This post reinforces my point. You don't even understand what I've been arguing. Let's engage in an active listening exercise. Please restate the gist of my argument in 1-2 sentences or bullet points.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Hornet vs F35
- Thread starter blackngold
- Start date
How about, no?
I’ve said my piece, Brett. You start doing some explaining because you’re out of your element. If you weren’t aware of the conundrum we’re caught regarding the USAF and USN, and how that led to the B model then you’re behind the power curve.
Or perhaps, maybe add some suggestions or alternatives instead of gaslighting everyone.
So, no active listening?
Yup.
Instead of making them survivable, we need to make them expendable. Develop a kit to rapidly convert old tanker ships into temp airfields. Fill the tanks with foam so it is unsinkable. About $40M per ship. What does an F35B cost, anyway?
Oil tanker - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
I don't think it is that simple though. Taking a non-Navy ship and trying to convert it into something like a carrier or battleship you run into problems like weight distribution and speed. Purpose-built carriers are designed with the center of gravity very low so as to prevent the ship from tipping over due to the weight of the stuff on top. Oil tankers have the weight distribution specially designed too, but for carrying oil. If the oil tanks are empty, and then you add a bunch of stuff on top, that might change things around in a non-ideal way.
Then there is the issue of speed. Aircraft carriers are much faster than oil tankers, which move more slowly. So to convert an oil tanker to a carrier, if you want it to be able to move fast and keep up with the other purpose-built naval vessels, you're probably going to need to change the propulsion system as well.
The CVN built for Fleet combat against a peer adversary is much faster than a tanker.
The LHA/LHD is much slower than a CVN, so while they can still be a bit faster than many container ships, there are plenty of cargo ships just as fast.
From the actual “Navy” side of a Pacific fight (ie getting close enough to be useful), not gonna lie, the LHA/LHD has been a major survivability problem. Honestly, if we actually had the ability to build enough aircraft to make the number of carrier hulls a problem for WW3, converting cargo ships as an interim solution isn’t the worst idea in the world. But we won’t be turning out 5th gen fighters and trained aircrew in WW2 numbers any time soon, so that’s a purely theoretical problem IMO
Last edited:
All ships are designed this way.
So, no active listening?
What are you even talking about? Discussion is a little easier when you actually engage. Asking questions that feign your intelligence vice defending the position is weak.
The CVN is just as vulnerable as an LHD/A in this day and age against a peer adversary, hence the range problem. But it would be hypocritical of me to assert that, and I admit there may gaps in my knowledge. I’ll willfully admit that, unlike some others in this forum when the shoe is on the other foot.
Well they are designed that way for their specific purpose but not necessarily if you start using them for a different purpose. Aircraft carriers are designed to handle the specific amount of weight on top.
This isn’t true at all.
Ship conversions happen all the time - and to sign off on the conversion, you need a Naval Architect. It's one of the reasons why Naval Architects exist.
I am sure they could do such conversions, the issue is how easy/difficult, costly, and how much capability do you get?
Well if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t be revealed in how commanders are currently making risk decisions. It’s very telling with the amount of escorts a CVN requires, and how the chess pieces get moved.
The amount of people sitting here in their own little echo chamber about the next fight and not thinking through an honest assessment of what you could face is astounding. Let’s keep building/doing the same shit! I mean what’s another $14B and 5k people’s lives? This is the attitude that develops when a service hasn’t been in a major peer conflict in 70 years.
