Comments made in the halls of the Pentagon and the halls of Congress indicate that there is a new threat to future U.S. Navy aircraft carriers. The “threat” to carriers is not enemy weapons or even the U.S. Air Force, but the increasing cost of the nuclear-propelled carriers now being constructed and planned.
The Navy currently operates 11 large-deck carriers — ten nuclear-propelled ships and the oil-burning USS Kitty Hawk (CV 63). The latter ship, which is forward based in Japan, will be decommissioned next year, when another nuclear ship, the George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), will be placed in commission. The next carrier to be decommissioned will be the USS Enterprise (CVN 65), which was completed in 1961. She will go out of service in 2013 at which time carrier levels will drop to ten ships.
The next carrier will be the Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), which is now being started. But that ship will not be ready for service until 2015 — if the ship is completed on schedule. The Navy officially estimates that the Ford — the first of a new design — will cost about $8 billion plus about $6 billion for research, development, test and evaluation for the new design. But unofficial estimates have placed the eventual cost of the ship at some $12 billion plus another $12 billion for one-time RDT&E. (In comparison, the last ship of the previous Nimitz [CVN 68] class — the Bush — will cost almost $7 billion.)
The higher costs are also predicted in a recent study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), released in late September that says three key systems face problems that could greatly affect the cost of the Ford: the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (catapults), the dual-band radar, and the advanced arresting gear. While current radars and arresting gear could be fitted in the ship, the ship’s new reactor plant will not produce sufficient steam nor will the design permit the use of existing steam catapults. Without the launch system the ship would not be able to launch conventional fix-wing aircraft.
While aircraft carriers have proved to be invaluable for U.S. military operations, from the Korean War through the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, today many of their traditional missions can be carried out as effectively and possibly more so in some scenarios by other “systems.” These mission areas include strike, reconnaissance, and anti-submarine warfare.
At the same time that the cost of carriers is increasing and the carrier force is below the authorized level of 12 ships, Navy shipbuilding programs are coming under increased congressional and executive branch scrutiny as the littoral combat ship (LCS), new amphibious ships (LPD), and some other ships are suffering massive cost overruns. It is unlikely that — with an average shipbuilding budget of $11 billion planned for the foreseeable future — the Navy will be able to afford building to the current goal of 313 ships. The Navy now operates about 279 ships.
The world situation for the foreseeable future will see a need for additional “carriers” to support U.S. political-military interests.
An alternative to constructing “the next” large CVN-type ship is to procure additional LHA/LHD-type amphibious ships. These VSTOL/helicopter carriers, which can operate the new F-35B Joint Strike Fighter, could carry out some mission that traditionally required a large-deck ship. The LHA/LHD-type ships, of some 40,000 tons full-load displacement, can carry some 1,700 troops for sustained periods as well as operating about 40 VSTOLs and helicopters. These “amphibs” — currently in production — cost about $2.5 billion per ship.
Large-deck carriers are important, but it is unlikely that the U.S. Navy will be able to afford the planned 12 ships or even maintain the current 11 carriers. Alternatives must be considered.
“The world situation for the foreseeable future will see a need for additional “carriers” to support U.S. political-military interests.“
Why?
b:
I would add, does the Persian Gulf provide tactical drawbacks for the Carriers, in the form of contained geography and relative restrictions on maneuver? Do these factors enable advantages to enemy tracking and targeting?
Two problems with LHA type carriers:
1) AWACS
2) Tankers for aerial refueling
Interesting… If I may ask a stupid question. Were is the actual requirement for a 12 CBG?
lol
Don’t get me wrong smaller British Style “Through” carriers would be ideal for us British folk, as the unit cost of the F-35B would decrease! Other than that, I really don’t see them going this route, lets face it we have even had to select a larger carrier, as the Harrier Carriers during the Falklands War really did display their weaknesses. Although I do see the USN going for a smaller faster Carrier, aka a Flashpoint CBG, avaliable in any threat zone within a given number of days, All these rapid reaction forces etc.
Who says smaller carriers can’t have an Awacs capability? We have been using an a specially designed Sea King for this duty for years, just because you don’t have a huge doesn’t mean you can do the same thing those bigger boys do, Size isn’t every thing, its how you use it
An Airship like the SkyCat(if the company is still in business) can handle AWACS & also anti-submarine coverage. You could also go back to fielding sea planes(there are countries who still use them).A Carrier no bigger than the old Iwo Jima Landing Platform/Helicopter Amphibious Assault Ship to handle UAVs can also be used.Of course,the UAVs would need VSTOL/STOVL capibilities to operate off of these carriers.
