Thread: Carrier Battle Group Essay

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Then the Adams class was built. For the first time since WWII, long range anti-air warfare was brought to a destroyer size hull. To be fair, an Adams displaced about twice what a FRAM DD did. An Adams had outstanding AAW and with ASROC it was a good if not great ASW ship. The lack of a towed array sonar was a real handicap when it came to ASW. An issue that was largely dealt with by the DEs at the time, which we came to know later as FFs. So, is it fair to say that an Adams replaced a FRAM on a one for one basis? I say no. I believe that one Adams is easily worth two FRAM ships.


WABPilot, I pass her namesake every weekend heading for the New Jersey.
DDG-2 Charles F. Adams (originally DD952) -The grand daddy of all of the guided missle destroyers is still afloat and berthed inside Philly Naval Yard basin along with a few others of note.

Something I never understood, they leave ships like this around, and sink newer ships as targets. Don't get me wrong I don't like to see a ship like that rusting away. They should make that a museum ship.

Originally Posted by Master Chief

Something I never understood, they leave ships like this around, and sink newer ships as targets. Don't get me wrong I don't like to see a ship like that rusting away. They should make that a museum ship.

Chief,Sir
From a story I was told DDG-1 (DD712 Gyatt) a Gearing class & DDG-2 (DD 952 Charles F. ADAMS) an Adams class were experimental in the guided missle stage of destroyer design.

Supposedly when they were finished with DDG-1 & DDG-2 they were given to a naval auxilliary company. The auxillairy team Captain protested using these destroyers because at the time there were many compartments that the Captain himself could not enter due to security reasons. These reasons being the same reason the auxillary turned them back over to the Navy. The auxillairy's couldnt use them in the way they wanted to because there was too much "red tape" to counter during the SOP & EOP of the ships company. I understand that Adams now days is slated to become a museum but Im not so sure as to where that museum will be.

Why does the nuclear refueling of a carrier takes so long? 3 1/2 years?!

Originally Posted by Master Chief

Something I never understood, they leave ships like this around, and sink newer ships as targets. Don't get me wrong I don't like to see a ship like that rusting away. They should make that a museum ship.

I have the same question. I saw those shiny Sprucans being sunk in Sinkex while much older and less capable hulls were left sitting in mothball fleet. I felt so bad.

Originally Posted by Blademaster

Why does the nuclear refueling of a carrier takes so long? 3 1/2 years?!

I don't think they do a simple refueling of the reactors. They pretty much give the ship an overhaul, bring her up to the latest standards. The overhaul is the thing that eats up time.

A refueling complex overhaul includes refueling the reactor plant, making propulsion plant repairs, and performing the mandatory modernization of aircraft launch and recovery systems and ship electronics and communications systems.

Disposal of nuclear materials and radioactively contaminated materials.

The midlife modernization period represents the service life extension program for conventional carriers and the nuclear refueling complex overhaul for nuclear carriers. A service life extension program includes repairs to the basic hull, power generation systems, and auxiliary systems; upgrades of basic support systems to meet present and future weapon system requirements; and upgrades of aircraft launch and recovery systems.

Some policymakers contend that the United States does not need a force of 12 carriers, since US tactical airpower substantially exceeds that of any potential regional adversary. The Navy has a variety of ships other than carriers, including surface warfare units and large flat-deck amphibious vessels, that contributed to maintaining a U.S. naval presence in peacetime. In 1990, before the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services recommended a force of 10 to 12 carriers. And during the 1992 campaign, President Clinton called for a Navy with 10 carriers.

This mindset has resulted in an under equiped amphibious fleet of ship's (many rather old) and 6 to 8-years to build one carrier.

Decommissioning and disposal costs to inactivate a Nimitz-class nuclear carrier is estimated at $750 million to $900 million, almost one-quarter the cost of procuring a new Nimitz-class carrier. These costs are normally funded in the Navy's operations and maintenance appropriation account. The nuclear carrier inactivation cost is approximately 20 times the cost estimated for the decommissioning and disposal of conventional carriers currently in the fleet.

Enterprise will be replaced by CVN-21 in 2015 and by then around 1 billion to 1.2 for inactivation cost.

Ship Building - Aircraft Carrier

Originally Posted by Batman47

Enterprise will be replaced by CVN-21 in 2015 and by then around 1 billion to 1.2 for inactivation cost.

Can we like, sell that to the French of something?

The way things are going, why not, at least they know how to operate carriers.

In reality though, our allies should step up to the plate more often with there carriers and help with MSO in particular. Is the U. S. to be the only peace keeping carrier force? Does not the entire world rely on ship traffic in the Indian Ocean?

Gunnut, good luck trying to sell that rustbucket of steel to the French. They want a ship in tip top shape.

Batman, thanks for the info. It was quite illuminating.

Originally Posted by Batman47

The way things are going, why not, at least they know how to operate carriers.

In reality though, our allies should step up to the plate more often with there carriers and help with MSO in particular. Is the U. S. to be the only peace keeping carrier force? Does not the entire world rely on ship traffic in the Indian Ocean?

Actually the French deployed their carrier in support of NATO operation in Afghanistan.

Hopefully the Royal Navy will get their 2 carriers built soon, and the French with their 2nd carrier.

Other nations have carriers, but I think they are more for show or for regional power projection. Only the USN, RN and Marine Nationale regularly deploy around the world with their carriers.

Originally Posted by gunnut

Only the USN, RN and Marine Nationale regularly deploy around the world with their carriers.

The Spanish and French carriers are deployed as we speak to the Med in support of NATO forces in Lebanon.

