The notion of a lightning carrier keeps coming up. So many people are enamored of this 'lightning carrier' concept without really understanding its capabilities or limitations. I guess it’s time to examine this concept.
So, what is a lightning carrier? For this discussion, the concept refers to the use of a big-deck amphibious ship operating an all fixed wing, F-35B, air group. An example would be an America (LHA) or Wasp (LHD) class amphibious ship with an air wing of around 18-22 F-35B.
Alternatively, though less common, proponents envision an amphibious ship with a ski ramp and arresting gear allowing the ability to operate F-18 Hornets. However, this variation on the concept is simply not feasible and we’ll address that a bit further on.
Any discussion of a lightning carrier must start and end with the air wing. In fact, the term ‘lightning carrier’ really means ‘lightning air wing’ because a carrier, any carrier, is its air wing. With that in mind, let's review some of the limitations and constraints of a lightning air wing.
Lightning Air Wing
-The F-35B would operate at half the range and payload of an F-35C which is, itself, inadequate for the Pacific theater. F-35 fanboys won’t accept this but it was clearly stated in an interview with the Ford program manager and documented in an older post.[1] The range/payload limitation, alone, is reason enough not to pursue lightning carriers!
-A lightning carrier cannot operate a tanker aircraft and the lack of a tanker only emphasizes the aircraft’s lack of range. Even if a tanker could magically be added to the air wing it would take away a combat aircraft slot from an already meager air wing. It is possible to take off light on fuel and refuel after take off from some other, unspecified tanker source but there is no way to take off light in weapons and load more in the air!
-Similarly, the lack of an E-2 Hawkeye (AEW) precludes effective air wing control, combat direction, and situational awareness. It has been proposed that a V-22 could be equipped with a radar as a substitute, however, any AEW V-22 would be a poor man's version of an E-2, at the very best. It would have a smaller, less powerful radar - whatever type that would be - with resultant shorter effective sensor range which would, necessarily then, place it closer to danger to achieve the required detection and discrimination. It would lack the room for sufficient consoles, computers, communications gear, and operators for the battle management function which is the true purpose of an E-2. It would lack the endurance to provide long term coverage. In short, it would be nearly useless in a high end combat scenario. It is this same lack that renders the British carrier and air wing nearly pointless for anything other than very low end, low threat work. Even if a V-22(AEW) were developed, each one added to the air wing would remove a combat aircraft.
-The above also applies to electronic warfare (EW) aircraft although it is, at least, possible to imagine an EW version of the F-35B being developed someday. Of course, an F-35B(EW) would, again, eliminate a combat aircraft slot.
-We’ve previously demonstrated, in multiple posts, that a carrier needs to retain around two dozen aircraft for self/group defense. Given that a lightning carrier can only accommodate around twenty aircraft, what does that leave for offensive operations? Nothing! At best, the carrier can barely defend itself and without AEW, EW, and tanker aircraft, not even that. A lightning carrier would exist only to defend its existence which is pointless.
-Now, consider a lightning carrier with a theoretical maximum of 20 F-35B. Now, add two AEW-modified helo/V-22 and two tankers of some unspecified sort. That’s four aircraft added to the air wing which means four F-35B combat aircraft have to be subtracted. That leaves a usable combat component of 16 F-35B. Is that a useful combat component? Is it worth operating – and risking – a $4B ship, 1000+ crew, and several escort vessels just to operate 16 F-35B aircraft with limited range and payload?
Lightning Carrier
We’ve examined the air wing. Now, let’s take a look at some characteristics of the ship, itself.
-With no cats or arresting gear, half the deck is dedicated to landing spots. Below is a photo of the USS America during an Oct 2019 Navy experiment in which the ship was operated as a lightning carrier. Note the jam-packed deck that contained only 13 F-35Bs and note that half the deck is consumed by the landing spots which are kept clear for normal or emergency landings.
 |
| USS America Oct 2019 |
-Some have postulated a ski ramp on an amphibious ship in order to operate F-18s. Boeing claims that an F-18 can launch from a ski ramp although the conditions of launch (weight, weapons, etc.) are unknown. Boeing tested the concept from a land based mock up of a ramp as shown in the photo below.[2] The maximum weapons load that I’ve seen in photos of the tests show two small bombs. The internal fuel load of the aircraft is unknown.
 |
| Hornet Ski Ramp Test |
Boeing conducted F-18 ski ramp take offs as a preliminary to possible sales of the aircraft to India.
A ski-jump launch may well impose a penalty in terms of the payload the jet can take off with, but Boeing says it has conducted multiple tests with different, undisclosed, kinds of payloads.
According to the company, these tests “show that the Super Hornet would do well with the Indian Navy’s Short Takeoff but Arrested Recovery (STOBAR) system and validate earlier simulation studies.”[3]
Note that Boeing carefully omits any information about payloads which is, undoubtedly, due to the fact that the ski launch requires reduced payloads/fuel. If it did not, Boeing would be loudly and proudly trumpeting the fact … but they’re not.
A ramp might, at least, enable the use of EA-18G (EW) aircraft but could they take off from a ski ramp with a full load of EW pods? That’s unknown. Regardless, every EA-18G means one less combat aircraft from an already very small air wing.
Ski ramps take up huge amounts of deck space and, in the case of operating F-18s, would also require conventional arresting gear which, without an angled deck, prohibitively ratchets up the danger factor of recovery when the inevitable bolter occurs straight down the deck and into the aircraft parked and operating forward. Danger aside, the combination of ski ramp and arresting gear would consume ¾ of the available deck space which would severely reduce the number of embarked aircraft.
In fact, from visual estimation, I’m fairly sure that a ski ramp and arrested landing area could not fit on an America/Wasp class ship given that they are around 200 ft shorter than a conventional carrier and do not have angled decks.
