The US is considering the creation of a new class of aircraft carriers

February 7 2021 30

Экономическая the effectiveness of the US aircraft carrier program is increasingly being questioned. Currently, the US Navy is considering the creation of a new class of aircraft-carrying ships based on the Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers under construction, the American edition of Military Watch writes.

It is assumed that the new aircraft carriers will become much lighter, cheaper to build and operate, and their crew will be much smaller. To do this, it is proposed to cancel the construction of 60% of the planned number of giant ships and build more efficient ones, which will better project the US military power abroad.

The aircraft carriers of the Gerald R. Ford class are the most expensive warships in the world. The lead USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78), with a total displacement of 98,5 thousand tons, cost the treasury more than $ 13 billion. And this is without taking into account the fabulous cost of its aircraft wing and astronomical operating costs. It was commissioned in 2017, but, as of February 2021, it is still far from being operational.

It is not clear whether the lighter ships will be able to operate aircraft built for standard aircraft carrier landings such as the F-35C, F-18E and E-2 Hawkeye, or whether they will only rely on the vertical-landing F-35B. Fighters with vertical landing are usually less efficient and much more expensive to maintain, but they can reduce the crew of the ship and remove expensive mechanisms such as electromagnetic catapults and aerofinishers.

In addition, the new aircraft carrier is likely to have a conventional power plant, which will further reduce costs. British aircraft carriers of the Queen Elizabeth class with a total displacement of 70,6 thousand tons are cited as an example. Two such ships have already been built - HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.

Each such aircraft carrier costs less than a third of the USS Gerald R. Ford, but has less combat effectiveness. But they are much more cost-effective, taking into account the deployment of new models of anti-ship weapons by the adversaries, the publication from the United States summed up.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

alex5450

-2

7 February 2021 17: 33

The dimensions of aircraft carriers up to 40 thousand tons allow the use of aircraft with a traditional take-off and landing system. And for the F-35B, the United States already has 9 ready-made decks.
Vladest

-3

7 February 2021 18: 17

Against the backdrop of the emergence of hyperweapons, the defense of an aircraft carrier becomes difficult. And the loss of even one aircraft carrier is a huge loss.
1. Just a cat
  
  +6
  
  7 February 2021 18: 34
  
  The Balts were the most fortunate. Missiles will not be spent on them, there are no aircraft carriers. They will choke on their sprats
  1. Vladest
    
    -2
    
    7 February 2021 21: 52
    
    Quote: Just Cat
    The Balts were the most fortunate. Missiles will not be spent on them, there are no aircraft carriers. They will choke on their sprats
    1. 123
      
      0
      
      8 February 2021 12: 27
      
      A very correct observation The production is fucked up. You will have to gag on saliva or imported (Russian) sprats. Surely this is even worse for young Europeans.
  2. Dmitry S.
    
    +3
    
    8 February 2021 05: 02
    
    So they have, it seems, almost all factories for the production of sprat are closed - what will they choke on?
2. Uneven
  
  -2
  
  8 February 2021 12: 19
  
  How can "hyperweapons" complicate "defense of an aircraft carrier"?
  1. boriz
    
    -2
    
    8 February 2021 13: 07
    
    He was referring to hypersonic weapons.
    1. Uneven
      
      -1
      
      8 February 2021 13: 46
      
      How can "hypersonic weapons" make it harder to "defend an aircraft carrier"?
      1. boriz
        
        +2
        
        8 February 2021 14: 55
        
        Any increase in missile speed reduces the chance of intercepting it. And above a certain speed limit, the target can no longer be intercepted by this missile defense system.
        For example, the Patriot's AN / MPQ-53 multifunctional radar has a "maximum target speed" of 2200 m / s, or Mach 6,47.
        The C 400 has a maximum target speed of 4 m / s, or Mach 800.
        Zircon reached Mach 8 during testing. The developers are talking about 10 Max. That is, it is theoretically impossible to intercept the missile with any US missile defense system.
        If the missile speed is, say, Mach 4,5, then the Patriot can theoretically intercept the missile, but with a probability not 100%, but, for example, 70% - 80%. In this case, the simultaneous launch of 2-3 missiles solves the problem.
        
