There appear to be two ?related? reasons being offered by
the Navy for early retiring the carrier:
money and survivability.
Acting
Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan made the hard call to retire the USS Truman decades early — cutting the
Navy’s carrier fleet by nine percent — to free up funding for new weapons more likely
to survive a war with China. (1)
So, the Navy sees the carrier as not being survivable in a
future war with China and wants more funding for weapons that it believes will
be more effective.
What are the projected savings from retiring the carrier?
Not
refueling the nuclear reactor core of the USS Truman would save the roughly
$6.5 billion it would have cost to overhaul, plus $1 billion a year in
operating costs thereafter, at the price of retiring the carrier about 25 years
early. (1)
These savings figures are highly suspect but, again, let’s
take them at face value. After all, the
Navy wouldn’t lie to us, right?
So, what would be done with these savings? The Navy/military would acquire new types of
weapons supposedly better suited to future combat. These weapons would include,
...large
numbers of smaller, robotic vessels, both small surface ships and
mini-submarines … a mix of robotic scout ships … and unmanned missile boats … arsenal
of long-range, precision-guided, non-nuclear missiles … hypersonic missiles … (1)
All right, we’ve laid out the Navy’s rationale. Now, let’s examine the logic of it.
Survivability –
If the Navy believes carriers are not survivable then why are we not retiring
more carriers given how expensive they are to operate? More to the point, why are we building new carriers? The Navy’s position, as they’ve laid it out, appears
to be: “Our carriers aren’t survivable
so let’s build more of them.”
Let’s take it a step further. If carriers aren’t survivable, does it make more
sense to lose $1B-$8B (the construction cost range of the Nimitzes from first
to last) as each is sunk or to lose $15B which is the cost of the Fords that
the Navy wants to continue to build?
Wouldn’t it be better to let China sink cheaper, older carriers instead
of brand new, hideously expensive carriers?
I’m beginning to think that the logic of survivability does
not support the Navy’s rationale.
Money – Here’s
where it gets tricky because you can make almost any case you want by
manipulating what is and is not considered.
Still, let’s give it a look.
The Navy wants to retire a carrier so as to save money that
can then be used to finance new, alternate weapon systems. Okay, how much money is really being
saved? Using the Navy’s own, suspect
figures,
Truman
Savings
|
|
Refuel/Overhaul*
|
$6B
|
Operating Cost at
$1B x 25 yrs
|
$25B
|
Total
Savings
|
$31B
|
*Published costs range from $4B-$7B, depending on
what is included in the figure.
|
|
That’s a lot of money!
No wonder they want to retire a carrier early. Hmm … Just
for shits and giggles, I wonder how much money the Navy could save if, instead,
they simply didn’t build a Ford?
Ford
Savings
|
|
Construction
|
$15B
|
Midlife Overhaul*
|
$2B
|
Operating Cost at
$1B x 50 yrs**
|
$50B
|
Total
Savings
|
$67B
|
*A carrier intended to operate for 50 years will still need a midlife overhaul even if its reactor does not need refueling.
** Presumably, the operating costs will be the same
but the lifespan will be double that of the Truman. Reduced personnel costs will be offset by
greater complexity and maintenance costs.
Manning will, undoubtedly increase as it did for the LCS and will for
the Zumwalt. Costs will probably be a
wash, in the end.
|
|
Wow, I thought the Truman savings was a lot of money but
simply not building one Ford would save over twice as much!
Wait a minute … If
foregoing a Ford would save twice as much money shouldn’t the Navy want to keep
the Truman and drop a Ford?
I’m beginning to think that the logic of the money savings
does not support the Navy’s rationale.
Well, there you have it.
Even accepting the Navy’s rationale and cost figures at face value, the
scenario is illogical.
I’m beginning to think the Navy has concocted a nonsensical
scenario in a transparent attempt to extort more budget funds from Congress. No.
No, wait. I apologize. The Navy has the utmost integrity and is the
most honest and transparent organization this proud nation has. The Navy’s leaders have nothing but the good
of America foremost in their hearts and minds.
So, despite the illogic, I’ll place all my trust in the Navy. Go get ‘em, Navy! Stick to your guns, do the illogical, and make
me proud!
____________________________________
(1)Breaking Defense, “Why DoD Cut A
Carrier in 2020 Budget: Survivable Robots & Missiles Vs. China ”,
Sydney J. Freedberg, Jr., 12-Mar-2019,
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/why-cut-a-carrier-to-fund-survivable-robots-missiles-vs-china/
The only way I would buy USN rationale (I don't!) or be somewhat justified if USN said we plan to greater expand our sub building industrial base and we plan to go to 3 or 4 nuke subs a year....or whatever combo of SSN/SSBN/SSGN USN feels comfortable with,as long as it's a lot more on the production line of subs than what we have right now....
ReplyDeleteTHIS: "....large numbers of smaller, robotic vessels, both small surface ships and mini-submarines … a mix of robotic scout ships … and unmanned missile boats … arsenal of long-range, precision-guided, non-nuclear missiles … hypersonic missiles …" to me sounds highly "pie in the sky" nonsense that will be ready in 10 years maybe!, vaporware or will be hunted down and killed by the Chinese!
I would concur with NICO. Going to say 10 or 9 carries for a lot more subs would be a logical argument. However for that list of untested vapor ware I'm believing not so much. Although an actual arsenal of missiles such that every ship was loaded to capacity and we had more than a week of sustained use on hand might be feasible as a thing I could get behind for the savings. But I suspect they mean just some 300 hyper sonic missiles scattered about.