Below is an overhead schematic of the USS America with my wild estimates of the area needed for a minimal ski ramp and arrested landing area. In fact, the ski ramp area is probably too narrow for safe take offs. It should probably be the width of the bow.
 |
| Lightning Carrier Ski Ramp and Arrested Landing Gear Area |
For comparison purposes, here’s a photo of an Indian carrier (932 ft long, overall) with both a ski ramp (the entire bow!) and an angled recovery (almost the entire midships and stern!). There is simply not much room left for parking the air wing. Indeed, the air wing is only 26 MiG-29K plus some helos and that’s for a carrier that is nearly the size of a US supercarrier.
 |
| Indian Carrier - Note Ski Ramp and Angled Deck Arrested Landing Area |
-An unmodified amphibious ship could operate a maximum of 18-24 aircraft. The largest amphibious ship, USS America, intentionally designed for maximum fixed wing capacity, can only operate 22-24 aircraft according to the Navy. Any other amphibious ship will have even less aircraft capacity.
-An amphibious ship could be modified and rebuilt to operate larger numbers of aircraft but it would require a true rebuild of the ship involving large scale structural changes such as removing bulkheads to create hangar space, reinforcing other areas to compensate for the removed bulkheads, creating new compartments for aircraft maintenance and parts storage, creation of new magazines for added weapons storage, likely construction of additional munitions elevators, creation of additional aircraft control and communication compartments, a greatly enhanced hangar fire suppression system, and so on. In other words, it would be hideously expensive, with costs likely rivaling or exceeding the original purchase.
Opportunity Cost
So many people are fixated on the idea of comparing our carriers to some other country’s carriers or some multiple number of other country’s carriers and proclaiming that if we have more naval aircraft then we are somehow superior. Well, unless some country or countries challenge us to a one-on-one carrier match, it’s utterly irrelevant how many carriers or aircraft we have compared to someone else. What matters is how our overall military force compares to an enemy and, within that context, how our carriers contribute to that overall force and to our overall military strategy (you know … assuming we had one).
The relevant question, then, is does a lightning carrier with its acquisition/conversion cost and operating cost of a crew of a thousands plus a dozen or so escorts justify the meager contributions of twenty or so significantly limited aircraft and, more importantly, could the cost of this contribution be more effectively spent on any of dozens or hundreds of alternatives? This is the opportunity cost. Could the immense operating cost of a lightning carrier group buy us more and better overall military firepower in some other form? For example, for the operating cost of a lightning carrier group, we could buy untold numbers of cruise missiles, or we could significantly harden multiple forward bases, or we could buy umpteen thousands of tanks, or many dozens of dedicated minesweeper ships, or … the list of alternatives is nearly endless.
One of the arguments put forth for the conversion of amphibious ships into lightning carriers is that, if we’re getting rid of them anyway because of the Marine’s refocusing on small, hidden, forward bases - and there is no evidence of that, yet - then we could, at least, get some stop-gap use out of them as lightning carriers until they’re retired instead of retiring them early. Again, this is an opportunity cost issue that goes back to the operating cost for a very meager capability. Early retirement would free up a lot of operating cost funds that could be applied to any number of other weapon systems, each demonstrably more effective than a handful of limited aircraft.
Supplementing CVNs
Another argument for lightning carriers is that, while they are not equal to a conventional carrier, they could supplement conventional carriers by adding their small numbers of aircraft to the CVNs carrier group and the CVN can, in turn, cover the shortcomings of the lightning carrier.
Good grief, NO! A limited, constrained 'carrier' added to a CVN doesn't enhance the CVN, it pulls down the overall capabilities of the CVN group. This would be analogous to adding a high school basketball player to a professional team. The high school player doesn't add anything to the pro team, he pulls the overall effectiveness of the pro team down.
By having to split and further spread the CVN's AEW, EW, and tankers to cover the shortcomings of the lightning carrier, the overall effectiveness of the CVN is diluted and decreased. At best, the handful of limited capability aircraft on the lightning carrier can defend their own carrier. The lightning carrier would, as we previously noted, exist to defend its existence … the self-licking ice cream cone.
Amphibious Support
While a lightning carrier offers little to the high end air/strike war, it can offer a potentially useful short range strike capability in support of amphibious operations. Twenty or so F-35Bs operating in support of ground combat could prove somewhat useful although, again, the limited payload and inability to carry some of the larger munitions internally (2000 lb munitions, for example) limit the usefulness. High end ground combat requires constant ‘artillery’ support and aircraft, any aircraft, can only provide that support sporadically and in very small quantities. Still, the concept offers some degree of usefulness although at an enormous operating cost. Think about how many self-propelled artillery vehicles could be purchased for the operating cost of a lightning carrier!
Conclusion
Despite the enthusiastic support of so many naval observers, a rational examination of the lightning carrier concept clearly demonstrates that the combat capabilities of the carrier and its air wing are so minimal that it is not worth the operating cost. More damning is the opportunity cost associated with the concept which shows that we could acquire far more combat capability, in any number of alternate forms, for the operating cost than can be supplied by the lightning carrier and air wing.
It seems clear that the limited combat capability makes the lightning carrier appropriate for only low end, low threat operations which then takes us right back to the opportunity cost issue. It’s not even suitable for peacetime patrol type operations because we categorically refuse to use force during routine peacetime operations. That being the case, there’s no point having a carrier and aircraft around because we won’t use them.
Unfortunately, despite the enthusiasm so many people have for the concept, it just can’t be justified. It brings too little combat capability for far too great an operating and opportunity cost.
______________________________________
[1]https://navy-matters.blogspot.com/2020/03/ford-design-considerations.html
[2]https://www.aerotime.aero/articles/26767-super-hornet-shows-ski-jump-off-carrier-ramp-india
I find very interesting the study you have made about small carriers.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the minimum displacement for an useable dedicated carrier is between 40.000 to 50.000 tons like for example Charles de Gaulle type that has a significant aircraft complement and Hawkeye AEW.
For countries like my own that has only a LPH with a dozen at most of Harriers it seems foolhardy to have a fixed wing because the only probable conflict in or near Europe (excepting Russia) would be with a country well in range of land based aviation.
I think it would be better to replace embarked Harriers with a squadron of land based naval aviation.
Do you have some opinion of use of land based aviation in confined waters like Mediterranean?