Actually,during the cold war there was a need for 15 Aircraft Carriers.This was so that we could project our forces all over the world.We almost made it,but the wall came down & the “peace dividend” kicked in. Afterwards they retired,scrapped,sunk,& made “surplus” carriers into artificial reefs.I’m still waiting for them to make the Iowa Class Battleships that they “can’t get rid of” into Artificial reefs.Boy,we sure love our naval ships “under water” instead of floating on top,don’t we?
The problem with these cost projections on next-generation hardware is they only project the cost of the hardware. They tend to gloss over or ignore the reduced personnel and support costs as the modernized hardware reduces the staffing and maintenance requirements. Whether the tradeoffs are worth it in this case is debatable. Unfortunately, until the GAO and others examine the future maintenance, personnel and support costs/benefits we’ll just keep arguing about the hardware part of the equation and not the total costs/benefits of the next generation carrier.
Now seems like a good time to bring out one of Zumwalt’s old chestnuts, the Sea Control Ship. Here’s a nice overview on his proposed ‘High / Low’ mix of CNVs and SCSs: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/scs.htm
I think the Wasps are enormously capable ships, but we really do need to free our CBGs from oilers, not chain them to support ships more tightly.
Just think, one year of Iraq funding could give us an even dozen Ford class carriers, replacing the entire Nimitz class fleet.
I think the days of these huge aircraft carriers is coming to an end. The navies of the future would do better to cut the bulk and become more flexible. When was the last major naval engagement anyways?
In today’s world, when an attack by a ~$500,000 missile (C-802) can damage a $260 million boat (INS Hanit, Sa’ar class) it seems best to go with smaller, more agile, less expensive systems than $8–12 billion ones.
One thing I have not seen commented on, that would be interesting, is the use of Ospreys (or a variation thereof) as AWACS, Anti-sub, and air refueling.
Add to a small carrier two electric catapults, and you get away from gas guzzling vertical takeoffs.…
The technology to make a small carrier work is there. It just needs to be configured properly.
We could keep six of the big boys for when things get “hot”.
It is not an “either-or” proposition.
Dennis,
Don’t get me started on the effing Osprey.
“makes the UN the world’s superpower“
Show me ONE weapon the UN owns …
While an incremental reduction in the carrier fleet from 11 to 10 is plausible enough, it is hard to see a major shift prior to (1) a carrier is damaged in combat by a missile or enemy aircraft or a submarine, sufficiently to take it out of a fight, (2) UCAVs render them obsolete in their current numbers and at their current scale, or (3) China and North Korea experience regime shifts on a scale similar to the collapse of the Soviet Union that turns them into pro-Western countries. Essentially all of our blue sea Navy strategy revolves around carriers and I don’t see that being rethought in the near future.
The long useful life of a naval ship gives those resistant to change in the Navy a great edge of like minded decision makers in the Army or Air Force.
If cost becomes a dominant concern, using a next generation F-18 instead of the F-35C, cutting the Wasp/Tarawa/LH® fleet, or increasing time in the field with crew exchanges, seem like more likely ways to cuts costs.
So, I’m just wondering; why are military ships/aircraft getting so expensive lately? I’ve always wondered that.
Phil
“Awacs capability? We have been using an a specially designed Sea King for this duty for years, “
You have to be kidding? Are you really trying to sell a Sea King helicopter ceiling what 15k feet, is even going to come close to matching the range and capabilities of a US E-2C?
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/e-2.htm
You are not even in the same class of capability? I guess Sea Kings will also be handling the tanker role, along with the ASW role the Vikings play? Range, payload, stall speed, etc..I am sure will not be a problem.
VSTOL aircraft cannot be compared on a equal footing to fixed wing carrier forces either? A VSTOL aircraft cannot carry the ordinance, match the range, or compare equally. VSTOL comes at a cost. Otherwise all nations would build VSTOL short the cargo planes and big bombers.
Don’t get me wrong the small LHDs and LSDs have allot of capability. Those new VSTOL F-35B’s will also have some serous capabilities, but again at a cost of capability compared to their sister classes. For a anti pircacy mother ship or small action persence like we have going in Africa, S America, SE Asia, etc.. they are very useful. Small carriers are better suited than a full size CVN for these actions which would be cost prohibitive for a CVNs attention.
They just cannot replace the CVN’s because the US large deck carriers can launch all the assets needed to take their sea space and project that power deep ashore. A sea king flying at 15k feet will not cross into shore and even if it dared would not have the range a CVN based Awacs would to over watch a strike force or air cap.
LHD’s work for your average small 3rd world nation operations. But even a swarm will be unable to hold their own sea more less push deep ashore against a Iran, China, ect..
