"Should America Build More Mini-Aircraft Carriers?" Topic

"…Alternative No. 1: Run silent, run deep
One option -- an option that America's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is actively looking into -- is building a new generation of underwater "aircraft carriers" that can move invisibly to any part of the globe, there to deploy unmanned, robotic seaborne, land-roving, and aerial drones. No one knows how much it might cost to build such boats, however.

The good news is that America has another kind of aircraft carrier in its toolbox. It's smaller than the USS Gerald R. Ford. Probably a bit less capable. But -- and this is key -- it costs a whole lot less.

Alternative No. 2: Introducing America's mini-aircraft carriers
We call it the USS America, and technically, it's not an "aircraft carrier." The Navy calls it a Landing Helicopter Assault ship, or LHA -- but as you can see in the following picture, an LHA does look an awful lot like an aircraft carrier…"

Full article here.
link

Amicalement
Armand

U/W aircraft carriers make good sense, especially for drone and missile launches.

Small carriers do not, except as helo assault ships. They don't work for air-to-air, and still need the same, if not a larger escort force to be safe than a larger carrier does, which can provide a good air umbrella over itself, and its escorts.

Would there be sufficient Mini-Americans left to man them? I thought they'd all been super-sized. Maybe you could outsource the labour to some developing country where the populace is more svelte?

Look on these small cariers as being roughly equivalent to the carriers we used to retake the Falklands – so yes, very useful. There are lots of operations around the world where you will not be facing major enemy airforces but a few planes in the air would be useful. Perfect for that kind of job where the supercarriers would be a waste.

Think in Victorian times of battleships and cruisers. America sends it's expensive battleships/supercarriers everywhere because it doesn't have any cruisers/small carriers. America is basically a colonial power in the Victorian sense – with a 'send a battleship' mentality rather than 'send a gunboat'.

I think that is a problem with all the Western Powers – still tied into Cold War thinking in a Post Cold War world. In 20-30 years time we may be back into Cold War, at the moment we need cheaper (but just as or more effective) alternatives for the current situation. Keep the big carriers for where they are needed.

how small is small … would this mini carrier have..5 aircraft…10 aircraft…15 aircraft…with that in mind would this be like to rest of the American Carrier fleet and be a nuc powered vessel or carbon base fuel..or maybe a multi fuel. What would be the mission of the mini carrier and what cost to the taxpayer..all points to ponder.

just my nickles worth of dimes

Better an LHA than more LCS--"Little Crappy Ships."

Definition of small from the article:

"A dozen MV-22B Osprey transports.
Six F-35B Lightning IIs.
Four CH-53K heavy transport helicopters.
Seven AH-1Z attack helicopters.
A pair of MH-60S Seahawks. "

I love CVNs … but with the current US economic situation, I don't know if the US can keep all it's current CVNs sea going and combat ready …

I wouldn't mind having smaller carriers that have a capacity for 20 aircraft at most. Build your mini-airgroup around an FA/-18 or F-35 squadron, two EA-18s, two E-2Ds, and 4 MH/HH-60s. Two EMALS catapults.

If you can get three of these smaller carriers for each super carrier, I think you'd be coming out ahead. And actually, I'd be surprised if you couldn't afford 4 for what we're paying for the Ford.

The America-class LHA can only handle 20 F35s if you don't have any other aircraft, and that's with a hull design optimized for air wing.

They cost $3.4 USDbillion EACH, and require the same amount of escorts as a Nimitz. False economy, given the huge loss of capability.

You're going from needing one Nimitz/Ford carrier group to needing 4 America carrier groups to accomplish the same mission(s). By the way, 2 Americas have a larger crew complement than one Nimitz/Ford, so the lifetime costs for the smaller carriers will be significantly higher for the same capability.

Remember that the Nimitz/Ford class carriers haul 80 planes around.

Not sure it matters what the carrier is if it is carrying the F-35…

You're going from needing one Nimitz/Ford carrier group to needing 4 America carrier groups to accomplish the same mission(s).

So you have one Nimitz group and 3 or 4 minor missions in different parts of the world…

If your mission only needs half a dozen planes – which is probably true most of the time – then 4 – or even – 2 – o the smaller carriers are best. It depends on the job.

Likewise escorts – do you always need massive escorts? Again, depends on the mission.

I think the idea is that having a couple of these with modest escort would replace the supercarrier on symbolic missions, using air power on a very limited minor mission, and deploying special forces. That frees up the supercarriers to focus on great power rivals.

