To ease some of this confusion, I've published a page (see the tabbed menu across the top of the blog) with my proposed complete fleet structure and descriptions of individual elements. With this, the reader can place any specific asset under discussion into the proper overall context.
Recognize that this fleet structure is subject to change as ideas are modified and refined.
I've omitted the entire logistics support fleet, at least for the time being.
I've proposed a two-tier war-peace fleet. This page covers only the war fleet.
The page is intended as a reference and is, therefore, closed to comments but feel free to comment in this post.
Check it out and enjoy!
Had a quick look at the fleet composition. Interesting. Ships which don't exist are on the list- battleships.
ReplyDeleteWhat is an ASW carrier? You mean similar to what the Japanese have?
Andrew
Sorry CNO- have had a longer look now- explanations underneath. Bit embarrassed by that
ReplyDeleteAndrew
Hm. Why no conventionally powered submarines ?
ReplyDeleteAlso, wouldn't it be a better solution to only have Midway-sized carriers ? The overall cost would be less, and its better to have all your eggs in numerous buckets...
I have no particular objection to SSKs. It's simply a matter of priorities within the confines of the budget. If we could get all that I've laid out and had money left over I'd be happy to have SSKs.
DeleteEvery study ever performed (and there have been many) has come to the same conclusion - full size carriers are superior in every way to smaller carriers. If you compare the air wings that I described for the large and smaller carriers you'll see why we need large carriers.
https://blog.usni.org/posts/2009/08/27/the-monster-myths-of-the-cvl-concept
DeleteFirst immediate thoughts looks sensible, totally agree with ships dedication in roles.
ReplyDeleteYour thinking behind numbers chosen for different classes
No mine hunters/sweepers?
A few minor queries
Phalanx, is it effective, have seen no convincing trials results, did I miss them.
The Hensoldt TRS-3D/4D C-band radar in the Cruiser and AAW escort with the AMDR/SPY-6, would replace the TRS with new cheaper/lighter Saab SeaGiraffe 1X or equivalent X-band to mount high up for surface surveillance to compliment the SPY-6 S-band, 1X uses new GaN silicon and so much harder to jam as can transmit on different frequencies, than the older (2002) AN/SPQ-9B X-band and only transmit on a single frequency at any one time, though makes SPQ-9B low cost, $4.4M each.
PS Agree with above comment on conventional submarines, nuclear very expensive, only one nuclear plant production facility and two shipyards qualified to build nuclear subs so severly limiting numbers, same thinking as to your choice of nuclear supercarrier and small carrier?
"Your thinking behind numbers chosen for different classes"
DeleteThat's an interesting question. The fleet I've laid out is not sized for a sustained war. It's sized for the first year of a war while we gear up production.
"No mine hunters/sweepers?"
There are endless auxilliary vessel types that I've simply omitted for sake of brevity. I would call for a dedicated MCM vessel - a modernized Avenger and MCM motherships.
"Phalanx, is it effective, have seen no convincing trials results, did I miss them."
No one knows because it's never been tested in full auto mode in a realistic scenario, as far as I know. That said, I'm a big fan of the "wall of lead" defensive concept for that last ditch effort.
"would replace the TRS with new cheaper/lighter Saab SeaGiraffe"
The radar designation is a place holder. I would leave the exact radar selection up to the technical experts. I'll take any radar that meets the conceptual requirement of decent coverage at an affordable price. This is not the place for a maximum capability radar. It only needs to deal with medium range targets for ESSM.
"conventional submarines,"
See reply above.
"No mine hunters/sweepers?"
DeleteCNO "There are endless auxilliary vessel types that I've simply omitted for sake of brevity. I would call for a dedicated MCM vessel - a modernized Avenger and MCM motherships."
Why emphasized the mine hunters/sweepers, would not expect battleship to engage its 16" guns for infantry gun support at limited range unless sea swept for mines, admirals historically have been paranoid about losing battleship to mines in littoral waters.
"Phalanx, is it effective, have seen no convincing trials results, did I miss them."
