F-35C a gateway to smaller carriers?

[Werner]

The F-35C is within the operating parameters of the SCB-125C Essex CVA from the 1960s and 1970s. It is approximately the same dimensions as the F-8 Crusader, although nearly as heavy as the A-3 "Whale".

Given the mix of aircraft in the 2015-2020 timeframe, with UCAVs and F-35Cs making a viable air wing, I wonder if it is not time to consider manufacturing conventional carriers in the 40,000 ton class, able to handle 40-60 of these manned and unmanned airplanes.

The pace of supercarrier construction makes it inevitable that the carrier fleet will shrink from the current 11 to about 8.

Smaller ships may be more suitable to the lower threat environment we see since the end of the cold war. There is the distinct possibility that there will be too many theatres of operations to maintain a continuous presence with the big flight decks.

It is a long-standing conclusion that 16 carriers is the minimum to maintain the US obligations around the world without wearing out personnel and equipment on absurdly long deployments. Recently, several carriers were deployed over a year, which is very hard on the sailors and machinery.

Ten or so additional carriers would relieve the bottleneck, and give the politicians so many more chances to name ships after themselves.

There would have to be a goal of deliberately making these ships austere, and resisting the effort to get supercarrier qualities out of them. The USN has a very bad track record of overloading designs until they become too expensive. These ships should be patterned after SCB-125C as closely as possible and all attempts at "supersizing" their function would have to be quashed.

[richter111]

The first ships out the gate will be respectable in price and mission, then when no one is watching, they will bloat, and their price will skyrocket.

But it's a good concept that needs to be explored at the very least...

[bengtsson]

Smaller ships may be more suitable to the lower threat environment we see since the end of the cold war. There is the distinct possibility that there will be too many theatres of operations to maintain a continuous presence with the big flight decks..

A bit contradictory there I think. But then that's probably just me. I never looked at the Soviet Navy as much of a real threat. They would have been chewed up and spit out by the USN Submarine force and Carrier forces in very short order had we gone to war. At least that's the idea I took away from my time in the Navy. My visits to Russia after the Soviet Union fell and my talks with a few former Soviet Naval offciers in the late 90s seemed to bear that out. They had few good things to say about the Soviet fleet's real war fighting ability. The more vodka going down, the worse the picture they painted for me. I never doubted for a minute the capability of our Navy, I gained that from personal experience.
I see the threat as much more real today. The potential enemies are much more powerful in real terms and potential than that old Clay Footed USSR ever was. And the game is just getting going. China and Russia have access to technology that the USSR could only dream of and they have the cash to advance the technology on their own or buy straight off of the shelf.
I don't know, but I do think that the Super Carrier is still the best bet for keeping control of the airspace over the battlefield, i.e. the sea. Smaller Carriers would be less able to operate in bad sea conditions. Carry smaller air groups. But still cost alot. Economy of scale works in regards to how many planes you can keep at sea. I don't see the small Carrier as an answer to the problem.

Bob B.

[chuck]

That has more to do with national mood. In the 1980s the US was in the swaggering braggadacious state, while under Yelsin the Russians didn't believe they could compete with Ethiopians. Although their actual naval forces and capabilities have clearly deteriorated a long ways even from mid 1990, current Russians mood seems to have shifted and they seem to have much higher opinion of themselves and their navy than under Yelsin.

Vodka aside, the Soviet Navy was still vastly, nay, infinitely, superior in every conceivable way to the Navy of China or India, let along Iran and those of other small fry. Let's ignore the area of capability. I think just in doctrine and training, the Soviets were so far ahead of India and China now that the latter two can't even quantify how far behind they are because the Soviets had developed reasonable competencies in fields that China and India does not even realize that a Navy needed to be competent in. Perhaps in 20 years, equipped with technology the Soviets couldn't dream of, the actual combat power of the Chinese and Indian navies will finally begin to approach what the Soviets achieved with effectively 1970s technologies.

[bengtsson]

I don't see the threat as an attempt to gain Sea Control. That's 'out' for decades for Russia and China. They may seek local sea control in an area of interest for short periods of time. I mean by higher threat, the Sea Denial threat. That requires no Carriers or large surface combat ships. The USN is so far ahead in any building race for that Sea Surface Control ability that it's a decades long process of US decline before there is a real challange between nations for Sea Contol. The threat I am talking about is sea denial. This is where Missiles, Submarines and Aircraft are the main focus. Would I rather spend money to build a Fleet Carrier to challange USNs fleet of Carrier Battle Groups? I think not. The potential enemies are in the game of keeping the USN out of waters they see as important.
As to the USN versus the Soviet Navy in the 60s though the collapse of the USSR? I'de say "No brag, just fact". In order to keep our budgets up, we had to overplay Soviet abilities to sell it to the Congress and people. In fact the Soviet Navy was not much of a threat. The Soviet Navy may have pretended they were powerful, but the Soviet Internal Security Organs knew different. As did alot of average naval officers. In fact they probably knew very little about how much more vulnerable their entire set of naval forces were.
I'de like to know how many really know the capabilities of the USN at the time. The Submarine fleet's abilities are still secret. But we knew enough just from talk among other sailors to know how far ahead we were. The fleet of the USSR was 75% Potemkin village and 25% modern and capable. That wasn't enough to do anything but sink with honor.

