Reader ‘SRB’ recently wondered about how to make a carrier
stealthy. What a great thought
exercise! Let’s have some fun and explore
the idea a bit.
At first glance, it would seem difficult or impossible to
make a carrier stealthy and still retain its full functionality. The sheer size, alone, makes it a challenging
task. In addition, the sponsons add all
kinds of non-stealthy protuberances. Sprinkle
on the multitude of weapons, masts, radars, domes, etc. and the task seems
impossible. Well, that means we’ll need
to think outside the box to design a stealthy carrier. In no particular order, here are some design
characteristics of a stealthy carrier.
Aircraft Elevators – Conventional external, side
opening elevators would be eliminated in favor of internal elevators that
momentarily open at flight deck level to load/unload aircraft. This eliminates the non-stealthy openings and
external elevator gear and allows a smooth, uninterrupted hull whose shape can
be maximized for stealth.
Sponsons – Sponsons, whose purpose is to mount
weapons out of the way of the flight deck, would be eliminated and the weapons
converted to forms that are embedded in the hull (side angled VLS cells, for
example) or retractable (under the flight deck, for example, as flight ops
would not be conducted while firing weapons).
A carrier is mammoth and it’s not as if a carrier has lots of
weapons. We should be able to find
plenty of room.
Island – The island, if it is still needed, would
take the form of a typical slanted superstructure of a surface ship like the
LCS or Visby. In fact, the Ford class
has a slightly stealthy island with a couple of slanted faces. Of course, it then totally negates any
benefit by festooning the island with protruding bridges, catwalks, masts,
domes, etc.
Even better than a stealthy, slanted superstructure would be
no superstructure, at all. Why not have
the functions buried inside the ship? The only possible legitimate need for an
island is to provide an elevated overwatch from which to direct flight deck
activities and movements. However, I’m
thinking that we could function without this by using extensive camera views
from many dozens of angles with the views being assembled into an ‘overhead’
view via software manipulations.
Antennae – All antennae (Satcoms and the like) would
have to be flush mounted into the superstructure just as radar panels are now.
Aircraft Spotting – Assuming a stealthy carrier would
only operate stealthy aircraft, deck spotting should not be a major problem as
far as impacting radar signature since the aircraft are, inherently,
stealthy.
Overhangs – I don’t know whether deck overhangs
negatively impact stealth but I suspect they do. A stealthy carrier would need a smooth hull
that joins the deck all around – no overhanging decks.
 |
| An artist's concept of a stealth carrier |
Discussion
One obvious implication from the preceding is that we’ll
need a lot more internal ship’s volume to contain the many external functions
that need to be internalized. Just as it
is a challenge to find room for internal weapon bays on stealth aircraft, so
too, will it be a challenge to find room for the carriers external functions
that now need to be moved internally.
This dictates that we ruthlessly eliminate any current function that is
not directly combat related. That means
eliminating crew comforts, non-essential functions such as the extensive and
powerful radar fits (carriers don’t radiate in combat), one or two aircraft
elevators, and so forth.
Clearly, any attempt at a serious stealth carrier would
result in a design well outside the conventional box but, why not? There’s nothing inherently impossible in the
task. The basic carrier design hasn’t
changed since pre-WWII. Perhaps it’s
time. What do you think? Could we build a stealthy carrier with enough
stealth to be worth the effort?
It’s an interesting concept and perhaps we could learn something useful from the exercise even if it was confined to ‘paper’.
ReplyDeleteBut I don’t think it would be worth the time and expense to pursue it beyond that for the following reasons.
1. Anti-stealth technology is inevitably going to develop progressively to the point at which our point in time 2025 stealth design solution will be largely ineffective.
2. I think we’re in the twilight years of the aircraft carrier as a cost-effective (or even effective) weapons platform. Just as in WW2 we saw battleships costing millions of dollars sunk by torpedoes costing only a few thousand dollars, so in a modern day conflict we’re likely to see our carriers destroyed in short order by enemy hypersonic missiles against which we have no defense.