CNO "No one knows because it's never been tested in full auto mode in a realistic scenario, as far as I know. That said, I'm a big fan of the "wall of lead" defensive concept for that last ditch effort."
All in favor of wall of lead, but also a believer in rule of thumb, caliber^3 x rof,
Phalanx 20 x 20 x20 x 4500 = 36,000,000 v. Oerlikon Contraves Millennium 35 x 35 x 35 x 1000 = 42,875,000 :)
"Conventional submarines"
CNO "I have no particular objection to SSKs. It's simply a matter of priorities within the confines of the budget. If we could get all that I've laid out and had money left over I'd be happy to have SSKs.
Its about numbers, SSN very, very limited build capacity, SSK allow much higher build numbers.
CNO "Every study ever performed (and there have been many) has come to the same conclusion - full size carriers are superior in every way to smaller carriers. If you compare the air wings that I described for the large and smaller carriers you'll see why we need large carriers."
Slightly cynical about those studies, perhaps wrongly, but just think self serving Navy/Industry justification for building CVN's, Ford dates from 2008 or earlier and be operational in 2020 hopefully, an extreme case but telling, may be a new Nimitz will get back to reasonable build rate.
"Millennium"
DeleteI have no problem with Millenium or any other CIWS type weapon IF SOMEONE CAN PROVE THEY ARE SUPERIOR IN A REALISTIC TEST. US naval observers are all in love with the Millenium based on ... nothing. There is absolutely no information that I'm aware of about its actual performance. Just like our systems which all sound good on paper but all have significant performance limitations, I'm sure the Millenium has its own set of problems and limits. We just don't hear about them. So, put 'em in a side by side, realistic test and I'll gladly take whichever is best. Until then, I'll stick with the existing USN standard CIWS.
"Its about numbers,"
DeleteNo, it's about capability. An SSN is far superior to an SSK in all but a very narrow set of circumstances. If it was just about numbers, we'd all be overjoyed about the LCS program, wouldn't we?
As I said, if I have extra budget I'd love to have a handful of SSKs but not at the expense of a single SSN.
"Slightly cynical about those studies, perhaps wrongly,"
DeleteThere's no perhaps about it, you're wrong. The studies are crystal clear. There is no one more skeptical of conventional wisdom than your ComNavOps and I'm completely sold on the large carrier superiority. The only exception arises when you simply price yourself out of the large carrier business, as we're in the process of doing.
Interestingly, the Navy tried very much wanted small carriers right from the start. The Wasp was an attempt at a small carrier but they quickly realized that it just wasn't as good as a large carrier by any measure. Literally, people have been trying to justify small carriers since the first carrier was built!
How about Goalkeeper CIWS? 30x173mm GAU-8 gatling from the A-10 Warthog. Already in U.S. stockpiles, spares are in production, used by multiple allies around the world. Much higher kinetic energy on the receiving end.
Delete"The GAU-8/A Avenger 30 mm Gatling gun, as used by the A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft, was selected for the system. The 30x173mm cartridge has a greater projectile mass than the 20x102mm cartridge fired by the Phalanx CIWS M61 Vulcan, so it provides much greater destructive power with similar muzzle velocity but significantly increased range.
The 30x173mm MPDS cartridge has a discarding nylon sleeve (sabot) with a 21 mm sub-calibre tungsten penetrator. The nylon sabot provides a seal between penetrator and barrel, and reduces wear."
"Goalkeeper"
DeleteAgain, if someone can prove it's superior in realistic testing, I'm all for it.
All in favor of wall of lead, but also a believer in rule of thumb, caliber^3 x rof,
DeletePhalanx 20 x 20 x20 x 4500 = 36,000,000 v. Oerlikon Contraves Millennium 35 x 35 x 35 x 1000 = 42,875,000 :)
Sure, perhaps for aircraft or small boats, but if the primary purpose of the gun is to protect against incoming missiles, I would guess that the rate of fire would be far more important than a 20 mm round vs a 35 mm round. The incoming missile isn't exactly armored, and you're just looking to get a round or two on target.
Relative to your small carrier air wing, I would suggest a few tankers and helicopters for ASW and plane guard duty.
