The carrier air wing has one more mission that is not talked about much. That is, to provide a purpose to keep big aircraft carrier pork and graft moving in the system.
The Navy will need to make some serious budget decisions in the coming years.
The first one would be to ditch the requirement for the F-35C. There is no amount of lipstick that can make this pig a useful jet for carriers. And it was never a credible anti-access threat player anyway.
Once that is done, a move has to be made to simplify the fast jet portion of the carrier air wing. To accomplish this, retiring all of the legacy Hornet squadrons sooner rather than later can save a lot of cash.
Today fast jet composition of the carrier air wing is 2 classic and 2 Super Hornet squadrons. Dumping all the classics and reforming into 3 Super Hornet squadrons as the total fast jet composition for the carrier air wing can simplify things and save money.
Given the severe budget problems, we may see some carriers go away due to lack of money to operate them. If 3 carriers go away, that frees up taskings for 6 Super Hornet squadrons.
Super Hornet production can proceed at a continued rate to replace early Super Hornet Block I (and early Lot) that are showing age.
3 fast jet squadrons (not counting the Grizzly detachment) should be good enough for peace time. In times of war, a carrier can be beefed up with more squadrons and/or the physical size of the squadron can be increased.
The USMC picking up the Super Hornet (after realization of F-35B failure) will help the situation.
While not a true anti-access player, in many situations that allow for the F-22, the large radar foot-print of the Block II Super Hornet will add to over-all capability.
In the case of lesser threats like Iran trying to close off access to the gulf, an all Super Hornet Block II force will be highly effective in killing off a wide variety of targets that are a threat to maritime security.
Hard and/or painful budget cut decisions are coming. How the U.S. Navy survives all this is yet to be seen. It is possible that there is salvation in simplifying the carrier air wing.
10 comments:
With the advent of stealth/anti stealth air war, the age of mega carrier is over. It's too easy to spot at the ocean and it has minimal defense against long range ballistic missile attack. This is budget cut doesn't sink mega carrier first.
The best bet for next generation of carrier is to have it as small as possible and not to be noticed in the first place.
If USN is shrinking to a deployed 3 combat air squadron carrier requirement and if a crew of 5,500 per carrier is too expensive to employ in the first place, then USN should probably be looking at replacing some older CVNs with fast-tracked QE class Carrier-type decks. A crew of 600-1000 per carrier should do going forward.
With respect to Anon's point above about Carrier size and being noticed in the first place... any large combat ship, stealthy or not, will need to be detected and tracked one way or another in the future. To base future doctrine therefore, on requiring smaller Carriers for the mere sake of being less easily detected is not sufficient.
A smaller carrier can also be more easily taken out or disabled by smaller mines and smaller tactical missiles too - something to consider.
Thus, being relatively large in tonnage (and generation capacity) is OK in the case of enabling heavy requirements, however crew size and automation is more relevant, relative to the air-combat power each ship is required to project.
I don't understand the concept of "generating capacity" (Yes I know, turn over rate, how fast a ship can facilitate fighters to fly and fly again.)
But that concept is from an era where ship is expensive and airplane is cheap and plentiful. WWII till vietnam era, where a ship must keep churning 100+ prop planes.
But budget reality indicates that the navy will be lucky to own 200 fifth gen airplanes. At most a super carrier can only be fitted about 30fifth gen fighter if lucky. (UK can't even afford any plane for its carrier.)
So why bother create a facility that can churn hundred of planes in an operation. A small facility that can launch all 12 fighters under 50 seconds for first punch is enough. Two or three of this ships should overwhelmed any high end combat.
The situation is reversed. A ship is cheap and disposable, a fifth gen plane is rare and expensive. It's operation depends on virtual stealth.
-----------
There is a great technological change in ship building. A 700 Feet ship does not need to be 60,000 tons of mono hull steel. With EMAL, steam generator is not needed. greatly simplifying ship function.
Which one would you want in a battle, 3 ships with spec(700 feet, 17,000 tons composite, 500 crew, 1/10,000 emission signature, 12 fighters. same speed and 3 months endurance, but far more agile and have 15meter draft) ..let's say $1B each.
or a single 100,000 tons mega carrier with 24 fighters. $5Billion
both group has same support and protection ships.
And remember, with the extra money, I have 2 more hull done and ready to be fitted with gears and launched at the warehouse. On top of extra money for planes.
Combat advantage of big ship is highly exaggerated. (yes, it probably harder to sink, but it's easier to cripple. far easier. So one have more useless chunk of metals to salvage and repair, big deal. the battle is over by the time it can be repaired. The other guy has more planes in the air and can drop more bombs. from more points on the map.)
while modern 20-40,00 ship probaly will need atomic weapon to completely disable.
It' spanish galeon vs. dutch privateer again. Guess which one comes with big guns, heavy ship and sink to the bottom of sea first?
The USN has been slow to respond to the evolving area denial weapons being developed primarily to disable or destroy American Super Carriers.
The Chinese DF-21-D ASBM carrier killer and is more sophisticated than anything that's come before. It has a huge 1900 mile range and is possibly guided by targeting data provided satellites and OTH radar. Each missile is equipped with several maneuverable hypersonic warheads.
A CVBG targeted with several waves of these missiles would suffer certain damage or destruction.
Anon's smaller and stealthier carriers seems to be a logical course of action along with a greater use of long range standoff weapons systems.
Although this previously debated composite-stealth light carrier would not cost a mere $1bn ea. More likely $3bn at least, in today's dollars. (Assuming it's being built in the US)
Either way, future carriers still need to pack sufficient fire power providing credible deterrence and counter-strike capability. Therefore, if a new doctrine would switch to offsetting significantly reduced numbers of aviation platforms with extended-stand-off strike munitions... and if Congress could guarantee replacing 3 such light-carriers for every 1 CVN retired, then it would seem more logical.
