US Navy is considering building light aircraft carriers

The American fleet may be replenished with light aircraft carriers, the possibility and feasibility of their use as part of the Navy is being considered, according to USNI News.

The US Navy command ordered a study in which specialists from the US Navy's naval systems development department should study the possibility of designing light aircraft carriers and their necessity and feasibility of using in addition to those already in service fleet nuclear aircraft carriers of the Nimitz and Gerald Ford classes.

It is noted that the idea of ​​building light aircraft carriers appeared under the former US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, who showed great interest in it. At the same time, there was a mention of the possible construction of six light aircraft carriers until 2045.

Rear Admiral Jason Lloyd, head of the Department for the Development of Naval Systems of the US Navy, said that the specialists of his department will study all possible aspects of the program for the construction of light aircraft carriers, after which, based on this study, the command of the Navy will make its own final decision. According to him, heavy aircraft carriers today may lose their relevance, but the last word will remain with the fleet.

What seemed like the right decision then, today could lose its relevance. A coastal local conflict or confrontation between maritime superpowers requires different means of combat

- he added.

It is specified that the option of building full-fledged light aircraft carriers capable of carrying all types of deck aviation, not universal amphibious assault ships with short takeoff and vertical landing aircraft.

Comments

[nsm1]

It's just that so many heavy ones are beyond the power of the USA.

[Civil]

The hegemon merges, the era of the communist People's Republic of China comes.

[bayard]

Quote: Civil

The hegemon merges, the era of the communist People's Republic of China comes.

Actually, this topic has been discussed and pushed for 15 years by a number of experts and admirals. It's just that nuclear aircraft carriers cost 5 to 10 more than an aircraft carrier with a conventional power plant, especially if it is a medium VI. It is far from always that heavy atomic ones are needed at a certain theater of operations, and to provide escort of transport convoys in case of war, it is difficult to come up with a better light / medium AB.
Well, China is still 10-15 years old to accumulate and build a fleet, because ships are not yet a fleet, they need sailors, naval officers and naval commanders with experience in combat use, long-distance campaigns, organizing services and providing logistics. Such specialists still need to be trained / educated, aircraft carriers have yet to be learned to use, for cover from under the water it is still necessary to create and build an MAPL with acceptable characteristics ...
All this takes time - those same 10 - 15 years.
And they may not be given to China.
... If the US itself does not suddenly merge with civil war and internal division.

And it's time for us to think about just such AV - medium VI, on a conventional power plant, but with catapults and AWACS aircraft.
In five years, the industry of the Russian Federation will be quite ready for such tasks.

[Vladimir Mashkov]

I believe that the reason for the US Navy's consideration of the possibility of building light aircraft carriers is a complex of reasons. Here are the huge costs for the construction and maintenance of giant aircraft carriers, their vulnerability in the event of a major world war, and the reluctance to give up altogether an excellent means of creating a significant advantage anywhere in the world in peacetime in order to conquer something or demonstrate strength, and significant savings money and time, and the ability to have a larger number of aircraft carriers for the same money, and reduce the vulnerability of light aircraft carriers due to their larger number.

[Starover_Z]

Quote: nsm1

It's just that so many heavy ones are beyond the power of the USA.

specialists from the US Navy's naval systems development department should study the possibility of designing light aircraft carriers

Do they consider buying a project from "Kuzi" by chance? (JOKE humor)

[OgnennyiKotik]

A second variant of a light AV based on the UDC America and Ford is being considered. For unification and cost reduction.
The price of 1 Ford is equal to the price of 4-5 UDC America (up to 22 F35B), even if a new light AB will cost 3 times cheaper, this means reducing heavy AB from 11 to 6, you can build 15 light ones, plus 11 (according to plans) UDC America.
32 ships carrying fighters, against 20 current ones. Serious gain.

[Yuri V.A]

How many light aircraft carriers would require an escort? Not so obvious savings with replacement.

[Alex777]

And light aircraft carriers can be sent in pairs.
They will not be atomic yet, will they? There is savings.

[Yuri V.A]

That is exactly what it will be, in pairs, as they say - each creature according to Tamara.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Confusing tasks. Light aircraft carriers support naval strike teams. Improving overall capabilities and resilience. AUG will become more quantitative, they will be more maneuverable and less noticeable. The variability of use will increase. The number of ships of the 1st rank in the US Navy rolls over annually 1-2 Arleigh Burke and 1-2 Virginias enter service, this is without ships of other classes. FFG (X) frigates and new destroyer / cruiser projects are coming soon.

[Yuri V.A]

The Americans will not agree to a reduction in the total number of full-fledged AUGs, even reinforced by light aircraft carriers.

