring turret, but never went forward with it. The South Carolina class would have been the first dreadnought before HMS Dreadnought if it wasn't for Congress being so slow.

The develpment of the large fleet carrier was a direct result of the converted large hulls of the Lexington class battlecruisers that allowed in conjunction with the USS Langley and the USS Ranger that allowed the Navy to conclude that the most efficient carrier was a large one. It was the British who came up with the idea of angled flight decks, and it was the Navy would developed the idea even further.

However, the CVNX-2 design is still to radical for today's needs. Something as expensive as the carrier would need further time and money before the Congress can be covinced that the new CVNX-2 design is superior to the CVNX-1 design.

BTW, the Navy hasn't done anything on the battleships aside from a few studies for the past two decades. It would cost anywhere from a mere reactivation cost of 500 million to 2 billion dollars to fully refit them from 1980's technology to 2008 technology. The biggest problem with battleships is that we don't have the industry to foll out armor plates, and manufacture 16" shells anymore and on top of that have manpower to man the battleships. Also, they're overkill for today's oceans. There are not alot of armor piercing shells or missiles that can penetrate battleship armor.