US Navy News and updates

[John Fedup]

I wonder what the the cost of a new build Nimitz CVN would be in comparison to a new 60-70k ton design CV? Regardless, the question really boils down to can current and emerging anti-missile defence systems be effective against swarming missile attacks. Assuming energy directed weapons are a solution against new missile threats, then perhaps a CVN well equipped with these systems together with several SSNs will be then CVN battle group capable of steaming along for extended periods at 30 knots plus.

 

[Boagrius]

I suspect even directed energy weapons will have their limitations though - sure they might engage a target at light speed but there is still a dwell time needed to actually kill it and you are limited to one target at a time. Strikes me as more of a CIWS contender than the missile killing panacea some seem to see it as.

 

[John Fedup]

Certainly in the case of lasers, multiple stations would be required which in turn makes a nuclear reactor(s) very attractive so realistically such a setup is only likely for CVNs.

 

[Boagrius]

Fair point. I suppose you could add rail guns and HVPs to the mix as well. The former being another example of a weapon that would make a nuclear reactor desirable.

When combined with conventional SAMs this mix ought to provide a pretty robust defence against most AShMs. DF21 is a head scratcher though.

If you were going to look for an alternative to carriers the only thing I can think of is a mix of SSGNs and (hear me out) some large class of surface combatant, perhaps nuclear powered, capable of lobbing large volumes of rail gun delivered fire over vast distances. The SSGNs would be more survivable but lack the flexibility and persistence. The surface ships might compensate... somewhat.

 

[ngatimozart]

It's probably worth noting that HMAS Canberra displaces 27000 tonnes. To usefully operate a carrier group of even 36 aircraft the "light carrier" would surely need to be at the upper limit of that 30k-40k tonne range.

oldsig

Probably, so take it out to 50 K tonnes, but it would also depend upon how they organise their flight deck and the USN are past masters at that.

They would also have to look at their carried based AEW&C. Do they stay with the Grumman E-2D Hawkeye or go with a C/MV-22 Osprey AEW&C variant? TBH the Hawkeye would probably be the best choice but they would have to order sooner rather than later. A C/MV-22 Osprey AEW&C variant hasn't been publicly disclosed yet and if one was designed I would be interested to see how they would get it to fold up when it does its transformer act, prior to stowage. There is the A2A refuelling as well. I suppose that they would use the Stingray for that.

 

[ngatimozart]

Certainly in the case of lasers, multiple stations would be required which in turn makes a nuclear reactor(s) very attractive so realistically such a setup is only likely for CVNs.

Fair point. I suppose you could add rail guns and HVPs to the mix as well. The former being another example of a weapon that would make a nuclear reactor desirable.

When combined with conventional SAMs this mix ought to provide a pretty robust defence against most AShMs. DF21 is a head scratcher though.

If you were going to look for an alternative to carriers the only thing I can think of is a mix of SSGNs and (hear me out) some large class of surface combatant, perhaps nuclear powered, capable of lobbing large volumes of rail gun delivered fire over vast distances. The SSGNs would be more survivable but lack the flexibility and persistence. The surface ships might compensate... somewhat.

The USN will consider very seriously the CONOPS and how they will structure the battle groups that these 'light' carriers are to be part of. At present we just have the whiff of a possible platform and are fishing in the dark for platform size, capabilities etc. We could be off by 180° both horizontally and vertically, so I wouldn't get to carried away. It could actually come to nothing as well.

 

[John Fedup]

I think the nothing outcome is very likely as the CVN program has significant congressional support as a previous poster suggested wrt to the Truman refuelling. No doubt a CVN loss would give pause but such an event would be eclipsed by the likely immense retaliation response by the US against the party involved.

 

[Redlands18]

Hmm, don't think English is the first language of the author and / or the translator. To many basic language mistakes in it so I wonder what else is wrong with the site. For example, how accurate is the information given in the entries?

Maybe i could have picked a better site to link to but a couple of other sites i did check gave pretty much the same figures on size and @ASSAIL below has provided further information that they have their figures in the correct Ball Park.

Janes American Fighting Ships of the 20th Century quotes Forrestal, the smallest of the class at 990ft - 75,200 tons full load through to JFK, the largest at 83,000 full load, 319mtrs.
The 4 x Forrestals, +Ranger, Saratoga and Independence were followed by the 4 x “Improved Forrestals, Kittyhawk, Constellation America and JFK whose Island structure was slightly smaller and set further aft.