[Romario_Argo]

this is of course all very interesting,
and we have one more club in the storeroom
reusable Korona launch vehicle from Makeev Design Bureau, payload 7 tons - 4 BB Avangard
and when the detonation engine is installed, it will constantly hang on the GSO (36000 km) over the USA
but on the subject, we somehow have a different school, and it happened to build aircraft-carrying cruisers
and one soldier in the field - as for me this is Manatee:
8 ZRPK Pantsir (32 channels / 256 missiles)
96 UVP for anti-ship missiles (Zircon, Caliber), PLUR (Caliber, Answer), SLCM, SAM (Redoubt)
PTZ Package-NK
and the actual air group

[Carib]

In the 70s, when the USSR was going to build the first aircraft carrier, the striped ones carried out a similar flash mob in their press. Result Admiral Kuznetsov and company. Do they think that the second time will work ..? I don't know how to go to the sea.

[Vladimir_2U]

Light aircraft carrier as a criterion for the hard life of the USA. The dollar will collapse soon! Irony.

[antivirus]

not irony - they decide to throw the Americans who are hesitant about the exclusivity - they will! will switch to candy wrappers with portraits of the leaders of the Iroquois-Hurons.

[Prisoner]

Why? The printing press is worn out or there are not a lot of people, or do you want to take in the number?

[Mouse]

The country will be given coal ... small, but a lot !!!

[prior]

Without even having any hope for their own Russian, even though a large or even small aircraft carrier, all that remains is to mock the desire of the Americans to have a small aircraft carrier.
But I must admit, a small aircraft carrier for small regional conflicts is an excellent solution.
Why drive Kamaz to transport a sandbag.

[Vladimir_2U]

Quote: prior

Why drive Kamaz to transport a sandbag.

But if this sand is golden, then it's not a pity to add a pair of armored personnel carriers for transportation. ))

[askort154]

And all this is for "ensuring the security of the world
shipping "as they like to state in the media.
And in my opinion, they are preparing to penetrate thoroughly into the Arctic in order to oust Russia. A program has already been adopted for the rapid construction of several dozen icebreakers. Now they will take on "light" aircraft carriers under these icebreakers.

[Alex777]

A program has already been adopted for the rapid construction of several dozen icebreakers.

Are you joking?

[askort154]

Alex777 .....Are you joking?

I'm not kidding, it's Trump. He urged to catch up with Russia in terms of the number of icebreaker fleet. Connect Canada, Sweden and Finland to build 2029 units by 6,
and further increase to 50 pcs.
Trump is gone! And what about his program - ???.

[Alex777]

and further increase to 50 pcs.

Why do they need so much? No tasks.
Therefore, there are now only 1,5 icebreakers in the States.
Yes, the construction of icebreakers was partially thrown off to Canada.
But in exchange, Trump allowed them the Keystone XL pipeline.
And Biden has already banned it. So these 6 most likely will not be.

[2 Level Advisor]

and displace as will be-in bulk? there are a lot of aircraft carriers in the non-ice ocean, etc., but for some reason no one is pushing us out of there ..

[Genry]

If serious....
The weak link in today's aircraft carriers is the pilots. They need 3 times more than the same number of aircraft on the ground. The problem is with the aero finisher with its negative g-forces, when blood rushes into the eyes and tears off the retina. To prevent such an injury, after the flight, a period of a couple of days is required (the pilot participates in the visual guidance of aircraft for landing, is engaged in self-education, sports, ... or plays the fool).
On small aircraft carriers, apparently, they decided to abandon living pilots and switch completely to UAVs. This will increase the level of congestion during takeoff and landing, which shortens the catapult and finisher lengths, and also eliminates the problem of adjusting / controlling acceleration (now one value for all aircraft). There is no need for insurance by an actively flying rescue helicopter, and problematic duty of the medical team.
In general, this reduces the number of crews and significantly reduces the cost of maintenance.

In addition, the catapult runway allows covertly, launch cruise missiles horizontally without launching accelerators (hot gases from the stage give off radar illumination) and at low altitude.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: Genry

On small aircraft carriers, apparently, they decided to abandon living pilots and switch completely to UAVs.

So far, a complete rejection of pilots is not planned. This is a 40s perspective. But the number and role of UAVs will increase. The KMP is planning a whole line of vertical / short takeoff and vertical landing UAVs. In the Navy, MQ-25 will soon register for AB. It is not a problem to make a strike-reconnaissance UAV on its base.

[Genry]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

So far, a complete rejection of pilots is not planned. This is a 40s perspective.

You are living for today.
New aircraft carriers will appear in ten years and will serve for another 30 or more years, so their configuration is being decided now.

[antivirus]

in short - it all comes down to new engines.
the term of launching a new series is an indicator of advanced state-in.

[voyaka uh]

"The problem is in the aero finisher with its negative G-forces, when blood rushes into the eyes and tears off the retina" ///
----
There is still a strong blow to the spine and neck when starting from the catapult.

