Ultimate RatioReg penned an article for USNI that asked the question "must every carier be a supercarrier?" My answer is no, no it doesn't. (Read it here)
The US Navy is in the fortunate position of being in the midst of transformation. An unwanted transformation but one none the less.
My proposal is simple and it echoes the calls that others have already made. Why are we basing our naval air forces around 11 big deck carriers? Why not make some basic modifications to the USS America class, and develop them into Strike Carriers?
We've done it before. Adding length to these ships and giving them catapults and angled decks is not something we should automatically shy away from. CV-9, USS Essex when originally designed had no catapults, no angled flight deck and its deminsions were remarkably similar to the USS America's. She was modernized after the war and served with distinction.
We can do this again.
Instead of the Navy having 11 supercarriers, it can have 6 super carriers and 10 strike carriers...or any number, you pick it but you get my point.
Smaller, slightly fewer aircraft but with greater numbers able to be in many more places make this a sensible option. Tweaking escort numbers might prove to be a challenge but its doable and since the manning tables for the America class is so much smaller than a super carrier, it should not be a strain on manpower.
Bad idea. Actually, horrible idea. The notion of smaller carriers has been debated ad nauseum since at least the 60s. It's always been judged inferior. See the Sea Control Concept with the Convair 200. Here are just a few of the reasons why:
ReplyDelete1. 11 supercarriers and 11 gators *that can be used as strike carriers in a pinch* are going to be more powerful and useful than 6 supercarriers and 10 "strike carriers".
2. 6 supercarriers means you'll only be able to have 3-4 available at any given time. They had SIX in theater during Desert Storm. Are you planning on stripping your carriers from all corners of the world?
3. 6 supercarriers means your build rate is going to go down and your unit costs are going to explode. Moreover, since you won't be building them as often your work force and supplier base is going to atrophy, meaning lower quality and still higher costs.
In short, all you're proposing is REDUCING our capabilities while increasing costs.
i don't think you fully understand my concept. i'm reducing the number of super carriers, increasing the number of light carriers and leaving the number of gators as is.
ReplyDeleteit really makes sense especially since our super carriers are only having half their true compliment carried at one time.
six super carriers today is equal to two super carriers from the late 80's. what these light carriers would do is actually size the number of carriers to our real number of air wings.
Like I said, they've studied the light carrier concept for half a century and it's always come up short. As I recall you'd need something like 3-5 light carriers to equal one supercarrier.
DeleteI'm not sure where you get the idea that 6 supercarriers of today are equal to two supercarriers of the 80s. The aircraft number disparity is not that large. Most of the reduction is from things like getting rid of the Vikings. Light carriers won't change that. Secondly, on a per-aircraft basis, today's aircraft are more effective than they were in the 80's. Also, if you're so hung up on airwing size, it would be cheaper to fill those out than to go down the light carrier route you're suggesting.
its the number of aircraft carried. look at our supercarrier of today. it only carries 60 aircraft. a USS America in standard form can carry 40. modified as a pure carrier it will equal the number of aircraft carried by our super carriers.
ReplyDeleteif we're not going to jam 100 plus aircraft aboard a super carrier then it makes no sense to have ships that large.
why you can't see that is beyond me but its cold hard facts. not things as we want them to be but things as they are.
"why you can't see that is beyond me but its cold hard facts. not things as we want them to be but things as they are."
DeleteYou might want to double check what you think are *facts*.
1. A USS America does not carry 40 fixed wing aircraft and the idea that it could carry 60 is a complete joke for reasons that should be obvious.
2. Supercarriers have NEVER carried even 100 aircraft, let alone more. The standard aircraft wing in the 80s was ~89 aircraft as follows:
24 Tomcats
24 A-7Es
10 A-6Es
10 S-3s
4 EA-6Bs
6 SH-60s
4-6 KA-6s
4 E-2Cs
The Vikings are gone and the only aircraft you can operate off your "light carrier" will be F-35Bs and rotorcraft. The idea of operating STOBAR of a straight deck is laughable. Love your blog, and I know you mean well, but Jesus, sometimes you come up with some crazy shit.
sferrin i love ya guy but sometimes you can be an arrogant asshole. i said to modify the ships with an angled flight deck and to make them catapult capable.
ReplyDeletegeex you don't even read my stuff and you talk shit.
you can post all you want dude but you're starting to piss me the fuck off. oh and you put down all you want a compliment of 89 aircraft but its been common knowledge and has been consistently stated that they could carry 100 plus aircraft.
dude. you're just so FUCKING WRONG>
Sol, I agree with sferrin on this one. However, rather than use the USS America template, I think a new design must be developed, as the USS America was intended to support amphibious operations. Something along the lines of the USS Midway, or the Queen Elizabeth. And rather than using F-35B's (which has the shortest combat radius at 450NM), F-35C's should be used.
ReplyDeleteSee this link: http://www.general-quarters.blogspot.com/p/proposal-for-new-class-of-aircraft.html.
I SAID TO ADD FUCKING CATAPULTS AND ANGLED DECKS TO THE SHIPS!
ReplyDeleteFUCK!!!!!!
Adding an angled deck and cats will cost a lot. Might as well design something new, IMHO.
ReplyDeleteperhaps add it the wrong word...this is a new class of LHD and the design is in flux (as can be seen by the addition of well decks) so why not design a pure carrier with the hull as the foundation?????