I was actually thinking the Midway class may be more in the Ballpark size wise. I actually got the chance to watch the Independence sail into Sydney Harbour from Middle Head

CV-41 MIDWAY class - Navy Ships

fas.org

 

[Ranger25]

the USN and USMC have been experimenting using the new America Class LHA as a ‘Lighting Carrier”. They’ve shown the ability to surge up to 24 F35B models per float Adding additional F35s is a massive increase in firepower to the traditional MAG concept for both offensive and defensive purposses

This would fit the smaller Strike carrier concept were discussing

Marines Could Deploy More 'Lightning Carriers' amid High Demand for Flattops

As carrier maintenance issues mount, the Navy is considering loading up amphibious assault ships with F-35Bs.

www.military.com

 

[Volkodav]

Something to consider is that the new systems employed on the Fords are intended to dramatically increase sortie rates, now apply these increases to a smaller design and you could easily be talking Nimitz sortie rates on a QE size hull. Extrapolate this and the smaller size, smaller airgroup, but Nimitz level effectiveness, means the same capability at lower cost or greater capability (through more carrier groups) at the same cost.

 

[Boagrius]

The USN will consider very seriously the CONOPS and how they will structure the battle groups that these 'light' carriers are to be part of. At present we just have the whiff of a possible platform and are fishing in the dark for platform size, capabilities etc. We could be off by 180° both horizontally and vertically, so I wouldn't get to carried away. It could actually come to nothing as well.

Something to consider is that the new systems employed on the Fords are intended to dramatically increase sortie rates, now apply these increases to a smaller design and you could easily be talking Nimitz sortie rates on a QE size hull. Extrapolate this and the smaller size, smaller airgroup, but Nimitz level effectiveness, means the same capability at lower cost or greater capability (through more carrier groups) at the same cost.

I do wonder if a fleet of smaller more numerous carriers would seriously enhance the effects they could bring to the Pacific theatre. In the coming decades the threat to them is only going to get more serious, with significant evolution in PRC land based AShM, strategic airpower and sub surface threats all well underway. Would it actually make a significant difference to the fleet’s overall survivability? I honestly don't know.

I know the alternative I suggested in my earlier post is fantasyland stuff at this point (the requisite technology simply isn’t mature yet even if it was desirable) but it might very well do a better job of addressing the survivability problem in the longer term. [fantasyland/off]

I think the nothing outcome is very likely as the CVN program has significant congressional support as a previous poster suggested wrt to the Truman refuelling. No doubt a CVN loss would give pause but such an event would be eclipsed by the likely immense retaliation response by the US against the party involved.

Yes, I think this is probably where the discussion ends… for the time being.

 

[ngatimozart]

the USN and USMC have been experimenting using the new America Class LHA as a ‘Lighting Carrier”. They’ve shown the ability to surge up to 24 F35B models per float Adding additional F35s is a massive increase in firepower to the traditional MAG concept for both offensive and defensive purposes

This would fit the smaller Strike carrier concept we're discussing

Marines Could Deploy More 'Lightning Carriers' amid High Demand for Flattops

As carrier maintenance issues mount, the Navy is considering loading up amphibious assault ships with F-35Bs.

www.military.com

It does and it means that that a MEU / MEF etc., is basically carrying its own air support and airborne defence. It's most definitely worthwhile following up and I sincerely hope that some idiot in Congress doesn't scrap it, because it looks very promising.

Something to consider is that the new systems employed on the Fords are intended to dramatically increase sortie rates, now apply these increases to a smaller design and you could easily be talking Nimitz sortie rates on a QE size hull. Extrapolate this and the smaller size, smaller air group, but Nimitz level effectiveness, means the same capability at lower cost or greater capability (through more carrier groups) at the same cost.

Yes, this definitely does have to be considered and theoretically there is no reason why the technology can't be scaled down. I actually think a QE sized hull is a bit large and maybe something in the 40 - 50K tonne range. @oldsig127 noted that my original guesstimate of 30 - 40K tonne was probably on the small side, and after reflection I tend to agree with him.

I don't have the link, but I do remember read from Forbes or Business Review on USN spokesperson talk sometime ago on potential two alternative carrier models:
1. Conventional power QE2 size (this similar to Forestall) of 60,000+
2. Smaller nuclear power on CDG size of 40,000+

#2 being reviewed due to still Nuclear power (as Navy still heavily tilted to CVN), but on that size can used modified Nuclear Reactors from Submarine (SSN/SSBN) thus can be more compact and more avordable (as being procured leveraging Submarine program).