But don't fall into assuming such a ship being exponentially more difficult to track and target today, would escape such tracking and targeting of next-gen ASuW systems. There would be entire new classes of technologies and methods developed by all sides to counter such modern threats too. That is, I feel the net advantage of such a doctrine might not be as simple as being implied here.
I think stealth ship will be exponentially more difficult to combat. The current thinking is 1 v. 1 ship battle. If you find one carrier, whoever more survivable the slug war is going to win. But that's not how a pack of small carrier will fight.
consider this strategy.
a 100K mega carrier vs. 16K stealth carriers. One has 200 nm detection radius, the other 50nm detection radius.
1v1 battle, naturally, the mega carrier will win. But what about 1 V. 5? (I imagine china will do this)
Suppose I bring all 5 stealth carriers, arrange it in pentagram with radius 300 nm. The mega carrier has F-35 with 400nm combat range. The stealth carrier has Su-33 with 1200nm combat range. 24 fighers vs. 50 fighers
I will use "water lily in a pond" strategy. Fighters can land and refuel at any 5 carriers. While the mega carrier only has one point of launch/recover.
the implication
1. The mega carrier has to find not just one but 5 different targets on the map. All of them is so small it has to use entire battle group asset just to chase around a lightweight ship. 40% faster, infinitely more agile, can use natural shallow water as signature to make detection harder. (to simplify argument, let's suppose support and guard ship for the battle group are exactly the same.)
2. Even if the mega carrier can find one target, the other four can quickly rearrange formation and form new water lily formation to maximize Landing/refuel/launch pattern for particular air war hot spot. (My ship is 40% faster and more agile mind you.)
3. With Su-35, my endurance won't be a simple 3 times, but on top of water lily formation. As many as plot can land and relaunch at ship of his choosing.
So probably in practice, my 5 carriers will have 30-40 times more air time, while the pilot from mega carrier spend time mostly going back and forth between carrier and battle arena.
4. smaller ship leaves smaller wake and wave displacement. At 17k, I can hide and blend in between the wake of comerciall shipping lanes. (eg. Satellite detection is useless.) I just reduce that mega carrier task back to tedious hunt and destroy job. No magnetic detection possible. Infrared will be so small, it won't matter unless one chases fighters exhaust trace.
5. biggest advantage of light weight ship? No needs for expensive nuke reactor. A super reliable commercial off the shelf solution already exist. (eg. combination of center diesel prop, and 2 pairs counter rotating azipod powr by integrated turbine-electric.) With 17K tons ship with low draft. a) It can use the most reliable and efficient commercial engine. b) can refuel/restock at any friendly harbor a captain can find as long as it serves good food and diesel fuel. It doesn't need complicated harbor service to dock. no tug boat needed.
for peace time cruise, 28 knots Diesel. For maximum power all 5 propellers full speed, going mid 40-45 knots is a breeze.
Suddenly large naval formation strategy matters again. Not just simple weapon & radar coverage overlap.
In the end for approximately same price, I have 1 to 40 if not higher fighter hang time.
If I replace my su-33 with Pak-fa in late 2020's. Every admirals on the planet has to concede who rules the sea. With mega carrier concept, navy planner better be ready to load 40-50 planes in a single ship on top of new and far more capable radar/detection scheme. (translation: Guess who will go bankrupt trying to build $20+ Billion contraption?)
Mega carrier is not going to win battle of attrition period. It has no fighter endurance and to easily read.
--------------
Is 700 feet 17K tons composite ship possible? Who knows...
But look at current biggest all composite high performance structure. Boeing 777 wing box. that thing almost the size of frigate mid section. And they have made 1000 of these so far.
A boeing 777 is far more complicated piece of engineering, requiring more man power and stringent engineering than any vessel the navy can imagine, let alone a surface ship.
Boeing 8i cost $400m, 777 $280m. Visby corvette cost about $280m. All these has complicated high performance, large composite structure.
No question, if USN is operating a mere 3 combat squadrons from a CVN it is a totally cost-ineffective proposition.
The mid-term 'mix' solution would therefore be to supplement 3 manned squadrons with 1 VLO unmanned squadron as a minimum capability, as well as reduce the required crew complement and weight for a next-gen 3-squadron carrier.
A third and possibly fourth piece of the mix could include so-called flight deck barges (and largely automated) modified from commercial cargo hulls from which to operate long range UCAVs. That and possible 100m JHSV-type hulls modified for UAS operation. (Probably affording 5 such hulls for the cost of 1 light-carrier) In this concept, I'd envision a 6-unit UCAV detachment equipping each hull and each UCAV with a single internal ASM shot requirement.
Flying top-cover in the next-generation will probably include unmanned high-altitude Air-ships with appropriate long-range sensors. These could be further supplemented by lower altitude armed air-ships with mix of stand-off munitions. All of this will be feasible by mid-2020s.
I don't know why super carriers can cost $5bn when in Spain a 27,000 tonnes LHD costs €360 million.
This is 4 times cheaper per tonne.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_ship_Juan_Carlos_I_%28L61%29
The Juan Carlos as well as others are generally Amphibious assault ships rather than traditional aircraft carriers. They are supportive rather than projective in nature. A large modern aircraft carrier is really meant to project power by having a large conventional air wing. i.e. not-STOVL like harriers. Conventional aircraft require catapult launching and have larger catapult support aircraft for support such as airborne radar E2C, Jamming/anti radiation (Growlers) and tankers.
A Juan Carlos type system can not project power out to 500-750 nautical miles such as US style super carrier.
Post a Comment