JM
I don't know what country is yours (Spain?) so I can't comment on specifics but the general comment is the obvious one: there's nothing wrong with a land based air component except that it's a fixed target. If you believe you can successfully defend the base then it's good. If you can't defend the base from whatever weapons (ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, troops and armor, etc.) then the base will be quickly wiped out along with all the aircraft that are on the ground at the time.
DeleteNote that even the Charles de Gaulle only operates 24 Rafale combat aircraft. The rest of the air wing is helos and a couple of E-2 Hawkeyes. 24 combat aircraft is not much.
If you have specifics you'd like me to address, I'd be happy to try.
Yes, it's Spain.
DeleteYou are right that land based aviation is vulnerable to bombardment and also being naval aviation it should have some mobility for deploying to other prepared (or not) bases. Even could be useful to have arresting gear and training for deploying in EEUU carriers for joint operations if needed.
Anyway that is a very long shot. Abroad joint operations for Spain are difficult because politicians are permanently occupied with internal politic fights and don't have much time to think in a coherent long term policy in foreign affairs.
JM
Think CVNs are just too expensive for "Spain-type" countries.
DeleteThe cost of one CVN buys you a metric ton of hardened shelters and/or underground hangars, plus all sort of assorted goodies.
If you don't need to project power aboard, I think it's the superior choice.
"buys you a metric ton of hardened shelters"
DeleteAbsolutely true, however, bear in mind that missiles aren't the only threat to a land based, fixed air base. Being fixed, and depending on location relative to the enemy, an air base can be easily overrun and seized by a ground force. An armored thrust, for example, can cover a LOT of ground and reach an air base - again, depending on relative locations. For a smaller country, which is what we're talking about, there may not be an air base far enough away from the enemy to be safe or defensible.
Land defenses go far beyond hardened shelters. The cost of maintaining a base defense force with armor, artillery, troops, etc. is not insignificant.
I'm not arguing or disagreeing with you, just expanding the thought to include land threats to the air base.
Russia has reportedly seized (or attempted to seize) airfields in Ukraine with ground forces. I have no idea whether they've succeeded or not. Reports are conflicting and intended as propaganda rather than accurate news.
The question was not directed at me, but the real issue with carrier aviation is performance: land based aircraft historically enjoyed advantages in range/speed/load/maneuverability etc. over equivalent naval aircraft. There are also obvious limitations on the size and take-off/landing weights of naval aircraft making them very inefficient at carrying bombs (bombers) and fuel (tankers).
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the key metric of an CV/CVN is the air group; which in turn must provide a useful, and scalable force (we should expect to mass 2-4 carriers for strikes) .
I would suggest a CV-67 JFK sized platform is about the right size. CV-67 was designed (1962) with an air-group of (28) F-4/TFX, (24) A-4, (12) A-6, (9) A-3/A-5, (6) E-2, and (3) RF-8. In 2022 this air group should be almost all fighters, but critically maintain a capacity to operate large AEW, tanker and ASW aircraft.
GAB
It wouldn't be bad to have something that can lightning from one ocean to the other via Panama canal. Might also be good to have something that can fit under the bridges to the black sea. Might also be good to have something an ally might want to buy one of. All peripheral to the platforms main purpose. Lightning is a dumb name. Imagine this think loaded with UAVs that admitedly don't exist yet. Have you been watching the Global Hawk flight paths around Ukraine? Amazing endurance.
ReplyDelete"Amazing endurance."
DeleteAnd with a life expectancy of seconds if Russia decides to eliminate them. Utterly unsuited for actual war use except in an uncontested area but then what's the point? We've invested heavily in a non-survivable and, therefore, ineffective surveillance capability.
If the open domain, civilian world can track these aircraft that well, imagine how well a peer enemy could track them and how quickly they could destroy them.
"loaded with UAVs that admitedly don't exist yet."
I've called for UAV carriers with a specific type of UAV. What not-yet-existing UAV are you envisioning?
What exactly have the Turkish built drones been doing in Ukraine all week? What is it we haven't seen or know about working there all week? I look at what's happening there and everyone blames it on lack of Russian prep. Agreed, but I really think more of it is what prep and strategy are at play for the other team. ;)
Delete@AndyM. I think I've seen 2 videos of BUKs system taken out from those Turkish drones.
DeleteOr Russians are massively incompetent (in one video, one of the crew is outside smoking a cig) or BUK has to be the most overhyped SAM of all time. Great Russian marketing but not great engineering....
I know its the internet so you have to take everything with a grain of salt, ultimately the sheer numbers I think we win it for Putin but RU military isn't going to come out of this looking good....
James Stevenson in his book The Pentagon Paradox Chapter 3 gives an excellent recap of the Navy's experience during WWII and Large vs Small and Escort Carriers. Bottom line because they cost less you could build more and send them in where you were afraid to lose a Fleet carrier. Interesting we lost less Escort Carriers 9no light carriers) than we did Fleet Carriers (although those Fleet Carrier losses occurred early in the war).
ReplyDeleteEveryone should read the Navy history. It gets better because both before, even during, and after the war, the push was for bigger more expensive aircraft and ships.
For a $14B Ford Carrier I believe we can buy 4 America Class LHDs. Put some actually cheap aircraft on those four and and you have an affordable effective force. Something to think about as we see a Tier 1 (Russia) Force sustain losses from a Tier 3 (Ukraine) force.
"I believe we can buy 4 America Class LHDs. Put some actually cheap aircraft on those four and and you have an affordable effective force."
DeleteYou are overlooking a MAJOR point. In WWII, the light carrier, escort carrier, and fleet carrier (by whatever names you want to refer to them) ALL FLEW THE SAME AIRCRAFT (yes, I know the difference between a Wildcat and a Hellcat) which means that each carrier had the EXACT SAME COMBAT CAPABILITY IN THE AIR WING, differing only in number of aircraft. THAT IS NOT TRUE TODAY!