ReplyDeleteKath. Actually, that would be a nice question to ask: when USN speaks of a "arsenal of long range, precision guided, non nuclear missiles..." what number are we talking about here and on what they will be deployed? A couple of missiles per Burke? Few extra for SHornet and F35 maybe? Going to need lot more than 300 and everything I hear about these missiles is they aren't going to be cheap or easy to manufacturer so numbers won't be great, who knows, 300 might be the top end!!!
Deletehow many DDG the chinese can field with 6B USD ? the prices for refueling a single carrier is absurdly high , the new carrier cost so high , how is this sustainable ? who in the pentagon review the spending and responsible in spending tax payer’s money ?
ReplyDeleteit is like the USN’s primary mission is to create jobs in the MIC sector and not making cost effective weapons
A refuel isnt a refuel, it's a rebuild of the entire ship.
DeleteEvery bolt, nut, washer, cable, switch, toilet, sink, oven, everything will the taken apart, probably replaced, if not, cleaned
When Truman was lain down we were still measuring Dialup modems in Baud and the 100 part of 10/100 data cable was an aspiration.
Although servicing the reactors in a ship is probably more challenging than building one, I imagine the actual refuelling cost is only a third of the total RCOH cost, since Ive seen the cost of new reactors is only $200M each. Like Domo said, the entire ship gets refurbished. Its akin to taking a house down "to the studs"...
DeleteWhich missile would that be anyway? The tomahawk that is as old as the Truman? Or the admittedly new LRASM that is still subsonic in a world of supersonic Brahmos missiles and Mach 10 ballistic missiles?
ReplyDeleteIt can’t be defensive missiles because A carrier is an offensive platform not defense so you can’t really compare them.
If they were serious about reduced need for carriers, they’d be talking about fielding a smaller, non nuclear carrier instead of the Ford. You could build 3 for the price of a Ford.
ReplyDeleteAnd if they are trying to resurrect talk of an arsenal ship for this missile-centric Navy, then why not the Truman? Take off the air crews, aircraft maintenance,and support for those personell and you’ve cut the crew in half. And you could place how many missiles on ship the size of the Truman? 400 or more? All this with the advantage of going 25 years before before it’s fuel runs out. A bargain.
I think the Navy is set on nuclear for their carriers and that wont change. Theyve done studies repeatedly since WWII and find diminishing returns on smaller decks. The only advantage is distribution of hulls, but thats offset by smaller offensive and defensive capabilities while still having the same escort requirements(a smaller CV still needs X number of CG,DDG,SSN,etc) plus additional logistic (fuel) needs. When added up, the large decks are a better investment.
DeleteConversion of a huge hull to somthing else sounds appealing, but is reminiscent of the plans that were made for BBs post war, which all were eventually dismissed due to cost being higher than a ship purpose-built from scratch. We could carpet the flight deck with VLS but if the carrier naysayers are right(which i dont believe btw), then its still just a big target, only much more likely to go bang when attacked, and take a huge inventory of missles with it to the bottom!!! Unless we restrict it to CONUS waters...
"The Navy’s position, as they’ve laid it out, appears to be: “Our carriers aren’t survivable so let’s build more of them.”"
ReplyDeleteMy understanding, from reading other sources, is that it was SecDef Mattis who didn't believe in carriers; the Navy wanted to keep Truman, do the RCOH, and build the two new Fords, but Mattis forced the early retirement of Truman as the price for those two new carriers, because he didn't think carriers were as survivable as the navy thought. Shanahan is essentially following his lead.
Apropos of nothing, but before he was SecDef, Mattis was famously known for being a Marine General. Perhaps that might have something to do with this - his focus for the last 2 decades has been COIN and the War on Terror.
Question, why do you need very, very expensive nuclear carriers when now claimed the new hypersonic missiles can hit target anywhere on earth within ten minutes of launch.
ReplyDeleteUnderstand Air Force and Army aiming for operational availability ~2025?, presume Navy will be able to launch limited number from Virgina Block V Virginia Payload Module. Chinese have been testing hypersonic missiles for some time and have made dozens of test launches (DARPA).
$67B would buy a lot of Hypersonic attack missiles.
The Fords are another laboratory class. They're a lab for a new reactor and a new Catapult system. Just like DDG-1000 (AGS lab) and LCS (plugnplay Module concept)
ReplyDeleteThe Fords are liable to make those 2 failures look like small fries.
Somthing thats getting forgotten is that a missle cant "hold" territory. While I understand that carrier prominence is being challenged, its still the preeminent force. While it MAY be more at risk against emerging threats, a CVBG still sails around, and everything hostile in its "bubble" will die. The ability to sterilize a patch of ocean and/or land is still what it does best, with human pilots returning repeatedly until the job is done... Somthing missles alone with small warheads cant accomplish.
ReplyDeleteChina is planning large carriers. Why? To take the fight away from their coast, ie, to meet our carriers and hold them at arms length. I believe that in another decade, any involvement we have in the SCS/Taiwan will see us fighting another Midway first in order to get there, and carriers will still be the tool of choice...
I've mentioned before my belief that the next major war will be won or lost in space. The Chinese in particular are investing a great deal of money in the orbitals as part of their broader A2/AD strategy.
DeleteI wouldn't be at all surprised if they can already accurately target the individual members of a CBG, and they likely already have some ability to degrade our space-based ISR assets to the point of we can't depend on them.
