Defense Industry Daily has a trio of articles that seem relevant to this discussion. One covers the British CVF future carrier design, background, and relevant contracts. The second covers the related French PA2 carrier project, which will now be a CVF design collaboration. The third covers, not DD(X), but the USA's CVN-21 carriers that will replace the Nimitz Class beginning around 2013 - AND how the manpower savings work out. When you see that, some of the concerns expressed here can be put to bed (but some remain valid). All come with useful diagrams, photos, etc.
Costing the CVN-21: A DID Primer. Explains the CVN-21's real per-ship costs, the projected sources of $5 billion in lifetime operational savings, and where the key risks/ sensitivities are.
The US conversion of 4 Ohio Class SSBN (nuclear missile subs) to Special Forces and steath strike missions gives the US Navy a platform with the same potential relevance and situation-affecting punch as a carrier, albeit for different kinds of missions. Aircraft carriers remain exremely valuable in many, many war scenarios, however - and more than a few peacetime ones as well. For instance, the US carriers' ability to distill very large quantities of fresh water from the sea (it's good to have a nuclear plant on board) was very helpful in the tsunami's aftermath. For versatility and usefulness over a wide range of scenarios, there are still no real substitutes for aircraft carriers. People predict their demise - but then, they've been doing that to the tank for almost 40 years now, and Iraq showed that there is still no substitute for a tank. Same for the carriers.
Personally, gotta say that I'm not so hugely positive about the DD(X), myself. Here's a DID article covering DD(X), with a bunch of links that you may find informative.
Slashdot Mirror
Defense Industry Daily has a trio of articles that seem relevant to this discussion. One covers the British CVF future carrier design, background, and relevant contracts. The second covers the related French PA2 carrier project, which will now be a CVF design collaboration. The third covers, not DD(X), but the USA's CVN-21 carriers that will replace the Nimitz Class beginning around 2013 - AND how the manpower savings work out. When you see that, some of the concerns expressed here can be put to bed (but some remain valid). All come with useful diagrams, photos, etc.
The US conversion of 4 Ohio Class SSBN (nuclear missile subs) to Special Forces and steath strike missions gives the US Navy a platform with the same potential relevance and situation-affecting punch as a carrier, albeit for different kinds of missions. Aircraft carriers remain exremely valuable in many, many war scenarios, however - and more than a few peacetime ones as well. For instance, the US carriers' ability to distill very large quantities of fresh water from the sea (it's good to have a nuclear plant on board) was very helpful in the tsunami's aftermath. For versatility and usefulness over a wide range of scenarios, there are still no real substitutes for aircraft carriers. People predict their demise - but then, they've been doing that to the tank for almost 40 years now, and Iraq showed that there is still no substitute for a tank. Same for the carriers. Personally, gotta say that I'm not so hugely positive about the DD(X), myself. Here's a DID article covering DD(X), with a bunch of links that you may find informative.
Defense Industry Daily has a trio of articles that seem relevant to this discussion. One covers the British CVF future carrier design, background, and relevant contracts. The second covers the related French PA2 carrier project, which will now be a CVF design collaboration. The third covers, not DD(X), but the USA's CVN-21 carriers that will replace the Nimitz Class beginning around 2013 - AND how the manpower savings work out. When you see that, some of the concerns expressed here can be put to bed (but some remain valid). All come with useful diagrams, photos, etc. * Design & Preparations Continue for Britain's New CVF Future Carrier (updated) http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/design -preparations-continue-for-britains-new-cvf-future -carrier-updated/index.php
* France Steaming Ahead on PA2/CVF Carrier Project
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/france -steaming-ahead-on-pa2/cvf-carrier-project/index.p hp
* Design & Preparations Continue for the USA's New CVN-21 Super-Carrier (updated). What makes it different from the Nimitz Class?
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/11/design -preparations-continue-for-the-usas-new-cvn21-supe rcarrier-updated/index.php
* Costing the CVN-21: A DID Primer. Explains the CVN-21's real per-ship costs, the projected sources of $5 billion in lifetime operational savings, and where the key risks/ sensitivities are.
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/12/costin g-the-cvn21-a-did-primer/index.php
Odd, the exact terms of the contract didn't seem to designate the entire $100M for SpaceX, as they were actually one of two firms named in the contract - Orbital Sciences Corp. with its Raptor I and Raptor II was the other. Defense Industry Daily has the exact wording: http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/04/100m-f or-small-spacelift-vehicles-and-support/index.php