Study Proposes Light Aircraft Carriers for the Future Fleet

[boogieman]

I'm not sure how to square this with the need to operate ~1000nm away from the Pacific AO so as to avoid the worst of the Chinese A2/AD bubble. Surely this mandates CATOBAR as a minimum, and larger carriers to accommodate sufficiently sized airwings (of larger aircraft) to maintain the needed sortie rates at such a distance.

[marauder2048]

I'm not sure how to square this with the need to operate ~1000nm away from the Pacific AO so as to avoid the worst of the Chinese A2/AD bubble. Surely this mandates CATOBAR as a minimum, and larger carriers to accommodate sufficiently sized airwings (of larger aircraft) to maintain the needed sortie rates at such a distance.

I don't think they are envisioning the CVL airwing being involved in strikes at that
distance since that distance is motivated by the likely range at which a CVN can be targeted.

It's more air cover for detached surface groups or assets doing other things like ASW or mine-laying/sweeping.

[boogieman]

I'm not sure how to square this with the need to operate ~1000nm away from the Pacific AO so as to avoid the worst of the Chinese A2/AD bubble. Surely this mandates CATOBAR as a minimum, and larger carriers to accommodate sufficiently sized airwings (of larger aircraft) to maintain the needed sortie rates at such a distance.

I don't think they are envisioning the CVL airwing being involved in strikes at that
distance since that distance is motivated by the likely range at which a CVN can be targeted.

It's more air cover for detached surface groups or assets doing other things like ASW or mine-laying/sweeping.

Suffice it to say that makes more sense.

[madrat]

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).

You only need to be in range of a heli-lift asset to move said unserviceable F-35B. Some maintenance can be handled in the field on the F-35B. What do the Marines plan to do with F-35B when it breaks in a field? Obviously they will move it if necessary.

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.

If you're operating on the island concept - that there is only one location that everything has to take place at - it really discredits most alternate ideas. You're bringing up issues that are neither insurmountable or new.

'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.

There is an evolution of concepts I regurgitate, most of them did not originate from me. I do remember Skyhook. It was during an era of all sorts of crazy sounding VTOL ideas, including the likes of Nutcracker. So putting aircraft on destroyers has always been something that has merit. It's not really crazy to think you couldn't disperse F-35B's across ships designed to operate them in some way. I'm not saying cruisers and destroyers need to look like the Moskva or the Invincible. Maybe we actually use the past 50 years of research to make something out of proven concepts that can get us something more general utility that isn't $1 billion a ship. Using trimaran designs and such to increase both stability on the water and surface real estate in future stealth designs isn't exactly a new idea. Things like through-decks aren't new. Combining roles into a common ship isn't new. It's necessary. Focusing on automation and combining equipment roles on a ship is again nothing new. Put multipurpose designs together into an effort of a future, more uniform fleet to be prudent not crazy. I'm not suggesting ideas to be weird here, I'm only looking at an evolution that's largely already taken place in aviation. Hence the JSF program.

[spazsinbad]

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.

How does the 'evolution of ideas' propose to overcome this VTO hurdle? Issue has been mentioned in threads here also.

[quicksilver]

F-35s on cruisers (e.g. CG-47 types) and destroyers (e.g. DDG-51) is complete internet fantasy. We’ve covered this before.

[spazsinbad]

Oops - my comment was meant for 'madrat' to answer but 'QS' has said what I say again to 'madrat' despite the 'evolution'.

[XanderCrews]

I'm not sure how to square this with the need to operate ~1000nm away from the Pacific AO so as to avoid the worst of the Chinese A2/AD bubble. Surely this mandates CATOBAR as a minimum, and larger carriers to accommodate sufficiently sized airwings (of larger aircraft) to maintain the needed sortie rates at such a distance.

Hopefully the Navy will park everything behind a well defended air force base, and then they can start launching strikes. But only after the 3rd wave of land based aircraft return, with minimal losses... Another good option would be purchasing surplus USAF Strategic bombers as the B-21 comes online. This land based, Naval Air Force could operate over thousands of miles, finally validating the true power of 21st century land based, immobile non nuclear naval floating air base concept. The ultimate CVN

Its too dangerous to steer ships out into seas where they could be lost. the nearly Land based, 21st century navy era has arrived. like ship of old they should never steer beyond the sight of land, lest they be lost.

If the coast guard is around to watchdog, them they can go a little further out. but only then after the coasties have cleared the area, and all naval personnel have secured their rubber duck style water floats.


"Are you sure the coast guard said everything is OK?"

[boogieman]

I'm not sure how to square this with the need to operate ~1000nm away from the Pacific AO so as to avoid the worst of the Chinese A2/AD bubble. Surely this mandates CATOBAR as a minimum, and larger carriers to accommodate sufficiently sized airwings (of larger aircraft) to maintain the needed sortie rates at such a distance.

Hopefully the Navy will park everything behind a well defended air force base, and then they can start launching strikes. But only after the 3rd wave of land based aircraft return, with minimal losses... Another good option would be purchasing surplus USAF Strategic bombers as the B-21 comes online. This land based, Naval Air Force could operate over thousands of miles, finally validating the true power of 21st century land based, immobile non nuclear naval floating air base concept. The ultimate CVN

Its too dangerous to steer ships out into seas where they could be lost. the nearly Land based, 21st century navy era has arrived. like ship of old they should never steer beyond the sight of land, lest they be lost.

If the coast guard is around to watchdog, them they can go a little further out. but only then after the coasties have cleared the area, and all naval personnel have secured their rubber duck style water floats.


"Are you sure the coast guard said everything is OK?"