Today, a lightning carrier (or any of the many small versions of carrier that have been proposed) ALL LACK KEY COMBAT ELEMENTS which are E-2 Hawkeyes, tankers, and EW aircraft which, collectively, are a major contributor to the combat capability of the air wing. THUS, TODAY'S SMALLER CARRIERS ARE NOT AS EQUALLY COMBAT CAPABLE AS A FULL SIZE CARRIER, unlike WWII. I analyzed this fairly thoroughly in the post and pointed out that smaller (lightning) carriers DO NOT HAVE WORTHWHILE COMBAT CAPABILITIES especially when the opportunity cost is factored in.
Thus, it is NOT possible to get an affordable effective force from small carriers. The affordable part is highly debatable (you considered only purchase cost and ignored operating cost and escort costs which are enormous and why large carriers are ALWAYS preferred in analyses) and the effective part is not even debatable.
Check the historical mix of aircraft. You are right they had the type but the mix of fighter vs bomber vs torpedo changed based on the type of carrier. The Fleet carriers provided the Fleet fighter defense and the light and escort did attacks. I am not saying get rid of the big carriers nor am I saying the small ones would be sent out alone in a hostile AAW environment.
DeleteI am saying get rid of the overpriced do everything poorly F-35. Develop 3 or 4 types of aircraft that do one primary mission. Question why doesn't the Navy call it the F/A-35? Did th hey finally read the naming standard?
"the mix of fighter vs bomber vs torpedo changed based on the type of carrier."
DeleteThat was an operational and mission choice. The point is that a TBM Avenger on an Escort carrier had the exact same capability as a TBM on a fleet carrier. And so on for the other types.
A modern lightning/small carrier would NOT have the same capability. They would have different aircraft. The aircraft would be constrained and limited. The aircraft would be unsupported by AEW, EW, and tankers.
As demonstrated in the post, a lightning/small carrier CANNOT contribute much to the kind of combat a large carrier can and would, in fact, be a net detriment.
"Develop 3 or 4 types of aircraft that do one primary mission."
Can't argue with that! That would not, however, make a lightning carrier any more useful since they wouldn't be able to operate from the carrier.
For your words it seems that the minimum size for a carriers is the needed to have the minimum AEW, tankers and EW aircraft.
DeleteOther than that we would something like a "coastal carrier" that would need support from land based aircraft.
For that reason I think for small budget countries land based naval aviation is better: you can have better planes and save the cost of the ship or invest the savings for purchasing all these AEW, EW and tankers than you can't have in your mini-carrier.
JM
There is, of course, a Lightning Carrier (or two) in service right now, being the Queen Elizabeth class.
ReplyDeleteThere are a number of stated reasons for the choice of F-35B vs F-35C by the UK, we may never know the relative value placed on each, or how close the decision was. However, one critical decision is that no-one ever thought the Fleet Air Arm was going to be the sole operator of the F-35 or that large numbers of F-35's were going to be purchased. This meant that RAF pilots would be landing on RN carriers, and the reduced training requirements of the F-35B compared to CATOBAR certification was going to be decisive regardless of other factors.
These are rather larger than they need to be for the current/planned airwing size. One critical reason for this decision being the RN (probably correctly) thought they were never going to get more than two carriers, so concluded (this is debatable) that they might as well try for the biggest carriers they could.
Arguably, the RN got close to the most effective carriers it could in the budgetary and political situation they faced at the time. However, at the same displacement as the Midway-class, we can dream about lost possibilities.
What baffles me is why did we even bothering with building the America-class ships? For the same displacement and I will assume ballpark cost we could be building conventional power (non-nuke) real CATOBAR carriers the size of the Midway or Charles de Gaulle.
ReplyDeleteHonestly considering the Ford debacle I would rather see us build a modernized Midway, they were at least a good proven carrier design. I'd rather have a handful of fully functional Midways with small air wings than one jackpot Ford that is barely operational with a huge air wing. Some old saying about keeping your eggs in one basket comes to mind.
"Midways with small air wings"
DeleteMidway operated a full air wing. For example, in the early 1980's, Midway operated:
2x F-4 squadrons
2x A-7 squadrons
1x A-6/KA-6D enlarged squadron
1x E-2 Hawkeye squadron
1x RF-4B photo recon squadron
1x EA-6B electronic warfare squadron
1x SH-3 helo det
1x EA-3B Skywarrior det
This air wing is larger than we currently operate!
"Midway operated a full air wing"
DeleteOne thing I've never understood is why Midway didn't operate the S-3 Viking for ASW. It was lighter than some of those other aircraft.
The F-14 did not routinely operate on Midway although it did occasionally land and launch. I've heard stories that it was due to the Tomcat's exhaust heat and/or its vertical height and overall size (footprint). I've never been able to verify that.
DeleteThe S-3 had similar size issues. Even with the tail folded, the aircraft was still quite tall. Again, no verification.
I've also heard that the issue was size as it related to hangar space.
Midway operated E-2 Hawkeyes and Skywarriors so size couldn't have been all that big an issue although it may be that the limited number of Hawkeyes and Skywarriors were kept on the flight deck and not taken below to the hangar?
Now we are ignoring logistics.
DeleteThe Midway class designed with massively oversized, and impractical piston powered air groups when built. They were already overweight in 1945, had low hangers, and were ‘wet’ in seas, but they were successfully rebuilt (flight deck + fuel capacity) to accommodate jet aircraft. That said, they were cramped and remained deficient with respect to aviation fuel storage (CV-41 carried 1.2 million gallons of JP-5 and Avgas compared with nearly 2 million gallons aboard CV-64).
This does not address the other logistics issues of aviation maintenance.
GAB
I'm not a big fan of using those LHA/LHD as a lightning carrier. It seems like a shoe that doesn't fit right.
ReplyDeleteI've felt that CNO's small carrier (55k ton Midway-esque) with a complement of 48 or so aircraft would make a great CAS carrier.
But really, once you have those built you could use them for anything.
That leads to another question:
Would the navy be better off with a larger number of these Midway type carriers in place of a smaller number of super carriers?
Do the super carriers provide economies of scale, or are they diseconomies?
In combat, would the larger number of smaller carriers be able to provide the same combat ability as the super carriers?
If they wouldn't, why not?