So I think we should stop building the Fords and spend the money on something else.
OT but interesting to read that HII and Hyundai have just inked a preliminary agreement to work closely together to repair and maintain USN warships and train a new generation of American shipyard workers.
I would offer a few counter-points for your consideration.
Delete1. While the ability of large, complex, ?multi-static? radars to detect stealth aircraft may be improving, as you note, the capabilities of the small seekers in an anti-ship missile do not have anywhere near that level of capability or power. Ship stealth against missiles will remain effective for the foreseeable future.
Further, while stealth in the future may not offer the 'magic' protection it does now, it will still be the price of admission to the future naval battlefield. In other words, while stealth may not provide the protection it does now (your opinion, not mine), the lack of stealth will be a quick and certain death warrant.
2. Carriers are at risk from hypersonic weapons ( or anti-ship missiles or torpedoes or whatever) ONLY IF THEY CAN BE TARGETED. That means the attacker must have an effective thousand mile sensing/targeting system and that is not on the foreseeable horizon for many decades to come. Thus, the carrier is in no greater danger than they are today.
I think you're also greatly overestimating the effectiveness of hypersonic missiles. At the moment, they are heavy on hype and very light on actual performance. For example, Russia has employed hypersonic cruise missiles against Ukraine with, apparently, extremely mixed results, at best.
"we saw battleships costing millions of dollars sunk by torpedoes costing only a few thousand dollars"
This is as skewed as can be. Battleships weren't sunk by torpedoes. They were sunk by torpedo SYSTEMS, meaning a sub or aircraft carrier that used torpedoes. Those torpedoes don't magically appear at the enemy's battleship. We had to build aircraft carriers and entire air wings to deliver the torpedoes. So, the accurate statement is that battleships costing millions of dollars were sunk by carriers costing millions of dollars. Similarly, a target is not destroyed by a cheap naval gun shell. It's destroyed by the very expensive ship that had to be built to deliver the naval gun shell.
Why are hypersonics this incredible undefeatable super weapon??? Im not convinced. People said that atomic weapons made carriers, and even navies obsolete too, but over half a century later...
DeleteThese are all cogent and possibly valid counter arguments.
DeleteSo…although the ‘foreseeable future’ is nowadays not very far away, I think we can reasonably assume that counter-stealth technology will continue to evolve, although how far and how fast we obviously can’t predict, therefore to make critical decisions based on a particular technology ‘not being on the horizon for many decades’ seems less than prudent.
Early days for hypersonic missiles; results so far inconclusive, yes absolutely! But the direction of travel seems clear enough, so sensible perhaps to assume that targeting, miniaturization and ISR technology generally will improve well beyond the point at which we are today. And even today it’s notable how cautious the Navy is being in keeping the Harry Truman well clear of the Houthi’s primitive missile systems.
True enough about ‘torpedo systems’ rather than torpedoes sinking battleships, so a more accurate comment would have been that ‘during WW2 battleships costing millions of dollars were sunk by submarines costing only a fraction of that amount’. Although of course WW2 battleships were also sunk by cheap bombs and missiles dropped or launched from cheap land based aircraft.
Well, said. I'm far from an expert....we could probaly take that a step futher and conclude that battle ships as a type were defeated by submarines as a type. Then it makes sense to compare the cost of developing and build ALL allied ww2 subs to the cost of ALL enemy ww2 battleships. It may turn out to be less of a cost differential and more a question of asymmetrical warefare.
Delete"battle ships as a type were defeated by submarines "
DeleteYou seem focused on submarines as the enemy of battleships. Off the top of my head, I don't recall many cases of battleships being sunk by subs. Most battleships were sunk by aircraft. Perhaps you could research that and find out how many were sunk by subs versus aircraft? That would be interesting and might alter your thinking.
