Study Proposes Light Aircraft Carriers for the Future Fleet

[count_to_10]

I've read that if the USN started building Queen-Liz type carriers then the bean-counters would demand that more expensive CVNs be ditched altogether to save money.

This is also a potential pitfall. The USN would probably be better off building a Sea Control Ship concept around VTOL drones and the Independence class LCS (FF?), so as to make it very clear that they are not in competition with the CVNs.

[popcorn]

How about we fix the existing fleet of USN/USMC tacair, and then start the good idea fairy contest?

This.

[zerion]

Small Aircraft Carriers: RAND Report Won’t Convince McCain
By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR.

WASHINGTON: The fleet needs smaller, cheaper aircraft carriers than the badly over budget, behind schedule Gerald Ford, ex-Navy pilot John McCain has long argued. No way, “Bigger Aircraft Carriers Are Better,” declares a recent National Interest article – widely publicized by the carrier industry’s advocacy group, ACIBC– citing a study that RAND did for the Navy. But McCain is unlikely to be convinced, and RAND actually thought at least one kind of smaller carrier was worth considering.

The RAND report doesn’t refute McCain’s argument, a Hill staffer told me, because it doesn’t really answer the question the Senate Armed Services chairman was asking. “They looked at them (the alternative designs) against the mission set the Ford does in the most stressing scenario” – a major war against a sophisticated adversary like China – “and not surprisingly found out they’re not as good,” the staffer said. “They punted on the whole spectrum of other things aircraft carriers can do where a Ford is overkill and where a smaller carrier might be more suitable.”

RAND also makes only passing mention of one of McCain’s central ideas, that “The Navy should also pursue a new ‘high/low mix’ in its aircraft carrier fleet,” to quote his white paper, Restoring American Power. “Traditional nuclear-powered supercarriers remain necessary to deter and defeat near-peer competitors, but other day-to-day missions, such as power projection, sea lane control, close air support, or counterterrorism, can be achieved with a smaller, lower cost, conventionally powered aircraft carrier.”

RAND did say such a mix of larger and smaller flattops working together, each taking on different missions, “might lower risk somewhat” and make it more “manageable. But the thinktank didn’t study it in depth as a long-term solution.

So, the RAND report may not meet the legal mandate. In the final language passed by the House and Senate, the National Defense Authorization Act for 2016, Section 128(d), orders the Navy to report to Congress on alternative carrier designs

“for a range of operational scenarios”;
“that would replace or supplement the CVN–78 class aircraft carrier” (emphasis ours); and
“ranging from less than 20,000 tons to greater than 100,000 tons.”

However, the RAND report only analyzed performance in “the most stressing scenario,”
looked at a “lower-cost carrier replacement” for the Ford that would “over time, define the carrier force”; and
only looked at sizes from 20,000 to 100,000 tons, nothing smaller or larger.
While McCain advocates smaller carriers, the NDAA also asks the Navy to study something bigger than the current supercarriers, examining both ends of the spectrum – which RAND didn’t do.

Even if you set aside all of the criticisms above, however, “bigger is better” still isn’t a fair summary of what RAND said. The study really boils down to “smaller has tradeoffs.” For some alternative aircraft carrier designs, the thinktank concluded the reduction in cost wasn’t worth the reduction in combat effectiveness. For others, RAND said, it might be – notably for a midsized nuclear carrier about 30 percent smaller than the Ford.


Four Options

RAND looked at four notional designs, each with its own strengths and weaknesses in a major war (and each with a nigh-incomprehensible designation):

At the high end: a 100,000 ton nuclear carrier (CVN 8X), a slightly less expensive version of the Ford. RAND found this ship sacrificed some sortie generation capability – the ability to land aircraft, refuel and rearm them, and get them back in the air, over and over – for “only incremental reduction” in cost. By the time you’d paid to develop and debug the new design, there might be no savings over the Ford class at all.

At the low end: a 20,000 ton conventionally powered carrier (CV-EX), a modern version of the escort carriers of World War II. Such a small deck couldn’t operate a complete carrier air wing, only jump-jets like the F-35B, tiltrotors like the V-22 Osprey, and helicopters – and not many of those. Other capabilities like electronic warfarewould have to come from larger carriers and land bases that can accommodate larger aircraft, or the Navy would have to develop new vertical take-off and landing aircraft for those roles. So the escort carrier “is not a practical variant at all,” RAND said, without major and potentially expensive changes in how the Navy operates.