The Chinese are also being very tight lipped about their capabilities. In fact they have said very little since the ASAT demo in I think 2007.
https://spacenews.com/defense-intelligence-report-china-on-steady-pursuit-of-space-capabilities-to-outmatch-u-s/
https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/defense/342992-in-outer-space-the-us-is-vulnerable-to-china-and-russia
Lets see, replace a carrier with working cats, traps & elevators with two sorta, maybe-working carriers. Yep, sounds like a USN plan to me. At some point can we have good old time commie purge of the Navy ?
ReplyDeleteAt least we only built 3 Zummies and stopped, a comparative
flash of genius vs. the CVN Fubar.
Ok....heres another interesting tidbit. I just came across the HI press release from Sept '17 that said it received the $2.8B contract for the Washington RCOH... Im gonna repeat that... "$2.8 Billion"
ReplyDeleteSo how did the cost more than double in less than 2 years??? Anyone??
The Navy is sure fast n loose with their numbers....
Well, you know, inflation and stuff....lol!
DeleteHaha yeah...sure.
DeleteMaybe if this was post-Great War Germany LOL!!!
The HI press release, rec'd a Navy contract of $2.8B for the Washington RCOH, assume that's the shipyards costs.
DeleteWould expect the balance of the Washington RCOH costs (~$5.5B -$2.8B) ~$2.7B would be GFE for the nuclear element, fuel rods etc, Navy would have had to contract Bechtel Marine Propulsion Corporation (replaced by Fluor Marine Propulsion from Sept. 30, 2018) who operate the Department of Energy Navy facilities, collectively called "laboratories" Naval Nuclear Laboratory, NNL, Bettis and Knolls Atomic Power Laboratories, the Kenneth A. Kesselring Site and the Naval Reactors Facility.
Would expect HI contract to have included costs for their associated nuclear work, so nuclear element of RCOH north of $3B.
As have said before nuclear carriers are very, very, very expensive :)
PS Laboratory - a facility that provides controlled conditions in which scientific or technological research, experiments, and measurement may be performed.
I did some looking at previous RCOH figures for Vinson, Roosevelt, Lincoln, and Washington sourced from HI press releases, USNI, and some defense industry articles...
DeleteFirst, the RCOH award to HI doesnt include refueling, govt sourced systems, pre overhaul planning, material acquisition, fabrication etc, but it has across those four CBNs its been 60-65% of the total cost.
A source cited the actual nuclear power unit portion cost at $612M (2019 dollars) for the Vinson. Thats interesting in itself as Ive seen new reactors priced at approx. $200M each... But I digress...
So the Vinson HI award was $1.94B
▶Vinson Total RCOH $3.1B
Roosevelt HI award was $2.6B(+44%)
Lincoln HI award was $2.6B
Washington HI award was $2.8B(+13%)
So using previous proportions, total RCOH for Washington should be $4.5B.
Interestingly, adjusted to 2019 dollars, the Vinson total RCOH cost was $4.03B. So while weve been doing RCOHs pretty constantly for 20yrs now, theres no serial proficiency or savings to be found, and it fact across four RCOHs the costs went up by over 50%!! But including inflation, its still a HUGE jump from the $4.5B projected for Washington total to the $6B that the Navy projects to save on Truman.... Im not seeing the reality of the Navys numbers. Never mind the ridiculous idea of throwing away a proven yet young and capable ship away, but at least if youre gonna try and BS Congress or whomever, at least dont overstate your $$$ claims by such a large margin!!!
@Nick.... I didnt find anything that suggested the actual nuclear refueling cost came near $1B...let alone $2+B....
DeleteThe Vinson seemed to have best available figures during my quick surf. Newport News was awarded roughly $2B for the in-yard work. Another $1B total was spent on refuelling and all the pre-overhaul planning and procurement of govt-supplied systems. I saw awards to NN that were over $350M, so that only leaves $650M max for the actual nuclear portion, and in fact it was only cited at $510M...
There is an interesting study of future carrier options by RAND Corp., at
ReplyDeletehttps://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2006.html.
They look at 4 basic options:
CVN 8X - 100,000 tons, "descoped" Ford, recurring ship cost including midlife OH but not operating costs, $18.5 billion
CVN LX - 70,000 tons, hybrid nuclear/gas/electric propulsion, capable of operating current air wing, recurring ship cost $13.6 B
CV LX - 43,000 tons, like LHA, STOVL, recurring ship cost $4.2B (or $8.4B to replace on 2-for-1 basis)
CV EX - 20,000 tons, like UK Invincible or Italian Cavour, STOVL, recurring sip cost $2.5B
The CV LX and CV EX represent significant degradations in capability. The CVN LX comes pretty close to the CVN 8X, which has only slightly less capability than a Ford (in theory). Say a CVN 8X is 95% of a Ford, and a CVN LX is 90% of a Ford. But given the cost differential, you can build 14 CVN LXs for the cost of 10 Fords. That seems to me to be a pretty strong argument for the CVN LX option.
What I'd actually like to see is a variation of the RAND CVN LX with two waist cats and a ski jump forward. This would allow complete interoperability with allies who have CATOBAR (France), STOBAR (India), and STOVL (UK, Spain, Italy) carriers. I expect that in the future we will want to use those allies and others as force multipliers, and being able to cross-deck with all of them could be strategically and tactically advantageous.
ReplyDeleteThe ski jump could be used for F-35s and possible experiments with other aircraft that have been proposed, like the Eurofighter Sea Typhoon and SAAB Sea Gripen. And Boeing has stated that the F/A-18 could operate off a ski jump with pretty much a full fuel and ordnance load. I would also like to see the return of the S-3 or a suitable replacement. I think we have ignored ASW to what may well be our sorrow. And I'd be all for bringing back some Perrys instead of building more LCSs.
