Here’s a quick, fun little comparison …
The USS Ford, CVN-78, was commissioned Jul 2017, some 76
years after the USS Essex, CV-9, was commissioned in Dec 1942. The improvements in carrier combat capability
over the intervening 75 years must be astounding! Let’s consider a few of the stunning
improvements.
Speed
Essex 30+ kts
Ford 30+ kts
Hmm … Well, no difference there.
Range
Essex 16,000 miles at 20 kts
Ford Unlimited
Of course, for operational purposes, 16,000 miles is
unlimited range since there are no 16,000+ mile missions so I guess there’s no
practical difference there.
Anti-Air Armament
Essex 90 guns of various types
Ford 5 guns + 2 missile launchers of various types
While a direct comparison of anti-air weaponry is pointless,
the density of available weapons is quite pertinent and a WWII Essex puts a
modern carrier to shame.
Air Wing
Essex 100 combat aircraft [1]
Ford 44 combat aircrafta (65 total aircraft counting helos, EW, and AEW)
a Available
combat aircraft is around 36 since many are used as tankers
Well, that’s surprising.
Today’s carrier seems to have less than half the air wing combat
capability of a WWII Essex.
Essex 30+ kts
Ford 30+ kts
Essex 16,000 miles at 20 kts
Ford Unlimited
Essex 90 guns of various types
Ford 5 guns + 2 missile launchers of various types
Essex 100 combat aircraft [1]
Ford 44 combat aircrafta (65 total aircraft counting helos, EW, and AEW)
 |
| Essex - Greater Combat Value |
Late Essex $78M ($1.33B in 2023) [2]
Ford $16B+
#ComNavOps
ReplyDeletePlease write a blog spot on comparing USN vs PLAN Carrier Task Force/Strike Group
Compare the capability of air-wing, especially the naval fighters (F/A-18, F-35C vs J-15 flanker)
how will the Naval Situation/Equation change in
1) Around 2030
2) Around 2040
I don't think even ComNavOps can see the future.
Delete"I don't think even ComNavOps can see the future."
DeleteI predicted you'd say that. :)
Sure, the Fords may be more expensive and have a smaller air wing, but at least the catapults don't work!
ReplyDeleteThat's okay, neither do the arresting gear nor the weapons lifts work--nor the toilets.
DeleteEssex didn't reign with impunity near land. 2 were trashed although not sunk even late in the war when the remaining threat was kamikaze. That's a strong parallel to our current environment. And let's not kid ourselves on comparisons. We know published speed and actual are not the same with a CVN. We also know there is a protection system on the carriers and 80 years of learning how to runa safer air wing. The aircraft can each now engage multiple targets as part of their planned mission. Their amount of ordnance per sortie dwarfs a WWII wing. Frankly, their range exceeds a WWII wing although range is a challenge with the current wing. Attack carriers were not sub hunters, that role went to other ships. Sometimes trying to compare 2 apples is even less close to similar as apples to oranges. This is one such case.
ReplyDelete"Essex didn't reign with impunity near land. 2 were trashed although not sunk even late in the war when the remaining threat was kamikaze."
DeleteOf course they reigned supreme. Of the dozens of carriers with a cumulative 10,000-20,000 operating days, no fleet carrier was sunk after Oct 1942 and only one light carrier was sunk. That's a pretty good definition of impunity.
"there is a protection system on the carriers"
As there was on WWII carriers which had extensive firefighting systems, anti-aircraft defenses, much more robust self-repair capabilities, and better damage control.
"80 years of learning how to runa safer air wing. "
And 80 years of forgetting how to run a more lethal air wing. If safety were the goal of a military then perhaps the Ford is superior. On the other hand, if combat value is the goal, Essex is clearly superior.
