CAPT Tal Manvel, USN (Ret), the first Navy Program Manager for Future Carriers, discusses designing the Ford-class aircraft carrier on 7 January 2015 at the US Naval Academy Museum's Shifley Lecture Series
Excellent! Yeah, Ford had its problems - “too many” new-tech things. But, it’s at-sea and available to deploy, strike and defend! Years from now, the Ford will have the same high reputation of Dreadnought and Turbinia. Thank you, Capt Manvel, for your courage, commitment, devotion to duty and loyalty to the United States and its great Navy.
Bringing S-3s out of the boneyard = takes lots of time, not to mention standing up training for aircrew. Finding a replacement airframe probably takes longer. I think we lost fixed wing ASW from carriers for good.
@@franciscoalsina4348 V-22 is monstrously expensive, but the V-280 as a 2nd generation tilt rotor should be far more affordable. Add in RUAS, UUV's and USV's and the future is looking bright for ASW.
@@dogsnads5634 I'm with you here. Maybe the V-280 and unmanned will be the best COA for returning organic ASW to Carrier Strike or Surface Action groups.
Yes for day to day long term country policing, the large carriers are the most cost effective. Problem is, in a real shooting war with China, the big carriers would be gone in a a week or forced to be staged too far away to do anything effective.
What if the enemy spends the same 13b on anti ship missiles? That's a lot of missiles, if even 1% get thru, you've lost a carrier, it's airwing, it's crew, and it's escorts. Which adds up to a lot more then 13b.
Then you wasted 13b on missiles that can't find their target. so 10b on missiles, 1b on scouts, 1b on fighters to protect the scouts. But now you need bases and maintenance. Or the carrier sails out of missile range but now your invasion force can't evade. So you need to build ships that provide their own fighter cover oops you just built a billion dollar carrier and spent billions more on the infrastructure needed. Missile storms might be the future and carriers obsolete but do you want to be the first guy to test that theory?
@@russellmz My point is that a Carrier can be sunk a lot easier then it can be replaced. If we are going to invest so heavily into carriers, it should be into many small carriers like the Charles De Gualle. Thou each less capable, many smaller carriers can be in more places at once then one big one, and can come together as task force and are faster to replace then the 10 or so years it takes to replace a supercarrier.
@@anicorp4952 not if you have to spend 20 billion in small carriers to get as many planes as 13b worth of big ones. If they have fewer planes for the same price they can't defend themselves as well. If big carriers truly are obsolete with 13b worth of missiles making them smaller and less cost effective is not the solution. All ships can be sunk easier than replaced.
@@anicorp4952 I agree, but.. more smaller carriers also means you need more escorts. Primary reason I'd go for more is because first strike in any future major war is likely to be (much) more of a surprise attack than Pearl Harbour & years to rebuild a navy will not be an option with various options for force projection being much cheaper & quicker & naval yards being few & far between. Though realistically the US looks like it can be defeated just with 'Democrat' anti-US psyops atm ;)
@@anicorp4952 Believe it or not, warships are meant to be in combat. The job of the carrier is to bring an air wing into enemy territory, any life after the moment the last aircraft leaves the deck is a bonus in battle. The US Navy is the most powerful in the world and our supercarriers are key to that.