ReplyDeleteAlso, would you consider an ASW/Sea Control formation built around a small carrier, 1-2 ASW carriers, and 6-8 escorts (AAW, ASW, etc.)?
"I would suggest a few tankers and helicopters for ASW and plane guard duty."
DeleteA few tankers is pointless. If you want tankers then it needs to be 6-10 to be operationally useful. And then we may as well add 6-8 electronic warfare (Growlers) to round out the air wing. And, if we're going to add all that then it only makes sense to add more fighters and strike aircraft and a couple more AEW. Oh crap, we've just created a full size air wing and a full size carrier!
No. No. No. A small air wing for a smaller carrier is small for a reason. Did you read the operational groupings? Small carriers don't fight alone. They fight with large carriers which is where they get the tankers and helos they need.
The small carrier is, basically, extra aircraft for the large carrier.
Trying to add every capability to every platform is how we wind up with $15B Fords.
"ASW/Sea Control formation"
DeleteNo. This is one of those notions that is appealing in concept but fails the reality check. It's too small and weak, as a group, to accomplish anything significant and uses up too many assets for what it can accomplish.
I have yet to hear any reasonable justification or realistic mission for such a group. Feel free to propose a specific mission against a realistic threat. Maybe you can change my mind. You'll note that I did propose ASW hunter/killer groups.
CNO, I read your comment to mean that the large carrier would use the smaller carrier's aircraft for the offensive task.
DeleteOne use for a lower spec carrier is to provide defence for the large more resilient carrier so that the larger carrier can use it's sortie rate for the task in hand. This keeps the smaller carrier more out of harms way.
I stand to be corrected.
As I've stated, small carriers would operate with large carriers to supplement their air wings. Who provides the offense or defense, I'll leave to the air wing commanders to figure out.
DeleteCarriers operate in groups so the small carrier will be in no more or less danger than the large carrier.
Sortie rates are almost irrelevant and have rarely ever been a limiting factor. Combat air ops are generally pulse operations - a pulse of aircraft to conduct a strike, for example. Sortie rate is irrelevant.
Nukes. No mention of nuclear depth charges/torpedoes. I suspect in a gloves off peer conflict a carrier group wouldn’t be averse to dropping these after the first Ford or Nimitz was becoming an expensive, hot, reef.
ReplyDeleteI bet your incoming cruise salvo wouldn’t like a directed EMP blast if it could be launched early enough either.
Nuclear warfare is unlikely and is far beyond my expertise so I leave that area alone.
DeleteWhat about CBW ?, GSFG would blitz CBW on day 4 or 5, when NATO was fully engaged. CBW attacks on fixed facilities by Russian forces should be allowed for.
DeleteMr. Wurzburg
For the battleship, how about using something like a VLS ATCAMS for SRBM, drop the IRBM, and merge into just VLS tubes.
ReplyDeleteIRBM strikes are a different mission type, and just as well handled by subs. By dropping that mission, you get a more flexible ship and one less major system.
ATACMS does not have the range to be really useful. Tomahawk is better.
DeleteOne of the goals of a ship-mounted IRBM is to provide a more survivable (via mobility) launch platform as opposed to a fixed, land location. Hence, the BB.
A purpose built IRBM submarine, as you suggest, is a complementary or alternative possibility. A BB can do many things and still has room for a IRBM system. A sub would only be able to do the IRBM and would have no other use. I'd rather mount the system on a BB, for that reason.
A possible tweek on the ASW carrier, it would be useful if this vessel was more substantial to the point of being a refuelling support ship for the ASW group.
ReplyDeleteThe Royal Navy did this with with the Fort Victoria class even to the point where they were going to be fitted with Seawolf PDMS. They also carried up to five Sea King helicopters for actual ASW use or as replacements for the helicopters of the Type 23 frigates that they were meant to operate with in the Nth Atlantic.
