Navy May Cap the Ford Class at 4 Carriers.

Wow, this is a surprise to read. After the commissioning of USS Doris Miller the Navy may cease purchasing new Ford class Super Carriers. I knew there were flaws to be ironed out for the Ford class but I didn't think it was this bad to make the Navy rethink the classic's future. Thoughts?

Not surprised; they've had as many teething issues as the Zumwalts.

I expect a new class of CVNs that are basically Ford's, but cheaper and simpler to build, will be announced in the next few years.

Which means the Nimitz class will have to soldier on for how long?

Well they were designed originally to have one launched every year until 2040. That was later accelerated but there's two that are still going to be built... so... that's still roughtly 8-10 years to come up with something new. If it's a fifty year service life from commissioning, that would mean only the oldest two Nimitz' will be retired in the next decade or so and another on overhaul.

I am not surprised the Fords were well just to weird. There was no reason to abandon the basic design of the Nimitz Class. If anything an enhanced Nimitz class would have made more sense. You don't have to reinvent the wheel with a new class of ship sometimes a simple tweak here and there makes more sense.

Sailor.X said:

I am not surprised the Fords were well just to weird. There was no reason to abandon the basic design of the Nimitz Class. If anything an enhanced Nimitz class would have made more sense. You don't have to reinvent the wheel with a new class of ship sometimes a simple tweak here and there makes more sense.

Click to expand...

It's all the new tech that is going to be required for the next generation of ships (not 'a decade down the line', actually required) that is causing a few troubles. The real costs right now of the Ford is slightly more/less of the Nimitz. Per ship. The USN is also trying to procure it's next-gen SSBNs as well, and the USN is having a budget crunch right now. This happened before when the USN was procuring the Polaris SLBMs back in the day, which caused a slowdown of the Nimitz procurement back then. A few years later, it went back up again.

EMALS, ewww

A mix of big and small carriers might be a nice way forward, you don't need the Enterprise to bomb some mud huts and Toyotas in Somalia, a far smaller ship can do that letting you reserve the big ships for bigger threats

Harlock said:

EMALS, ewww

A mix of big and small carriers might be a nice way forward, you don't need the Enterprise to bomb some mud huts and Toyotas in Somalia, a far smaller ship can do that letting you reserve the big ships for bigger threats

Click to expand...

We should have never stopped building purpose-built light carriers.

Amphibs, 'landing docks', and the like are not a substitute for in that realm. Not enough of an airwing, even with 35s being stationed on them as their numbers start mounting, and too much space dedicated to ground-pounder equipment.

Maybe we could get Japan to build us a few Izumo's, so we don't waste our limited CV slipways in the US.

The old Midway class seemed a good size, big enough to handle fast jets but still about 50% as big as a fleet carrier

Harlock said:

The old Midway class seemed a good size, big enough to handle fast jets but still about 50% as big as a fleet carrier

Click to expand...

There has been talk of using USS Wasp or USS America as the basis for smaller support carriers. It gets tossed around every so often and almost always rejected.

USS Wasp:



USS America:

Spartan303 said:

There has been talk of using USS Wasp or USS America as the basis for smaller support carriers. It gets tossed around every so often and almost always rejected.

USS Wasp.

Click to expand...

Not surprised, those Wasps are decent helo or F-35 platforms, but anything non-VTOL would be in for a hard time landing on that small a deck. Also no off-set flight deck to allow simultaneous take-offs and landings.

Personally, I think they don't need to re-invent the wheel. Just restart production of the extended Essex-class with modern upgrades and the off-set flight deck built in.

Bacle said:

Not surprised, those Wasps are decent helo or F-35 platforms, but anything non-VTOL would be in for a hard time landing on that small a deck. Also no off-set flight deck to allow simultaneous take-offs and landings.

Personally, I think they don't need to re-invent the wheel. Just restart production of the extended Essex-class with modern upgrades and the off-set flight deck built in.

Click to expand...

They've already deployed with F-35Bs though.

Spartan303 said:

They've already deployed with F-35Bs though.

Click to expand...

F-35Bs are STOVL, so they don't need the off-set flight deck a light carrier would need.

Like imagine trying to land a Greyhound or Hawkeye on a Wasp.

A light carrier should have the ability to take larger fixed-wing planes like a full CV does, just have less of them onboard.

That's the difference between an Amphib/Landing Dock and a full-on light carrier.

Harlock said:

EMALS, ewww

A mix of big and small carriers might be a nice way forward, you don't need the Enterprise to bomb some mud huts and Toyotas in Somalia, a far smaller ship can do that letting you reserve the big ships for bigger threats

Click to expand...

Spartan303 said:

There has been talk of using USS Wasp or USS America as the basis for smaller support carriers. It gets tossed around every so often and almost always rejected.

USS Wasp:

USS America:

Click to expand...

The USN had consistently done studies about smaller carriers (outside the very specific niche of landing support, you know the ships that the marines use, aka the LHDs and LHAs?), and all of them flopped because they are less capable than their larger counterparts. They have less volume for aviation fuel, munitions, aircraft, all the stuff that makes a carrier, a carrier. Also, what people call 'smaller carriers' are actually just fancy landing support vessels and not carriers.