Well, just looking at Royal Navy battleship and fleet class aircraft carrier losses during WW2 to German or Italian submarine attack, we have;
DeleteHMS Royal Oak
HMS Barham
HMS Queen Elizabeth
HMS Valiant
HMS Eagle
HMS Courageous
HMS Ark Royal
with a further three escort carriers being lost to German U-boats, and others being sunk by land-based aircraft, including the two battleships of Force Z.
US submarines were I believe responsible for the majority of IJN carrier losses.
Aircraft Elevators – Conventional external, side opening elevators would be eliminated in favor of internal elevators that momentarily open at flight deck level to load/unload aircraft. This eliminates the non-stealthy openings and external elevator gear and allows a smooth, uninterrupted hull whose shape can be maximized for stealth.
ReplyDeleteCarriers used to have internal elevators the issue was that they were in the middle of the ship stopping takeoff and recovery when in use. Looking at a current USN carrier to fit internal elevators means either less elevators or blocking the ability to recover aircraft.
Is it worth the trade off? a more expensive even less capable carrier when as you have said multiple times that cruise missiles are now the main strike?
I'd think that hangar doors and the elevator edges could be angled to match the rest of ships profile, without drastic changes that'd likely hamper operations.
Delete"means either less elevators or blocking the ability to recover aircraft."
DeleteI see no reason why we can't get by with one or two fewer elevators especially in this era of reduced air wings. Also, with a reduced or eliminated island, we should free up deck area for elevator placement. Finally, I don't think the simultaneous use of elevators and cats/traps is all that common although an experienced carrier person would have to pass judgement on that.
"I'd think that hangar doors and the elevator edges could be angled to match the rest of ships profile"
DeleteBear in mind that the cutouts in the flight deck for the elevator and the opening of elevator doors will, much like the opening of a stealth aircraft's weapon bay doors, reduce the ship's stealth while they operate. All of the elevator operating equipment would have to be somehow hidden internally as opposed to today's externally mounted machinery. I don't know whether that's feasible.
An internal elevator solves most/all of those problems though not without raising some of its own.
Mistakenly wrote “cheap bombs and missiles…” when referring to cheap free fall and radio guided bombs.
DeleteInteresting thought project!!! Like the rendering.
ReplyDeleteMy first thought about a LO aircraft carrier was if it's maybe too "difficult" to make it worthwhile, why not try to make it look like a Burke or maybe make the Burkes blend in more with the carrier? Would potentially complicate radar or IR targeting since you couldn't spot the big juicy target with the unique signature smack dab in the middle....remember reading all these books on Falkland wars and how the Super Etendard pilots all said that once close of enough in range, the Brit carriers always stood out and when the last time they "went" for it, what probably saved Invincible was they targeted that cargo ship Atlantic Converor instead of the carrier....surprising to think that no one in all those years really thought about this!!!! Just reduce the signature enough that it blends in with the rest of the fleet making targeting a heck of a lot harder....when you fire those ASMs, which target do you pick out if all 6 ships in the TF all pretty much look alike instead of 5 escorts and 1 huge target in the middle???
I like that. The mistake I think some can make is thinking of "stealth" as some magic, complete all or nothing thing. What I think comnavops and NICO are talking about here is signature managment. Every square meter of reduced RCS means you can operate that much closer or safer tot he contested battle space.
Delete"they targeted that cargo ship Atlantic Converor instead of the carrier."
DeleteMy understanding of the incident is that the Argentine aircraft actually targeted HMS Ambuscade which successfully decoyed the attacking missiles with chaff clouds but that caused the missiles to lock onto the next ship in line which was the Atlantic Conveyor. Do you have a different understanding of this?
This is awesome work on what happened to our best ability to reconstruct that event!!!! Yes, now with the map showing the locations, you are right, Ambuscade decoyed the Exocet enough to miss the first ship and then the EXOCETS went looking for the next target, the bigger one being AC since she was showing more "ship" than Hermes which turned her bows towards the EXOCETS.