Lutefisk
If you want the analysis; look to Dr Norman Freidman's excellent text: "U.S. Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated Design History:
DeleteAnd yes, the larger carriers provide economies of scale, and superior capabilities.
This is why the "sea control" carriers did not pass muster.
GAB
You can build a CATOBAR capable aircraft carrier under 25,000 tons, if you use a trimaran hull. However, in order to deploy a large air wing, you would need more size. Probably 35-45,000 , but that last is just a guess. The U.S. needs a CVL NOT a Lightning carrier.
ReplyDeleteAviation fuel capacity? Munitions capacity? Maintenance capability?
DeleteThese are critical capabilities that are seldom accounted for by enthusiasts, but concept killers.
GAB
Also in reality the Italian, Russian, Indian, Chinese and especially Thai "carriers" are basically there as a symbolic ships and don't offer any real combat capability for all the reasons you mention.
ReplyDeleteThe Russian, Chinese and Indian carrier air wings are pitifully small and lacking in any worthwhile capability as the fighters used are navalised versions of land based aircraft with short range and pitiful useful weapons load (MiG-29K, Su-33 based J-15)
At most they offer a point defence capability which is useless in an era of long range stand off supersonic, anti shipping missiles.
The Chinese and Indians get this so are building/planning bigger carriers (IAC-2 for India, Types 003 & 004 for China) . The Brits understood it too hence QE class is significantly bigger.
The Italians and Spaniards have gone down the LHD route to replace light carriers. LHD offers far more capability and is useful in roles most likely played by those countries.
In a major war, what will the LHAs and LHDs be used for? It will take a year to clear the seas of threats before any major amphibious operation. Do we keep them in CONUS or use them for some type of sea control or carrier support mission?
ReplyDeleteIs there a method for the LHDs/LHAs to trap carrier aircraft in an emergency? I think they have a net but can probably string cables attached to heavy chains as the Marines have done ashore, or to vehicles in neutral. Not pretty but might save a $100 million aircraft at times. The F-35 that recently crashed broke all four wires, and it took 45-mins to replace them. Luckily another carrier was nearby and trapped one aircraft. But in wartime, an aircraft may be damaged or low fuel or the carrier deck fouled, heavily damaged, or sunk! Could we see an LHD returning to Pearl with a dozen carrier aircraft crammed aboard?
There should at least be a crude contingency that might save an aircraft every few years in peacetime. If the Ford enters service, it might be a common event.
I have no idea what role the LHA/LHDs play in the American Navy now that forced entry amphibious landings are out and the Marines are giving up any kind of heavy fighting role.
DeleteObviously they're still useful for low intensity conflict management and special operations support but I really don't know how they fit in a peer level conflict.
"The F-35 that recently crashed broke all four wires"
DeleteI've not heard that any wires were actually broken. That would be surprising. In an event like the ramp strike, the wires are routinely replaced as a safety measure in case any were nicked, bent, or otherwise rendered less than 100% perfect condition. If you know of a source that definitively shows that the wires broke, let me know because I'd be very interested in investigating that! The wires are designed to arrest an aircraft under full power in a few hundred feet. It's hard to imagine them actually breaking because they were struck by slow (on a relative scale), unpowered debris.
Regular carriers have crash barrier nets but I've not heard that LHx have that since there would be no need.
I've never heard of any emergency landing procedure for an LHx to take on a fixed wing aircraft. The ship would have no landing aid, no arrested landing system, and a failure would be a disaster for every aircraft parked forward. It's highly unlikely that a portable landing arrestment system could stop an aircraft in a usable distance. A heavy chain system could eventually slow and stop an aircraft given lots of runway room but on a carrier an aircraft must stop in around 300 ft.
As I said, I've never heard of an emergency landing procedure and I doubt it's even feasible. I'd be very interested, though, to hear about one if you ever come across anything!
All four had to be replaced.
Deletehttps://news.usni.org/2022/02/15/uss-carl-vinson-recovered-quickly-after-f-35c-ramp-strike-say-officials
Regarding the lack of ability to launch AEW and EW aircraft:
ReplyDeleteGoing back in history, note that, during the Vietnam War, the Marines actually had a land-based catapult that they routinely used for operations in Vietnam. It was called the CE-2. It wasn't powered by steam under the "deck". Instead, it was all on the surface. The front wheel of the plane is placed on a "shuttle" and pulled down the runway by a cable that wraps around a capstan that is powered by one or two jet engines (like the ones on the F-4). The exhaust from the engine drives a free turbine which goes through a reduction gear to power the capstan.
The actual CE-2 required more runway to launch a plane than exists on the America class. But an updated one might work.
I have no idea how reliable it was. Although I would note that, given the significant increase in reliability of jet engines since the 1960's, at least that part of the reliability would be greater than in the Vietnam era CE-2.
Might also be worthwhile to carry it along on the Ford class, in case the EMALS goes down !
Here's a reference:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41401/marines-had-an-aircraft-carrier-on-land-with-catapults-and-arresting-gear-in-vietnam
As you noted, the launch system required 1100+ ft for an A-4 and 1400+ ft for an F-4. Additionally, both aircraft were lighter than an F-18E/F; the A-4 substantially lighter. In contrast, a carrier aircraft must be airborne in around 300 ft. Getting from 1400+ ft with a lighter aircraft to 300 ft with a heavier aircraft is a tall task!
DeleteFrom the top of my hat:
DeleteWhy not use an electric motor to launch aircraft?
Using what I remember from the University physics classes 30 years ago you would need to accelerate some 30000 kg of aircraft to more or less 150 km/h or 40 m/s needing a total of 24 Mj. Supposing an acceleration time of 2s we need to provide 12000 kW
Exists already a 36500 kW electric engine for ship propulsion from Leonardo weighting 125 tons. Surely there are a lot more builders.
A system like this could be quite efficient because uses electricity, could recover part of the energy used and the engines exists right now.
Surely it has many drawbacks that I cannot see for lack of knowledge, but it's only an example of another way of launching a big mass to a given speed not involving steam nor a futuristic and cool system, but something more akin to an elevator in horizontal position.