"it would be useful if this vessel was more substantial"
DeleteYes, it would. It would also be useful if this vessel had some fixed wing fighter aircraft to provide protection for the ASW group. Also useful would be strike aircraft just in case they can find some surface subs. Electronic warfare aircraft would be useful to help in group defense. Of course, fixed wing ASW aircraft would be great. It would probably be useful to add a substantial gun/missile battery for anti-small craft defense. A good sonar and array suite would undoubtedly be useful, too. Should I keep going or do you see the point?
If we add everything that would be useful, as opposed to minimally mandatory for the mission, we'll wind up with mammoth, mammothly expensive, do-everything ships that we can't afford in sufficient numbers and that will cost too much to risk performing the very task they were intended for.
Warship design is easy when you have an infinite budget - just add everything! With a budget, you have to design for the MINIMUM mandatory functions.
Would the battleships and independent cruisers be nuclear powered vessels?
ReplyDeleteI'm ambivalent about nuclear power. It has advantages and disadvantages. I'll leave that decision to the naval designers. I'm inclined to go conventional since the escorts would need conventional refueling anyway.
DeleteMy main concern with nuclear power is the mess that it will cause from battle damage. I can foresee one shot mission kills with abandoned vessels due to spilled radioactive materials from relatively minor hits. That would be operationally tragic.
I was a nuclear trained engine room operator on an aircraft carrier, but I'm no longer a proponent of nuclear powered surface ships. Perhaps having a few nuclear powered large carriers makes sense, but otherwise conventional power is the way to go for surface ships. The only big advantage is being able to do top speed over long distances, but that isn't nearly as impressive as it sounds. With less expensive conventional ships, we can afford more of them, and station a few of them in friendly ports closer to where they may be needed. Nuclear power comes with a lot of logistical baggage that most people never see.
DeleteRepair of battle damage on a nuclear powered ship would have severe political consequences. The repair work would need to be done at a domestic shipyard certified for nuclear work, and most of these are operating near capacity during peacetime. Now imagine a damaged ship limping back into port possibly leaking radioactive contamination. How would the local community react to even a slight possibility their bay and beaches becoming contaminated?
Completely agree about the consequences of battle damage leading to radiation. I don't think the Navy has thought through the issue.
DeleteYou make a really good point about the yard availability. Excellent!
Also way easier to surge wartime production of conventional ships. During budget cuts, conventional ships can be "mothballed" until needed again. Can't do that with nuclear powered ships.
DeleteYet another excellent point.
DeleteMM-13B I worked at PSNS. I know of some of the baggage you mentioned. For one thing, you need Grade A water source (pure water ?) you need a way to get that to the ship. You need Radcon people to monitor radiation levels. Depending on what needs to be repair, often specially made gear.
DeleteAlso, once the reactor goes hot, don't you need to man the reactor till the day it is removed from the ship ? Also, I get the impression that refueling is a major undertaking, as you need to reach the reactor compartment, which is down on lower levels of the ship. I know that depending on what needs to be repaired, extensive hands on training on a mock up may be needed, along with any special tools, which need to be constructed. Then cleaned for use. Then properly stored, etc.
Also, most people dont realize, that there is only one drydock on the west coast that can handle carriers, and it is starting to show its age, drydock 6, it was built and finished around 1960. That affects the hull design, you cant build a carrier bigger than the drydocks available.
Idea for your "small" carrier: I like your general idea of waste cats only, but how about adding a ski-jump to the forward deck. Boeing, trying to get a contract with India, has announced the F/A-18 super hornet capable of both catapult and ski-jump take off. This assumes the super hornet is the main fighter and attack aircraft. They could launch forward from the jump or from the cats. Other aircraft requiring cats would of course use them. The ski jump would not add much cost, only take up a small amount of deck park space, and add flexibility. Granted, you couldn't use the jump and forward parking at the same time, air bosses call.
ReplyDeleteAny opinions?
I saw that bit about Boeing proclaiming the Hornet able to use the jump ramp. HOWEVER, Boeing is not the most reliable source and will say anything to get a contract and worry about the reality later. It's likely that a Hornet can achieve flight from a ramp. But, can it do so with a useful weapons and fuel load? I suspect not.
