Study Proposes Light Aircraft Carriers for the Future Fleet

[XanderCrews]

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...

Yep nom starters. The us navy would never go STOVL and small carriers

[neptune]

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

.....great video of CVN-78 background but not in agreement with some of "his" views, for example;
1- the DBR should be required on "all" in the class because.... they have the power source to drive the system and as a distributed group radar for the Aegis CG and DDG escorts it provides redundancy to search, track and target any a/c of concern
2- amphibs (light carriers) are not CVNs (F-35C) and thus have a different mission statement that only has similarities of carrying a/c. CVN does not carry naval infantry!, the purpose of the LHA/D (F-35B) is to provide a/c support for the Marines embarked aboard, i.e. to achieve the goal of securing a "beachhead (landing zone)" for the arrival of the required "boots on the ground". The occasional "one-off" where a few a/c are out attacking without the "boots" is not the job of the Gator Navy; perhaps to be considered mis-use.
3- the LCS program was for a less expensive vessel to support the naval role in the littorals, now it is being "revised" back to the frigate role (more expensive/ fewer) because the naval leaders have now flip-flopped the mission as required by the "pols" to achieve the more familiar/ historical role. The LCS is not a frigate, which is not a destroyer, which is not a cruiser; ie. all boats are not the same, you only get what you pay for (remember!!).
...enough, enough, etc.

[spazsinbad]

"...The occasional "one-off" where a few a/c are out attacking without the "boots" is not the job of the Gator Navy; perhaps to be considered mis-use...."

Perhaps this is why the F-35 requires new thinking for roles in their various operational settings? Sure the primary role of the F-35B from LHAs is supporting the Marines but the secondary role is to take advantage of new capabilities of the B.

[XanderCrews]

2- amphibs (light carriers) are not CVNs (F-35C) and thus have a different mission statement that only has similarities of carrying a/c. CVN does not carry naval infantry!, the purpose of the LHA/D (F-35B) is to provide a/c support for the Marines embarked aboard, i.e. to achieve the goal of securing a "beachhead (landing zone)" for the arrival of the required "boots on the ground". The occasional "one-off" where a few a/c are out attacking without the "boots" is not the job of the Gator Navy; perhaps to be considered mis-use.
3-

And yet...

[spazsinbad]

SECDEF Esper Calls for 500-Ship Fleet by 2045, With 3 SSNs a Year and Light Carriers Supplementing CVNs
06 Oct 2020 Megan Eckstein

"...Esper stated that nuclear-powered aircraft carriers would remain the most visible deterrence on the seas, but he said a new future air wing would have to be developed to increase their range and lethality, and that light carriers would have to supplement the Nimitz- and Ford-class supercarriers to help achieve greater day-to-day presence while preserving limited CVN readiness, which has been strained recently by overuse and backups at maintenance yards. Up to six light carriers, possibly based on the America-class amphibious assault ship design, would operate both instead of and alongside the CVNs.

“While we anticipate that additional study will be required to assess the proper high/low mix of carriers, eight to 11 nuclear-powered carriers will be necessary to execute a high-end conflict and maintain our global presence, with up to six light carriers joining them,” Esper said in his remarks....

Source: https://news.usni.org/2020/10/06/secdef ... nting-cvns

[Corsair1963]

SECDEF Esper Calls for 500-Ship Fleet by 2045, With 3 SSNs a Year and Light Carriers Supplementing CVNs
06 Oct 2020 Megan Eckstein

"...Esper stated that nuclear-powered aircraft carriers would remain the most visible deterrence on the seas, but he said a new future air wing would have to be developed to increase their range and lethality, and that light carriers would have to supplement the Nimitz- and Ford-class supercarriers to help achieve greater day-to-day presence while preserving limited CVN readiness, which has been strained recently by overuse and backups at maintenance yards. Up to six light carriers, possibly based on the America-class amphibious assault ship design, would operate both instead of and alongside the CVNs.

“While we anticipate that additional study will be required to assess the proper high/low mix of carriers, eight to 11 nuclear-powered carriers will be necessary to execute a high-end conflict and maintain our global presence, with up to six light carriers joining them,” Esper said in his remarks....

Source: https://news.usni.org/2020/10/06/secdef ... nting-cvns

Makes you wonder if the CVL's could come at the expense of the current LHA/LHD's.....

[steve2267]

If CVL's come about, wouldn't they want a dedicated platform to have more roll stability than the LHA/LHD's? I'm no ship designer, so I don't know if you could slap some "roll control" widgets on the ships hull or not. The engineer in me suggests they are looking at a new hull design, but that increases the cost quite a bit.

[hornetfinn]

How would a dedicated CVL design differ from LHA in practice? Why not just produce more America class LHA, even though they might not be ideal designs? It would certainly be more economical and they would be different enough from CVNs so they would not be a threat to CVNs. They would also still be quite capable ships with F-35Bs and possibly that proposed EV-22 for AEW and maybe some helicopters also depending on mission.

[marauder2048]

Esper said the Pentagon will:

"continue to examine options for light carriers that support short-takeoff or vertical landing aircraft"

Based on his other remarks, it strikes me that they would just acquire more LHA-6s with some
updates.