"The aircraft can each now"
The post did not compare WWII aircraft to modern aircraft except in numbers. That's a pointless comparison and I'm surprised anyone would attempt that. In fact, here's what I said to explicitly address that:
" I know that some of the less enlightened among you will attempt to say that a Ford can strike from a longer distance and with more precise, devastating weapons. Well, first, that’s a reflection of the air wing, not the carrier and, second, that’s an absurd comparison. The proper way to compare between WWII and today is to do so relative to the time period and the threats that existed during that period."
You have to read and grasp the post before you make a foolish comment. I tried to save anyone from making such a comment with an explicit caution but you barged right past the warning! Oh well, I tried.
Since you clearly did not grasp the point of the post, despite it being explicitly stated, let me re-state it:
"Ford represents a staggering decrease in combat value for the dollar."
I can hear the argument now:
ReplyDeleteBut....modern aircraft are so much bigger!!!
Well, so is the Ford compared to the Essex.
Essex weighed about 36k tons full load, per wiki.
TBF Avenger weighed about 15k lbs.
F6F Hellcat weighed about 12.5k lbs.
Ford weighs about 100k tons full load.
F-18 weighs about 37k lbs.
Seems like the Ford ought to be able to carry about the same number of aircraft.
Lutefisk
"modern aircraft are so much bigger!!!
Delete" And that is why I didn't directly compare aircraft sizes. I did, however, compare ship capacities which I think is what you're driving at. The relevant metric in that discussion is 'spots' (aircraft footprints). The Essex was designed for 90+ operating aircraft and around 20 semi-disassembled aircraft as spares. The Nimitz was, similarly, designed for 90+ aircraft (no spares). The Ford was designed with a larger theoretical aircraft capacity but will only operate with an air wing of around 60 total (36 or so combat aircraft).
Ultimately, what's relevant is not the aircraft size (or even spots!) but the combat value of the carrier. The Essex with 90+ operational aircraft and a low price offered much more combat value than the Ford with around 40 combat aircraft and a staggering cost.
I agree with the overall point, but isn't the size of the current air wing a function of choice rather than the limitations of the carrier? Wikipedia says a Nimitz could accommodate "130 F/A-18 Hornets or 85–90 aircraft of different types." If the Ford is bigger, it should be able to carry at least as many. It's another (but different) damning point that the Navy can't field optimal air wings, or even enough of them. And that's before attrition through combat.
ReplyDeleteQuite right. I'm comparing actual Essex air wing sizes with actual Nimitz/Ford air wing sizes.
DeleteAlso, bear this key point in mind: ALL 90+ aircraft on an Essex were direct combat aircraft. Even if a Nimitz/Ford were to field a 90 aircraft air wing, thirty or so would be non-combat helos, AEW, EW, and tankers, leaving only around 60 combat aircraft. Again, a poor comparison to an Essex. The COMBAT value of an Essex is much greater than the combat value of a Nimitz/Ford.
As you note, the Navy has priced themselves into a situation where they CANNOT field a full air wing. That's the reality I'm comparing: the reality of the Essex to the reality of the Ford ... 90+ combat aircraft to 36 combat aircraft.
I think what's really interesting is that price wise, Essex wasn't cheap even in it's day! After inflation, let's say $1.5 billion in today money, Essex class wasn't some cheap ship that was "expendable" BUT the value for money as CNO says was far better than what we getting today, it's not even close.
ReplyDeleteAs for the fighters, Ford surely can carry far more BUT where are these extra wings?!? This isn't 1944 or Cold War anymore.
We don't have reserves like we used too and production of the SH is almost over and F35C seems very slow, USN doesn't seem in too much in hurry to acquire more so where could USN get more fighters quickly on Ford after suffering loses?
I think what we have on Ford is pretty much what we are going to get and is the realistic number what we have to fight with. Don't expect the numbers to double over night and even if they did, it wouldn't be very sustainable for very long as would just being "stealing" wings from other carriers, would be robbing Peter to pay Paul.....