        Uneven
        
        -1
        
        9 February 2021 08: 31
        
        1) The higher the speed, the more difficult it is to aim at the target.
        2) How and from what distance will the "hyperweapon" be able to "capture" a moving target?
        
        boriz
        
        +1
        
        9 February 2021 16: 49
        
        Guidance problems exist for targets at sea. There are no problems in the air. Radar plus optics in the IR range.
        
        Uneven
        
        -1
        
        10 February 2021 11: 10
        
        Guidance problems exist for targets at sea. There are no problems in the air. Radar plus optics in the IR range.
        
        Example: An aircraft flies up to a target at an extremely low altitude and, having sent ammunition to the target 100 km before it, turns back.
        At what distance (in your opinion) will the same s-400 "detect" it?
        
        Cat
        
        0
        
        9 February 2021 15: 06
        
        I don’t know where this tale came from about "The ideal weapon - hypersound"? Specifically, they will intercept and shoot down, moreover, the zur has a lower speed. So what is she hyper? Will the zur be chasing after her on the catch-up courses? No, they will meet on the counter. Only now, as has already been said here, salvo firing of a zur "square" in the center of which will be the target will be carried out at such targets. It's useless to maneuver. Wherever you turn, and they are already waiting for you there. In addition, Hyper cannot be much (enough) because no one knows its price. And we can only assume that if 10 years ago the Yakhonts were sold to Indonesia for $ 3 million, but now how many times should Onyx be more expensive? Two or three. And then how much should Zircon cost? Why, due to the high price, there won't be many of them ... and so the pants fall off. A single GPCR will not do the weather .... alas.
        
        boriz
        
        +1
        
        9 February 2021 16: 52
        
        For those with vision or head problems, I repeat:
        
        For example, the Patriot's AN / MPQ-53 multifunctional radar has a "maximum target speed" of 2200 m / s, or Mach 6,47.
        
        And in general, why did you write all this? No specific information or objections, except for non-constructive whining: everything is bad with us and everything is lost.
        
        Cat
        
        +1
        
        11 February 2021 10: 15
        
        By the way, I read it yesterday. As for the real deliveries of the 3M-14E KR abroad, that is, reliable data on the 2006 $ 182 million contract for 28 missiles for the Indian Navy (diesel-electric submarines pr. 877EKM), 24 of which were delivered in 2008. attention is drawn to the high cost of one rocket - $ 6,5 million. So how much can the Zircon state missile complex cost?
  2. Vladest
    
    -2
    
    8 February 2021 14: 34
    
    Quote: Uneven
    How can "hyperweapons" complicate "defense of an aircraft carrier"?
    
    Intercept him. Experience VM2 no matter what the barrier was, but the kemikadzy broke through.
    1. Uneven
      
      0
      
      9 February 2021 08: 35
      
      Before "kamikadnichat" it is necessary to cope with the aviation of the AUG and its air defense. Can you imagine what forces and means are required for this? And where will they get from the Russian army in the ocean?
      1. boriz
        
        0
        
        9 February 2021 16: 57
        
        So the hypersonic missile is intended to penetrate the missile defense system. To date, no country has a missile defense system capable of intercepting a hypersonic non-ballistic target.
        
        Uneven
        
        -1
        
        10 February 2021 10: 57
        
        So the hypersonic missile is intended to penetrate the missile defense
        
        Let's get back to the technical side of the issue. I propose to consider, using the example of any missile in service with the Russian Federation, the solution to the problem of destroying the American ASU, which is moving along the water on its own course.
        First of all, the target must be detected and guided, while transmitting the coordinates of the target to the carrier of the given rocket. Which of the Russian technical means will be able to do this and at what maximum distance from the AUG should it be during this process?
        
