More Carrier talk.

[GDS_Starfury]

It turns out that American "super carriers" are more resistant to combat damage than most people think. Because of their size (100,000 tons) it's been possible to protect these ships much better than potential foes realize. Many in the U.S. Navy carrier community believe these large ships are actually more resistant to modern anti-ship missiles, including those with shaped charge warheads, than the 45,000 ton Iowa class battleships. These were the pinnacle of battleship design, entering service in 1943 and only removed from the reserve (of older ships kept around just in case) in the last decade. The Iowa class ships served in Vietnam and the Gulf War. In both conflicts they made themselves useful with their 16 inch (406mm) guns, delivering one ton shells in support of American ground troops.

Carrier experts in the navy have been gradually modifying the design and protection of the large carriers for decades, taking into account what new generations of large anti-ship missiles ("carrier killers") could do. These design tweaks and damage control measures have been kept quiet, and often secret, to deny the anti-ship missile developers knowledge that they can use to improve their designs.

The U.S. Navy has also used old ships for target practice to see just how well these design changes perform in realistic conditions. For example, most of the 30 decommissioned Spruance class destroyers were used for this kind of target practice. Running a SINKEX (sinking exercise) enables the navy to test some theories on how vulnerable, or invulnerable, modern warships are. Carriers are rarely employed for this but a 1996 SINKEX was conducted using the retired 82,000 ton carrier USS America. This classified exercise was a test of the vulnerability of such large ships to modern anti-ship missiles. While the exercise details were secret, it did get out that carriers this size were very hard to sink.

Source: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/hts.../20130302.aspx

[GDS_Starfury]

some corrections for that article:

Originally scheduled to undergo Navy SLEP in the late 1990s, CV-66 fell victim to budget cuts and was retired early by the U.S. Navy.

She was decommissioned in a ceremony at Norfolk Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, Va on 9 August 1996.

Following the decommissioning America was stricken from the Navy Vessel Register and was transferred to the Ready Reserve Fleet at the Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

America was planned to be sold for scrapping. However, she was chosen to be a live-fire test and evaluation platform in 2005, to aid the design of future aircraft carriers.
There was some objection to a ship being named for the nation being deliberately sunk at sea, and a committee of her former crew members and other supporters attempted to save the ship for use as a museum ship. Their efforts were ultimately unsuccessful.

She departed the Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility on 19 April 2005 to conduct the aforementioned tests. The experiments lasted approximately four weeks. The Navy battered America with explosives, both underwater and above the surface, watching from afar and through monitoring devices placed on the vessel. These explosions were designed to simulate attacks by torpedoes, cruise missiles and perhaps a small boat suicide attack like the one that damaged the destroyer Cole in Yemen in 2000.

After the completion of the tests, America was sunk in a controlled scuttling on 14 May 2005 at approximately 11:30, although the sinking was not publicized until six days later. At the time, no warship of that size had ever been sunk, and effects were closely monitored; theoretically the tests would reveal data about how supercarriers respond to battle damage.

In response to a Freedom of Information Act request from former USS America veterans at CVN78.com, the U.S. Navy released the exact location where USS America was sunk: 33.09.09 N, 071.39.07 W, around 250 miles (400 km) southeast of Cape Hatteras.
The wreck lies upright in one piece in 2,810 fathoms (5,139 metres or 16,860 feet).

[mirth]

Very cool, but the link to the article is bad :(

[GDS_Starfury]

well I quoted the whole thing so....

[Steelgrave]

I think that a lot of people, like me, still think of carriers as "eggshells armed with hammers", considering that our most recent experiences with a carrier lost in combat date back to WWII. The article was encouraging, given that Aircraft Carriers will remain the dominant sea-going force until proven otherwise.

[mirth]

well I quoted the whole thing so....

I thought there was more than that.

[GDS_Starfury]

the America got pounded for a month with no damage control parties and still had to be sunk with scuttle charges.
the Hornet at Santa Cruz took at least 2 torpedos, 3 bombs, 2 kamikazes and around 400 5 inch shells.  to actually sink her the Japanese used 4 more torpedos.  ands thats from a pre-WW2 design.

[TheCommandTent]

Very interesting stuff. Thanks for posting GDS

[mirth]

The fire on Forrestal in '67 cooked off a bunch of bombs along with the burning aircraft and fuel. It was bad and killed a lot of crew, but she made it to port under her own power.

Aside from the quality of construction of the ships, nobody does damage control as well as the US Navy.

[Staggerwing]

IIRC, "Every Sailor is a Firefighter" was the result of the Forrestal fire, even if it was largely true before that.

[republic]

It is hard for me to fathom how it is cheaper to build a new carrier than renovate the older ones.  I check Google satellite maps every once and awhile to check on the carrier ghost fleet in Washington.  Just seems like such a waste.

[GDS_Starfury]

Have you ever been on a carrier?

[republic]

Surely they can do it cheaper than $14bn...which is the cost for the Ford (CVN-78) including R&D.  Surely they could do it cheaper than $9bn which is the cost of the Ford itself.

However, maybe they want to retire those at Washington because they are oil burners.  With the gas turbine escort fleet, getting rid of the oil burning CV's might eliminate an entire logistics chain, which might offset the new construction?

[besilarius]

It's so political these days.
Nothing is easy to change.  The biggest impediment to your suggestion are the shipyards.  They are inefficient, and grossly overcharge for their services.  Can't be changed because of politics.  Companies like Ingalls have so many senators and representatives beholden to them, that nothing can be done easily.