Bob B.

[simon b]

Talking of smaller carriers and there airgroups Aren't the CVN airgroups shrinking anyway. The sqd size is dropping (or soon to be)

[Werner]

Talking of smaller carriers and there airgroups Aren't the CVN airgroups shrinking anyway. The sqd size is dropping (or soon to be)

I believe that is more a function of economy in maintenance personnel rather than capability or capacity.

The real reason the F-14 was withdrawn like the A-6 before it was the high cost of maintenance. Their departure left real holes in capability of the air wing which have not been filled, and are unlikely to be filled anytime soon.

The F/A-18 and F-35 are great aircraft, but they are neither the superiority fighter the F-14 was, nor the attack aircraft the A-6 was. The EA-18G Growler will never be and can never be the EW aircraft the EA-6B is.

Multimission designs are compromised platforms selected primarily for economy and not excellence.

[richter111]

I could almost see a core group of 12 BIG carriers, and say 3-4 smaller carriers to compliment the big boy.

We as a nation need to take a honest look at who our potential enemies may be in the next 50-100 years. Do we have a way to supply our forces, take control of a space? With out control of the air, we do not have control of anything. WOuld you want to be a soldier trying to take a space without the skies above you being controlled by your forces?

Kick this around...

Our Strategic bomber force less than 100 B-52's (almost 50 year old airframes)
" " 50 B-1
" " 20 B-2 (and all it takes is one leap in radar tech to elipse its advantages)

F-16, F-15C models near the end of their lives


the earlier Nimitz carriers are nearing 35-40 year lifespans,

688i class is nearing the end of it's life

destroyers across the board are coming to the end of their service lives

All the systems that are on the drawing board or in production are VERY expensive.

We are in the middle of a war of attrition, our equipment will need replaced soon...

We are quickly getting to a BAD place militarily...

Ric

[Timmy C]

Well, Destroyers are in pretty good shape - the Burkes have a few decades ahead of them yet.

[Werner]

The Ticos will have to go within a decade or so, though.

[Jack Ray]

In addition, all marks of the F-18 would probably be easily adapted to an SCB-125 Essex/Clemenceau class of light attack carrier.

This sort of ship is probably more suited to providing the spearhead to NATO navies, rather than equipping our own.

My ideal austere carrier (bang for bucks) would be a large vstol ship (50K, or more tons displacement) based on the hull of a large and fast container ship. This ship would have a large flight and hangar deck and modularized everything else. I think there would be a lot of capability in such a ship and it would be perfect for the F-35C, all helicopters, V-22, V-22 AEW. It would also be easily configured into a large LPH.

Jack

[richter111]

perhaps even a design which the US and Britian and France could all build, a joint project if you will (with all it's internal problems and such)

[Jack Ray]

perhaps even a design which the US and Britian and France could all build, a joint project if you will (with all it's internal problems and such)

I think it could work. French shipyards build massive ships (i.e., QM2) and I am sure they must build big container ships. Such a project would have to be much cheaper than building traditional, military standard CVs from scratch. I envision it as a modern and very capable escort carrier.

On the flip side, I am surprised China and India aren't moving towards this concept.

Jack

[Mark Petersen]

The Democratic field is down to Hillary and Obama. IMO if Obama wins the nomination and the election the future of the Naval building programs in the country will be in serious jeapordy. As I suspect the future of the F-35 and F-22 will be as well. I think if Obama wins th election we will see a major foriegn policy shift on the part of the United States. And not just in respect to Iraq and the WOT. We will see a major effort a concensus building. Whicjh is not an altogether bad thing but I suspect that an Obama administration would perfectly willing to place international concerns ahead of Us concerns. In addition to cutailment of building programs I think we will see the withdrawl of troops from Korea and Japan, most of the US forces in Europe with the possible exception of USAF base/s in the UK and maybe the 6th Fleets base in Italy. Diego Garcia would be closed. By the end of an eight year Obama administration I think we would see the USN down to five maybe six carriers and their supporting vessels, the submartine force would be scaled back as well including the Ohios as a "demonstation" of US commitment to disarmement and non-proliferation. The sole combat branches of the military that will see their funding grow are the USMC and Army airborne type units. This will be due to the willingness an Obama Administration to commit US forces to UN peacekeeping missions. Just my $.02