ReplyDeleteThe main issue with carrier size is not the number of aircraft but rather the amount of stores carried and the ability to do sustained carrier operations. Consider that to operate 36 fighters the RN ended up with a 65,000 ton carrier.
ReplyDeleteWhile it's certainly true the USN carriers are being underutilized in terms of numbers of aircraft the ability to carry more is insurance against the future. Moreover, the Navy already plans to increase the air wing size by the end of the decade with the addition of an initial 4 to 6 fighter sized UCAS. If that program works well that number could easily go to 12+.
Another important matter, as mentioned, is that we simply need a critical mass of one class of carriers in order to always have a shipyard building one. Otherwise we just destroy any economy of scale savings. Carriers are getting larger for a whole host of operational reasons. If we wanted to go to air wings of 36 fighters we'd still end up with carriers about the size of the CVF or 65,000 tons.
Smaller sounds better but after 100 years of carrier development it's not the way to go. If anything consider the USAF operating 2,500 land based tactical fighters. Exactly what possible conflict might we be able to base even half of them? We have used half the USN carriers twice the past 20 years. If anything the nation could use more carriers and a smaller USAF.
This is absolutely correct. The problems we in the UK have are largely down to our inability to order enough expensive ship or aircraft or armoured vehicles for our own use to bring unit costs down to sensible levels (or provide large-scale export potential to help do the same). Also our politicians are a gang of clustercunts.
Deleteyou're still not getting it! a ship that's designed as an LHD...is going to have EXCESS stores capability.
ReplyDeleteyou guys are so busy trying to punch holes that you can't see the light on this.
debate among yourselves....i can't get through the fog of preconcieved notions.
It's an entirely different set of requirements. It's about aviation gas storage and munitions and the ability to move these around aboard ship. Frex just on deck there are 18 refueling and rearming points on CVN-77. The entire movement of munitions is extremely important as you go from weapons storage via elevator to weapons preparation and then up other elevators to the flight deck. Getting this movement right from a design perspective has taken many years and it's much improved on CVN-77.
ReplyDeleteThere are continual improvements to the design that impact sortie rate both on and below deck. Consider CVF being designed for high sustained operations of 36 fighters and requiring 65,000 tons. Increasing the size by 1/3rd more than doubles the number of aircraft that can be carried. There are decades of carrier design history and brand new carriers being built by the USN an RN. It's not reasonable to dismiss all this history and factual design criteria and just point to another ship,like LHA-6, and extrapolate turning that into a real carrier.
Moreover, it's way beyond simply changing the deck layout. An entirely new plant is required both for increasing speed to 30+ knots and for providing a LOT of electricity for various additional systems, including EMALS. Consider the USS Midway was 45,000 tons at commission and had 212,000 shp vs the 70,000 brake hp for LHA-6. The entire layout of the ship needs to be redesigned. There is in fact no evidence whatsoever that modifying an LHA will result in a better carrier than starting from scratch.
Sol the DeGaulle at 42,000 tons is generally considered to be too small without inadequate power. The French too have decided the next carrier will look much like the 65,000 ton RN CVF which is designed to just operate 36 fighters. The Kuznetsov is about 55,000 tons and operates a similar sized air group as DeGaulle and CVF. A 65,000 ton carrier gets you a light carrier air group in what used to be the size of a super carrier, which are now 100,000 tons.
USS America is designed to operate 20 F-35B's on 45,000 tons. With the changes required, if possible, you're getting to 65,000 tons to operate about 36. It's not a "fog of preconceived notions" but rather the reality of modern carrier design. As was mentioned we've been studying this subject for many decades and light carriers are simply not efficient and a modern one runs 65,000 or so tons.
Carrier-centric forces always tend to drive toward larger, very specialized designs because they are more efficient: you get more planes and, perhaps even more importantly, higher sortie rates per ton.
ReplyDeleteThe UK is an interesting case study right now. Even after very successful operations with the 22K ton Invincibles they opted for fewer, larger replacement carriers even when planning on operating STOVL aircraft from them.
Of course where that thinking got the UK was on the road to only being able to afford one carrier when the rule of thumb is that to keep one on station you need to own three, not to mention the whole "one lucky antiship missile and you now have zero carriers" issue.
We can go back and forth about design choices but what I think it keeps coming back to is that the US has a naval strategy from 1950 encased in amber and ship building programs, the procurement tail that waves the force structure dog. The "how many carriers do we have and what do they look like" discussion is really about whether or not to change our naval strategy.
Right on point!
DeleteI would add the DON rqmts definition and ship acquisiton system is totally broken (leading to similar situation to UK/RN).
I'm afraid I cant agree either.
ReplyDeleteThe UK is building 65kt carriers, to carry 36 fighters, and at several points, its looked dicey as hell as the wether or not we could launch and land the C and B.
Even if you only operate 36 aircraft off a CVN, you can launch them heavier, recover them heavier and do both for much longer before you need to break off and resupply.
Are you going to make nuclear strike carriers?
Better get some more oilers if you arent.
Thats not to say the idea is bad.
It just needs finessing.
Keep your super carriers pretty much as is, but as much as possible, without overly hampering their marine landing tasks, modify your new build assault ships so they run your F35 Bs.
Dont get me wrong, a mini carrier is useful, but its miles behind a proper one.
Just look at the pissy war loads carried the invincibles, or the garibaldi, or the juan carlos