        Cat
        
        0
        
        11 February 2021 10: 10
        
        Sorry sorry sorry! But what about the fools from America, they were able to shoot down the satellite, which flew at 1-cosmic speed, and this, for a minute, Mach 25! And SM-3 is not even hyper from the word at all ... Huh?
Cat

+4

8 February 2021 11: 23

Well, yes ... this is the evolution of AB, like the evolution of any weapon. Attack atomic AB now can only act against third world countries. Where air defense is only "AK da DShKa". Therefore, the future belongs to small aircraft with VTOL aircraft, PLO helicopters and AWACS UAVs. The main value of AB now is as a carrier of the deck version of AWACS. But the "Hokai" will become a thing of the past (evolution!), Because deck UAVs will undoubtedly come to replace them. Shock missions against serious countries such as China, AB lost. No one will drive the pilots into the air defense cap, this is a deliberate death of aircraft carrier aviation. Now these are the tasks of the SLCM of the "Tomahawk" type. But the tasks of air patrolling, nor any SLCMs, cannot be provided. An air defense cap for SLCM carriers, you still need to provide, as well as the tasks of PLO connections.
1. Cyril
  
  -1
  
  8 February 2021 14: 45
  
  Attack atomic AB can now only act against third world countries. Where the air defense is only "AK da DShKa"
  
  With the help of heavy aircraft carriers, Iraq was crushed in 1991. Which air defense was by no means weak.
  1. Ulysses
    
    +2
    
    8 February 2021 22: 57
    
    With the help of heavy aircraft carriers, Iraq was crushed in 1991. Which air defense was by no means weak.
    
    Read the statistics of combat missions.
    The aircraft carriers screwed up there.
    The frequency and combat effectiveness of the sorties were ensured by land airfields.
    1. Cyril
      
      -1
      
      9 February 2021 11: 56
      
      Over the entire period of Operation Desert Storm, the following combat missions were performed from aircraft carriers:
      
      4149 - from Roosevelt;
      2574 - with "Kennedy";
      2672 - from "America";
      2374 - from "Saratoga";
      3329 - from the "Ranger";
      3019 - with Midway.
      
      In total - more than 18 sorties.
      
      Where there is "cool screwed up" - is unclear.
      
      Naturally, there were more departures from land airfields - there were more planes there.
      
      The conversation was that supposedly aircraft carriers are only suitable for striking countries without air defense. Desert Storm showed the opposite.
      1. Cat
        
        0
        
        9 February 2021 14: 53
        
        Well, there the air defense was carried out by the SLCM "Tomahawks". I really respect your opinion, so I ask, if possible, to highlight the number and effectiveness of their strikes during Operation Desert Storm. It looks like you have such an opportunity. Thanks.
      2. Ulysses
        
        +1
        
        9 February 2021 18: 31
        
        The conversation was that supposedly aircraft carriers are only suitable for striking countries without air defense. Desert Storm showed the opposite.
        
        Desert Storm showed that roads and are ineffective without ground aircraft.
        Despite the fact that they caught up with 6 AUG.
        
        "During the same period of time, land-based aircraft made over 98 thousands sorties over Iraq and Kuwait.
        
        The total contribution of six AUGs was at the level of 15% of the combat work of the Air Force Multinational Forces.
        
        Carrier planes dropped on Iraq about 10 thousand tons of bombs.
        
        During the same time, Air Force planes poured onto the heads of the Iraqis 78 KT .
        
        The role of aircraft carriers in the operation turned out to be, if not negligible, then unobtrusive, but highly costly.
Igor Berg

-1

8 February 2021 16: 16

Quote: Vladest
Against the backdrop of the emergence of hyperweapons, the defense of an aircraft carrier becomes difficult. And the loss of even one aircraft carrier is a huge loss.

There is a threaded bolt for every clever nut
Dmitry S.

+2

20 February 2021 13: 17

About a year ago, I read analytics about aircraft carriers - in 6-10 years they will become meaningless due to their vulnerability to missile weapons. Now the question is: if earlier 25-30 missiles were required to drown one unit of an aircraft-carrying raft as part of aug, subject to active resistance, then how many missiles without nuclear warheads are needed today?
cooper

0

21 February 2021 09: 06

USA ... "creating a new class of aircraft carriers" .. - Thank you, laughed.