JM
"Why not use an electric motor to launch aircraft?"
DeleteHow would the electric motor be 'connected' to the aircraft? We already have an electric motor(s) catapult and it's not working well. How would this differ?
In other words, how would the output from the electric motor get transferred to the aircraft shuttle mechanism?
The lightening carrier, works well as a light carrier if you adapt the ship to optimize for those operations. A modern amphibious ship is not optimalized for those aerial operations. Even then though I would think that such a dedicated light carrier would be ideal for Korea, Japan, Spain, Italy, or some regional power needing carrier aviation in small numbers and limited power projections. That is a regional solution, customized for each region. For the US Navy, it is to expensive a solution without the advantages of global projection America needs.
ReplyDeleteInstead I would say that here might be a need for light carriers, but I would not be optimizing an American light carrier concept around the F-35B. It just doesn't have the legs for it.
"The lightening carrier, works well as a light carrier if you adapt the ship to optimize for those operations."
DeleteWhat adaptations are you referring to?
Maybe he's referring to modifications the Turkish Navy made to the LHD Anadolu, to transform what was a "Lightning carrier" into a drone carrier, after Turkey was denied the use of F-35Bs, i.e., "A roller mechanism will be installed on the LHD to launch drones, while security netting will be used to secure landing drones," according to the article.
DeleteBear in mind, I doubt those drones can provide air superiority, or will be useful in the absence of air superiority that land-based planes will provide in place of carrier-borne planes. And while the F-35B's miniscule range and combat radius may be sufficient for the Turkish Navy and its operations in the Aegean and Black Seas' confines, the F-35B's performance is obviously NOT sufficient for the USN and its operations in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans' wide open spaces.
The article I referred to is https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/02/turkeys-future-lhd-anadolu-starts-sea-trials/
DeleteThanks for the link! I'll be watching their efforts closely.
DeleteIve never thought the Lightning carrier had much value, for all the reasons cited. If we're going to maintain a large amphib capability, in spite of the Marines seemingly running from it, then is the F-35 even the proper choice for CAS?? Wouldn't attack helicopters, or somthing like an A-10 be more useful?? Maybe prop-driven attack aircraft, and/or a skijump then makes sense?? It seems that with the big deck LHs, they are either aviation- or landing craft-centric. Since we've already built them, it seems that we need to look at a different air component to get max value out of them. The F-35 isnt it, and any attempts to slip the LH platforms into some "carrier" role is a large expense for minimal/no utility. I think we need to step back, and decide exactly what the future use is for the Marines, and utilize the LHs accordingly. The amphib/aviation ship waffling is a symptom of a Corps without a CONOP. (I know, Berger has his plan, but Im just waiting him out, hoping maybe his replacement will bring some sanity back). And maybe, just mothballing the big decks is the answer?? Do we truly need MARG/MEUs at sea, especially if they'll never be used in the context of the big deck LHs?? Im leaning towards "No"...
ReplyDeleteF35 does nothing useful for CAS.
Delete"is the F-35 even the proper choice for CAS?"
DeleteSetting aside the fact that CAS encompasses far more than just weapons delivery, consider what you're asking. The context is, presumably, amphibious assault. Recall that in WWII, assaults generally required the near continuous fire from 20-30 battleships, cruisers, and destroyers to provide effective ground support. NO AIRCRAFT or carrier full of aircraft can provide that. The aircraft require hours to prep, launch, position, and deliver a couple of bombs and then the cycle starts over. That's not effective ground support. That's sporadic ground support and I'm doing a disservice to the word sporadic! Aircraft are semi-useful for a specific, easily identifiable target that requires a momentary pulse of firepower when land artillery or a ship's guns are unavailable or, perhaps, don't have a good angle.
Air support is what you use when you haven't got access to naval or land artillery.
So, back to your question … no, the F-35 is not the right choice for ground support but, except for certain limited circumstances, neither is any other aircraft.
Feel the need for CAS? Just call for 8" naval guns (if we had any!) or 155 mm artillery, blanket the target area and move on. We've grown used to trying to limit collateral damage (people and property) with precise, modulated, delicate air support and lost sight of what war is and how to wage it most efficiently.
CAS??? We don't need no stinkin' CAS.
Doesn't CAS also cover aerial reconnaissance and surveillance, for which SOMETHING- even the crappy F-35B- is better than nothing? Besides, in the absence of a nearby supercarrier and the fighters she carries, the marines will need F-35Bs to defend themself from enemy CAS aircraft- though the USMC is stupid to try to do everything itself (and do it half-assed with the F-35B and other half-assed equipment) instead of leaving things to the better equipped USN.
DeleteThe really sad thing is that for all it's (well-documented) faults, a Lightning Carrier can at least launch and recover some aircraft reliably, which a Ford cannot do until the problems with its cats, traps, and weapons lifts are properly sorted (which may be never). Not to mention its toilets.
ReplyDeleteThe LHA/LHD has pretty much put the Marines out of the amphibious business. What a terrible waste. Maybe the Fords are worse, maybe not. We would have been better off with a bunch of Midways or Kittys than either.
"a Lightning Carrier can at least launch and recover some aircraft reliably"
DeleteI understand the point you're trying to make but the mission of a carrier, any carrier, is not to launch and recover aircraft, it's to conduct USEFUL offensive or defensive missions THAT ARE WORTH THE OPERATING AND OPPORTUNITY COST. So, yes, a lightning carrier could get aircraft off and on the deck but that's not the measure of success. It may be a step along the path to success - like anchoring or spinning the ship's props - but it is not, by itself, a measure of success.
I'm beating hard on this 'worth the cost' aspect because we, and the Navy, have forgotten about that and, as a result, we have way too many technologies and capabilities that are NOT WORTH THE COST.
The entire 'stop-gap' argument is a perfect example of losing sight of the 'worth the cost' aspect. It's not worth the cost, either operating or opportunity.
"The entire 'stop-gap' argument is a perfect example of losing sight of the 'worth the cost' aspect. It's not worth the cost, either operating or opportunity."