DeleteOne of the main reasons for my choice to eliminate the forward cats was to gain the parking space. The ramp eliminates much of that so what have we gained? We already believe that we can generate sufficient launch rates with just the waist cats so the ramp adds nothing and subtracts parking.
So, no, I'm not in favor of ramps.
Related question: Cats can be used in any flyable weather. Can a ramp be used in any flyable weather? I have no idea but I suspect they're limited to certain sea states? Don't know.
Unlike catapults, a ramp would be easy and inexpensive to add or remove after the ship has performed carrier quals. First two ships in class: build one with ramp and one without, and then see how well both arrangements work. Add or remove ramp as needed and build rest of class accordingly. This assumes f-18 or whatever aircraft we will be using is really capable of both catapult and ramp launch.
DeleteI have a couple questions:
ReplyDelete1) You stated that supercarriers are superior to small carriers, and yet your fleet structure calls for small carriers. As I understand your reasoning, supercarriers are simply too expensive: 2 supercarriers might be better than 3 small carriers, but we don’t have enough money for 2 supercarriers (As an example).
But is it not true that a large part of that cost is profit? I have no idea what the cost for a Nimitz is to make. I personally (Based on little) think that it could be done for $2 billion (Considering the triple-digit profit margins of military contractors), but even assuming say, a 20% profit margin, a $9.36 billion Nimitz would cost $7.5 billion if manufactured by the state (As you suggested before). That would surely make an exclusively supercarrier fleet affordable?
2) Your battleship carries, as secondaries 4 double 6” guns and 2 single 5” guns. This is as an oddly specific secondary armament. Would it not be cheaper, logistics wise, to have a single caliber? Historically, the main roles for secondaries with defeating small ships and shore bombardment. Both of these would usually mean only one broadside could be brought to bear.
I would like to submit 2 centerline 6” guns as a more cost-effective solution (Like the Yamato). It would have more weight in a broadside, which means 9/10 it would be a more effective secondary, but with fewer guns, it might actually be cheaper. Further decreasing the cost, is using only one type of ammunition, which decreases logistics overhead.
Addendum: You have suggested that a possible arrangement for the battleship's guns is only 2 guns forward. Besides possible weight issues, this would cut out 33% of the battleship’s firepower! Would you consider the opposite; 2 guns forward and 2 guns aft (Montana style), possibly as a successor class.
Your original suggestion for a battleship had 6 SeaRAM and 4 Phalanx, which you have since increased to 8 SeaRAM and 12 Phalanx. On such a massive ship, would you consider the possibility of adding even CIWS.
3) You state your independent cruiser would carry radar, IR, and visual stealth features. What does visual stealth mean?
4) Why does the independent cruiser carry standard missiles? Isn’t it supposed to be the one being escorted? Wouldn’t it only need self-defense
5) You state your independent cruiser is meant for operations without air cover. This may be necessary with the current US Navy, but with so many aircraft carriers, if you have anything you have air cover. Is an independent cruiser really necessary?
6) You state that the main tasks of the independent cruiser would be anti-surface warfare and land attack. The battleship seems to fulfill all these tasks. While it is not as stealthy, it makes up for this with heavier armor, and it is hard to imagine that an AMDR equipped, IR suppressing, stealthy independent cruiser would be so much cheaper than a battleship. The difference between and 64 VLS and 32 IRBMs vs 96 VLS is not so much. Considering they would likely have equal capabilities and equal-cost perhaps could conduct independent operations itself. Is an independent cruiser really necessary?
7) Your destroyer carries 2 SeaRAM and 2 Phalanx CIWS. Considering how cheap and effective CIWS, would not adding more CIWS satisfy the air defense task much more effectively and without much additional cost. Would you consider 4 SeaRAM and 4 Phalanx CIWS instead?
8) Would you consider depth charges as an effective ASW tool?
9) You have stated you dislike aviation carrier and amphibious ship hybrids, yet your fleet structure calls for 9 of them. Why is that?
10) You stated your preference for 8” guns over 5”. Shouldn’t the assault support ship be equipped with them instead?
11) Your carrier surface group has 32 escorts. Yet in your escort post, you suggested having 38 escorts. How many do you believe should be used? How do your ships fit in with the escort dynamic you suggested before?