DeleteI think my point is still valid as maybe we don't need as much LO as we think we need as much as we just need to do a better job of hiding our carriers inside the TF. As ANON said, Im looking more at how we manage the complete signature amongst the entire TF and how we can use it to deceive the ASM seekers. Highly recommend looking at that page since it offers a great map and time of events of that day if you haven't seen it before.
The Argies saw one small target and 2 big ones so they went for it:"...On the second pop-up, the pilots detected one small radar target with two large targets behind and no evidence of British countermeasures.
They picked the largest target, fed the information to the Exocets and then launched the missiles at it before turning for home."
I think we should look at making all the ships in the TF as similar as possible signature wise to make harder to just pick out the biggest one.....
https://www.atlantic-conveyor.co.uk/action-of-25th-may
Bring back hangar deck catapults, early Essex class had them.
ReplyDelete"hangar deck catapults"
DeleteThe problem with them is that, unlike WWII prop planes, jets use and generate unbelievable quantities of heat and air. A confined space like a hangar cannot support this.
As much as it's a fictional design, I think the Uraga-class carrier designed by Shoji Kawamori is a useful starting point in concetualising and impressioning a stealth carrier. Now, admittedly, the original design was made in 1995 when stealth was not as fully understood today as it is now, but it's worth noting that Kawamori, before he became an artist and a director, was an aeronautical engineer, and has been a lifelong aviation enthusiast.
Deletehttps://www.macross2.net/m3/macrossf/uraga-escortbattlecarrier.htm
Now, of course, we can't copy this 100 percent, but it has some interesting out of the box ideas, particularly with launching from the hangar deck.
The hangar deck runs almost the entire length of the ship - however, the bow extends further past the confines of the hangar deck. This allows us to sidestep the issue of heat and jet blast exhaust being captured inside the hangar deck - the catapults are past the flight deck. This is, conceivably, something we could already do on existing ships, with a moderate refit for an enclosed flight deck.
We have a twin deck layout, where the top deck is almost purely dedicated for recovery (while also retaining the use of catapults for launch). As ComNavOps noted, there are centerline elevators to allow aircraft recovered on the top deck to be brought down to the hangar deck.
We can then see that on the sides, between the top and lower flight decks, we can use this height to fit in stealth sloping as an RCS reduction measure - and the Bridge island is, of course, also very aggressively angled, instead of our existing flat box islands.
A semi-common trope in science fiction designs is to have the catapults outside the hangar, with the hangar protected from jet blast by blast doors and airlocks sealing the hangar from the catapults. That seems a simple enough measure to take, but it would undoubtedly increase our interval between launches.
DeleteStill, I think it could be quite possible to do. Perhaps we're not cycling the blast doors all the time, but by positioning the catapults forward enough of the hangar, the jet blast deflectors ought to be able to deflect the jet blast into the air, dissipating it from entering the hangar.
It would be a hit to our stealth, of course, but stealth is a matter of degrees, not a binary yes/no option, and operationally our greatest form of stealth remains misdirection and the fact that we can hide in a large search area - note Norpac 82.
"This allows us to sidestep the issue of heat and jet blast exhaust being captured inside the hangar deck - the catapults are past the flight deck."
DeleteNo, this doesn't sidestep the issue! Even with the catapult itself being just outside the enclosed hangar, the aircraft must start up, pre-flight, warm up engines, etc. inside the hangar. Current carriers can launch an aircraft every 45 seconds or so because the aircraft taxi onto the catapult fully ready to launch. That happens well behind the catapult. Dozens of jet engines operating in an enclosed hangar would deplete the oxygen and the ambient temperature would be a thousand degrees!
"have the catapults outside the hangar, with the hangar protected from jet blast by blast doors and airlocks sealing the hangar from the catapults."