It's not a bad idea, but mission creep being what it is, I wonder if these won't be pressed into service replacing supercarriers on missions you actually do need supercarriers for. Also, the US can't handle casualties politically. So a more vulnerable platform might make more sense strategically, but if it leads to even a handful of dead marines/sailors/aviators, that might trigger a pullout that would be worse than not getting involved in the first place.

A submersible aircraft carrier is a great idea, but it's still a few generations of technology off.

Perhaps we should start charging people for bailing them out.

Seems like that is a growth industry, with the potential for major, positive cashflow……

What exactly do we need a navy for? I think that should be the first question asked before you decide on what to spend money.

I have a feeling that sometime in the next 20 years we will see a new revolution in naval warfare, just like what happened with dreadnoughts, naval air and submarines. When you get these revolutions all your old ships become nothing more then scrap metal and you have to build from scratch.

A submersible aircraft carrier is a great idea, but it's still a few generations of technology off.

Not really, the Japanese deployed many of them during WW2. Most of them only held ~3 birds though.

The LockMart "Cormorant" was planned as having 4 carried by the Trident SSGNs.

I agree with Doug. The super-carrier is 20th century technology. Smaller, faster, and stealthier drone-carrying carriers are likely the wave of the future. Except for perhaps a gun-range dogfight, I cannot think of a single mission-type that a UAV could not perform as well or better than a manned aircraft.

We will also be able to use them in higher threat situations than we are currently willing to expose our CVNs and manned aircraft to, thereby making them more valuable and effective weapon systems.

The super-carrier is 20th century technology. Smaller, faster, and stealthier drone-carrying carriers are likely the wave of the future.

Except for the fact that an 800ft long surface carrier is 25% as effective as a 1000ft long surface carrier.

Smaller carriers aren't better, there's a certain minimum size that you need to reach just for handling aircraft, and going bigger than that rapidly increases the number of aircraft carried.

Big carriers also rapidly decrease the crew per plane carried ratio. Look, the America-class has a crew of 1600 for 20 birds (80 crew per bird). A Nimitz or Ford has a crew of 3200 for 80 birds (40 crew per bird).

More carriers mean more crew, which means a much bigger paycheck needed to deploy them all.

If you want to go to submersible carriers, well, that's a whole new ship design, very limited aircraft size, and very limited ability to recover said aircraft.

The LockMart Cormorant is roughly 7 feet tall, and ~20 feet wide (it has to fit inside a 7' diameter tube). It carries about 2000lbs of boom (might be as high as 4000lbs), and whip-stalls itself into the water for recovery.

Range is limited because of the small size of the bird. Number of missions is limited by the number of rocket boosters carried, plus however long the engine lasts. Better hope your engine sealing plugs work, or the salt water is going to shred that engine.

Now, for recovery, you need to put divers over the side. That means the sub cannot be moving, not even minimum turns (even minimum turns is faster than even SEALs can swim). So, once you've tracked the semi-stealthy drones to their splashdown point, you have a long time to hit that spot with a few ASROCs or equivalent and kill the sub.

5 or 10 small targets is always a better idea then one big one. The problem with our big ships is that no one has shot at one since WWII when they start getting shot at and hit again they will understand BIG is not good. having groups of carriers working together is what work in WWII and will be what will work in the next real WW.

Here we go again…. Time for the every so often 'small carriers vs big carriers' debate. This row has gone on from the beginning of carrier aviation, all the way to today. Anybody remember the 'Sea Control Ship' from the '70s (which, incidentally, was a repurposed Tarawa LHA. Just like this 'America' farce…)? And everytime, after much gnashing of teeth and copious spending of research money, the same conclusion comes out: The 'mini carrier' is a poor substitute for a REAL carrier. Why? Because, to be effective, you need a minimum sized airgroup. And the 'mini carrier' falls way short. And as Lion correctly pointed out, the expense of operating 'mini carriers' is as bad, if not higher, than their larger brethen.

And as for the 'miracle of the drone': To get a drone able to replace the payload and range performance of a manned plane requires a platform just about as large as the manned plane (sorry, drone fanboys, drones aren't immune to the laws of physics and aerodynamics). So the notion that you're going to pack abroad so many more drones is silly. And that's not even considering that the technology is no where near mature enough for high end combat use. Eventually, maybe. But not for the foreseeable future

I just wish these 'defense analysts' would do just a minimal amount of research before before opening their uninformed mouths….

"If your mission only needs half a dozen planes – which is probably true most of the time – then 4 – or even – 2 – o the smaller carriers are best. It depends on the job."