DeleteI think we have some disagreement about the potential utility of a Lightning Carrier, just as such disagreements persist among senior military officers. My only point here is that, at least up to now, it's not as bad as a Ford, and a lot cheaper.
I've said before, for the cost of a Ford (~$15B), I'd much rather have a Nimitz (~$9B) and a Kitty (~$6B). I don't think we would disagree there.
"I think we have some disagreement about the potential utility of a Lightning Carrier"
DeleteThere is disagreement only if you ignore the operating and opportunity cost. If you're willing to do that then the lightning carrier is a wonderful war machine!
The Lightning Carrier is not a wonderful war machine by any stretch.
DeleteIt's not even a poor machine by any stretch!
DeleteYou need to let this one go and remind yourself of the incredible opportunity cost.
I'm glad to see you are now focusing on opportunity cost. The folks running the USN obviously don't.
DeleteOne potential problem I see with going with a Midway or Kitty conventional format is that if we are talking steam catapults then we need a steam source, and I don't know how many conventional BTs we have left to run those plants.
"we need a steam source, and I don't know how many conventional BTs we have left"
DeleteThat's a fascinating topic. If I knew more, I'd do a post on catapult alternatives.
For starters, we're no longer bound to conventional boilers. There are now steam generators. Whether those have the capacity for a steam catapult system, I have no idea.
A steam generator can use electricity to produce steam. It doesn't have to be a fired boiler. Might it be possible to use the waste heat from a turbine to produce steam? I don't know.
Beyond that, there have been a few non-EMALS alternative catapult systems proposed in recent years. With some development, perhaps one of those could work.
I don't think we're necessarily limited to traditional boiler type catapult systems.
I wish I knew enough to do a post but I don't have time for the research and I suspect it's not a topic of broad enough general interest to warrant the effort. Perhaps it's a topic you'd care to investigate and report on?
We have ten LHA/Ds in service, we plan to buy up to 350 F-35Bs. So the opportunity costs are the continued operations, maintenance and disposal for the LHA/Ds and F-35Bs, and the purchase cost of the remaining F-35Bs.
DeleteCombining existing Navy/USMC assets as Lightening carriers, when needed, seems like a decent idea. Whether we should fund additional LHA/Ds specifically for this is another question.
I'd prefer to see a CTOL or STOBAR CVL in the 35,000-45,000 ton range, rather than LHA/Ds, but only if the price was right.
There's a lengthy (100+ pages) thread over on the NavWeaps site on the CVL topic.
https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/does-the-u-s-navy-need-a-light-aircraft-carrier-t43823.html
I've done some CMO simulations with ~24 aircraft STOVL and CTOL carriers (F-35B/Cs) against increasingly difficult H-6/J-20 threats (maxed at 30x H-6Js with 6 YJ-12s each plus two flights of 2xJ-20s with PL-12s), and they can do a pretty respectable job of defending the task force. Better than a cost equivalent number of DDGs anyway (4 FLT III DDGs to 1 CVL with airwing).
My setup uses 8xF-35s in a rotating 2-ship CAP, and one E-2D on station. The remaining F-35s sit deck alert tasked with air intercept. I assume 80% availability so four of the F-35s are down for maintenance.
I use a French Clemenceau class carrier as a CTOL CVL surrogate, with two catapults. It's escorted by a Flt III Burke and two FFGs.
Some noteworthy findings,
1. Yes, E-2D is important, but I tend to lose the airborne E-2D to J-20s. Not before it sees the J-20s and the inbound H-6s, though. This provides valuable time to get the alert aircraft off the deck and the CAP to engage the J-20s or bombers.
2. The number of AAMs carried on the fighters is very important. Sidekick is crucial (6 vs 4 internal AAMs), as is "beast mode" in some cases (8 JTAM/AMRAAM, 2xAIM-9X in game).
3. JTAM (as modeled in CMO) is also very important. It serves the same role as Phoenix did for the Tomcats. AIM-120D is good, but JTAM is better.
4. I feel that SPY-6/AEGIS/SM-6/ESSM is unrealistically effective in CMO. I don't have any hard data to back this up, it's just an "engineer's uneasiness". A task force of 5 x FLT-IIIs and 2 x FFGs are sometimes able to defend against 180 inbound YJ-12s without taking losses. That's a lot of successful intercepts. The SAG is essentially out of missiles at that point, so a second strike would finish it off.
5. The SAG without the CVL has to be fully emitting to survive. If they're passive at the start, the entire task force dies.
6. The SAG without the CVL can't kill any of the aircraft, just the missiles. The CVL's fighters regularly kills 20-30 H-6Js and 2-4 J-20s. Often, against the CVL, the H-6Js either don't get close enough to launch, or only manage to fire a handful of missiles.
Obviously CMO is a commercial sim, so all the usual YMMV applies.
Sidekick with something like Peregrin gets you to 8-10 missiles. I wonder what we are learning from Ukraine.
Delete"CMO"
DeleteThey have no actual performance data for any of their database, obviously. With that in mind, I have two major problems with their sim: ridiculous pKs and ridiculous sensor range.
The only remotely significant real world use of USN sensors and weapons that I'm aware of is the several day incident with the USS Mason off Yemen (see, "Yemen Missile Attacks"). In those incidents, the Navy made the claim that the Mason was attacked by an unknown number of anti-ship missiles and launched a dozen or so Standard and ESSM missiles in defense. By missile standards, this was a close range encounter with absolutely no electronic warfare interference and yet the Navy was unable to say how many attacking missiles there were or, indeed, if there were any, at all. There were NO confirmed shoot downs from a dozen or so defensive missile launches and the Navy was unable to say whether their own missiles hit anything or fell into the sea. As I concluded in the referenced post, it seems likely that there were no attacking missiles.
The takeaway is that in a real world situation, Aegis was unable to tell us whether there were any attacking missiles and, if there were, how many. Aegis was also unable to track our own defensive missiles to determine their fate. The indisputable conclusion is that our radar/sensor performance is not even remotely what we claim it to be; hence, my skepticism toward the game.
