Study Proposes Light Aircraft Carriers for the Future Fleet

[hornetfinn]

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

One can only speculate

Sure, QE is likely be the best "light" carrier around, although it's not that much smaller than USN CVNs and look very similar which might be a threat to those CVNs. They seem to be a lot cheaper to acquire than Gerald R. Ford-class but not sure how operating costs compare. Of course it's less capable ship than Gerald R. Ford-class ship, but likely quite a bit more capable than LHAs as aircraft carriers. It would be interesting to simulate some scenarios using different ship (and aircraft) combinations to evaluate the best option.

But I'm not sure if USN really needs more carrier ships as opposed to equipping current ones with F-35s more quickly and upgrading current carriers with more modern technology.

[ricnunes]

I agree with hornetfinn. I also don't see the need of CVL's for the US Navy. They have 10 Nimitz class carriers plus 1 Gerald Ford carrier in service plus 2 more being build with a total of 10 Gerald Ford carriers being planned which are meant to replace the older Nimitz class carriers. I would say that 10 CVN's are more than enough for the US Navy which can be complemented by an almost as large number of LHA's which in the end can still act similarly like the proposed CVL.

I also agree that there's more pressing needs for the US Navy - such as purchasing more F-35C's and quicker - than getting into the 'business' of building and operating dedicated CVL's.

[marauder2048]

I agree with hornetfinn. I also don't see the need of CVL's for the US Navy. They have 10 Nimitz class carriers plus 1 Gerald Ford carrier in service plus 2 more being build with a total of 10 Gerald Ford carriers being planned which are meant to replace the older Nimitz class carriers. I would say that 10 CVN's are more than enough for the US Navy which can be complemented by an almost as large number of LHA's which in the end can still act similarly like the proposed CVL.

I also agree that there's more pressing needs for the US Navy - such as purchasing more F-35C's and quicker - than getting into the 'business' of building and operating dedicated CVL's.

If the Navy is heading toward greater levels of disaggregation i.e. smaller surface groups, those surface groups
will need air cover. CVLs seem well suited for that.

IIUC, there are two aviation focused LHAs being acquired so extending that line seems eminently reasonable.

[XanderCrews]

I agree with hornetfinn. I also don't see the need of CVL's for the US Navy. They have 10 Nimitz class carriers plus 1 Gerald Ford carrier in service plus 2 more being build with a total of 10 Gerald Ford carriers being planned which are meant to replace the older Nimitz class carriers. I would say that 10 CVN's are more than enough for the US Navy which can be complemented by an almost as large number of LHA's which in the end can still act similarly like the proposed CVL.

I also agree that there's more pressing needs for the US Navy - such as purchasing more F-35C's and quicker - than getting into the 'business' of building and operating dedicated CVL's.

If the Navy is heading toward greater levels of disaggregation i.e. smaller surface groups, those surface groups
will need air cover. CVLs seem well suited for that.

IIUC, there are two aviation focused LHAs being acquired so extending that line seems eminently reasonable.

a Marine Office made a great point that disbanding the Marines would see a bigger revolt within the Navy because so many careers hinge on the "gator navy". for as much resistance as there will be to "light carriers" it opens up far more slots for commands than would normally be. Thus there will be sections of the career class who will be happy with more command opportunities. With only 12 CVNs the competition gets extremely fierce, many don't make the cut. Adding a couple dozen more chances to command a (albeit not "real") carrier will be jumped at. Moreover, those little carriers will be less risk averse. to lose a CVN would be devastating. and for this reason, they are extremely cautious with them.

Its rare that a navy so "no" to more ships.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

It would definately open more command positions, but would it actually be more relative the the other additional Officers that would be needed to crew a ship? I was in the Army so I don't know what the officer structure looks like aboard ship. I do know that, per 100 soldiers, the Hospital in Baghdad had more O-6s that my unit had officers at all.

[ricnunes]

IIUC, there are two aviation focused LHAs being acquired so extending that line seems eminently reasonable.

Yes, I agree that those two America class LHA ships (which don't have well decks and thus carry more aviation) and eventually more ships of this class (or other very similar) is or will probably be the closest that the US Navy will get in terms of 'CVL' which kinda goes in line with what I previously posted (some LHA's serving as CVL's).

[quicksilver]

Would seem to me that ‘light’ and ‘not so light’ would be defined as a matter capability. Of course, some capabilities accrue to a platform as a mere consequence of size. Where are the lines of demarcation between the ‘light’ and the ‘not so light‘?

Isn’t there a csba study on same? I’ll look around.

CSBA link — https://csbaonline.org/research/publica ... ier-air-wi

[marauder2048]

Would seem to me that ‘light’ and ‘not so light’ would be defined as a matter capability. Of course, some capabilities accrue to a platform as a mere consequence of size. Where are the lines of demarcation between the ‘light’ and the ‘not so light‘?

