Reviving the deck space topic: I stumbled upon a few USNI proceedings as well as the April 2023 Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plan. A call to study the efficacy of a potential modification of “0-6” future Ford or America class ships as a CVL was proposed. Most conjecture hints toward using them as “lightning carriers” but I wonder what that would mean for deck space on CVNs.
-
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
Carrier-borne mid-range ASW revival?
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
Modification of a Ford class aircraft carrier won't happen, you are talking about a complete redesign of the propulsion plant, as it is the propulsion plant space is tight, which means you are probably talking about new reactor design as well.
That whole process would take long enough that you would be retired, not to mention that cost of a new design for what would probably be little ROI.
I agree. But not one of my ideas this time lol, Rear Adm. Jason Lloyd suggested it. Still, no one has talked about it since SecNav Braithwaite so who knows if the CVL idea is still kicking.
This will never, ever happen.
Proceedings has some very interesting material, but you really have to look at the bio of the author to decide whether or not it's credible or not. I'm not saying "credible" == "on the golden path to flag," or that every once in a while, junior folks don't have good ideas (spoiler alert: they sometimes do). But every once in a while, something slips through the editors that's essentially just someone talking out the wrong end of their alimentary canal.
I'd rather they do that than try to be intellectual gatekeepers, but caveat lector.
You misspelled “more often than not.”
Hendrix? You're not alluding to him, are you? 'Cause it would be a lot cooler if you were.
Not . . . just him.
One thing I always wondered, is where the term “flapping” came from. It’s not an acronym. Nobody in my last two squadrons could ever answer that ?
I found this in an article doing some googling.
I want to say I remember hearing that acronym in either VT-4 or VP-30 myself.
Even if that’s unofficial, I love it. Always heard FLAP thrown around alongside “surging” “prosecuting” etc.
Along the lines of this thread - P-8's getting torps with wings!!!
www.thedefensepost.com
US Navy Contracts Boeing to Build Airborne Anti-Submarine Systems
Boeing has received a $12-million production contract for the High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon Capability Air Launch Accessory.
www.thedefensepost.com
IDK…looks like a transformer humping an ASROC.Along the lines of this thread - P-8's getting torps with wings!!!
US Navy Contracts Boeing to Build Airborne Anti-Submarine Systems
Boeing has received a $12-million production contract for the High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon Capability Air Launch Accessory.
View attachment 38408
We've tested those here. They're already out there in the fleet in limited quantities.Along the lines of this thread - P-8's getting torps with wings!!!
US Navy Contracts Boeing to Build Airborne Anti-Submarine Systems
Boeing has received a $12-million production contract for the High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon Capability Air Launch Accessory.
View attachment 38408
The problem (and vulnerability), is the delivery platform, not the weapon system . . .Along the lines of this thread - P-8's getting torps with wings!!!
US Navy Contracts Boeing to Build Airborne Anti-Submarine Systems
Boeing has received a $12-million production contract for the High Altitude Anti-Submarine Warfare Weapon Capability Air Launch Accessory.
View attachment 38408