More interesting are the two options in the middle:

A 70,000 ton nuclear carrier (CVN-LX), almost a third smaller than the Fordbut still with a full-size flight deck able to operate the same aircraft. (There’ve been proposals for a conventionalcarrier in this weight class, like the British Queen Elizabeth or the former USS Forrestal, but RAND strangely didn’t study that). This ship would generate fewer sorties per day than the Ford, unsurprisingly, but RAND estimated “this is not a significant limitation for stressing warfighting scenarios.” More seriously, the 70,000-ton ship could carry less ammunition and fuel per airplane than the Ford, so it might require more frequent resupply, always awkward when under fire. Nevertheless, RAND said, it “would allow considerable savings across the ship’s service life and appears to be a viable alternative to consider for further concept exploration.” (Our italics).

A 40,000 ton conventional carrier (CV-LX), an upgraded version of the current amphibious assault ship USS America. Like the America, this ship’s deck would be small enough that it could only operate F-35Bs, V-22s, and choppers, so it would require outside support, but much less than the smaller escort carrier concept. Since this class derives from an existing design, it would be relatively “low-risk” and affordable, RAND said, and two of them could most of the work of one Ford – but not all, meaning they wouldn’t be a “viable option” to replace it without many other changes to the fleet.

When McCain’s white paper calls for smaller carriers, it specifically recommends ships in this class – but not to replace the supercarriers in the Navy’s carrier strike groups (CSGs). Instead, he wanted to build such non-nuclear light carriers to replace the aging Wasp­-class big-deck amphibs in Amphibious Ready Groups (ARGs), which carry Marines. The idea was to give the Marines more airpower for more demanding missions, not to give the fleet carriers less. That crucial nuance was somehow lost along the way from McCain to the statutory language to the Navy to RAND.

“The debate will not end with this study, as it has not ended after myriad other studies that have reached similar conclusions,” retired Navy officer Bryan McGrathtold me. “Smaller, limited purpose carriers have a place in the future fleet, but as an adjunct to—not a replacement for—large nuclear-powered carriers.”

[sferrin]

"The RAND report doesn’t refute McCain’s argument, a Hill staffer told me, because it doesn’t really answer the question the Senate Armed Services chairman was asking. “They looked at them (the alternative designs) against the mission set the Ford does in the most stressing scenario” – a major war against a sophisticated adversary like China – “and not surprisingly found out they’re not as good,” the staffer said. “They punted on the whole spectrum of other things aircraft carriers can do where a Ford is overkill and where a smaller carrier might be more suitable.”"

I hate the way these people are so disingenuous. Sure, you can find a use for a small carrier. Nobody has ever denied that. What has always been found is that ALL THINGS CONSIDERED the big carrier is the way to go. These people are just looking for a wedge to GET RID OF larger carriers. As soon as you start to bring the numbers down the unit costs will rocket and that will be that. If they want to use a small carrier for something SEND AN LHD/A. Oh wait, they already do that. So much for the "need" for small carriers. Buy a few more LHA-6s if they're so desperate, but don't touch the CVNs.

[rheonomic]

This USNA lecture by CAPT (Ret) Tal Manvel has an interesting discussion of small, medium, and large carriers:

[hythelday]

This USNA lecture by CAPT (Ret) Tal Manvel has an interesting discussion of small, medium, and large carriers:

For the lazy, relevant Q&A bit @27:30, in about 2 minutes Captain explains it all: "small decks lose every time".

Great vid btw, thanks for digging it up. I've seen it before and wanted to find it again recently, but could remember any keyword to look it up with.

[wrightwing]

I think rather than tonnage being the consideration, the specifications should be based around A) how many sorties per day, do we require? B) how many aircraft are necessary to accomplish that? C) how many days of continuous operation between resupply at max sortie generation? D) what additional capabilities do we need (i.e. tanking, COD, AEW, ASW, VLS missile cells, etc....?) Let required capabilities dictate the size/specs. If money were no object, then in addition to the 10 or 11 CVNs, provide the USMC with nuclear powered STOVL carriers, with 35+ kt performance, organic tanking/AEW via customized MV-22, as well as LRASM/SM6/ESSM

[blindpilot]

How about we fix the existing fleet of USN/USMC tacair, and then start the good idea fairy contest?