I would also expect such a carrier to be somewhat cheaper than the RAND CVN LX version, because of elimination of one catapult (the RAND CVN LX has 3). The hybrid plant is interesting. The RAND CVN LX has one nuke reactor plus gas turbines, generating electricity for electric drive. I would wonder about combining nuke and conventional steam plants driving steam turbogenerators, and having sufficient steam to go back to steam cats. I'm still concerned about EMALS reliability as well as electromagnetic signature issues.
CVN LX is the Kitty Hawk class if it had nuclear power. Given the reduced size of today's air wings, that size carrier is more than sufficient. The Ford is a conceptual abomination beginning with the fact that is larger than a Nimitz with a smaller air wing! Stunningly illogical.
Delete" two waist cats and a ski jump forward."
DeleteI can't foresee any reasonable scenario in which we would actually operate foreign aircraft off our carriers. If a foreign country were to enter a war alongside us, they'd have their own carrier(s) operating. If they didn't enter a war alongside us, we couldn't operate their aircraft.
Consider WWII … I'm sure there was some moment when a US carrier landed/launched a foreign plane but it was never a routine operation. Instead, British carriers operated alongside us.
Eliminating two cats against the remote possibility of a momentary foreign aircraft launch seems a poor trade off.
One of the advantage of modern steam cats is that aircraft can launch with the carrier motionless. Wind over deck, while helpful, is not required. I don't know if an aircraft can launch from a ski jump without wind. I'd hate to lose the motionless launch capability if a ski jump can't do that.
What specific scenario do you see foreign aircraft operating from US carriers?
ComNavOps, I agree that the CVN LS sounds a lot like a nuke Kitty Hawk.
ReplyDeleteAs for your second post, I'm actually relying in part on a couple of your prior posts. One, I believe you posted about building a smaller carrier with just two waist cats and the bow area for storing aircraft. Given the size of Kitty Hawk and the size of modern air wings, I don't think we are exactly starved for space, particularly considering that eliminating the below-decks equipment for the forward cats should enable making the hangar deck bigger. So a ski jump could add some capability without really sacrificing anything, and do it pretty cheaply.
Two, I don't really see a specific scenario where we would operate foreign aircraft off our carriers. But I don't rule it out. We recently did have one or two French squadrons (CATOBAR, so no need for ski jump) operated from one of ours while theirs was in the yards. And we could certainly end up operating Marine F-35Bs that would benefit from being able to launch with extra fuel and ordnance. I think you have stated that carriers are more effective operating in groups of two or three. Given the cost, I don't really foresee us ever operating two or three Fords together. I think we are farmer likely to fill out those second and third carriers from among Queen Elizabeth (STOVL) and/or Charles de Gaulle (CATOBAR) and/or an Indian carrier (STOBAR) and/or an Italian carrier (STOVL). Being able to cross-deck in those scenarios could have several benefits.
As far as using a ski jump with zero wind, I'm pretty sure you could do it if the aircraft was lightly enough loaded. On a different tack, Boeing recently announced that an F/A-18 could operate off a ski jump at pretty close to a full load. I would think we might also experiment with the proposed Eurofighter Sea Typhoon and the SAAB Sea Gripen.
I tend to like steam catapults for reliability. I am also concerned about what I've read about the electromagnetic signature of EMALS. The CVN LX as proposed by RAND would have a single reactor driving a steam turbogenerator, and supplemental gas turbogenerators, all powering integrated electric propulsion main engines. I'm wondering if for steam catapults it wouldn't make more sense to have the reactor plus two distillate-fired boilers to facilitate superheated steam for the cats, and all of them driving steam turbogenerators to make power for the IEP. I don't know what the space, weight, and manpower considerations, or whether there might be another better approach.
"you posted about building a smaller carrier with just two waist cats and the bow area for storing aircraft. "
DeleteYes I did! However, the key to that concept was to reduce costs (eliminate the 2 cats and associated mechanicals) AND TO INCREASE DECK AIRCRAFT PARKING on a smaller carrier (smaller hull also reduces costs) so as to operate a nearly full size air wing. Adding a ski jump eliminates the bow as a parking area and defeats the purpose of the cheaper, smaller carrier.
That said, my main objection to a ski jump is that we'll never use it. It's not worth the loss of parking and larger hull size (to compensate for loss of deck parking space) for that one-in-a-million cross deck scenario.
For the moment, a agree about steam cats. EMALS should go back to the R&D world and get redesigned so that the cats can be electrically isolated and repaired individually and so that it is electromagnetically shielded from emissions. When it's FULLY tested and ready, then I'm all for incorporating back into production.
From the RAND study, it appears that something the size of Kitty Hawk is about as small as really makes sense. I suppose you could go down to Queen Elizabeth size, but that's really in the same ballpark. If you are going down to Charles de Gaulle size, then maybe it matters, but I wasn't thinking that you were going there. And as far as losing parking, you are picking up hangar space by eliminating the below deck machinery for the forward cats. But if we're going to put a current sized air wing (75) on a ship the size of Kitty Hawk that has carried 90, and at least the Whales and Vigis were larger than anything we are flying now, I'm not sure how critical parking would be. And I see the advantage of being able to operate Marine F-35Bs with full load as being as big or bigger advantage than the foreign compatibility.