CVN’s have another less spoken or I guess realized attribute. SIZE„yes size does matter and a 100k ton displacement CVN with todays modern damage control and defenses. Even if hit by a torpedo or a handful of cruise missiles, will not just sink or even be crippled. There are good reasons why all the ole Soviet “carrier killers” were nuke tipped?
I don’t think replacing two of the big CV’s with smaller CVE’s would be a problem. Reserve the CV’s for the big wars; send the little CV’s to cover everything else.
The problem with using smaller carriers is they can’t even support the same number of operations that can be supported right now. And about the cost of the Iraq War, take all the money that currently goes to Third-World dictators and bingo!
Problem solved. Concerning the UN, personally, I say leave them to their own devices. Most of those
nations would just as soon screw the US over.
The number 12 comes from the theaters of operation and the sustainable operational tempo of large ships. There’s the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans to cover, while at the same time you’re conducting Ops in places like the Persian Gulf. SO that’s a minimum of 5, if you think one carrier can cover an entire region, but you can’t keep the carriers at sea 24/7/365. 12 carriers (just barely) allows you to cover the important bases. And for people in favor of disbanding the AF: bear in mind that without the AF land-based fighters, the USN would need about 26 CVNs MINIMUM to get by.
2 or 3 SeaBase setups would help alot. Carriers are best at quickly responding to threats, but if you could park a SeaBase off a conflict like Iraq you could put the carriers back on patrol.
I like the gator Navy, but bear in mind they rely on the CVNs to watch their backs. Harrier’s a good CAS platform but it sucks in Air Superiority and Fleet Defense. F-35B would be better, but carrying enough to do both missions will cut into the Marines’ transport opptions. And if you build more LH(X)s but cut the F-35 out, where does that leave us?
Navy, USAF are both victims of the same crime. They fight there behind off in Iraq, and they get no real credit, so people think there not doing anything. Meanwhile we are wasting money because some jerk thinks we need better body armour. So we spend millions of dollars convincing the public that what the Army has not is better than some other system. That is one small example. Congress is the source of 99.9% or all the problems with our military today. Funny how congress ruins anything they touch.
The fact is that this is a non-issue…i could put my own personal opinion and so can all of you…but the bottom line is that we have some damn good military strategists who have this covered. I trust that they know what they’re doing…P.S. you all forgot to consider the contributions that will be made by UAVs in the future.
UAVs need fuel, ya they don’t have a pilot who can doze off, but they still need fuel. They will still be limited in payload to, and I don’t see any UAV as big as the BUFF. A simple electrical short and your plane is gone, as in bye bye, as in never again seen. A single bullet in the wrong place and, in the words of the late Don Knotts, Bluey. UAVs wont make that big of an impact, PR is what they are.
Moose said: “Harrier’s a good CAS platform but it sucks in Air Superiority and Fleet Defense.“
Tell that to the Argentines!
Just because the Argentinians were horrible at fleet attack in the 80s (send a second-hand WW2 cruiser against the RN, smart), doesn’t mean the Harrier can still carry the burden today. I love the Harrier, its a great bird and my hat’s off to the boys that racked up some Argie kills with them, but they couldn’t do crap against Exocets after launch and modern missiles have alot longer range.
No one wants Harriers aboard LHA/LHD carriers in the future… it will be the F-35B STOVL version of the JSF/Lightning II multi-mission aircraft.
For AEW in the year 2020 or 2030, we’ll have UAVs… land-based belonging to the fleet commander with 24-hour (or more endurance)and, subsequently, satellites. Indeed, IR satellites have been tracking aircraft in flight since the Cold War era.
Think big–think ahead. Don’t get rid of the big carriers, but simply take into account that the world is changing–big-deck carriers today have limited strike (no tankers except buddy), virtually no ASW, severely limited recon, etc.
A “mix” will provide the carrier numbers that we need in teh future.
NP
No one wants Harriers aboard LHA/LHD carriers in the future… it will be the F-35B STOVL version of the JSF/Lightning II multi-mission aircraft.
For AEW in the year 2020 or 2030, we’ll have UAVs… land-based belonging to the fleet commander with 24-hour (or more endurance)and, subsequently, satellites. Indeed, IR satellites have been tracking aircraft in flight since the Cold War era.
Think big–think ahead. Don’t get rid of the big carriers, but simply take into account that the world is changing–big-deck carriers today have limited strike (no tankers except buddy), virtually no ASW, severely limited recon, etc.
A “mix” will provide the carrier numbers that we need in teh future.
NP
No one wants Harriers aboard LHA/LHD carriers in the future… it will be the F-35B STOVL version of the JSF/Lightning II multi-mission aircraft.