The last study was during the entire 'Polaris Missiles eating up most of the USN's Budget' episode... and when you actually go into the nitty-gritty of it all, you'll have to cut a lot of needed features to get some of the benefits of the carrier.

Aaron Fox said:

It's all the new tech that is going to be required for the next generation of ships (not 'a decade down the line', actually required) that is causing a few troubles. The real costs right now of the Ford is slightly more/less of the Nimitz. Per ship. The USN is also trying to procure it's next-gen SSBNs as well, and the USN is having a budget crunch right now. This happened before when the USN was procuring the Polaris SLBMs back in the day, which caused a slowdown of the Nimitz procurement back then. A few years later, it went back up again.

Click to expand...

If you have new aircraft that can't use a steam cat because they are too delicate. Then they have no damn place on a carrier. Naval Aircraft need to be rugged. Not dainty like Air Force Fighters.

Less capable than what for what? You have to define a mission before you can judge effectiveness and the argument made is that any new smaller ship would be operating a different mission.
I'l also point out that 'small' is relative, we're still talking 60k tons which is equal to the new UK ships or the older Forrestal class which were perfectly serviceable fleet carriers and performed well in 'Nam and Iraq.

There's also the matter of technology grinding ever forward allowing weight and crew figures to be reduced therefore giving a smaller ship, better aircraft and munitions allowing smaller airgroups, and of course money Most Carriers today don't field more than 70 planes despite being built for about 90 because they don't need to, they've been able to ditch the pure fighters and dedicated bombers because multi tole aircraft do both jobs now, and will for the future. Good old F-18s do everything, if you could strap people to the pylons they'd replace cargo birds too

So I'd say it's a question of what you want to do, Midway and the Forrestals served very happily and effectively alongside Nimitz class ships for the entire Cold War, in the case of the Forrestal class with similar sized air wings. If you are looking for a ship to enforce low level combat you don't need a vessel with an airwing superior to entire continent, its just burning money Your benefit for big ships is in fuel assuming nuclear (Though even that has the counter of still needing refuelling) and tempo. But even then unless you are talking about war with Russia or China its questionable whether you need that level.

Sailor.X said:

If you have new aircraft that can't use a steam cat because they are too delicate. Then they have no damn place on a carrier. Naval Aircraft need to be rugged. Not dainty like Air Force Fighters.

Click to expand...

Is that lie still going around again? The main reason for EMALS is the speed of deployment, as it simply needs to charge capacitors instead of steam pressure, it is also smoother allowing for better combat loads and less time in maintenance. The new arrestor gear is for the more massive F-35s. The SPY-3 is something of a flop, but then again you don't know what is a flop unless you go in and try it.

People forget the entire Enterprise debacle, where they canceled the entire class outside of the Enterprise and within a decade, they went forward with the Nimitz class (which got slowed down via the Polaris SLBM program eating the budget.

Harlock said:

Less capable than what for what? You have to define a mission before you can judge effectiveness and the argument made is that any new smaller ship would be operating a different mission.
I'l also point out that 'small' is relative, we're still talking 60k tons which is equal to the new UK ships or the older Forrestal class which were perfectly serviceable fleet carriers and performed well in 'Nam and Iraq.

There's also the matter of technology grinding ever forward allowing weight and crew figures to be reduced therefore giving a smaller ship, better aircraft and munitions allowing smaller airgroups, and of course money Most Carriers today don't field more than 70 planes despite being built for about 90 because they don't need to, they've been able to ditch the pure fighters and dedicated bombers because multi tole aircraft do both jobs now, and will for the future. Good old F-18s do everything, if you could strap people to the pylons they'd replace cargo birds too

So I'd say it's a question of what you want to do, Midway and the Forrestals served very happily and effectively alongside Nimitz class ships for the entire Cold War, in the case of the Forrestal class with similar sized air wings. If you are looking for a ship to enforce low level combat you don't need a vessel with an airwing superior to entire continent, its just burning money Your benefit for big ships is in fuel assuming nuclear (Though even that has the counter of still needing refuelling) and tempo. But even then unless you are talking about war with Russia or China its questionable whether you need that level.

Click to expand...

The Midways and Forrestals were only retained because the USN had no other choice back when the Enterprise-class of CVNs was canceled outside of the Enterprise and the Forrestals due to the slow buildup of Nimitz-class CVNs, and it is telling that they were sent to the scrap heap the moment the USN had a choice.

A Nimitz can stay on-station for roughly two weeks before needing resupply. A smaller carrier is likely not to be able to have a fraction of that independence.

You also forget that the USN did multiple studies about this, and it always went 'outside of the niche of LHAs and LHDs, a bigger carrier is better in every single way' and if it was possible, they would have done it ages ago. Even making a de Gaulle style carrier means you have 2/5ths the size of a Ford, be extremely lucky to have 2/5ths of the air wing, and will cost more than 2/5ths of the Ford even after taking in the 'first in class' costs in. STVOL carriers will be incapable of using E-2s (which is vitally important)... yeah, the deck gets real stacked when you factor in everything that a US carrier needs to be a carrier.