ReplyDeleteI see your argument. I think I just have a different concept of operations (there goes that term again). And the other comment I referenced was the one about operating carriers in groups of twos or threes. We're not going to get two Fords, and we are not likely to get three of anything together at current construction costs. I think that in the future we have to get away from the old Bretton Woods "US as world policeman" paradigm and get to one where allies are shouldering more of the load. UK seems ready and even eager to do so, Macron has made noises, and I think others may be as well. If that's the way we are going to go, then to get your 2 or 3 carrier task force, at least one of them is going to belong to someone else. And I think it's fine for us to operate our aircraft and the Brits to operate theirs and the French theirs and the Indians theirs and the Italians theirs. And that would be 99.9% of the time. But operations don't always go according to plan, and I can see significant advantages to being able to cross-deck in a pinch.
I have previously suggested the need for a smaller, cheaper carrier in the size range of the Midway which operated a nearly full air wing and would be even cheaper than a Kitty Hawk, especially if the Kitty Hawk has nuclear power.
DeleteA Midway (60,000 tons after the various rebuilds) would be approaching half the size with nearly a full size air wing. If conventionally powered, it would be a third(?) the cost of a Ford.
Installing a ski ramp and losing the entire bow deck parking space for a 0.1% scenario seems foolish in the extreme. As far as operating F-35Bs from carriers … we aren't. They'll stay on their LXX ships or the Marines will waste them trying to establish their idiotic hidden bases. We will operate Marine F-35Cs but they can catapult so that's not an issue.
By the way, do we know that a F-35B can't catapult? I don't know that one way or the other. It's the same basic aircraft as a F-35C. How hard would it be to add a catapult attachment to the F-35B? That would seem to make more sense than building a ski ramp.
As far as carrier groups, of course we'll operate them. Operating them singly will only ensure they're sunk. Whether they're Fords or Nimites is immaterial and depends only on what time frame we're talking about. If we're unwilling to operate Fords in combat because of the risk then why are we building them?
Good discussion.
ReplyDeleteFrom your last post, we are really talking about two different carriers. I'm talking about something in the 80,000 T range like a Kitty Hawk, you're talking about something in the 60,000 T range like a Midway. There's merit to each. The Navy has pretty much quit looking in the Midway size range, and that may very well be the Navy's bad. I was basically looking at the options that RAND looked at--100,000 T, 80,000 T, 40,000 T, and 20,000 T. The 60,000 T might be a very interesting niche. How many aircraft are you expecting it to carry? I have read some criticism of Midway saying that the lack of flight deck space curtailed sortie rates. And I've also read comments that in its last version, the sponsons were so extreme that it had stability issues. But that latter one, in particular, can probably be worked out in the design stage.
I would also note that you can operate STOVL/STOBAR aircraft without a ski jump, they just can't carry as much fuel or ordnance. So your design concept would not necessarily rule out the ability to be used in a pinch the way I envisioned.
I guess what I wonder is just how many parking spots you lose to a ski jump. Looking at a schematic of Queen Elizabeth, it looks like they're only losing 3 to at most 5 spots. Now, a couple aircraft might have to be moved if you are using the ramp to launch. But as I said, get rid of the below flight deck equipment for the forward cats, and you might free up enough additional hangar space to offset the difference.
I think we agree on a couple of things. One, we can't keep building Fords, we need something cheaper. And two, until EMALS really works (and possibly even after it works), we are probably better off with steam cats.
I suppose with Midway-sized carriers, we could build enough to have multiple carrier task forces. That could partly reduce the need for interoperability.
My carrier design motivation is to design and build the smallest carrier that can perform the mission. In the case of a 'small carrer' my goal is to design the smallest carrier that can operate a full combat air wing of 44 Hornets (or F-35s if they ever achieve combat capability). The Midway did, in fact, operate nearly full air wings of around 70 aircraft, if memory serves.
DeleteSo, a Midway sized carrier, properly designed rather than an ad hoc collection of buoyancy blisters, should be able to handle a nearly full size air wing (today's air wings being so much smaller) and cost substantially less. The drawback to the CVN LX design is that it would only cost a little less than a full Ford, being nearly the same size and nuclear powered.
Regarding ski ramps and bow parking, I suspect you're looking at a QE and counting the number of aircraft parked on the bow (3-5) and assuming that the ski ramp uses half the space and, therefore, costs 3-5 parking spots. This is reasonable but incorrect.
DeleteTake a look at an overhead photo or plan view of a QE compared to a Nimitz. The QE bow is severely truncated. I was stunned by how stubby the QE bow is! Take a look at a photo of a Nimitz configured for waist cat/landing ops. There are 15-18 aircraft spotted on the bow arranged in three columns (left, right, center). A ramp would eliminate a side and the center columns of parking. Thus, a Nimitz/Kitty Hawk ramp would cost around 10-12 spots.
"I suppose with Midway-sized carriers, we could build enough to have multiple carrier task forces. That could partly reduce the need for interoperability."
DeleteI'm either puzzled by your apparent belief that we can't operate multiple groups of carriers or I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say. We have, nominally, 11 carriers (9 air wings) so we can operate two 4-carrier groups with a few extra carriers to allow for losses. Would we like to have more carriers? Sure! But, we can field operationally valid carrier groups.
As far as interoperability, as I said, if another country is in a war with us they'll operate their own carrier. If they're not in the war with us they won't allow their aircraft to be used. There is no interoperability.
The only case for interoperability would be the incredibly unlikely combination of factors wherein the ally lost its carrier but not its aircraft and we had carriers that were short of aircraft. Theoretically possible but highly improbably.