If there were attacking missiles then we scored zero confirmed kills out of a dozen or so launches. Hence, my skepticism towards the game's pk.
Admittedly, that's a pretty sparse data set to draw conclusions from but what it says is don't use a video game to draw conclusions!
I'm not going to debate the game any further. Heck, it's a game! They do the best they can with no data which suggests they're using manufacturer's claims for the bulk of their 'data' and we know how much credibility manufacturer's claims have. I don't blame the game. What else can they do? Plus, they probably slant things towards the 'fun' side of things.
As you note, to believe that a group can defeat 180 supersonic, sea-skimming missiles with engagement windows of 30 seconds or so defies belief.
Enjoy the game but be very cautious about drawing conclusions from it.
"JTAM"
Delete? I'm guessing you mean the AIM-260 Joint Advanced Tactical Missile (JATM) which is a developmental project? Obviously, the game's modeling of that performance had to be pure guesswork!
"CMO"
DeleteDoes the game model the Ford with functioning catapults and arresting gear?
Yes, JATM not JTAM. For some reason I always switch the two letters.
DeleteIt certainly is guesswork based on informed speculation.
Seems likely that JATM will have significantly greater range than AIM-120D, if it enters service, otherwise what value does it offer?
CMO credits it with a 120nmi max range, vs AIM-120D's 75nmi.
I think it's probably fair to say the game slants towards "best case", where random failures or issues that might plague real systems aren't modeled.
They do show their work in the message log. Essentially it boils down to event base probabilities modified due to various factors to give a final probability and then a random roll to determine the outcome.
Decoy (Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]; Tech: N/A) from J-20A Mighty Dragon is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Guiding weapon: AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 #149). Final probability: 20%. Result: 46 - FAILURE
Defensive jammer (Generic DECM [Advanced]; Tech: Late 1990s) on J-20A Mighty Dragon is attempting to spoof sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Of: AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 #149). Final probability: 10%. Result: 6 - SUCCESS
All weapon seekers were spoofed - weapon missed target
Decoy (Generic Chaff Salvo [4x Cartridges]; Tech: N/A) from J-20A Mighty Dragon is attempting to seduce sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Guiding weapon: AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 #150). Final probability: 20%. Result: 73 - FAILURE
Defensive jammer (Generic DECM [Advanced]; Tech: Late 1990s) on J-20A Mighty Dragon is attempting to spoof sensor: Active Radar Seeker (Tech: Early 2010s)(Of: AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 #150). Final probability: 10%. Result: 94 - FAILURE
Weapon: AIM-120D AMRAAM P3I.4 #150 is attacking J-20A Mighty Dragon with a base PH of 95%. PH adjusted for distance: 89%. J-20A Mighty Dragon has nominal agility: 5.5, adjusted for altitude: 2.8. Agility adjusted for proficiency (Regular): 2.24. Aircraft has a weight fraction of 0.32 - Agility adjusted to 1.8. High-deflection impact (no effect on agility). Final agility modifier: -18%. Final PH: 71%. Result: 7 - HIT
"then a random roll to determine the outcome."
DeleteYou see the overwhelming flaw in this, right? Each 'event' is treated as an independent one - hence, the repeated 'rolls'. In reality, if an aircraft had the ability to spoof/decoy an attacking missile, ALL OF THE SAME TYPE OF AIRCRAFT WOULD HAVE THAT CAPABILITY AND THE PROBABILITY OF SPOOFING WOULD BE A CONTINUOUS 1.0, NOT REPEATED INDEPENDENT 'ROLL' OUTCOMES. In other words, either the J-20 has the ability to decoy an AMRAAM or it does not. The ability is not an independent event. The events are related quite closely. Yes, I understand that there are always additional factors so that no outcome is 100% but I'm illustrating the flaw in their approach.
Also, the events are not instantaneous, one-time events. The attacking missile is being continuously 'seduced' by the decoy and may be successfully decoyed (or not) at any point during the missile's flight (with the odds varying as the missile's location relative to the decoy changes continuously!). It's not a one-time success or fail.
But hey, again, it's a game and they've got to make some simplifications so I can't fault them too much. For all I know, the game may be more accurate than the Navy's wargaming which is famous for being unrealistic!
"Seems likely that JATM will have significantly greater range than AIM-120D"
DeleteI offer the cautionary tale of the LRLAP round for the Zumwalt gun system. Had a game manufacturer modeled the LRLAP round it would have credited it with a 100 nm range and pinpoint accuracy. The reality is that the best it achieved was around 60 nm and poor accuracy which is why it was cancelled even more than the runaway cost.
So, the JATM may or may not meet the manufacturer's claims. History across many (all?) weapon programs assures us that it will not meet the claims. None do. The only question being how much it will the claims by.
I think the modeling of independent events is reasonable, given the fidelity of the sim. Chaff and DECM are separate systems that may or may not be employed together. They have different effects, different probabilities of success. They don't model any kind of synergy between chaff and DECM though, which there probably is. How much that synergy impacts the end result is an open question.
DeleteIt is certainly a simplification of real life. It doesn't model engines that fail to start, weapons that fail to separate, catapults going down, and so on.
With that in mind, I think it is still instructive. It can inform otherwise idle speculation. For example, I had to add J-20s simply because the H-6Js by themselves couldn't get close enough to detect the task force without the E-2D spotting them and the interceptors shooting them all down.
In general, I don't think the sensor detection ranges are all that outlandish. Their stated max ranges aren't usually the true detection range. Against stealth, IRSTs often detect before radar, for example. E-2Ds detect H-6Js at near max range, usually, but Badgers are large bombers. They detect J-20s MUCH closer.
The Lighting Carrier concept roots in one serious problem - MONEY.
ReplyDeleteI fully agree that this concept simply doesn't work.
Running the world's largest military spending (more than next 2 to 9 combined), how can the nation's Navy lack money?
If looking price tag and comparing with other nations, you can find that the military industry complex teamed with politicians elected by you ....
No solution, hopeless.
ComNavOps, the last two sentences in your analysis, plus greed is probably why they will be built.
ReplyDelete