We also wouldn't have any experience operating that many aircraft on one deck. I'm not saying this makes sense, but at least if they carried 100 aircraft, they would have a chance of actually flying the nominal wing strength of 65. Even that optimistically assumes that 2/3 of the aircraft would be mission capable at any time.
Delete"Essex wasn't cheap even in it's day! After inflation"
DeleteI supplied the exact, inflation adjusted cost for both early and later production Essexes in the post.
@Son of a Sailor. Yes, absolutely right, too many armchair warriors would just say "let's put more on the deck from another wing" but how does that work for a 2023 crew that has never had to operate that many fighters compared to a 1980s crew where that was business as usual?!? That's why for me, the 40 jets on Ford is pretty much what we should expect to operate during war.
Delete@CNO. I think that we have this black and white image of cheap, easy to operate and build of Essex class carriers of WW2 and forget, they were expensive for the day, not that cheap at $1.3 billion in today money! The bang for buck though was so much better compared to Ford!!!
" they were expensive for the day, not that cheap at $1.3 billion in today money!"
Delete$1.3B for the most powerful ship in the world is not bad. If we could build Nimitzes for $1.3B each, we wouldn't be complaining about carrier costs, at all, and we'd be able to afford full air wings to assign to them!
I can't run the numbers right now (because I'm working), but question - has the deck/hanger size increased proportionally between the Essex and the Ford relative to the increased size of today's aircraft so that quantity of aircraft can be compared directly?
ReplyDelete@anon. Did quick Google search so it's not written in stone, sure someone has the exact numbers but this is what I could find fast:
DeleteEssex hangar: 199.4m by 21.3 by 5.35 m (654 ft by 76ft by 17.6) that's 4247 sq,mt or 49,704 sq.ft so just under 50,000 sq ft.
Fully loaded: 36,960 tons
Eisenhower (can't find Ford, my guess she has a slightly bigger hangar as deleted an elevator and maybe better inside org..): 209 m by 35m by 8 m (685 ft by 110ft by 25ft) so 7315 sq mt or 75,350 sq ft.
Fully loaded:101,000 tons
Seaforces.org has all the info on Essex class and air wing size, all the way up till retirement. Typical air wing in late 60s early 70s was 2 sqd F-8, 2 sqd A-4 / A-7, detachment (4 ea) of E-1, EKA-3, helos. Hope this helps.
ReplyDeleteYour post Essex vs Ford comparison is very interesting for me. It's really interesting to note that there is no more need in aircraft carrier designs like Nimitz/Ford. Why? Here are some reasons.
ReplyDelete1. Too expensive cost;
2. Too complicated construction due to the nuclear reactor propulsion system;
3. Small number of ships (10 Nimitz's compared to 24 Essex's).
The speed and range haven't been changing at all. AAW reduced in dozens of times. Essex had twelve 5 inch gun mounts. Sure the renewed Essex design could install twelwe RAM or Phalanx gun systems or even ECM equipment instead of old gun mounts.
The only one unnoticed moment is to get know how many planes could Hellcat fighter in WW2 shoot down before running ouf of ammo and to compare it with modern F-18 Super Hornet, F-14 Tomcat or F-35 Lightning. In the past we had more planes, but they were equipped with the guns or machine guns only. Today the jet fighters are equipped with missiles and guns.
Nowadays the commerce vessels run on diesel propulsion systems. The cost of the commerce vessels isn't high (dozens of million dollars). Diesel enginges are fuel efficient and don't take up much place like nuclear reactors and are the most expensive part of the commerce vessels design. It's worth to take and make a militarized version of diesel engines (hardened to blast energy). Newly designed aircraft carrier with the elements of the Essex or Midway class allows us to build carriers cheaply (several billion of dollars per carrier).
CNO what is better:
1. To build one Nimitz/Ford aircraft carrier for 6-12 billions of dollars with capacity up to 90 planes of various types;
2. To build 2-4 or even more simplifier renewed with militarized propulsions Essexes/Midways with capacity of 50-70 planes of various types for each.