R11 Principe de Asturias class

Spanish Navy

Naval Technology - Principe de Asturias - Aircraft Carrier

Current French Navy ships - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The current Navy aircraft carrier is the Charles De Gaulle (Normally, the French Navy operates two carriers)

Naval Technology - Charles De Gaulle - Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carrier

Our allies need a few more carriers.

Royal Navy

United Kingdom
Naval Technology - LPD(R) Albion Class - Landing Platform Dock

Royal Navy

Aircraft carriers of British Navy

Naval Technology - Invincible Class - Aircraft Carriers

U.S. and Britain to Add Ships to Persian Gulf in Signal to Iran

By THOM SHANKER
Published: December 21, 2006

WASHINGTON, Dec. 20 — The United States and Britain will begin moving additional warships and strike aircraft into the Persian Gulf region in a display of military resolve toward Iran that will come as the United Nations continues to debate possible sanctions against the country, Pentagon and military officials said Wednesday.

Continued at: U.S. and Britain to Add Ships to Persian Gulf in Signal to Iran - New York Times

Monday, Jan. 15, 2007 9:00 p.m. EST
British Navy Ships Move to Counter Iran

U.S. naval forces in the Mideast are getting a little help from an old friend.

Britain's Royal Navy is sending two minesweepers to the Persian Gulf, beefing up an allied effort to thwart Iran's growing power in the region, according to the Times of London.

Continued at: British Navy Ships Move to Counter Iran

Navy to cut its fleet by half
By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
Last Updated: 3:03am GMT 05/01/2007

In pictures: Farewell to fleet
Audio: A change in naval strategy

Royal Navy commanders were in uproar yesterday after it was revealed that almost half of the Fleet's 44 warships are to be mothballed as part of a Ministry of Defence cost-cutting measure.
Navy to cut its fleet by half | Uk News | News | Telegraph

20 Jan 2006 MIN8/06

NEXT GENERATION OF NAVAL SHIPS TO REFLECT A RICH HISTORY OF SERVICE

The names of Australia’s new large amphibious ships and Air Warfare Destroyers will be named after Australian cities with close links with Navy heritage.

Senator Hill said that the Chief of Navy made the recommendation for the names after careful consideration and taking into account the considerable public interest in the naming process. The Government submitted the names to the Governor General for approval, which has now occurred.

Senator Hill said that is was a great honour to announce the two large amphibious ships will be named HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide and the Air Warfare Destroyers will be named HMAS Hobart, HMAS Brisbane and HMAS Sydney.

"One of the principal aims of naming ships for our Navy has been to promote links between the Navy and the community," Senator Hill said.

"Naming of the ships after Australian cities will hopefully build on these links and gain the wide acceptance from former Navy personnel. Ships of the Royal Australian Navy have previously carried these names and all have received battle honours in conflicts dating from the First World War."

The acquisition projects to acquire these new ships have received first pass approval from the Government. Second pass approval is planned for 2007.

Subject to these approvals, the two large amphibious ships are expected to enter service with the Royal Australian Navy from 2012 and the three Air Warfare Destroyers are expected to enter service form 2013.

"Both classes of ship will be a quantum leap over our current capability. The AWDs will provide protection to forces from air threats including aircraft and missile attacks," Senator Hill said.

"The Amphibious Ships will support the deployment of forces and assist in a whole range of tasks such as peacekeeping and peace monitoring and regional disaster relief."
NEXT GENERATION OF NAVAL SHIPS TO REFLECT A RICH HISTORY OF SERVICE

--------------------

Well, that's a short report, but it's clear Naval Power is no longer seen as the most important defense of our allies.

Our missle base in Europe must build up some confidence I guess.

Missile defense base in Europe
Missile Defence: NATO Topics: Missile defence

10 May 2006
NATO Missile Defence Feasibility study results delivered
NATO Press Release

NATO Press Release(2006)048

Today NATO's Assistant Secretary General (ASG) for Defence Investment and Permanent Chairman of the Alliance Conference of National Armaments Directors (CNAD), Marshall Billingslea, signed the NATO Missile Defence Feasibility Study and delivered the final report of NATO's Armament Directors to the North Atlantic Council.

Yorkshire CND - NATO to build missile defence system for Europe - 12/5/06

WASHINGTON, Jan. 26, 2007 – Missile defense assets the United States is planning to base in Eastern Europe will be aimed at countering threats posed by rogue nations, such as Iran, and will not pose a threat to allies in the region, a senior defense official said here yesterday.

The Defense Department announced Jan. 19 that it was beginning bilateral negotiations with Poland and the Czech Republic to host long-range ground-based interceptors and a missile defense radar on their territories.
DefenseLink News Article: U.S. Missile Defense in Europe to Counter Rogue States

------------------

Utlizing missles brings us closer to a future less reliant on carriers I think.

Originally Posted by Batman47

In reality though, our allies should step up to the plate more often with there carriers and help with MSO in particular. Is the U. S. to be the only peace keeping carrier force? Does not the entire world rely on ship traffic in the Indian Ocean?

Guess where the CdG and her group has been hanging around mostly the last couple years.

Originally Posted by Galrahn

The Spanish and French carriers are deployed as we speak to the Med in support of NATO forces in Lebanon.

For France, only their LHDs and LPDs. CdG is currently preparing for the next station in the Indian Ocean off the coast of Pakistan to support operations in Afghanistan, starting in March, her last mission before she goes in the drydock in September for refueling. CdG has been deployed to that area at least 4 times that i know since 2002, usually for 6-7 months.
The Italians also have Garibaldi in UNIFIL btw.

Sigh* I can remember the days of Ronnie Raygun being President and having multiple entire battlefleets sitting waiting for that call to get underway. Great days.

Shocking to see the Brits mothball half of a surface fleet especially these days. Then why even have the other half in service?

Visual gratification for the Ministry I assume ?