P.S. Is there a reason the font for aircraft carriers is different from the rest?
A COUPLE of questions???? Whew! All right, I'll try to address them without becoming a book length tome!
DeleteMost important first: "Is there a reason the font for aircraft carriers is different from the rest?"
Yes, the blogger engine is VERY limited in capability and flexibility and has many uncontrollable quirks. I don't always have total control over the resulting appearance and I've found that the longer the writing, the more quirks appear. So, there was no intended reason for a different font, it just came out that way.
All right, with that out of the way, let's address the lesser items. First, let me say that the ship specs are notional. That is, they represent ballpark characteristics. Thus, one or two more or less CIWS, for example, doesn't matter. If, say, 6 CIWS were specified for some ship, that means I believe that it needs far more than the current US Navy practice of 1 or 2 per ship. If someone, such as yourself, wants to argue for 7 or 8 instead of 6, I'd have no great objection IF THEY COULD FIT. These are notional designs. I'd leave the exact specs to a naval design team. That probably addresses half your questions. Now …
1) Carriers. No one knows what the profit portion of a carrier is. Standard industry practice mandates a profit of 10%-20% so I assume it's in that ballpark. Far and away, the major cost contributor, aside from actual equipment, is yard overhead which is a direct function of construction time. I've posted on this. Check the archives. The longer it takes to build a ship, the greater the overhead cost portion. We've been dragging out ship construction times and driving up the total cost as a trade to get decreased yearly construction costs. That's a fool's path.
The Ford class costs around $15B+. That's nearly an entire yearly shipbuilding budget for a single ship so, no, we certainly can't afford a fleet of Ford class supercarriers.
2) Battleship secondary armament is for ground gun support and anti-ship. The 6" is far superior for ground support to the 5" and is better suited as a ship killer WHEN THE 16" IS NOT APPROPRIATE. The 5" is useful for smaller ships like patrol boats. This is one spec that I could be persuaded to go all 6" or all 5".
3) Visual stealth is any feature or system that degrades EO sensors. This includes shaping, like smaller superstructures and fewer protuberances, as well as multi-spectral obscurants.
4) By definition, an independent cruiser would be very likely to face unhindered air threats and a long range AAW missile is required. If a cruiser has room for Standards without impacting its main missions, it only makes sense to equip it.
5)Carrier air cover in a war will be VERY limited. We only have 9 functional carrier air wings and each wing has only 44 combat aircraft. Carriers will operate in groups of 4. Thus, we'll only have 2 operational carrier groups at a time and that's before allowing for combat losses and damage. Unless we want to greatly curtail our naval operations, there will be MANY missions we'll need to execute without carrier air cover, especially around the more peripheral areas of the combat region.
6)A cruiser is necessary in addition to a battleship for the same reasons it was in WWII
7) Addressed
8) WWII 'ash can' depth charges are ineffective but a RBU-ish depth charge is highly desirable. I've posted on this. Check the archives.
9) Required to maintain a core of institutional knowledge about amphibious assault and to handle the occasional low end assault.
10) The assault support ship is NOT a gunfire support ship. It's a C-RAM ship that stands in very close. Gun support is provided by cruisers and battleships.
11) Again, the surface group is notional. The exact number of escorts is not important other than it should be A LOT!
I trust that answered your questions.
1) Obviously a full fleet of $15+ billion would not be affordable. However, couldn't a fleet of $7.5 billion Nimitz's be much more affordable? My point was that efficiently built Nimitz's might be much more affordable then it seems. It could be possible to build a fully exclusively supercarrier fleet for much less than it seems.
DeleteThe HMS Hood cost $400 million dollars, the Bismarck cost $1 billion dollars, the Iowa cost $1.5 billion dollars, and the Yamato cost $2 billion dollars (Approximately). It seems likely that military contractors are overcharging more than 20%!
2) I understand. I guess I am just curious, why such a specific armament, with both 5" and 6" guns, and both dual and single barreled guns?
3) I understand. Then my question is what benefit does that confer.
