Study Proposes Light Aircraft Carriers for the Future Fleet

[milosh]

,,,, any chance of mistake by NORAD.

The pressure to respond quickly with preemptive counter force suppression from the Ohio Class sub off the coast, "before it gets worse", is not trivial... really bad things spiral out from, "well, let's at least close down the ICBM sites before they are just empty silos."

You (the Chinese) would have to be an idiot to launch a "salvo" of missiles thinking there's no chance of a mistake ... yeah right ... keep thinking that ... you'll get us all killed.

But as above, I certainly pray you're right.

MHO
BP

Today is quite easy to know what is fired and WHERE it goes so I don't think someone will instantily press red button and fire missiles which will have similar path as in case of attack on Russia. Also fear from possible attack on silos (even though I don't see in what scenario Chinese ASBM salvo would look like that) isn't really something to be feared off.

How knows in what shape Minutemen are. Last one was probable build while you was in NORAD

[marauder2048]

I certainly pray you are right ... but ... keep in mind I was working on systems in the Missile Warning Center in Cheyenne Mountain as a Missile Warning Officer when little defcon lights and missile counters went spinning in the wind in the late 70's, on the phone with a handful of senior officers, sorting out what was real or not.

Thankfully, the intervening 40 years saw dramatic improvements in strategic early warning and C3I.

The pressure to respond quickly with preemptive counter force suppression from the Ohio Class sub off the coast, "before it gets worse", is not trivial... really bad things spiral out from, "well, let's at least close down the ICBM sites before they are just empty silos."

Why wouldn't the PRC be in a launch-on-warning posture? D5's accuracy is predicated on a design range MET so
they have lots of time assuming they can detect a mid-ocean launch.

There's unlikely to be US pre-emptive strike on the strategic front.

If we detected PRC SSBNs well off their typical patrol routes, en masse, then maybe.

[milosh]

There isn't any realistic chinese conventional BM salvo attack which can look as attack on west coast.

Mostly close to that is attack on Hawaii but conventional BMs don't have that range and even that doesn't look like attack on west coast.

Only if they fire over Kamchatka it can be seen as attack on west coast, but there isn't any reason to do that.

[XanderCrews]

:lmao:

The study recommends a study.

More classic Navy ‘rope-a-dope.’

Decisions decisions, lets put them off some more

[XanderCrews]

Honestly, I have my doubts we will ever see a Light Aircraft Carrier (CVL) for the USN. Unless they plan on replacing the current LHA/LHD (Wasp/America) Amphibious Ships. Plus, would the USMC even go along with such a proposal???


Nor, do I see the country (US) giving away its ace in the hole card??? (Nimitz/Ford Class Super Carriers) Something that the PLAN can't match in the foreseeable future......

Thats a bizarre assumption

Assuming the USN plays its cards right, the L-class ships (which do more than just carry aircraft) aren't going anywhere. They get some new "light" carriers, don't compromise the CVN plans they have. That would be the ideal

People need to remember that these things that "never happen" (and I admit the odds are long) aren't carried by even recent history. Like when some mouth-breather says "the Navy will never accept a single engine anything" and I have to remind them they had single engine aircraft still on the decks in the same decade JSF program with its double plus ungood single engine was forming. Same with the post world war II "small carriers" that soldiered on into vietnam Midway went into the 1990s, and could never carry Tomcats but still made herself useful.

Its actually only fairly recent history where the navy operated only mulit-role hornets, from only CVNs. before that they operated various sizes of airplanes, from various sizes of ships. yes the odds are long, but my point is "never say never"
if one could assure the navy they are getting "more" as in "actually more" and not some "trade" or "addition by subtraction" bullspit then they might just go along with it. the issue is of course there are no true assurances, and the navy would have to "hate" the little carriers constantly in order to ensure the true Harbor Queens continue to be built. Those anchors are heavy, and they need to be dropped and never moved

[doge]

More increase F-35Bs ?
https://news.usni.org/2021/02/01/light- ... ture-fleet

Light Carrier Studies Already Underway As Navy Considers Role for CVLs in Future Fleet
By: Megan Eckstein February 1, 2021
The Navy’s engineering community has already started conducting light carrier design and engineering studies, even as the Navy and the joint force still consider whether they’d even want to invest in a CVL to supplement supercarriers to bring more distributed capability to the fleet for less cost.

The idea of a light carrier resurfaced last summer as a Pentagon-led Future Naval Force Study was nearing its completion. The idea hadn’t appeared in Navy and Marine Corps plans, but then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper had a growing interest in the topic as he sought ways to keep future shipbuilding and sustainment costs down and as he worried about the Navy’s ability to conduct maintenance on its nuclear-powered aircraft carriers at Navy-run public shipyards.

The FNFS and the plan it produced, Battle Force 2045, ultimately recommended between zero and six light carriers and noted much more study would need to be done.
That work is already happening at Naval Sea Systems Command within the engineering and logistics directorate (SEA 05).
Rear Adm. Jason Lloyd, the SEA 05 commander and deputy commander for ship design, integration and engineering, said last week that his Cost Engineering and Industrial Analysis team has been studying different options to understand what operational utility the Navy would get out of each design and for what cost compared to the Ford-class carrier, “and then let the operators really, and the Navy, decide, hey, do we want that capability for that cost?”