[spazsinbad]

SECNAV Teases New Budget Overhaul, Strategies Set to Reshape Naval Operations
07 Oct 2020 Megan Eckstein

"BALTIMORE, Md. – The maritime services are poised to release several documents in the next few weeks that will outline a new path forward for the Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard under the National Defense Strategy, Navy Secretary Braithwaite previewed on Wednesday....

...Capturing attention during the rollout of the Battle Force 2045 plan is the role of the aircraft carrier. Esper said during his speech that more work was needed to more clearly identify how large the carrier fleet would be, but he expects between eight and 11 nuclear-powered supercarriers as well as a fleet of about half a dozen light carriers to supplement them.

“I’m a former naval aviator, so I’m a pro naval aviation guy. So right away, some of the people in the trade press jumped onboard fewer carriers when Secretary Esper mentioned that yesterday. We’re looking at a range, and we’re going to determine what the threat is, what the requirement is, and then be able to build to that number. I fully believe that that number will be pretty close to where it is today,” Braithwaite said today, referring to the 11 carriers currently in the fleet.

“And we’re going to augment that by doing even more work on the CVL. As you can tell, you’re aboard USS Constellation – I’m a big history guy, and the United States Navy won World War II on the backs of our light carriers, in addition to a lot of other resources, but our CVLs really provided that quantity that was so important. So if we can do the same thing and look to build a CVL at one-third, one-half the cost of what we build a CVN for, still having the CVNs which are going to serve in the fleet for the next 50-plus years, and complement that with CVLs – and, again, we don’t know what the sixth-generation aircraft aboard the deck is going to be, we may be able to get more aboard the light carriers and have the same kind of strike capability. So there’s a lot of unknowns, but there’s a lot of potential and a lot of excitement in going after that. So I think it’s going to be a really great story...."

PHOTO: "An F-35B Lightning II fighter aircraft with Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron (VMM) 265 (Reinforced), 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), takes off from the flight deck of amphibious assault ship USS America (LHA-6) during an air defense exercise March 23, 2020. US Marine Corps" https://news.usni.org/wp-content/upload ... 8677-1.jpg (1.2Mb)

Source: https://news.usni.org/2020/10/07/secnav ... operations

[Corsair1963]

Future 6th Generation Fighters may actually be bigger than current types. So, wouldn't we need to know the actual size and shape of the forthcoming NGAD (F/A-XX) Fighter. Before we assume they could effectively operate from a CVL? (Light Aircraft Carrier)


Remember, the F-14 Tomcat was to big for the older Essex and Midway Class Aircraft Carriers. Which, were hardly small....(especially the latter)

[Corsair1963]

If, they want to replace the current LHA/LHD's with a new CVL. I could support that but not at the expense of large CVN's. That would be crazy in my opinion....

[XanderCrews]

How would a dedicated CVL design differ from LHA in practice?

One can only speculate

[XanderCrews]

Future 6th Generation Fighters may actually be bigger than current types. So, wouldn't we need to know the actual size and shape of the forthcoming NGAD (F/A-XX) Fighter. Before we assume they could effectively operate from a CVL? (Light Aircraft Carrier)


Remember, the F-14 Tomcat was to big for the older Essex and Midway Class Aircraft Carriers. Which, were hardly small....(especially the latter)

Theyre going to approach the limit of carrier design. I've said it before and I'll beat that horse one more time, but there simply might be a limit on how much airplane one can have that still needs to fit the space, environmental, basic operation (plane goes "shoot" off the front! it goes "crash" to the wires on the back!) requirements of operating off a CVN.

Imagine if the notional 6th generation fighter was simply twice the size of an F-35. and thats just how big 6th gen fighters are to meet the requirements. the navy is basically out of the game if that's the case. There's no Navy equivalent to an F-22. They punted. a Super Hornet weighs more than an F-15, and its still 6000 kilos lighter than the F-14 it replaced. At one point the ship can only shoot so much weight off the front. the elevators carry so much size, and the wires catch so much mass. Anyone working on a ship based airplane instantly works in a smaller, less permissive box. and lastly, the navy is not an air force. they won't trade subs for the F-22 style reincarnation of the F-14. it just won't happen. They have a more limited budget and airplanes aren't the ultimate animal which brings me to: it has to operate from a ship. as in, the navy can't politically buy a fighter that's land based. The air force doesn't have to worry about making a fighter that is "stuck" on land. They don't have to compete with themselves like that.

so the 2 rules of CVN fight club so far are:

1. It has to operate from a ship

and

2. It has to operate from a ship


Its not that carriers are "obsolete" per se. its that they just become 3rd options instead of the "kick in the door" 1st responder hype we have. And a lot of it is hype. Without big wing AAR the navy would be watching Afghanistan get rocked by the USAF and ground based Marine aircraft from the comfort of the mighty CVN. The distance was too great for Carrier fighters to make without a lot of tanker help (and no, contrary to popular belief "buddy tanking" fighters don't produce additional range worth noting)





So its a different kind of problem. Can the navy solve it?... history says no. The last "new idea" navy fighter was the Hornet. Which leads to Super Hornet. F-35 is joint. The only reason the Navy is not making due with Hornets of various marks and types is because the mean old joint program saw fit to bless them with a highly advanced aircraft theyve never been able to do by themselves.

[Corsair1963]

I don't see large CVN's going anywhere. Regardless, if the USN adopt a new light carrier (CVL) or not....



Honestly, I have my doubts the latter will happen....