[winstonshu]

The Democratic field is down to Hillary and Obama. IMO if Obama wins the nomination and the election the future of the Naval building programs in the country will be in serious jeapordy. As I suspect the future of the F-35 and F-22 will be as well. I think if Obama wins th election we will see a major foriegn policy shift on the part of the United States. And not just in respect to Iraq and the WOT. We will see a major effort a concensus building. Whicjh is not an altogether bad thing but I suspect that an Obama administration would perfectly willing to place international concerns ahead of Us concerns. In addition to cutailment of building programs I think we will see the withdrawl of troops from Korea and Japan, most of the US forces in Europe with the possible exception of USAF base/s in the UK and maybe the 6th Fleets base in Italy. Diego Garcia would be closed. By the end of an eight year Obama administration I think we would see the USN down to five maybe six carriers and their supporting vessels, the submartine force would be scaled back as well including the Ohios as a "demonstation" of US commitment to disarmement and non-proliferation. The sole combat branches of the military that will see their funding grow are the USMC and Army airborne type units. This will be due to the willingness an Obama Administration to commit US forces to UN peacekeeping missions. Just my $.02

that seems a smidge on the alarmist side. an obama administration might WANT to do that (i do believe they would if they could), but they'd still have to get a budget/policy like that approved by congress... and can you imagine the kind of sh*tstorm a proposal like the above would generate in congress?

[Werner]

It would really depend on how massive the coat tails are. If he faces a Congress as divided as currently, or more so, there would be very little likelihood of such measures seeing the light of day. The hurt would hit in year 3-4, when a serious DoD cutback would finally bite.

The Republicans seem set to lose some seats because of retirements, but I haven't analyzed it.

The Republican ticket is very likely to be McCain and Dr. Rice. Her presence on the ticket would greatly minimize any effect a female or black presidential candidate would present on the other side. It's the smart move.

McCain ought to pledge to serve one term, but he won't.

[richter111]

Dr. Rice?

Really?

With all the schmoozing that Rudy did when he dropped out, and the way McCain was praising him, it seems those two will be together...

Although I agree Dr. Rice would be a good compliment intellectually, I just wonder if she is electable due to her association with President Bush (Not Bush bashing here, just stating a concern)

On the flip side, I have a strong feeling after Tuesday it will be a Clinton/McCain race

If so, Mc Cain will be the new president. People in general don't trust Hillary. Just my gut feeling.

Ric

[Mark Petersen]

Werner, I suspect that if Obama did win the election then there would also be a very substabtial coat-tail effect.

[Seasick]

The F/A-18 and F-35 are great aircraft, but they are neither the superiority fighter the F-14 was, nor the attack aircraft the A-6 was. The EA-18G Growler will never be and can never be the EW aircraft the EA-6B is.

Werner

The capabilites of the F-14 and the A-6 were diminishing in the face of new threats from 1994 onward. The F-14 fighter's AWG-9 radar was analog and the AIM-54C could only be targeted at large aircraft beyond a certain range. The APG-71 radar in the F-14D was graetly improved but not very capable against the threats that were growing in the 1990s. The F/A-18E/F entering service now are equipped with the APG-79 AESA radar. This radar along with the AIM-120C and new AIM-120D can reach to about two thirds the range of the AIM-54C but with greater resolution, a harder radar signal to detect, and a faster more agile missile. The F/A-18E/F can dogfight well and turn as well as any other plane. With the advent of smart munitions especially JDAMs Navy aircraft can hit targets with smaller loads of bombs.

During the first gulf war the advanced bomb sights on the A-7E and A-6E didn't perform better than earlier versions of these aircraft. The problem wasn't the aircraft it was the bombs themselves. That was the imspiration to develope the JDAM munitions.

The EA-18G should do fine, the defense supression equipment has been shrinking since the late 1980s. The equipment on the Growler is actully a new system that was developed as an upgraded system for the EA-6B. They managed to fit it into an F/A-18F air frame. The system is fully digital, so its much smaller, kind of thing that happens when you replace vacume tubes with intigrated chips. Also some functions have passed to UAV that can operate much more effectvly.

[Werner]

I think the advent of smart bombs and precision munitions perversely gave new life to the A-6 and other platforms. They no longer had to iron hand themselves over the target. Pure performance and speed are not the issue with planes delivering JDAMs and SLAM-ER. Endurance and signature are the factors.

Isn't it interesting that the S-3 Viking soldiered on even after the removal of it's ASW gear simply because it was a useful "bomb-truck" for precision munitions?

I don't care if it's a recommissioned A-6 or whatever, but we need the VAH ("Heavy Attack") wings back. The A-6E hauled more bombs further than an FA-18E/F can today.