5) It is true that with current carrier air wings, air cover would be very hard to find. But your fleet has 27(!!) carriers. That is enough for 6 carrier groups.
6) Battlecruisers in WWII were specifically cruiser and destroyer killers. They were faster but less armored. Is this the purpose of your cruiser.
"couldn't a fleet of $7.5 billion Nimitz's be much more affordable?"
DeleteOf course it would be more affordable than a fleet of Fords, however, that doesn't make them affordable. Even at $7.5B, that sucks up half the yearly shipbuilding budget for a single ship. For a carrier every five years (required to maintain a 10-carrier fleet with a 50 year lifespan) that means we lose a half a years worth of new ships every five years. That's not sustainable. We either have to greatly reduce the cost of carriers or find a way to make 'smaller', cheaper carriers - hence, my carrier mix.
"It seems likely that military contractors are overcharging more than 20%!"
I have no evidence that that's occurring. It may be, but I've been unable to find any proof. It you have any, please share! I suspect that more mundane factors are at work, like overhead costs and a host of government imposed regulatory costs.
" what benefit does that confer."
What benefit does EO stealth confer?! The ability to defeat or evade EO guided missiles would seem to be an enormous benefit! Is this a trick question?
"But your fleet has 27(!!) carriers. That is enough for 6 carrier groups."
Have you thought through how many carriers will be needed to fight a war with China in a region where we have almost no air bases? Have you considered that, given the immensely long time to build a carrier, we will be unable to replace carrier combat losses in any useful time period? Are you aware of how many carriers we used in WWII?
"Is this the purpose of your cruiser."
In the simplest sense, the cruiser does the smaller jobs that a battleship is too busy for. The cruiser while more expensive than a destroyer, is still cheaper than a battleship and we can afford more of them. Same as WWII.
I think a combination of contractor profit and simple inefficiency increases costs by more than 20% (More than 100% probably!) but I only have circumstantial evidence for that.
Delete"In the simplest sense, the cruiser does the smaller jobs that a battleship is too busy for. The cruiser while more expensive than a destroyer, is still cheaper than a battleship and we can afford more of them. Same as WWII."
Here is the thing I am not sure about. While battleships have thicker armor, IRBMs, and large turrets those are all relatively low tech (Even IRBMs are not super advanced compared to stuff like Aegis). On the other hand, your independent cruiser has AMDR, stealth shaping, EO stealth, IR suppression, etc. It's unlikely that it is that much cheaper than a battleship.
On the other hand, if the battleship was significantly larger (Montana-class or larger), then I could understand the logic behind it.
Either way, I appreciate the prompt and detailed response.
"independent cruiser has AMDR, stealth shaping, EO stealth, IR suppression, etc. It's unlikely that it is that much cheaper than a battleship."
DeleteThe armor, alone, for a battleship adds much more cost than a cruiser since it's 2x-3x more armor.
Stealth shaping costs nothing - it's just the shape of the ship. You have to shape the steel in some form. In this case, whether you angle it (stealth) or install it vertically (WWII) it's, essentially, the same amount of steel requiring the same amount of effort.
EO stealth is just some reduced superstructure (lower cost!) and multi-spectral smoke emitters (nearly free!).
IR suppression is some judicious shaping and locating of exhausts to minimize 'visible' heat combined with a seawater washdown system (which you needed for NBC protection anyway) to cool surfaces. It's a bunch of water hoses!
As a point of comparison, an Iowa is 60,000 ton displacement. A large cruiser such as the Des Moines is 20,000 ton. The battleship is 3x the displacement. There's your cost difference! A cruiser starts off being 3x cheaper just based on the basic hull.
An Iowa class turret weighed 1700 tons. A Des Moines turret weighed 450 ton. Four times less steel, four times cheaper!
And so on. There's really no comparison in cost. That's not to say that a cruiser, such as I've described, would be cheap. It wouldn't! But it wouldn't come close to a battleship. I would wildly speculate, based on the kind of comparisons I've cited, that you could get two cruisers for the cost of one battleship. Of course, until the Navy actually designs both ships and builds them, it's mostly just semi-informed speculation.