In WW2 the USN had almost 160 aircraft carriers of various types. There were escort and light carriers. The role of the carrier is to carry the planes to the battle. The cheaper warship, the more numbers you can buy and more planes to carry.
Serious damage done while she was in port. It's going to take awhile to fix her.....
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/russian-warship-seen-badly-damaged-by-ukrainian-cruise-missile
The Russian Navy PAO reports the ship was damaged by falling missile debris. Which is slightly misleading. I think the missile was intact when it fell on the ship.
DeleteLOL! That wasn't debris and if it was, holy cow, imagine the damage if the missile had struck! Took out most of the side of the ship.....plus, that's not "damage", that's going to take months if not years to fix, that's almost a kill shot, let's see if the Russian can even fix her.
DeleteA big issue is aircraft readiness. I don't know the figure from World War II, but 20 years ago it was 80% on average. The ultra-expensive ultra-complex F-35 is ready only 50% of the time.
ReplyDeleteGuess the whole fighter problem isn't a big since USN hasn't gone for full rate production and full buys and not trying very hard to catch up on fighter short fall and haven't heard much on the readiness front so it's not big deal for USN!
DeleteMy guess? USN can't wait to get rid of F35C ASAP and have drones replace all SHs and take over the strike component of the carrier. They'll buy 75 FAXXs for A2A and 100s of drones for strike, who cares if neither works!
I think the Ford carries a lot more guided missiles than the Essex though... as well as all the equipment for maintaining them and loading them onto planes.
ReplyDeleteAlso radar, electronics, and crew quarters. (You might make fun of the latter as not-combat related, but good luck recruiting thousands of sailors in peacetime to sign up to live in something like the old Essex quarters these days)
"I think the Ford carries a lot more guided missiles than the Essex though"
DeleteAnd they carry more computers and LED light bulbs. Conversely, the Essex carried a lot more aerial torpedoes than the Ford. I mean, it's almost as if they were built in two different eras!
I suspect what you're trying to say is that you believe that the Ford carries more weapons, PROPORTIONALLY, than an Essex. Do you have any data to support that belief? I suspect the opposite is true but I don't know.
You may be missing the fundamental concept of this type of comparative analysis. When we do these kinds of evaluations, we're comparing RELATIVE TO THE THREATS (and technologies) OF THE TIME. In other words, did the Essex have more combat capability relative to that period than the Ford does relative to today's threats? As noted in the post, the answer is the Essex offered far more combat value.
"I think the Ford carries a lot more guided missiles than the Essex"
ReplyDeleteUtterly irrelevant to the post.
"good luck recruiting thousands of sailors in peacetime"
Again, utterly irrelevant given that the post was about COMBAT VALUE.
if you can't get the crews, the ship is useless. Somehow, I don't think we're going to see a repeat of the draft in this day and age - Vietnam has poisoned the idea of the draft in the American cultural zeitgeist. China, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be having that many issues with securing manning for their fleets.
DeleteGiven all the recruiting shortfalls, I am wholly concerned that we will end up in a war where we do not have enough bodies to fight it.
"if you can't get the crews, the ship is useless."
DeleteYou appear to have incorrect beliefs about manning. See,
"The Manning Myth"
From your own link, it shows personnel levels in a steady decline through the years. Your link is talking about controlling personnel costs, I'm talking about having warm bodies. Any way you slice it, 274 thousand enlisted is objectively less than 3 million enlisted.
DeleteWe will not have enough sailors to transfer into new ships to replace our destroyed fleets.
The point in the linked post (one of the points) was that the Navy has more than enough personnel but that most of them are employed on land and that we could very simply eliminate many (most?) of those jobs and put those people to sea. From the post,
Delete"Using the estimate of 53,333 sea billets and the 2010 total manpower size of 324,400, we see that only 16% of the Navy is at sea ! That’s 271,000 land based (324,000 – 53,333 = 271,067) and only 53,333 at sea. Does this seem right? Certainly, we need shore support but does it seem right that 84% of the Navy is land based? Isn’t that called an army? "
As the linked post notes, we managed to fully crew a 600 ship fleet in the 1980's with a smaller national population. Today, we're struggling to man a fleet a third of that size and with a significantly larger population.