DeleteNo, this doesn't sidestep the issue! Even with the catapult itself being just outside the enclosed hangar, the aircraft must start up, pre-flight, warm up engines, etc. inside the hangar. Current carriers can launch an aircraft every 45 seconds or so because the aircraft taxi onto the catapult fully ready to launch. That happens well behind the catapult. Dozens of jet engines operating in an enclosed hangar would deplete the oxygen and the ambient temperature would be a thousand degrees!
Arguably these are not insurmountable engineering problems. The Yugoslavs, Swedes and Swiss had underground hangars in the cold war, where the aircraft would be armed, warmed up and prepared before exiting to the above ground runway.
DeleteOn the other hand, as NORPAC 82 showed, the carrier's greatest form of stealth is from misdirection. We don't really need to have enclosed stealth hangar decks serving for launch - and I shudder to think of the safety issues with trying to recover aircraft inside an enclosed flight deck. This isn't Battlestar Galactica!
I have to disagree, other Anon. I've always been of the opinion that the hangar deck catapults on the Uraga were more of an additional launch option. The top flight deck has 4 cats, meanwhile the hangar deck has only 2 cats. If you want to surge fighters and get them off as fast as possible, it only makes sense to go with a deck park on the top deck and use that for shooting out fighters. The hangar deck cats seem to be something that's there because they might as well have them there, or to give an option for protected launch of the air wing while under fire.
DeleteFound a different approach design while surfing the web. Maybe we should go submerged. Web site is [ Submarine aircraft carrier for the US Navy 2035] https://indowflavour.artstation.com. Just a little something to think on.
ReplyDeleteWhile it's of course created for a fictional sci-fi series, I've always been partial to Shoji Kawamori's designs for the Uraga-class carrier. As far back as 1995, he was already conceptualising what a stealth carrier might look like.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.macross2.net/m3/macrossplus/uraga-escortbattlecarrier.htm (the original 1995 design.)
https://www.macross2.net/m3/macrossf/uraga-escortbattlecarrier.htm (Updated 2008 design).
It's quite interesting to see how he came to many of the same conclusions as ComNavOps, some 30 years earlier. Form follows function, afterall!
Admittedly, the Uraga is also significantly larger than a Nimitz, but the idea's there...
It's interesting to see that the Uraga uses a two-deck layout; the top deck is for recovery, while the lower enclosed deck, connecting to the hangar, is used for launching aircraft (note that the top flight deck also retains catapults so that the air wing can be surged from both decks if necessary).
GIven we're looking to fiction for our inspirations, another potential option is the Admiral 56 from Yukikaze. It's a little more aggressive than the stealth carrier impression above in that it has angled sides that extend over the flight deck to break up the flat shape of the deck.
Deletehttps://www.deviantart.com/acelanceloet/art/CVN-56-admiral-isokory-sb-181258413 - a fan's recreation of the side profile of the carrier.
"lower enclosed deck, connecting to the hangar, is used for launching aircraft"
DeleteA lower, enclosed, launch/hangar deck is superficially appealing, however, a few moments thought shows it to be an impossibility due to the effect of exhaust gases, lack of oxygen, noise, and heat in a confined space.
"another potential option is the Admiral 56 from Yukikaze"
DeleteWhat are those giant blocks all over it? It looks like it's got a case of steel warts!
"What are those giant blocks all over it? It looks like it's got a case of steel warts!"
DeleteI don't believe these were ever specifically stated in any of the supplementary materials. Their visual depiction within the work resembles AESA radar panels, but having this many panels is unnecessary for a carrier - I chalk that down to artists adding on greebles because that's what the audience expects.
