the USN and USMC have been experimenting using the new America Class LHA as a ‘Lighting Carrier”. They’ve shown the ability to surge up to 24 F35B models per float Adding additional F35s is a massive increase in firepower to the traditional MAG concept for both offensive and defensive purposes
This would fit the smaller Strike carrier concept we're discussing
As carrier maintenance issues mount, the Navy is considering loading up amphibious assault ships with F-35Bs.
www.military.com
It does and it means that that a MEU / MEF etc., is basically carrying its own air support and airborne defence. It's most definitely worthwhile following up and I sincerely hope that some idiot in Congress doesn't scrap it, because it looks very promising.
Something to consider is that the new systems employed on the Fords are intended to dramatically increase sortie rates, now apply these increases to a smaller design and you could easily be talking Nimitz sortie rates on a QE size hull. Extrapolate this and the smaller size, smaller air group, but Nimitz level effectiveness, means the same capability at lower cost or greater capability (through more carrier groups) at the same cost.
Yes, this definitely does have to be considered and theoretically there is no reason why the technology can't be scaled down. I actually think a QE sized hull is a bit large and maybe something in the 40 - 50K tonne range.
@oldsig127 noted that my original guesstimate of 30 - 40K tonne was
probably on the small side, and after reflection I tend to agree with him.
I don't have the link, but I do remember read from Forbes or Business Review on USN spokesperson talk sometime ago on potential two alternative carrier models:
1. Conventional power QE2 size (this similar to Forestall) of 60,000+
2. Smaller nuclear power on CDG size of 40,000+
#2 being reviewed due to still Nuclear power (as Navy still heavily tilted to CVN), but on that size can used modified Nuclear Reactors from Submarine (SSN/SSBN) thus can be more compact and more avordable (as being procured leveraging Submarine program).
Cost will in the end determine what alternative that they're going to choose in my opinion. Off course other strategic issue will matter. However if two CDG size CVN can provide similar capabilities than one Ford class CVN with some cost saving, then perhaps it can be attractive to USN.
If one Ford as the article stated cost USD 13 Bio, and if they can build two smaller CV (whether conventional CV of QE2 size or CVN of CDG size) at 'say' USD 11 bio, then I still can see this is going to be attractive to USN and Industry and will satisfied the senators and congressman that want to keep the job in defense Industry.
Power will be critical in the future and the poms reckon they've future proofed the QE class CV power generation wise, but I have my doubts because they don't have a history of thinking far ahead in their ship design & shipbuilding, and if there's a hard way of doing something the poms will find it. The Type 45 destroyer is a case in point when they had to cut holes in the sides of every ship in the class to replace faulty engines / gensets. No thought was given to providing access ways to replace these. The excuse was that they'll last the life time of the ship, but what about battle damage? Scrap the whole ship because the engines / gensets suffered battle damage and can't be replaced? Duh !!!!
So maybe as
@Ananda suggests a couple or three SSBN reactors as power plants would be the way to go. Like he said, they would be leveraging existing technology, so costs would be reduced.
I think the nothing outcome is very likely as the CVN program has significant congressional support as a previous poster suggested wrt to the Truman refuelling. No doubt a CVN loss would give pause but such an event would be eclipsed by the likely immense retaliation response by the US against the party involved.
But would it? If it was a wartime loss, the US would have its hands full anyway and if they went nuclear to avenge such a loss, then it will escalate what maybe a non nuclear war to a nuclear war. On the political front, the yards that build the current CVNs would be the only ones who could build the FCVX, so none of the Congress critters pork barrels should be negatively affected. If anything, there would be a growth within the industry
Maybe i could have picked a better site to link to but a couple of other sites i did check gave pretty much the same figures on size and
@ASSAIL below has provided further information that they have their figures in the correct Ball Park.
I was actually thinking the Midway class may be more in the Ballpark size wise. I actually got the chance to watch the Independence sail into Sydney Harbour from Middle Head
No probs then. You had the nous to go and check its claims. Good on you.
I do wonder if a fleet of smaller more numerous carriers would seriously enhance the effects they could bring to the Pacific theatre. In the coming decades the threat to them is only going to get more serious, with significant evolution in PRC land based AShM, strategic airpower and sub surface threats all well underway. Would it actually make a significant difference to the fleet’s overall survivability?
That's a very good question to ask and something we should keep in mind.
) study this as more affordable way on having CVN as French did.