The UK, for example, has no carrier aircraft, currently, and only has plans for 30-40 F-35s, or thereabouts, if I recall. There is just no scenario in which they will have useful numbers of extra aircraft for us to operate from our ships.
If you can think of a scenario, let me know!
ComNavOps,
ReplyDeleteTaking them from the bottom to the top.
“I'm either puzzled by your apparent belief that we can't operate multiple groups of carriers or I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say.”
I think it’s sort of misunderstanding, so let me try to clarify. We have 11 carriers, with all Fords we would have a hard time affording that, probably go down to 10 or most likely 9. If we figure 2 in the yards, one as a training carrier, and one or two working up to deployable status, that leaves 6 that we can count on being able to deploy at any time. It’s going to be really hard to put 4, or even 3, of those in one place and still maintain some semblance of honoring our other commitments.
I agree that the solution is something cheaper than a Ford. I’m no expert, but from what I have read, the smaller flight deck on a Midway-sized carrier can limit sortie rates. Of course, the Brits don’t seem too concerned about sortie rates with a similar-sized Queen Elizabeth, and RAND points out that even during the Gulf War we never even approached sortie rate limits, so I’m not sure how big a deal that is. Another thing is that I am still worried about our weak position regarding ASW, and I would like to see a return of the S-3 or something similar. Midway apparently carried 65 aircraft after its second modification, and based on that size air wing, you start putting S-3s in and you either run out of room or you have to cut back on F/A-18s. or F-35Cs
As far as costs and numbers, the RAND study indicated that, including a $4B midlife refuel and major overhaul but not operating costs, the cost would be $18B for the CVN 8X and $14B for the CVN LX, or cost to build about $14B (similar to Ford) or $10B, respectively. Assume your Midway variant would cost $7B to build (close to what a Queen Elizabeth would be with catapults and arresting gear). Then for the cost of 10 Fords/CVN 8Xs you could build 14 CVN LX, or 20 Midway clones. I would say that you could certainly do your 3 or 4 carrier task force with 20 Midways, and you probably could not with 10 Fords. You could easily do multiple 3-carrier task forces with 14 CVN LXs plus augmentation from allies—say, 2 CVN LXs plus an RN carrier or CDG in the European area, 2 CVN LXs plus an RN carrier or CDG in the Indian Ocean, and 2 CVN LXs plus an RN carrier in WestPac. And you could get a 4th carrier in any of those locations from some combination of Italian, Spanish, Indian, and other allied navies.
I think combined ops are the future. I think we’re going to have to get away from the “US as single world policeman” model that has been ours since WWII and Bretton Woods. I see a lot more cases for interoperability than the ones you describe. I can see a situation where we park a cheaper carrier close in and a more expensive one further out, and you could have a sortie where you leave the further-out carrier, fly the mission, land on the closer-in carrier, quick refuel, and return to base. Or a situation where you put one carrier on one side of the objective and another on the other side, and fly the missions back and forth. This requires a lot of coordination that we don’t have in place now. But I think that could be the wave of the future. If we are going to be operating with carriers from other navies with different launch/recovery modes, I can see far more than 0.1% of the time that some interoperability would be useful. I see it more as a situation where if we got to working with them on a regular basis, we would find all sorts of ways to make use of that feature that we haven’t thought of at this point.
“Regarding ski ramps and bow parking, I suspect you're looking at a QE and counting the number of aircraft parked on the bow (3-5) and assuming that the ski ramp uses half the space and, therefore, costs 3-5 parking spots. … I was stunned by how stubby the QE bow is!”
ReplyDeleteIn part the QE bow is so stubby because they extend the wide part of the flight deck forward. But it does not have to be stubby because it has a ski jump. It’s just that stubby is as long as it needs to be to accommodate the ski jump. You could have a Nimitz like bow and have a lot of room behind the ski jump. The Brits also have always had a different concept--we keep a lot of aircraft on the flight deck, they like to keep more in the hangar. That’s one reason why their aircraft counts tend to be lower than ours. If the Kitty Hawk could carry 90, including Whales and Vigis, and we are looking to carry only 75, I’m just not sure that where to park 5 aircraft is a burning need. I don’t think we are going to do a ski jump because I don’t think a lot of our admirals like the way it looks. But I have read where a lot of Marine F-35B pilots say they would like to have one.
Bottom line, I don’t think either one of us believes that we can go all Fords and have enough carriers, or enough money left over for other ships, to maintain what we need.
A couple of asides
1) I see three basic aircraft needs (in addition to ASW) going forward:
- A fighter/interceptor
- An attack aircraft with longer range and bigger bomb capacity
- An STOL/VSTOL/STOVL airplane for the Marines that can operate off either carriers or unprepared airfields.
I think we’ve tried to mix the missions and ended up with aircraft that are not as good for any one mission as three purpose-built airplanes would be.
2) The CVN LX would use nuke power to drive turbogenerators which in turn power electric main engines. This kind of independent electric propulsion (IEP) layout was used for the French ocean liner Normandie, and it made 32.4 knots with a 1000 foot, 80,000 ton hull, so that speed range should be obtainable.
"It’s going to be really hard to put 4, or even 3, of those in one place and still maintain some semblance of honoring our other commitments."
DeleteNo, no, no! If we're talking about operating carriers in groups, it means we're talking about being at war. If we're at war, we have no other commitments! ALL of our carriers will be available for missions (there are no deployments in war!) and we'll form groups as needed. There will be NO carriers in maintenance or overhaul except to repair battle damage.
" the smaller flight deck on a Midway-sized carrier can limit sortie rates."