For AEW in the year 2020 or 2030, we’ll have UAVs… land-based belonging to the fleet commander with 24-hour (or more endurance)and, subsequently, satellites. Indeed, IR satellites have been tracking aircraft in flight since the Cold War era.
Think big–think ahead. Don’t get rid of the big carriers, but simply take into account that the world is changing–big-deck carriers today have limited strike (no tankers except buddy), virtually no ASW, severely limited recon, etc.
A “mix” will provide the carrier numbers that we need in teh future.
NP
No one wants Harriers aboard LHA/LHD carriers in the future… it will be the F-35B STOVL version of the JSF/Lightning II multi-mission aircraft.
For AEW in the year 2020 or 2030, we’ll have UAVs… land-based belonging to the fleet commander with 24-hour (or more endurance)and, subsequently, satellites. Indeed, IR satellites have been tracking aircraft in flight since the Cold War era.
Think big–think ahead. Don’t get rid of the big carriers, but simply take into account that the world is changing–big-deck carriers today have limited strike (no tankers except buddy), virtually no ASW, severely limited recon, etc.
A “mix” will provide the carrier numbers that we need in teh future.
NP
Why are all the new carriers named after repubicans? Are they the only ones to fight for for freedom? or is this a one sided thing as always
Why are all the new Carriers named after republicans?
I know I’m a bit late to this party, but where could I find out more about the cost of military hardware, both ordnance (from bullets to grenades to air-to-air and cruise missiles) and vehicles/vessels/aircraft (tanks, carriers, bombers)?
Wikipedia has some data, but only on a few items, and I’m not sure whether it’s reliable…
Reduce carriers? Thats insane. I was navy for 12 years (subs) and a son of a carrier pilot. It is insane to even say these words. More like, lets authorize 14 carriers and actually fleet them in the next 5 years. The muslem threat is growing and we are considering reducing any chance of saving America, I cannot belive this. Yeah, lets get some more LHA’s to support carriers that our increased in the fleet. LHA’s our second to carriers and should be build in step with more carriers.
How about some more tax cuts?
Why are all air craft carriers named after Republicans?
that’s an easy one Because they always steal the lime-lite. (taking credit for the work of the Democrates)
In 60 years I have seen this happen countless times
New carriers are named after presidents as of late. (Truman wasn’t a Republican and a carrier is named after him). It just so happens Ford and George HW Bush were Republicans. If the Navy builds any garbage scows, I’m sure Clinton(s) will get their name on one.
Id say name a target ship after Clinton(s), and let the Navy unless anger upon it. O that would be awesome, name a fleet of aerial gunnery targets the F-Clinton O dang I could have fun with that one.
Fact is No Democrat of late has the guts to actually stand up and fight a war when injustice is being created. Instead our latest Demo was to busy messing with Interns. O well I guess we just need more talk and less action, seeing how it never worked before maybe it will work again *sarcasm*.
Keep in mind that Carl Vinson was neither a Republican nor a President. Niether was John Stennis. Also remember Carter got a sub named after him. The onlt deceased post war presidents that havent been honored with a ship name are LBJ and Nixion.
@Ace_NoOne:
Wikipedia’s not bad for weapons costs, but there may be better sources. fas.org is usually pretty good; the GAO is usually better, but it’s harder to mine their site for the data.
Bear in mind that procurement numbers and costs are often based on assumptions, estimates, incomplete data, lies, damn lies, and statistics. YMMV.
IMHO, NP, Ahzee and Rix are on the right track. There’s already historical precedent for small carriers — the “jeep” or CVE series from WW II. They worked.
Of course, “the Greatest Generation” tagged them “Combustible, Vulnerable, Expendable”, but they also gave us a lot of other colorful locutions. Plus, a lot of the CVEs were built on merchant hulls, and double quick — over 100 in about 3 and a half years. We wouldn’t be in such a hurry this time around.
There’s a concept in developmental/evolutionary biology called neoteny — the tendency of a descendant or mutation to retain the juvenile characteristics of a species forebear. If there’s a taxonomy to naval vessels and types, then going back to an earlier bloodline might get you to a new breed.
IIRC, some of the original assault/helicopter carriers were WW II light carrier conversions. Maybe it’s time to go back to the future, and draw lessons learned from the CVEs.
Apart from that, UAVs and electric catapults could give a smaller carrier more punch than you realize. An electric catapult works like a rail gun. It’ll probably never be a rail gun, but it can be a pretty scalable mass driver. That could come in handy.