I dunno - sounds kinda dangerous

[marauder2048]

I guess it comes down to: whither carrier airpower?

It had a clear and overwhelming advantage while surface-to-surface and surface-to-air fires
could not match the OTH range, cost, volume and effects on target of air delivered weapons.

Now, I'm not so sure on most of those advantages especially as the CVW is compelled to invest in greater
standoff which makes it less competitive on the cost and volume front and in some cases
effects on target. Ex: JSOW-ER is trading warhead for range.

So a Super Hornet which previously could (upper bound) service ten aimpoints with 1000 pound
warheads can only service four aimpoints with JSOW-ER that's probably packing a 300 lb warhead.

That's a huge loss in firepower. And that's $2,000,000 in weapons vs. say $300,000.

And JSOW-ER is a bigger, all-up-round which means, unlike JDAM, you can't break it down into
its component parts for efficient delivery and storage.

[madrat]

With 70% of the globe covered by water, I seriously doubt we need to gauge survivability by how they'd fair parked in the shallows of a near peer. That near peer makes up a tiny fraction of the world's coastline. And with that country largely surrounded by natural barriers that keep them as much contained as it keeps others out, the water surface is going to be highly contested space.

[marauder2048]

With 70% of the globe covered by water, I seriously doubt we need to gauge survivability by how they'd fair parked in the shallows of a near peer. That near peer makes up a tiny fraction of the world's coastline. And with that country largely surrounded by natural barriers that keep them as much contained as it keeps others out, the water surface is going to be highly contested space.

Iraq's modest ASCM capabilities (IIRC, all of two Iraqi ASCMs were fired in GW1) compelled
US carriers to standoff at least 280 nautical miles until Iraq's ASCM and attack aircraft were suppressed.

Even An MTCR compliant ASCM could trade some of 500 kg warhead for > 600 km range.

Since aircraft cruise speed has not appreciably improved since GW1 and the CVW is smaller,
the standoff requirement presages a major loss in sortie generation rate.

Now maybe the argument is that you rely on standoff weapons to fly most of the distance to target
and it's all about quick-rearming and turnaround to get back to the standoff weapon launch points.

[XanderCrews]

With 70% of the globe covered by water, I seriously doubt we need to gauge survivability by how they'd fair parked in the shallows of a near peer. That near peer makes up a tiny fraction of the world's coastline. And with that country largely surrounded by natural barriers that keep them as much contained as it keeps others out, the water surface is going to be highly contested space.

I'm proposing the "Near Pier" Navy above, just in case they might get hurt.

Iraq's modest ASCM capabilities (IIRC, all of two Iraqi ASCMs were fired in GW1) compelled
US carriers to standoff at least 280 nautical miles until Iraq's ASCM and attack aircraft were suppressed.

Even An MTCR compliant ASCM could trade some of 500 kg warhead for > 600 km range.

Since aircraft cruise speed has not appreciably improved since GW1 and the CVW is smaller,
the standoff requirement presages a major loss in sortie generation rate.

Now maybe the argument is that you rely on standoff weapons to fly most of the distance to target
and it's all about quick-rearming and turnaround to get back to the standoff weapon launch points.

Right. and no one wants to lose a CVN to some piddly ME dictator and his scrub force that has some exocets or whatever.

My point being, and dear old blaine and I went around on this a few times when the USMC announced its new force structure idea. Before the plan was released blaine was just completely convinced the USMC was going to ditch STOVL and join full force with the Carrier Air Wing since the F-35C has more range and capacity and the evil missile envelope would force the USN to launch fighters from far far away.

Low and behold the USMC instead found the F-35B to be one of the few pieces of gear they felt really worked with the new force structure, and rather than try and stay outside envelopes, the USMC just gave up and started to plan how it would operate WITHIN the enemy ranges, which of course will be larger and ever more expanding going into the future


one might have to actually expose themselves to danger... in a war. Thats really my point in all this. No one wants to lose ships, but we are talking China. For some reason people think we will take them on like its 1991, and we won't lose anything. A war with China would probably mean losing thousands of people per day. I have no idea why people think we will fight big bad china, and not take some knocks. Look at world war. did we lose any ships in the last big pacific fight?
carriers?

Probably something we could all debate and talk about on the troop ship bound for Australia or NZ. War with China is "all hands on deck" we can't fight that with one toe in the door like we are accustomed to the last 30 or so years.

A ship in the harbor is safe. But that is not what ships are for.

[marauder2048]

With 70% of the globe covered by water, I seriously doubt we need to gauge survivability by how they'd fair parked in the shallows of a near peer. That near peer makes up a tiny fraction of the world's coastline. And with that country largely surrounded by natural barriers that keep them as much contained as it keeps others out, the water surface is going to be highly contested space.

I'm proposing the "Near Pier" Navy above, just in case they might get hurt.

This was seriously a suggestion in one the think tank studies (I'll go and figure out which if there's interest).
Basically, the CVNs are a warm standby surge capability. Not a force in being.

Steady state, you get by with CVLs as augments to the FFG/DDG/whatever surface force.

[boogieman]

^
https://youtu.be/qdDdHMwhU2s?t=109

As I have argued on the ASBM issue, you'd have to think that any Chinese anti-ship weapon capable of reaching a CSG from 500km+ faces a significant targeting problem. If one is to anticipate operating CSG's within the reach of such systems, blinding the supporting ISR assets strikes me as attractive. ISR satellites can be jammed or killed (SM-3), air breathing sensor bearers can be subjected to the usual defence in-depth, and the currently modest SSN threat can be screened as usual.