DeleteNo, no, no! I've addressed this in a post. Carriers don't operate by sortie rate in combat. That's a made up rationalization for the Ford. In combat, you launch a group for a mission, execute the mission, and recover the survivors. There is no sortie rate. Carriers operate in pulses.
"Midway apparently carried 65 aircraft"
DeleteThat's a full size air wing by today's standards. We can wish for a S-3 replacement but that isn't going to happen in any foreseeable future. If that happens a few decades from now then we can start modifying carrier design to accommodate it. Of course, by then, the air wings will probably be down to around 50 so it still won't be an issue!
"you could certainly do your 3 or 4 carrier task force with 20 Midways, and you probably could not with 10 Fords."
DeleteAgain, I continue to be utterly mystified why you think 10 Fords can't form carrier groups? Are they like magnets that repel each other?
"I think combined ops are the future."
DeleteYou're aware of the history of "allied" cooperation, right? There is a significant lack of such cooperation. We'll be likely fighting alone or with limited allied assistance and we certainly can't count on assistance. France, for instance, is notorious for not supporting us in combat ops.
The use I see for foreign militaries is taking up the slack in non-combat areas of the world, thereby freeing up our forces for actual combat.
"I can see a situation where we park a cheaper carrier close in and a more expensive one further out"
DeleteWell, that's a scenario I would never consider! Are you talking about peer combat (war with China)? I suspect you may not be because splitting up carriers and parking them anywhere, but especially "in close", is how you lose carriers to a peer.
I threw in the sortie rate thing, but I admit I think it is something conjured up by Navy brass to justify bigger carriers. The RAND report indicates that even in Desert Storm, no carrier ever got close to the nominal maximum sortie rate. If we didn't hit it then, it's probably not a big deal.
ReplyDeleteI think we both agree that the Fords are too expensive to build them and have enough left for a Navy to go with them, and that steam is probably better than EMALS until we can get EMALS working properly (if ever). I don't dislike your Midway-comparable model. I just think it would have some limits. I spent some time on Ranger, so I have a lot of respect for what an 80,000 T carrier can accomplish.
As for the ski jump versus parking space debate, the USN has decided that another helo spot is more valuable than a ski jump on the LHAs (and that alone makes me question that) but I've read that Marine pilots would much prefer having a ski jump. So in addition to combined interoperability, we already have a bunch of Marine aircraft that could benefit from a ski jump. You can operate STOVL and probably STOBAR aircraft from a carrier without a ski jump, but at reduced capability. Given what the rest of the world is doing, I would expect considerable advances in STOVL/STOBAR during the lives of our next carriers. Boeing says the F/A-18 could operate off a ski jump with a full load. If we persist in pursuing EMALS, I could foresee a situation where we have a carrier at sea with all catapults down, and a ski jump might be the only way to launch aircraft with any kind of payload.
At current air wing sizes, I'm just not sure how critical the parking spaces are. To some extent, that would depend on how operations flow could be managed on the flight deck, and I don't know the answer to that.
As for the peer war, I can't really see us attacking mainland China with carrier air. I would think sub-launched cruise missiles would have a better chance of success. Where I see carriers having their greatest utility is sea control and perhaps actions to suppress non-peer rogue states (something like the Gulf Wars or Libya or the Falklands). And when I said close in, I really meant closer in, like maybe 100-200 miles offshore instead of 400-500.
As for combined ops, like them or not, I foresee a lot of them in our future. Somebody is going to have to protect SLOCs and maintain some order at sea, and we are going to have to lead that. But I don't think we are going to have the resources to do it alone like the last 75 years, so I think necessity is going to drive us toward combined ops. The Brits seem willing and able, probably some Commonwealth countries, and maybe a couple of NATO allies. The more compatible we can be with them, or perhaps more correctly the more compatible they can be with us, the better I think that will work.
And it's easy to say that with 10 Fords we could do do 3 and 4 carrier task forces It's certainly theoretically possible to have 2 task forces of 4 carriers each, or 3 task forces of 3 each, but when you actually work through the details, it's not so easy. If we're operating on a full wartime footing, we won't have 2 in the yards and 1 working up to be ready and 1 doing training off Pensacola and Corpus. But when the war starts, that's very likely to be the status, and any kind of peer war is likely to be be over and done with it before we could change that very much. We did have 6 carriers in Desert Storm (Midway, Saratoga, Ranger, America, JFK, and TR), 2 in the Red Sea and 4 in the Arabian Gulf, but that was with 14 total carriers and several months of prep time, and 5 of those 6 aren't there anymore.
I think either 14 CVN LXs or 20 Midways would be better than 10 Fords. Whether the ski jump is better than the extra parking spaces depends on concept of operations.
" I don't dislike your Midway-comparable model. I just think it would have some limits."
DeleteOf course it would! It's an attempt to create a minimal cost carrier with reasonably complete, but not total, functionality. You can't make something smaller and not sacrifice something. I hope you didn't think I was suggesting that we could cut a carrier in half and still retain full functionality? It comes down to a choice between ever fewer (eventually none) carriers with full capability or smaller ones with a reasonable amount of capability.
" we already have a bunch of Marine aircraft that could benefit from a ski jump."
DeleteNo, we have a bunch of poorly designed Marine aircraft that could benefit from a ski jump. We shouldn't have jump jets, at all. We shouldn't have LHAs, at all. We should have fully capable aircraft flying from fully capable carriers providing ground support and we should have WWII-ish attack transports and LSTs. The LHA is a compromised design that attempts to combine a carrier and a transport and winds up being well suited for neither role as well as being very expensive.