Cost will in the end determine what alternative that they're going to choose in my opinion. Off course other strategic issue will matter. However if two CDG size CVN can provide similar capabilities than one Ford class CVN with some cost saving, then perhaps it can be attractive to USN.
If one Ford as the article stated cost USD 13 Bio, and if they can build two smaller CV (whether conventional CV of QE2 size or CVN of CDG size) at 'say' USD 11 bio, then I still can see this is going to be attractive to USN and Industry and will satisfied the senators and congressman that want to keep the job in defense Industry.

Power will be critical in the future and the poms reckon they've future proofed the QE class CV power generation wise, but I have my doubts because they don't have a history of thinking far ahead in their ship design & shipbuilding, and if there's a hard way of doing something the poms will find it. The Type 45 destroyer is a case in point when they had to cut holes in the sides of every ship in the class to replace faulty engines / gensets. No thought was given to providing access ways to replace these. The excuse was that they'll last the life time of the ship, but what about battle damage? Scrap the whole ship because the engines / gensets suffered battle damage and can't be replaced? Duh !!!!

So maybe as @Ananda suggests a couple or three SSBN reactors as power plants would be the way to go. Like he said, they would be leveraging existing technology, so costs would be reduced.

I think the nothing outcome is very likely as the CVN program has significant congressional support as a previous poster suggested wrt to the Truman refuelling. No doubt a CVN loss would give pause but such an event would be eclipsed by the likely immense retaliation response by the US against the party involved.

But would it? If it was a wartime loss, the US would have its hands full anyway and if they went nuclear to avenge such a loss, then it will escalate what maybe a non nuclear war to a nuclear war. On the political front, the yards that build the current CVNs would be the only ones who could build the FCVX, so none of the Congress critters pork barrels should be negatively affected. If anything, there would be a growth within the industry

Maybe i could have picked a better site to link to but a couple of other sites i did check gave pretty much the same figures on size and @ASSAIL below has provided further information that they have their figures in the correct Ball Park.

I was actually thinking the Midway class may be more in the Ballpark size wise. I actually got the chance to watch the Independence sail into Sydney Harbour from Middle Head

CV-41 MIDWAY class - Navy Ships

fas.org

No probs then. You had the nous to go and check its claims. Good on you.

I do wonder if a fleet of smaller more numerous carriers would seriously enhance the effects they could bring to the Pacific theatre. In the coming decades the threat to them is only going to get more serious, with significant evolution in PRC land based AShM, strategic airpower and sub surface threats all well underway. Would it actually make a significant difference to the fleet’s overall survivability?

That's a very good question to ask and something we should keep in mind.

 

[Ananda]

So maybe as @Ananda suggests a couple or three SSBN reactors as power plants would be the way to go. Like he said, they would be leveraging existing technology, so costs would be reduced

@ngatimozart this actually what the French has done. CDG reactor basically derived from their SSBN reactor. Thus the USN according to the article (that I can't provide link but just remember read it few years back ) study this as more affordable way on having CVN as French did.

French having some maintenance problem with CDG due to it's an orphan one off design ships. However if USN build mid size CVN leveraging their Submarine reactors design, then they can 'theoritically' provide more cost effective CVN to build and maintain due to sheer number of population.

Off course it's all just a study right now. However with the costs of Ford and the need of USN to increase their Frigates and Destroyers while still maintain credible fleet of underwater assets, then I can see why even USN begin to look on alternative way to keep provide Air Cover on their fleet.

I don't see the alternative on Carrier to do the Job. Fleet Air Cover still important especially on peer to peer adversaries scenario.
The question now seems, is the job can be done without expensive Supercarier CVN as Ford or even Nimitz ?

 

[ngatimozart]

The USN have stated that their call to end F-18 E/F Superhornet production is nothing to do with costs, but everything to do with utilising the Boeing line and its experienced workforce for the upgrading of its F-18 E/F Block I & II Superhornets to Block III standard Navy Says Ending Super Hornet Line Frees Up Resources for Life Extension Work - USNI News. This involves a comprehensive SLEP and includes significant upgrades Boeing Touts Block III Super Hornet's Better Range, Improved Digital Connectivity to Fleet - USNI News. Makes a lot of sense especially if they can upgrade 40 aircraft per year this way.