No, I disagree Stealthy Carrier is not our Top Priority
ReplyDeleteReasons:
1) Aircraft carrier's role is to house Naval Air Arm whose Primary Functions are
a) Maintain Air Superiority above Carrier Strike Group/Task Force vessels
b) E-2 provides ISTAR
c) Destroy Enemy Defense Systems
d) provide escort to volley(s) of Cruise Missiles (fired from Surface ships and Submarines) and help maximum of them reaching their target
2) At times of Conflict no sane Fleet commander would keep Aircraft Carrier(s) near Front Lines
So what we need is not a Stealthy Carrier but
1) Long Range Air Superiority Fighter Jet with Combat Radius of 1,000 nmi
2) Long Range Radar (Radius of 1,000 nmi) on E-2D/new similar plane
as for
Aircraft Elevators
- they should be enlarge to carry two of our new Long Range Air Superiority FighterJet at a time
- I am strongly against internal elevators, they directly or indirectly affect the operations of Flight Deck
- IF we want stealth we can add doors to close these non-stealthy side openings.
Sponsons
- our top priority is to add as many weapons systems as possible and place them at right location so that they have Overlapping Firing Arcs
Island
- I would make sure that most powerful radar of CSG will be on E-2D/similar aircraft and not on the Island.
- I would keep Island Superstructure, it helps to keep things simple
Overhangs
- crew safety should be top priority.
If we assume that EMCON is the only way to survive in a modern peer/near-peer naval conflict...then won't the likelihood of radar search activities be greatly reduced?
ReplyDeleteThis would seem to minimize the value of radar stealthiness for naval ships.
Of course, it would help to frustrate targeting by active radar homing missiles, but is it worth the effort and design penalties that result from stealth efforts in ship design?
Lutefisk
"then won't the likelihood of radar search activities be greatly reduced?"
DeleteThat's an interesting premise, however, you're overlooking the breadth of radar sources. Yes, naval task forces will practice rigorous EMCON but other assets will not. Over-the-horizon radars, satellite radars, very long range AWACS type aircraft, land based radars, etc. may/will all still actively search. Then there's the old Soviet approach of sacrificial search assets. The Soviets dedicated Bear aircraft to searching for US carrier groups knowing full well that many/most aircraft would be lost but they deemed it worthwhile to find the carrier group. I'm certain the Chinese will feel and operate the same way.
And, as you note, presenting a stealth aspect to missile seekers is vital.
So, yes, the price of stealth is well worth it.
Finally, note that, at least as I use the term, stealth encompasses not just radar but optical, infrared, acoustic, wake, etc. forms of stealth, all of which will be searching for us. So, again, yes, we need full stealth for our ships.
"...we need full stealth for our ships.."
ReplyDeleteThanks, that answered my question.
Lutefisk
It may have answered your question but do you agree with it or do you still feel stealth may not be needed?
Delete"... do you still feel stealth may not be needed?"
DeleteI see the value of it. I hadn't thought about all of the other players involved that would be actively emitting.
In the effort to make the ships stealthy, however, I wouldn't want to compromise things like having a high level of weapons density or having an adequate number of sensors in the attempt to achieve the highest level of 'stealthiness'.
While not mutually exclusive, there seems to be at least somewhat of a tradeoff between warfighting abilities and stealth.
How to find the right balance is likely to be no easy task.
Lutefisk
"While not mutually exclusive, there seems to be at least somewhat of a tradeoff between warfighting abilities and stealth."
DeleteYou think that only because no one has yet tried to produce a maximum stealth warship except for the small Visby. Using the principles of the Visby, I see no reason why we can't scale up to a major warship.
"...no one has yet tried to produce a maximum stealth warship except for the small Visby."
DeleteOne concept of this that I really struggle to grasp is how to incorporate multiple CIWS and other weapon systems, and adequate and redundant sensors, on a warship without those providing a substantial radar return.
If these are shielded to prevent being detected, how do they do their job of seeing and engaging the enemy?
I assume there is an answer to this, I just don't know what it is.