You also seem to think that we won't use a draft if we get into a major war. I don't know why you'd even entertain that notion given that we (and every other country in history) has immediately defaulted to a draft in a major war.
Look at the American people today. Do you really think they'll let themselves be signed up in the draft?
DeleteThe woke won't fight and die for America. The so-called patriots bemoaning the state of this nation will scream how their rights are infringed when it comes time for them to put their money where their mouth is.
I have no confidence in a draft to make good our combat losses. The only way we're going to make good our losses is with the people who're already in.
This is not a sociology blog so I'll leave it at that.
DeleteIt seems like you're implying that the new carriers waste a ton of space on useless stuff, rather than focusing on "combat value." My point is that there's a lot of ways to add "combat value" other than just the raw number of airplanes carried. Like the missiles to arm those planes with, as just one example.
ReplyDeleteDo you really think the navy would be better off with a supersized Essex carrying 300 small planes all armed with just machine guns and dive bombs?
" there's a lot of ways to add "combat value" other than just the raw number of airplanes carried."
DeleteThe carrier's magazines are proportional to the air wing needs. Since I have no data on magazine sizes, past or current, I can't analyze it further. Do you have any data?
The magazines are just part of the air wing, conceptually, just like fuel, spares, etc.
I think WWII magazine capacity figures also included non-aviation ordnance tonnage (naval encyclopedia website, sources published there):
DeleteEssex - 1,601 tons
Lexington - 1,248 tons
Wasp - 593 tons
Yorktown - 743.6 tons
Midway - I can't find any direct reference for this, but 1,500 to 1,600 tons seems reasonable
Forrestal - 1,650 tons
Kitty Hawk - 1,800 to 2,000 tons
Enterprise - 2,520 tons
Nimitz - 1,954 to 2,570 tons; 375,000ft^3 of total magazine volume, fore and aft of the reactors
Ford - Supposedly the same as the Nimitz class; only aviation fuel bunkerage increased, as well as weight limits and operating speeds for all elevators
Source for claims about the Ford class:
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1176561.pdf
375,000ft^3 magazine size claim for Ford class:
https://www.fpri.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/fpri-where-are-the-carriers-.pdf
References a proposed new Midway-sized carrier design on Page 68 w/ 225,000ft^3 magazine volume, which would equate to 1,542 tons (60% the size of a Nimitz or Ford class)
Source for USS Roosevelt carrying 1,954t of aviation ordnance and USS Kennedy carrying 1,250t, from Janes:
https://www.nukestrat.com/pubs/nep7.pdf
This last source is from Greenpeace anti-nuclear activists, so their references are likely biased in favor of conventional carriers, which they are advocating for, but they also cite their sources.
kbd512
The pro-Ford class people remind me of the weird group of people that love the Space Launch System despite how it destroys so much of NASA's budget while offering limited value.
ReplyDeleteWould note all Ford's 44 combat aircraft are SH (Ford not equipped to fly the F-35C) and 30% of SH operational flights are as buddy tankers, so net number of Ford's combat aircraft 30-31.
ReplyDeleteThis was noted in the post:
Delete"Available combat aircraft is around 36 since many are used as tankers"
As an aside, I reckon the reason they have sent a 2nd carrier to the Med' is because they don't trust the Ford to work and it would be very embarrassing, not to say loss of creditability, if it goes really hot and they can't take of or land or arm any aircraft.
ReplyDeleteThat seems a poor conclusion. The goal it seems to me is make it clear to Hezbollah that they even if they think Israel is destritrated and tied down the US will intervein not just with the bare minimum of force but a lot more than that. The US goal is clearly to keep lid on the situation.
Delete