Really?? I can't imagine ANY mission that matches that silly description. Other than delivering a nuke (and that's a whole different mission…).

"The problem with our big ships is that no one has shot at one since WWII when they start getting shot at and hit again they will understand BIG is not good. having groups of carriers working together is what work in WWII and will be what will work in the next real WW."

Yeah, but the US didn't build small carriers for combat. They built the Essex class capable of carrying a very large airgroup. Yes, they built the Independence class on cruiser hulls, but only as a stopgap supplement, not as a replacement. And the CVEs fall into another category altogether.

Except for the fact that an 800ft long surface carrier is 25% as effective as a 1000ft long surface carrier.

The Nimitz class CVNs were designed and most were built prior to 2000 (20th Century). So I'm not sure what you are comparing them to. I wasn't that clear. My point is that the super-carrier was designed and built for battles that were never fought. They are too big and expensive to risk in any conflict short of a full-scale war. And they are too vulnerable to today's weapon systems. Ron states it very well.

The Chinese claim they have a ballistic missile that can hit a carrier. If that's the case any CVN getting within 1000 miles of China will be very vulnerable.

I disagree Coastal2. The jeep carriers (CVEs) were not a stop-gap. They were purpose built to support convoys, invasion forces, and the old battleship groups. They did not need to be big or fast. Using a heavy carrier for this purpose would have been a waste of men and material. The CVEs freed up the bigger and faster CVs to hunt the Japanese fleet which is what they were designed to do.

That brings me to the point. What is the mission of a modern super-carrier? What is it that it can do, that no other systems can?

Ron is correct when he says, "The problem with our big ships is that no one has shot at one since WWII…" That is no fluke. There is a good reason why the Navy will not put their CVNs in harm's way, and it is that the Navy brass know that they are vulnerable and that the loss of even one would be a disaster.

"I disagree Coastal2. The jeep carriers (CVEs) were not a stop-gap. They were purpose built to support convoys, invasion forces, and the old battleship groups. They did not need to be big or fast. Using a heavy carrier for this purpose would have been a waste of men and material. The CVEs freed up the bigger and faster CVs to hunt the Japanese fleet which is what they were designed to do."

I was referring to the Independence class CVLs, not the the entirely different CVEs (and yes, I'm quite familiar with the mission and design history of the CVEs).

"Ron is correct when he says, "The problem with our big ships is that no one has shot at one since WWII…" That is no fluke. There is a good reason why the Navy will not put their CVNs in harm's way, and it is that the Navy brass know that they are vulnerable and that the loss of even one would be a disaster".

Looked at another way, and in my opinion, the more correct way, is that no one will dare attack a US Carrier Battlegroup, since they know that would be suicidal, at best.

Smaller carriers, and their escorts are much more vulnerable, since they don't have the required number of aircraft to provide a suitable CAP for their own protection.

Even our large carriers usually operate in groups of 2 – 3, in order to provide mutual support to one another, and to permit large strike packages to be sent off to attack our enemies at the same time.

Small carriers just can't do that, which is why the two British ones had to stay well clear of the range of outdated Argentine aircraft, back during the Falklands Conflict.

Except for the fact that an 800ft long surface carrier is 25% as effective as a 1000ft long surface carrier.

The Nimitz class CVNs were designed and most were built prior to 2000 (20th Century). So I'm not sure what you are comparing them to.

The America-class LPH is 800 feet long, the same size as WW2 carriers. I'm comparing the 1000ft long Nimitz/Ford class carriers to the 800ft long America class and pretty much every other carrier in service outside the US.

I'd like you to think for a minute what a carrier needs operational for normal air ops (NOT on a combat footing): Two birds aloft for overhead CAP, another pair of birds aloft for barrier CAP, plus an AWACS for better radar horizon. Two more birds on ready-5 to reinforce the CAP as needed. Tanker. SAR helo. That's 6 fighters and 3 support birds. Half the complement of a small carrier, just for normal flight operations.

Now, let's look at what you need for a strike package: at least 2 birds for AA (normally just as many birds loaded for AA as loaded for AtG). Another 2 birds for Wild Weasel missions. A tanker and jammer (I will be generous and assume that is one airframe). 4 birds for the strike itself. That's already 9 to 11 birds, and that's a *very* small strike package.

That's 20 birds all told, and that leaves zero margin for error. No spare tankers or EW birds. No spare SAR birds. Not even a COD 'flying truck' for cargo. And no relief birds for the CAP.