A call for Mini-Aircraft Carriers: Here's why...
The modern incarnation and centerpiece of the United States Navy are it's carrier strike groups. These large capital ships are impressive, acting as deterrents to any near-peers such as Russia and China from any preemptive attacks or aggressive proxy actions. The problem these ships are extremely costly to operate, and our most recent deployments, it's like fielding a sledgehammer to smash a fly.
Senator McCain has taken notice, calling for a high / low mixed fleet. A smaller carrier could be effectively used for power projection, sea-lane control, close air support (CAS), and counter-terrorism tasks.
While it is understood we would lose some capability going smaller, we could save billions of dollars in operating costs and field smaller tasks force across the globe allowing the United States a presence more readily available.
With budget concerns being highlighted, the Navy must seek a verity of options to meet mission obligations around the globe and verity of threats while keeping within expectations of costs, effectiveness, and vulnerabilities. A Ford Class supercarrier costs in excess of $13 billion dollars. While an America Class would be around double the cost of a modern Aegis Destroyer $3 billion.
Some deployment options would be limited by the United States going to a short take-off and vertical landing (STOVL) carrier simply due to the limited deck and hangar space. With designs capable of hosting up to 20 F-35B Joint Strike Fighters, of course, fixed wing and rotary aircraft wings would be varied depending on the mission.
While most will say the Ford / Nimitz classes outperform any carrier in terms of amount sorties and air wings, they are correct, it cannot be argued we are able to spread risk and project force in more areas with more assets fielded. These smaller ships still carry a considerable blow to any low-moderate threat in the world when paired with their escort fleets. This is not about the replacement of the supercarrier, this is about a change in doctrine and how we field our forces at any given time.
Hi there. I'm a bit late. Hopefully the discussion is still welcome.
I've wondered about the idea of using smaller carriers myself. However, outside of a few scenarios, they are not that great, imo. As a dedicated mini carrier for an ARG, that'd be great, especially if the marines are successful in getting the MUX awacs drone made. In fact, I'd argue we need to make more of the America flight Is to pair with the flight II: nine of each, basically.
However, going in to deal with China (or some other major combatant), the America class and similar sized carriers are not going to cut it. The Ford (when they finally iron the bugs out) and the previous Nimitz classes, can carry around 100 aircraft at full capacity. They've not had them at that capacity for a long time because the Navy hasn't really needed it and, honestly, its pretty expensive. With the return to a Cold War II, it's likely they'll need to do so.
The cost of 4 Americas is the same as one Ford (+/-), but 4 Americas don't have the same number of aircraft a Ford could carry (theoretically). Additionally, the legs on a F-35B are much shorter than on a C. And you're not getting tankers off an America like they are working on for the Fords (Stingrays). Additionally, there's almost no way you are going to get the Navy into the idea their sixth gen fighter (FA-XX) needs to be VSTOL after the experiences of the F-35.
The VSTOL carrier will be outgunned by the coming CV-02 and CV-03 carriers China is building and designing respectively. The CV-02 class has been laid down in Shanghai and is going to be ~65k tons with EMALS cats. She won't be able to go toe to toe with a Ford, but she could probably eat a couple Americas once she has her own 5th gen aircraft onboard. Which is coming, btw: China has acknowledged their J-15 is not great, killing pilots and started a replacement two years ago. Might be FC-31/J-31 derived, might be something else. First flight in a year or three, depending.
Finally, you have the political element: if the Navy had 40 VSTOL carriers instead of 10 fleet carriers, then Congress would start hacking away. 40?! Who needs THAT many.
An America is not designed to take on China directly but 20 F-35's is more than enough for a short-term intervention into Africa, South / Central America, and most threats in the Middle East. Those are wars we are fighting right now and we bringing to bear conventional forces to an expeditionary war. We have enough strike carriers and the blue water navy capacity to defeat any head to head matchup with China.
What I am concerned about is the ability to continue project power into conflict zones, across the globe, with appropriate cost-consciouss options.
Of course, there would be limiting factors. and positive and negatives. Loss of tanker aircraft and EW platforms would be a concern but we could limit this by buddy refueling or the much-anticipated tanker Osprey variant.
What you are describing is what's happening just this minute. However, that's not what's coming.
China is already waging the opening stages of a Cold War.
They are working on a ten fleet carrier fleet and they are also building the Type 075, which is an LHD of a similar size to the America class. They don't currently have a VSTOL, but are working on it. They have three Type 075s being built now.
I'm also not sure I am sold on the idea 20 35Bs are enough to defeat the Iranians, frex. Why? Not because the Iranians are amazing pilots with awesome tech, but because the readiness of aircraft at any moment, like ships, can be as little as 1/3.
The V-22 has a roll on refueling capability the Marines have been working on, to be sure, but that will take away from how many 35Bs you can put on the deck. Likewise, the awacs and EW capabilities are not currently present for the Americas either: the Marines are working on the MUX, but it will be a while as yet.
TBH, had you suggested this back in the late 90s, I might have been onboard. I think there is a role for a light carrier, especially when stocked with mud movers, but as is...if we are going to be contesting the sea again (as is likely), then we really, really do need the fleet carriers: we are about to face a near peer, something we've not had in over 25 years.
https://steemit.com/history/@patriotschoice/sea-control-ship-united-states-mini-aircraft-carrier-spain-and-thailand
The Sea Control Concept...This is not the first go around for the navy with these types of concepts. The designs are viable and the USS Guam proved it successful in the sense they could support the mission sets their air wings were designed for in her case it was ASW.
I am aware. Zumwalt pushed the idea in the 1970s and then when the VSTOL XVF-12 'cratered,' the SCS was concept was shelved. Now we have a VSTOL that might work, but the problem may be as soon as China has a 5th gen on her decks with a catapult, the SCS will be woefully outgunned.
Congratulations @patriotschoice! You have received a personal award!
Click on the badge to view your Board of Honor.
Do not miss the last post from @steemitboard:
SteemitBoard and the Veterans on Steemit - The First Community Badge.
Congratulations @patriotschoice! You received a personal award!
Click here to view your Board of Honor
Congratulations @patriotschoice! You received a personal award!
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!