The sticky wicket to small carriers would be fuel. One of the reasons we went to nukes in the first place is, they don’t need to refuel at port or sea. But, I guess if you have to run choppers or UAVs, F-35s, etc. on JP-8, etc. anyway, you might run an electric vessel on whatever you’re feeding the birds.
Run it on biodiesel, and you can draw fuel from the galley.
@demophilus: Thanks for the info, I’ll look into that.
I love these big ticket program debates. Ten is still too many, especially if one looks decades out. 6–8 carriers by 2030 is a reality. That should get the Cold Warriors’ blood boiling. I am not in favor of small carrier Euro trash styles to take their places either.
The USN needs to quit whining about not having a 600 ship navy anymore. Each ship costs billions of dollars, and I don’t care what it does, it is too much to buy in large numbers. If they need more, design something cheaper, and smaller and more relevent.
Ships are Named after republican presidents because until recently the GOP controlled Congress and thus the Navy’s budget. Its the same reason 5 million government buildings and airports are named abter bush Mk1 and Reagan. With the Dems in charge, look to see more Democrats. Personally, I think FDR deserves a Carrier considering he not only won WW2 but was basically the Navy’s Patron saint during his tenure.
I wouldn’t mind a FDR, but theres many names I would put before his. That said, when lead starts flying theres many things you cant have to many of. Bullets, bombs, airplanes, and ships just to name a few. Id say 12 is a min id like to see at least 14+.
The time of Carriers is comming to an end. With the range of the strategic bombers the only mission left for carriers is close in support. This is more appropriately performed by LHAs or other amphibious platforms with vstol and helo capability. Large deck expensive carrier numbers should be reduced by at least 40%.
Roy Smith
Yo right on there, my view on it to the letter. The UN will not let the United States defend her self, and they sure wont.
Carriers still play a vital role deterance role. What nation would play against a single carrier of F-35s, how about 12 carriers of F-35s. Deterance is a big reason we never fought the Cold War, and if the cards are played right, we wont have to nuke Iran. Its like the F-22. “Lets not ask what nation we will fly the F-22 against, but what nation will fly against the F-22.” Wars should be avoided, and if we still have to fight em, carriers offer a huge punch. Bombers still rule though when ever you need lots of firepower.
When is the military going to bring out all of the new cool future toys.The kind of toys, man kind should not have,but does.For example a space fleet of carriers a.k.a star ships guarding this planet,and moon.I am just a sci.fi geek that browse through this web site and read some of this article.I will join the service soon,and hopeing to see fantastic things like that in my life time.
Just think, one year of Iraq funding could give us an even dozen Ford class carriers, replacing the entire Nimitz class fleet.
Aircraft carriers are certainly not obsolete, especially considering that the number of our Air Force bases are shrinking or consolidating around the world. Carriers are a valuable national resource, especially when considering their ability to protect the sea lanes by being able to cover vast distaces of ocean with a large, effective air group.
The problem lies in the fact the the U.S Navy is currently incapable of building warships, any type of warship, cheaper with the types of capability desired. Our economy, especially now, will not be able to sustain large deck nuclear carriers that cost ten plus billions of dollars. The true advantage of the carrier is both the number and capabilities of the aircraft in the airwing. It would seem that we could still build large deck carriers that have fairly big airwings for a lot cheaper than we currenlty have, and I’d like to know why the cost of these ships continue to sky rocket when basically we have the same systemic design we’ve had for three decades. Even the vaunted new capabilities of the Ford do not seem, on the surface at least, to add any true all out war fighting capability to the carrier vis a vis costs. A carriers primary job is to launch and recover aircraft, allowing our navy to bring the fight from the sea to our potential aggressor. Does the navy believe that the price of having electromagnetic catapults, new arresting gear system, new radar system(which Aegis escorts already provide), really provide a qualitative advantage to the point where we will not be able to afford the number of carriers needed to cover all sorts of regional contingencies?
Something is going to have to give; either the navy is going to have to strong arm shipbuilders into producing lower costs ships across the board, or the navy will have to scale back certain advances in design, or the Navy is going to have to get used to the idea of not having enough ships to do its basic job. In any event, it seems that the nay itself is dooming the aircraft carrier.
Ten Nimitz size carriers should be enough to cope with a military campaign that would undoubtedly be localized to one continent. Its hard to imagine a scenario now where the entire world would be at war, whereby all corners of the globe would need to be covered. Any talk of running down large carrier capability though would be dangerous. They are still needed in an uncertain world. The UK and France are building three or four large carriers , and whilst the latter cannot be trusted or counted upon in a crisis, these assets would ease the burden on US Navy forces. Better to have them and not need them, than to need them and not have them.