Isn’t there a csba study on same? I’ll look around.

CSBA link — https://csbaonline.org/research/publica ... ier-air-wi

Per the Hudson study:

This study team considered the utility of a light carrier (CVL) that would be derived from the LHA-8 class, as well as alternative designs that could displace up to 60,000 tons and be equipped with catapults and arresting gear.
It found that the significant increases in procurement and O&S costs to field these CVLs, compared to the
LHA-8, considerably exceeded their modest increase in aviation capacity. Given the cost constraints of this
study, continued procurement of an LHA-8 design was deemed preferable to adopting a new CVL.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/Clark%20Cropsey%20Walton_American%20Sea%20Power%20at%20a%20Crossroads.pdf

[quicksilver]

[madrat]

How about we just forget CVL and order an LHA-style flattop pair for each theater and then add hangars on every future cruiser and destroyer for F-35B's? The unit wouldn't need to be an LHA, and you could get by with space for 15-18 aircraft to keep weight down below 20,000 tons. The F-35B can then be dispersed on fleet ships and when an aircraft needs maintenance the LHA/LPH handles the work. In emergencies you can alway re-purpose an LHA/LPH for different missions if needed. The idea would be to create more utility out of destroyers and cruisers without replacing the need for CVN.

[spazsinbad]

How does an unserviceable to fly F-35B transit from the rubble of the melted, broken flight deck of the USN cruiser / destroyer to the 'without a well deck aviation centric LHA' (which already is touted to take 20/22 F-35Bs in aircraft carrier mode). First the cruiser/destroyer flight decks have to be upgraded for the weight and landing heat of the F-35B. The landing aids need to be upgraded with JPALS included. All this needs to be tested with perhaps very stringent weather / sea state landing conditions for the F-35B via SHOL diagrams etc. I'll guess the cruiser/destroyer needs to have more aviation fuel or is the F-35B on a one way mission from the said ships to land back on the LHA? VLing on said cruiser / destroyers ain't going to be easy due to the ROCK 'n ROLL bouncy bouncy baby. 'madrat' IIRC has canvassed this and similar ideas yonks ago aboard this forum. SKYHOOKS anyone? Buehler? LILY PAD would be a concept to look for here; but not me.

[spazsinbad]

Navy Scours Budget To Build More Ships; SecNav Looks To WWII Carriers As Model For Future
08 Oct 2020 Paul McLeary

"...[Navy Secretary Kenneth] Braithwaite was more specific, pointing to the Navy’s experience during the Pacific fighting during World War II as a clue to where the service wants to go in the future.

That nod to past battles came after I asked about Esper’s suggestion that the fleet of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers could fall from 11 to as low as 8 in coming decades. Those carriers would be bolstered by half-a-dozen or more smaller amphibious ships packed with F-35s.

Braithwaite suggested there might be less change afoot than some might think.

“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,” Braithwaite said. “I fully believe that number will be pretty close to where it is today.”

However many carriers there might be, “we’re going to augment that by doing even more work on the CVL,” he said, referencing the nine Cleveland-class light carriers which saw extensive action in the Pacific war. “I’m a big history guy, all right, and the United States Navy won World War II on the backs of our light carriers.”

Marines fly F-35Bs, Harriers and V-22s from amphibious ships. Ships like the USS Wasp are called amphibious assault ships, even though every other country in the world would call them aircraft carriers.

The Navy is refitting several amphibious ships to be able to carry the F-35, giving the ships more combat punch. The new America-class amphibious ships could take up the mission, if not an entirely new class of smaller decks.

“If we can do the same thing [as in the 1940s] and look to build a CVL at one-third, one-half the cost” of a carrier, while keeping carriers “which are going to serve in the fleet for the next 50-plus years,” then it may be possible to slightly shed a few supercarriers while keeping the Navy’s airpower dominance intact, he told us...."

Source: https://breakingdefense.com/2020/10/nav ... or-future/

[marauder2048]

I'll guess the cruiser/destroyer needs to have more aviation fuel or is the F-35B on a one way mission from the said ships to land back on the LHA?

Well there's a compelling argument for the Navy necking down to a single fuel at sea: JP-5 aviation fuel.

[quicksilver]

The cru/des idea will not happen for two principle reasons — 1) the relative instability of the ship types in various wind/wx/sea state conditions (as spaz has pointed out above), and 2) the limited VTO capability of the F-35B. It is a STOVL jet, not a VTOL jet.

[spazsinbad]

OOPs forgot about the VTO. Landing is me thing. Take OFFs should be a no brainer but a VTO is a vacant brainer.