"Why The US Navy Should Build Smaller Aircraft Carriers" Topic

"The aircraft carrier inventory question has always been up for debate, but it has largely centered on the number of hulls and not the physical size of each carrier. In an age of shrinking defense budgets, smaller wars, and the Pacific Pivot, the U.S. should ditch its supercarrier-only policy and build smaller, less expensive aircraft carriers…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Then we can justify more CO and CAG slots.

Smaller carriers are actually NOT more cost effective and maintain than a larger carrier, thanks to the cube-square law and the relatively flat cost curve of building to a larger displacement. Two 50kt carriers will cost more to build and maintain than a 100kt carrier, and be less capable overall. That's the exact reason why carriers (and battleships before them) grew so much in displacement.

-Will

I believe the point was that fewer aircraft do more damage these days, and losing one smaller carrier in battle is much better than losing one uber huge carrier.

Yes, but the supposed cost savings will be a mirage if the proposal is to replace 6 super carriers with 9 small carriers. It might be a more flexible force, but it won't be any cheaper.

-Will

I think the real hinge will be whether having more carriers means the old cool carrier names get back in use, or they just get named after second string politicians (there should at least be a 50-year rule, like how athletes can't get into halls of fame until they've been retired X years).

Naming carriers after obscure senators and congressmen is just obscene.

Kinda depends on which politician you're talking about. I'd love to see an LST or other gator-freighter named for Daniel Inoue, for example. Though I guess that should be an Army LST… And naming a sub for Jimmy Carter completely makes sense, since Carter was a submariner!

To be honest, the smallest carrier than could handle F/A-18C/D Hornets is one that's 820 feet long, and 175 feet wide at the flight deck. (HMS Eagle, or the Midway-class). The Super Hornets are bigger yet, about the weight of the F14s they replaced. And the F14s needed to be on supercarriers like the Forrestal or Nimitz classes.

Midways had a crew of 4100, the Forrestals a crew of 4400. Nimitz-class have a smaller crew, only 3200 (and 2500 in the air wing). I think the Ford-class CVNs have a crew of 1800, since they have accommodations for 4300 and assuming an air wing of 2500.

Now, those America-class LHAs have a unit cost of $3.4 USD billion (not counting installing the catapults and arresting gear), and you'd need 5 of them to carry the same number of aircraft (20x F35Bs on an America) as one Ford-class (~90 aircraft of all types). That puts your hull cost alone 50% above that of the Ford-class, and gives you a total ship's crewing of greater than TRIPLE the Ford-class. So your life-cycle costs are going to be much greater.

The Brit's new carriers? Well, they are between the size of the Ford-class and the America-class, and are costing about $5.3 USD billion each to handle 40-50 aircraft. So you'd have the same hull cost as one Ford-class to build a carrier the size of the QE, and roughly double the operations costs due to the crew needed.

Basically, the US Navy designed the Ford-class to handle the maximum number of aircraft any one ship can control (~90) in the smallest possible hull, requiring the smallest possible crew. They are flat-out as cheap per aircraft carried as you can build a carrier!

Kinda depends on which politician you're talking about.

No, not really. There are plenty of WW2 names for carriers that dd not include politicians.
What's wrong with Wasp? Hornet? Lexington?
Why some crooked chairman of an Appropriations committee?

Well, Daniel Inoue was awarded the Medal of Honor…

Ah yes, the 'small-carriers-are-better-than-big-carriers' debate… yet again. Ya know, they were making the same arguments back in the 1930s. And they'll be making the same arguments in the 2030s. Same lame, stupid ideas dressed up for a new audience. What total crap….

I wouldn't mind a DDG 51 named for Inoue. It would be proper and thoroughly justified.

Smaller carriers will cost more, not less than the big ones, given the military's inability to successfully manage new projects.

For precedents, see the low cost: F-18, F-35, etc., where you get far less capability than those they are slated to complement/replace, at a similar, or higher cost.

Well, Daniel Inoue was awarded the Medal of Honor…

So was Gino Merli of Peckville Pa.
By all means, name destroyers or support ships after politicians or MoH winners but capital ships? The Navy did a fine job in WW2 naming carriers after famous old ships or battles if AWI or ACW. But I still think naming them after corrupt appropriations committee chairmen is obscene c

Coastal2, it's enough to make your head spin, isn't it? ;-)

It seems like every time we go down this road we wind up at the same destination. Before we start abandoning our 100kt carriers for something half as big, we should probably vist the ROC/POE (Required Operational Capabilities/Projected Operating Environment) for the new asset. Unless we have a huge shift in foreign policy (and I'm not ruling that out), we seem to always wind up at the 80-100kt solution.

If we do go the smaller route with no change in foreign policy, we'll most likely need the newer ships on a 3 for 2 basis – which means an overal gain in CVN end strength. More carriers means more escorts – more end strength. More platform end strength means more personnel end strength, and it's people cost that eats a budget quickly.

Ironically, in an era of significant budget constraints, I'm not sure we can afford smaller ships.

Perhaps the "political" point may be about reducing costs over all with say replacing current carriers as they come up for replacement on a 1 to 1 ratio with smaller carriers.

Hence keep as many carrier groups [so can still cover the same sea area] but with cheaper carriers!

F-35B makes smaller carriers more viable.

Indeed USMC and others have been talking up America class LHA as light carriers.

And Brits will be using F-35B equipped smaller carriers coupled with Merlin helos as AWACSs (replaces E-3) and transports (replace C-2).

----

I also agree with naming major capital ships after famous old ships or battles and not politicians or MOH winners who died fighting in ground wars.

F-35B makes smaller carriers more viable.

Indeed USMC and others have been talking up America class LHA as light carriers.

And Brits will be using F-35B equipped smaller carriers coupled with Merlin helos as AWACSs (replaces E-3) and transports (replace C-2).

Not all that much more viable. The America-class LHAs can only handle 20 airframes. The QE-class carriers can handle ~45.

You'd need 4 or 5 America-class LHAs to equal the aircraft capacity of one Nimitz or Ford-class. There are roughly 1000 crew on each LHA, not counting the Marines/Air Wing. Crew requirement for a Ford-class is ~1800 or thereabouts, so you're talking about having at least double the number of big-deck crew. And let's not forget that the smaller 'carriers' are not nuclear-powered, so they are burning the same fuel as the air wing. What price do you think oil is going to reach in the next 20 years? $140 USD a barrel? Nuclear power would actually be cheaper for the America-class if that becomes true.

You'd need two Queen Elizabeth-class carriers to equal the same air wing as a Nimitz-class. The QE-class have a small crew for as big as they are, which is a direct result of not having catapults or arresting gear. It also directly affects how well they will survive combat. If you don't have spare crew for Damage Control parties, you're screwed. It took the US almost losing the Forrestall to re-learn that lesson.

Then all of those smaller carriers need escorts. Something like 1 CG (pure anti-air), 2 DDGs (primarily anti-sub/anti-surface), and another 2 DDs (anti-sub). Because you can't really send those ships into harm's way without adequate escort screen, and I'd be willing to say that 5 Escorts isn't enough to handle a Chinese- or Soviet-sized bomber wave.

So, how large exactly do you want to make the US Navy?