The Nimitz has stored 11,000 tons of aviation fuel, the smaller conventional JFKs had 6,000 tons of aviation fuel.

To put things into perspective, the last project of 'smaller' carriers -the CVV-1977- only displaced ~62,000 tons and only had... 2,700 tons of fuel.

The LHA-6, to put things into perspective, only has a tenth of the magazine capacity of a Ford...

Oddly, square-cubed isn't that mean to carriers...

BIG FAT EDIT:
If you want a chart, here is one:

This is a comparison between several carriers and the LHA-6 (USS America) with the Ford-class CVN. Yeah, it gets stupid when it comes in comparison. Just in munitions alone, it is almost four to five times the munitions capacity of smaller fleet carrier designs, has roughly two and a quarter to two and a half times the fuel bunker capacity, and roughly half again the aircraft capacity... with the vital E-2s... and all the while not being that much more than the de Gaulle and Queen Elizabeth in terms of cost.

You are proceeding from a false assumption, comparing a supercarrier to a smaller ship. In truth you should be comparing a supercarrier to two smaller ships.
For the cost of one Ford you could buy two 65-70k ton CATOBAR conventional carriers. If we use the original QE design as a base (Though the next gen French ship is a fair choice too) we can look at a fair comparison.

Compared to one Ford, two conventional QE sized and configured ships have...

More aircraft
The same type of aircraft including AWACS
Less crew even with two ships saving you manpower costs
greater flexibility
greater survivability

On the other side two ships need more escorts than one ship, so costs you save in manpower elsewhere probably go on frigates and destroyers, but half a dozen new surface ships are probably a good investment anyway. You need supply ships but as your escorts are conventional you have those in the fleet train anyway.
Nuke carriers don't need to fuel at sea so can stay on station longer, but they do need to fuel eventually you are just postponing it. Instead of a few hours each week it is instead half a decade every 15 or so years at a cost of several billion. So while you can keep a ship on station longer it is paid for by removing that ship for several years later on.

Two good carriers can also maintain 100% on station deployments by alternating, or you can surge both for a bigger hit if you need it. If a sub gets lucky and torpedoes your ship you still have a spare, and if you need to replace war losses they are easier to build.
The goal isn't necessarily to make it a one for one swap, what you want is the best use of your resources. If you have $15 billion do you buy one super carrier, or two fleet carriers?

If you are thinking of a one for one swap then it depends on your mission, as I said a Ford can do more than a Midway, but do you need all that capability for your mission profile? In the past the USN used multiple ship types including different carriers for different roles, I mean you still had Essex class ships serving into the 70s
There is such a thing as overkill, and while that may not matter much in battle it is an issue if that money could have bought you a bunch of other stuff instead. Like a second carrier, or half a dozen HK subs etc

Harlock said:

You are proceeding from a false assumption, comparing a supercarrier to a smaller ship. In truth you should be comparing a supercarrier to two smaller ships.
For the cost of one Ford you could buy two 65-70k ton CATOBAR conventional carriers. If we use the original QE design as a base (Though the next gen French ship is a fair choice too) we can look at a fair comparison.

Compared to one Ford, two conventional QE sized and configured ships have...

More aircraft
The same type of aircraft including AWACS
Less crew even with two ships saving you manpower costs
greater flexibility
greater survivability

On the other side two ships need more escorts than one ship, so costs you save in manpower elsewhere probably go on frigates and destroyers, but half a dozen new surface ships are probably a good investment anyway. You need supply ships but as your escorts are conventional you have those in the fleet train anyway.
Nuke carriers don't need to fuel at sea so can stay on station longer, but they do need to fuel eventually you are just postponing it. Instead of a few hours each week it is instead half a decade every 15 or so years at a cost of several billion. So while you can keep a ship on station longer it is paid for by removing that ship for several years later on.

Two good carriers can also maintain 100% on station deployments by alternating, or you can surge both for a bigger hit if you need it. If a sub gets lucky and torpedoes your ship you still have a spare, and if you need to replace war losses they are easier to build.
The goal isn't necessarily to make it a one for one swap, what you want is the best use of your resources. If you have $15 billion do you buy one super carrier, or two fleet carriers?

If you are thinking of a one for one swap then it depends on your mission, as I said a Ford can do more than a Midway, but do you need all that capability for your mission profile? In the past the USN used multiple ship types including different carriers for different roles, I mean you still had Essex class ships serving into the 70s
There is such a thing as overkill, and while that may not matter much in battle it is an issue if that money could have bought you a bunch of other stuff instead. Like a second carrier, or half a dozen HK subs etc

Click to expand...

That's the thing, the studies tried what you said and... it didn't go well. Remember, the more conventional CVs were quickly discarded and the last time the USN was forced to make a one-off design (the Enterprise), they went back to the idea a decade later. The reduction in capability is simply just that bad.

<deleted content> Ok, if that's the case, what about reviving the 'Strike Cruiser' concept:


This seems like a better middle ground between the LHA's and a full fleet carrier.