Setting that aside, if we're operating an LHA 20 miles or so offshore, what do we gain from a ski jump? A couple extra weapons doesn't matter - you can quickly return and rearm. A little extra fuel is irrelevant because you'll be weapon limited not fuel limited. So, what's the actual benefit of a ski ramp?
" I don't think we are going to have the resources to do it alone like the last 75 years, so I think necessity is going to drive us toward combined ops. "
DeleteIf you think we're becoming budget limited in our capabilities, the British, French, Italians, and everyone else are becoming even more so. Britain is steadily declining, shedding ships and aircraft non-stop. They're going to be in no position to provide any assistance. And so on for the other countries. Like it or not, we ARE going to be alone.
First, I totally support your idea that we need to cut back from the Fords to something reasonably sized. I just think we need to look at alternatives. If all we are going to build are Fords and Virginias and Burkes and LHA/LHDs, we're going to end up with a 50-ship navy, because that's all we can afford. And when they have to be underway 430 days a year to meet all their commitments, how many more Fitzgeralds and McCains are we going to have with worn out and undermanned crews? Exaggerations, yes, but not far enough from the truth.
ReplyDeleteYou have correctly stated on many occasions that we need a concept of operations instead of just throwing away money on neat shiny toys. I see glaring holes in our defense capability because we haven't focused on what it is that we want our Navy (or our Army or Air Force or Marines) actually to do.
I think we need some sort of Elmo Zumwalt's high/low mix concept. He is justifiably criticized for some of his ideas, and I thought the Knoxes and Perrys were vastly undercapable ships. But they were hulls in the water, they could do ASW and port visits, and we needed the numbers to help turn the Cold War in our favor. Interestingly, Zumwalt favored building jump jet carriers (sea control ships) as a force extender for our then 15 carriers. Spain ended up building one, and got pretty good use out of it with Harriers. I think we need 15-20 carriers to execute any reasonable concept of operations. They can't all be Fords, and I'd be happy if none of them were.
I think your updated Midway concept has merit. I think my idea is worth consideration as well. There may be others too. I think we need to look at options for surface force, amphibs, and submarines as well. I think we need a mix of platforms with different capabilities, because missions will be different. Right now we are trying to build too many mission capabilities onto one platform, and that makes the platform 1) overpriced and 2) not as good at any capability as a dedicated platform would be.
Exactly what goes into that mix needs further discussion.
"I think your updated Midway concept has merit. I think my idea is worth consideration as well."
DeleteI'm in favor of any option that is not a Ford! Debating a Midway versus Kitty Hawk/CVN LX is just debating degrees and would hinge on detailed analyses of costs and trade offs.
Absolutely right about CONOPS. What is the role of a carrier today? I've posted that it should NOT be strike - that it's long range air superiority and escort for the true strike platforms (Burke/Tomahawk). That's what drives my carrier concept. If someone has a different CONOPS then they may well have a different carrier concept.
I've also posted on not a hi-lo mix but a war-peace mix. (see, "War-Peace")
I've read your War-Peace post several times and I find it interesting. Although you state otherwise, I really think Hi-Lo and War-Peace are basically two different ways of looking at essentially the same thing. To me, your "Peace" small combatant sounds like a corvette that could easily be optimized for the littoral role. One (among many) of the problems with the LCS is that it's too big for the littoral role. You also commented on the NNFM concept, and talked about merging their green water forces with your "peace" concept. I think your corvette could merge those roles capably.
ReplyDeleteI agree on the carriers. We need something that's not a Ford and we need a bunch of them. I do have one question about carriers. We've gone from 60,000 T (Midway) to 80,000 T (Forrestal/Kitty Hawk) to 100,000 T (Nimitz) to 110,000 T (Ford) and the air wing has not grown but gotten smaller. What's up with that? I've heard the official story that we don't need as many because the new aircraft are more capable, and that the larger flight deck allows more sorties, but the RAND report indicates that during Desert Storm, we got virtually the same sortie rates off Midway, 2 Forrestal, 2 Kitty Hawks, and the TR, and none of them even remotely approached their theoretical design maximums. And the reduction in size was largely due to pulling the S-3s, and I fear that we are now woefully short in ASW, so I'm not sure where the gain is.
I agree with your earlier comments about the LHAs/LHDs. It seems that we don't have enough carriers, so we are going to put jump jets on them and pretend that they are carriers. Why not make them amphibious like they are supposed to be, and build a bunch of smaller, cheaper carriers to be real carriers? We don't need to be putting all of our phib eggs into one basket that can be knocked to with one torpedo or missile. We ought to have PhibRons of one LHA/LHD, one LPH, one LSD/LPD, one LKA/LPA, and one LST. Each of those has unique features that we need from time to time. And 5 ships always have one advantage over one big ship--they can be in 5 places at once. This was really brought home to me over Benghazi. In my days in 6th Fleet, if we had anything like that going on, we would have had an LSD or LST standing offshore with a company of Marines to put ashore at any sign of trouble. But the closest amphibs were at Bab el Mandeb (southern end of the Red Sea) and west of Gibraltar playing war games with the Spanish. We had nobody able to respond.
The difference between the 'lo' and the 'peace' is that the lo ships would still be expected to engage in combat during a war, albeit not in the main 'battle line'. In contrast, the 'peace' ships would never be part of a war and would, therefore, not need to be built to military standards. Cheap commercial vessels, modified to accommodate a few weapons, would make up the peace fleet. The lo fleet would still be bona-fide warships and would, therefore, be quite expensive.
Delete