I second that ... Let the Marines with LHA8 class and Brit CV carriers fill in as needed, the perceived USN shortfall on low end requirements, but still also offer the primary mission focus they excel at (ie. full up MAGTF). I don't see the Marines releasing their big squadron MV-22/CH-53 platform requirements for a few more E-2Ds for the Navy.

/sarc on> I have an idea. Let's put 20 MV-22s and 6 CH-53Ks on the CVNs!!! That would save money! <sarc off>

Creative compromises are at the end of the day exactly that - Compromises. Compromise = "You lose something!"
Now if there are low cost/risk add-on possibilities for the primary capability. Fine. If you can afford it, tack it on.

MHO
BP

[hythelday]

Amphibious Warfare Leaders Warn Against Buying Light Carriers Instead of Amphibs

The Navy’s director of amphibious warfare warned that pursuing a light aircraft carrier option in lieu of amphibious assault ships would limit the Marines’ options for responding to operational commanders

The most recent iteration of the light carrier concept was raised in a trio of future fleet architecture studies released earlier this year, with proponents advocating something similar to the America-class amphibious assault ship or potentially something that looks more like a conventionally powered aircraft carrier with a catapult to launch planes.

Coffman agreed there are operational benefits to operating a light carrier or an aviation-centric amphib, but he said that would only be helpful if supplemented by traditional big-deck amphib capabilities to address the entire range of military operations

https://news.usni.org/2017/10/26/amphib ... ad-amphibs

[count_to_10]

I’d say that the only valid “light carrier” concept that doesn’t somehow step on the toes of the big flat tops is something like the Independence class LCS loaded with VTOL drones.

[zerion]

I’d say that the only valid “light carrier” concept that doesn’t somehow step on the toes of the big flat tops is something like the Independence class LCS loaded with VTOL drones.

I wonder how many of these you can pack into that hangar?

[count_to_10]

I’d say that the only valid “light carrier” concept that doesn’t somehow step on the toes of the big flat tops is something like the Independence class LCS loaded with VTOL drones.

I wonder how many of these you can pack into that hangar?

Probably more than it has the resources to maintain.

[count_to_10]

This USNA lecture by CAPT (Ret) Tal Manvel has an interesting discussion of small, medium, and large carriers:

Hmmm...
Taking the presentation as a whole, I’ve got a few complaints about some of his statements. In particular, I don’t think the LCS could have had a “core capabilities” statement that worked, let alone one that would have reduced its cost; the whole idea was to build a sea Jeep and then maximize what you can do with it. What I think would have been good (in hindsight) would have been to start from the beginning with the idea that a single seaframe would be evolved over time with a plan of which ships each flight would be replacing / missions it would be taking on. As it turns out, something like that is going to happen to the LCS, but only retrospectively.

Also, the point of making a carrier stealthy would be to make it harder to lock a weapon onto it, and to make countermeasures more effective, not to try to hide the fact that it is in theater. Seeing it’s day old wake wouldn’t give you much more information than knowing that it’s aircraft are flying around your stuff.

[popcorn]

Looks like 4 non-starters.

https://pilotonline.com/news/military/l ... cf9a3.html

What will the Navy's future aircraft carriers look like? They could be much smaller.

The federally funded Rand Corp. came up with four alternatives , released this week in an unclassified report. Two designs call for nuclear-powered carriers, while two call for much smaller, conventionally powered ships that could only launch aircraft capable of taking off and landing vertically.

The Navy sent copies of Rand’s report to congressional committees along with a letter warning that the designs for much smaller carriers wouldn’t meet current operational requirements and would require new aircraft types and alternate concepts of operations. The Navy said it would further study those concepts as it examines the design of its fleet of the future.

The designs closer in size to the Ford still would reduce the capabilities the Navy requires of its aircraft carriers for mission success, according to the Sept. 8 letter. The smaller of those two variants wouldn’t be cost-effective or feasible because of engineering challenges, according to the Navy.

More...

[count_to_10]

Though I think Manvel was right: putting an expensive new radar on the carrier itself was probably a big mistake. The carrier only needs enough radar to direct air traffic and accomplish point defense, leaving everything else to its escorts and aircraft. I can see where the past air wing commanders would have needed powerful radars on the carrier to direct operations, but they are redundant at best for the modern CBG. At most they probably should have just slapped the OTS Ageis syastem from the new build destroyers on and called it a day.