“We have looked at an America-class possibility, we have looked at a Ford-class-light, we’ve looked at various different options and done cost studies on all those options. There are also capabilities studies on all those options,” Lloyd said last week while speaking at a virtual event hosted by the American Society of Naval Engineers.
“An aircraft carrier in World War II is not the same as a Nimitz-class carrier; there have been a lot of lessons learned over the years such as being able to do simultaneous launch and recovery, such as being able to safely maneuver aircraft once they’ve landed and still do simultaneous launch. So there’s a lot to an aircraft carrier flight deck that has been lessons learned over the years. So to go to a CVL light that we talked about has some tradeoffs. We say that it could be significantly less expensive, and it can be, it could be less expensive, but there are tradeoffs to that. So we have to go figure out what it’s going to be.”

Lloyd said the team started by dusting off previous carrier studies the Navy has done.
“Just because a decision was made 10 years ago does not necessarily mean that decision is the right decision now. When you’re looking at littoral warfare or you’re looking at great power competition, those are two different adversaries, and the weapons that you need to fight those adversaries might be very different,” he said.

Lloyd also acknowledged that the makeup of the carrier air wing has a lot to do with what capability the Navy might want from a light carrier. In looking at previous carrier design studies, he said he realized just how much airplane technology had changed in recent years. For example, while the supercarrier may remain the preeminent design for launching manned aircraft, he said it’s not unreasonable today to think about a light carrier that would launch unmanned vertical-takeoff vehicles.

“I think it’s important to continue to think, hey, how does the change in the current warfare situation, as well as the capability of the weapon on the aircraft carrier, which is really the plane, how is that changing, and how do we capitalize on that?”
Carey Filling, the director of the Surface Ship Design and Systems Engineering directorate at SEA 05, said during the panel presentation that his office too has been heavily engaged with the carrier design work, along with their partners at Naval Surface Warfare Center Carderock, even though they typically focus more on surface ships than aircraft carriers.

“I will say that we certainly learned that it is hard to beat the sortie rate of the Ford. The Ford is optimized for its ability to deliver aircraft and ordnance off the ship at a high rate, so it’s hard to match that,” Filling said.
“I think the other thing to think about is the range of a nuclear carrier, its ability to move somewhere quickly and its speed, is hard to match.”

Filling and Lloyd were asked about the possibility of using the America-class design for the light carrier, and Lloyd said at this point they “don’t know” if that’s a road the Navy would go down.
Filling said LHDs and LHAs have a boxier design than aircraft carriers due to them having to also ballast down to launch and recover surface connectors in the water. That box shape keeps them from achieving the higher speeds that make a Ford- or Nimitz-class carrier more survivable, he said.

Still, Filling said, “I will say that our current LHD class for most nations is their primary carrier, and so our team has done a lot with the integration of the Joint Strike Fighter that make our current LHDs very capable. I think the limitations are acknowledged, though, that certainly vertical launch aircraft have limitations on range and payload, and that’s why this in-between study was asked for, to see if we could, for Distributed Maritime Operations, provide more carrier attack points than we have currently.”

[sferrin]

This is stupid. The politicians are just going to keep demanding studies until they get the answer they want. CVNs win every time.

[quicksilver]

This is stupid. The politicians are just going to keep demanding studies until they get the answer they want. CVNs win every time.

x2

[Corsair1963]

Really, from my understanding. This proposed Light Aircraft Carrier (CVL) would really be a replacement for LHA/LHD's as a cheaper alternative. While, providing more Air Support for the USMC.


This was never planned as a replacement for USN CVN's.

[weasel1962]

I think what is clear to me at least is that some people haven't read the latest 30 year shipbuilding report which is driven by the latest FNFS.

[Corsair1963]

I think what is clear to me at least is that some people haven't read the latest 30 year shipbuilding report which is driven by the latest FNFS.

Maybe you should read less........

[madrat]

Of course CVL is cheaper than LHD. But the CVL can't carry out the mission of LHD which is the whole point of having them in the first place. Buying CVL cuts into CVN and LHD numbers which weakens force projection. I'd rather see F-35B somehow dispersed to more naval assets, not less. CVL doesn't accomplish that.

[quicksilver]

“...the CVL can't carry out the mission of LHD which is the whole point of having them in the first place.“

x2

[Corsair1963]

Of course CVL is cheaper than LHD. But the CVL can't carry out the mission of LHD which is the whole point of having them in the first place. Buying CVL cuts into CVN and LHD numbers which weakens force projection. I'd rather see F-35B somehow dispersed to more naval assets, not less. CVL doesn't accomplish that.

Which, is why the CVL will either quietly disappear. That or a simpler and cheaper solution would just replace the LHA/LHD's.


Honestly, why not just replace the LHA/LHD with a small conventional aircraft carrier. While, buying some more LPD's to make up for their loss......


Also, remember the USMC is looking into acquire 1-2 classes of small Amphibious Ships.

https://news.usni.org/2020/11/19/navy-o ... ip-concept

[weasel1962]

Crap comments come when people don't understand what the USN is looking at. I'd rather read to keep up. Its not just LHD/LHA hullforms proposed and is certainly not an LHA/LHD replacement.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... er-studies

What I would say is the USN aren't made up of dumb tw*ts who don't know that LHD/LHAs are not as good as the CVNs or that they don't know the role of a LHD/LHA. I would also assume that they have the same concerns that any replacement would be a downgrade from the CVNs. Yet they, not Congress, are the ones doing this study....