Lutefisk
"how to incorporate multiple CIWS and other weapon systems"
DeleteWe've discussed this. The answer is to use 'pop up' weapons (the Soviets used such missile launchers) or weapons behind shutters (many ships have this for torpedoes). Similarly, sensors can extend/retract or be flush mounted as panels (such as the Aegis SPY arrays or the Zumwalt sensors).
I believe Visby has retractable sensors.
Virginia Tech had a design study for their students to produce an Unmanned combat air vehicle carrier. The student projects produced carrier designs that had some stealth shaping.
ReplyDeleteCarrier based on LPD-17 hull.
https://archive.aoe.vt.edu/brown/VTShipDesign/CUVX%20Team%201%20Report.pdf
Tumblehome hull carrier
https://archive.aoe.vt.edu/brown/VTShipDesign/CUVXT2%20Report%20Executive%20Summary.pdf
At 26,000 tonnes, full load, they are about a fourth of the tonnage of the Ford Class.
MLW
How about a carrier that works!
ReplyDeleteThe US Navy is still grappling with elevator problems on its new Ford-class supercarriers
Chris Panella
Wed, April 9, 2025 at 11:26 AM PDT
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-navy-still-grappling-elevator-182630815.html
"The John F. Kennedy (CVN 79) is nearly 95% construction complete and has a contract delivery date of July 2025," Navy officials said in a joint statement before the Senate Armed Services Committee seapower subcommittee's hearing on the state of nuclear shipbuilding on Tuesday. "However, we assess that significant pressure to that date."
The officials cited issues with some of the CVN 79's technologies, namely the advanced weapons elevators and aircraft launch and recovery systems.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
My theory is that the electromagnets must be perfectly aligned to produce the expected power. They work great ashore and pierside, but once a ship gets underway the frame begins to constantly flex a few millimeters their power is unpredictable.
@G2MIL. Did USN ever release any results or data from last FORD deployment apart from "everything was great"?
DeleteHave a hard time believing its all production issues and not deployment issues.....
I've seen nothing. But two years ago they announced the Navy would end the Ford class after the first four, but I read recently they will buy more.
DeleteNo... performance figures are still classified, but I read in the last Congressional Report that "performance has not significantly improved... so I'd speculate that, with the last published figures being about 15% of spec, it's now 30% of the failures-per-cycle requirement, which is rather unacceptable...
DeleteThe problem with EMALS and AAG is that their performance is so far away from the specs that no reasonable gain in performance would even get them remotely near requirements. At this point in development, you might, optimistically, hope for 10% improvements in a 'mature', installed technology. EMALS and AAG are several hundred percent away from spec. No reasonable gain in performance can bridge that gap. I hate to say it but the time has come (long since passed, actually!) to terminate these technologies and put them back into the R&D world while we revert to conventional technologies.
DeleteAgreed. A contingency to revert to steam should've been in place from the beginning. Ford's been in the water quite a while, so realistically, the JFK should've retroactively gone back to steam, and if somehow it was deemed too far along, for sure the Enterprise has no business being built with EMALS/AAG. Regardless of the fanbois who tout "progress", we all know that the sortie rate and "gentler launches" are bogus selling points, and that it's tech for techs sake.... failing, immature tech at that!!
DeleteSomeone was talking about Constellation program on Facebook and mentioned that one of the managers of the failed LCS program was on the new Constellation program so I had to look it up..... this is what the AI came back with:
ReplyDelete"The statement refers to Rear Admiral (RADM) Casey Moton, who previously led the Navy's program executive office for unmanned and small combatants, including the Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program. He is now responsible for the Constellation (FFG-62) class frigate program. This shift suggests the Navy is focusing on lessons learned from the LCS program to improve the Constellation program..."
Well, me thinks USN hasn't learned a whole lot from LCS and other small programs considering the issues we are with Constellation program!
Clearly they havent!!! Putting the manager of an epically failed program in charge of another is probably the first clue!!
DeleteWhat's that definition of insanity?
Delete