 

[John Fedup]

The issues the USN faces with respect to future carriers are cost, survivability, availability, and capability. Using the QE class as a likely size contender plus or minus 10,000 tons, the first question is STOVL or CATOBAR. I would assume the new features developed for the FORD would favour a CATOBAR carrier which in turn probably favours a nuclear propulsion system. This solution also addresses some of the capability requirements like the better range of the F-35C, MQ-25 tanker and Hawkeye capable, and assume surplus energy for railguns and lasers. A CVN negates the extra fuel tanker support that such a large vessel requires. Survivability is an unknown and whether a Ford's extra 25,000 tons offers significant advantage for this is questionable, especially if it is hit in the reactor area. However, its power output together with the ability to accommodate more defensive anti-missile stations could make a difference. The big down stroke is there really going to be significant savings building another smaller CVN. Modifying EMALS and coming up with a new reactor configuration, not going to be cheap and when all is said in done, IMO, you end up with a smaller less capable FORD at a price that isn't going to be pretty. This in turn hurts the other factor, availability. Maybe you get 2 or 3 extra ships with expensive additional crewing and support vessels needed.

A conventionally powered future carrier would knock the cost down but what about the power demands. A QE with its IEP system is about 110 MW utilizing two MT-30s and diesels. For maximizing sortie rates, the EMALS and EM elevators are desirable how many more MT-30s are needed? How fast does the future carrier have to go (CVNs are probably 30+ knots)? What about additional power for lasers and railguns? A CV requires a complete new design for all this stuff, again, not cheap but likely less than new mini-Ford CVN.

A USN version of a STOVL QE or similar seems unlikely due to range issues of the F-35B and no tankers or Hawkeyes thus leaving the America class ships as a possible option. This design addresses cost, more could be built thus addressing availability but capability and survivability are lacking compared to a 60-70k ship.

Glad I don't have to decide on how to spend billions on future CVs or mini-CVNs when there are so many technologic advances underway that could either enhance a certain design or render it useless.

 

[Ranger25]

We discuss at length the survivability of a USN CVN task force entering inside the PLA/PLAN/PLAF A2D2 umbrella All of which I generally concur with. That said, Why would a strike group need to enter that close? It could stay dispersed outside the main Umbrella and still control critical sea lanes. I see almost no reasons why a US strike group would need to be within striking range of mainland China proper.

If its about sea control, it could stay outside of range, control SLOC, and place the PLAN in a position it would have to come out into the Blue water and then the tables seem to be reversed. additional the USMC could land dispersed teams along the first island chain with ASHM/F35Bs to harrass any outward movement and further contain the PLAN. Current USMC (and US Army) CONOPS are looking to field mobile land based ASHM systems for exactly such use



I think we need to think about the offensive power in Blue Water against other Fleets and not focus on forced penetration of strong A2D2 areas.

Marines Will Field Portfolio of JLTV-Mounted Anti-Ship Weapons in the Pacific - USNI News

CAPITOL HILL – Navy and Marine Corps leaders are confident a pair of ground-based anti-ship missile programs in support of the Expeditionary Advance Base Operations (EABO) concept is leaving China “just scratching their head” trying to figure out how to counter U.S. naval force advancements. For...

news.usni.org

and now the USN has announced its looking into options for the current carrier force. Whether to stay with large CVNs, smaller units, or even to increase SSGNS

Modly: Parallel Fleet Studies Could Reshape Future of Aircraft Carriers - USNI News

THE PENTAGON – The Navy has taken several cracks over the years at trying to define a new future aircraft carrier, one that might be less expensive or less vulnerable. But each time, the Navy has moved forward with the nuclear-powered supercarrier concept, in part because it provides an...

news.usni.org

 

[John Fedup]

This link discusses the Congressional blowback on the Virginia cutback on one boat. Good for them, if budget cuts are needed they shouldn’t come from a pretty decently run program that produces arguably the most important vessel the USN needs (Columbia excluded).

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2020/3/19/copy-of-congress-pushes-back-on-virginia-class-submarine-cuthttps://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2020/3/19/copy-of-congress-pushes-back-on-virginia-class-submarine-cut

 

[hauritz]

California Asks President Trump to Deploy USNS Mercy to Los Angeles 'Immediately'

Read about California's urgent plea to President Trump for immediate deployment of USNS Mercy to Los Angeles amidst healthcare crisis.

gcaptain.com

The USN Hospital ships were pressed into service in America, one for each coast. Australia announced it was building a Pacific Support ship a couple of years ago and then precisely nothing seemed to happen with it.

That ship would have been incredibly useful now.

 

[Ranger25]

‘The French are Pressing their Mistral into service as well and sending it into the Med for possible HADR support

 

[John Fedup]

More COVID-19 problems for the USN’s CVNs in the Pacific.

Now Both Aircraft Carriers In The Western Pacific Have COVID-19 Cases, Raising Readiness Concerns

Sailors from a carrier forward deployed to Japan had contracted the virus as confirmed cases grow onboard another flattop in Guam.

www.thedrive.com