But the F-35B does not have these troubles.
Any average flyer with average health can fly it.
Takeoff / landing is automated as much as possible.

[Genry]

Quote: voyaka uh

There is still a strong blow to the spine and neck when starting from the catapult.

On the catapult, the chair supports the back and head and there were no problems.
At the finisher, you are not compensating for the physiology of the eyes.

Quote: voyaka uh

But the F-35B does not have these troubles.

The pilot on the F-35 bangs his head against the lantern.

[voyaka uh]

Not an F-35B. He doesn't need a catapult or a springboard.
It starts from a short, flat deck.
The F-35C pilot fought (this was fixed) when starting from an aircraft carrier's catapult.
When tested on an empty (very light) aircraft.
The electric capapult has a very sensitive adjustment to the weight and type of aircraft.

[Genry]

Quote: voyaka uh

Not an F-35B. He doesn't need a catapult or a springboard.

Well then, why mention it in the topic of full-fledged aircraft carriers? Let it exist where there are no conditions for more or less normal take-off / landing. And about him, probably, they will talk / remember only in historical terms, for the spectacularity of automatic opening of any hatches - the first place in the F-35 family in terms of inferiority.

Quote: voyaka uh

When tested on an empty (very light) aircraft.

The launches of other half-empty aircraft did not cause problems. They just didn't calculate the ergonomics of the cab.

[voyaka uh]

Not. When the same F-35S was filled with fuel and rockets were suspended,
the pilot stopped banging his head.

[Genry]

Quote: voyaka uh

Not. When the same F-35S was filled with fuel and rockets were suspended,
the pilot stopped banging his head.

It is clear that the acceleration on takeoff of the aircraft has decreased, but insufficient stability may come out at a lower speed achieved.

[abc_alex]

Quote: voyaka uh

But the F-35B does not have these troubles.
Any average flyer with average health can fly it.

Antigrav installed on the F-35? The problem with landing on an aircraft carrier is that with a sharp decrease in speed, solids and fluids are decelerated in different ways. The skull, for example, is a bone, a solid body. Most people don't have a brain.
But especially the "no" eye. With a sharp relief, the fluid in it continues to move and presses on the front wall and reduces the pressure on the back. The eye is deformed. The result is eye injury. Retinal detachment.
No one doubts that any average pilot can fly an airplane. You are told that, without deteriorating health, he needs a long flight interval.

[voyaka uh]

Have you ever seen how the vertical landing of the F-35B on the landing
ship? The video is full on youtube.
There is no drastic decrease in speed. Everything is very, very smooth, without bumps.

[abc_alex]

Quote: voyaka uh

Have you ever seen how the vertical landing of the F-35B on the landing
ship? The video is full on youtube.
There is no drastic decrease in speed. Everything is very, very smooth, without bumps.

This is not about the runway, but about the classic schemes. With catapult and aerofinishers.
The article clearly says:

It is specified that the option of building full-fledged light aircraft carriers capable of carrying all types of carrier-based aircraft, not universal amphibious assault ships with short take-off and vertical landing aircraft.

[voyaka uh]

I advise you to carefully read your opponent's posts:

I clearly wrote: "But these troubles do not have F-35B"

[abc_alex]

Quote: voyaka uh

I clearly wrote: "But the F-35B does not have these troubles"

And your opponent immediately answered you:

Well, then why mention it in the topic of full-fledged aircraft carriers?

But, yes, I agree. An airplane with a runway really does not have the same danger to pilots as a classic one. True, what has it to do with the runway - for me it has remained a mystery.

[Ham]

finances start singing romances

[iouris]

Their smoke is thinner.

[Maxwrx]

With such a number of bases around the world (more than 1000) and political power, it is not clear why they need heavy strike aircraft carriers at all.
The experience of US military operations showed that sorties from aircraft carriers amounted to about 5% of all, the weight of bombs was about 1%. At the same time, the cost of this entire armada was 60% compared to the aircraft and infrastructure based on the ground. There was a wide debate about why they were needed at all.
Considering that aircraft carriers are becoming more and more vulnerable (the same dagger, Chinese ballistic missiles, etc.), replacing large aircraft carriers with medium / small ones is quite a logical waste of funds, and the savings will be spent on something else. The combat radius of the fighters has grown significantly + they have a lot (about 200 units) of air tankers.
Large aircraft carriers are also being built for a long time, and in the United States, shipyards are now overloaded and may become vacant. For example, UDC America (45 thousand tons), which can hold up to 22 F-35Bs, costs 3,4 billion. And this is a landing ship!
Ford cost 12,8 billion (100 thousand tons) to 90 aircraft
Most likely they will make an average aircraft carrier for 50-60 F-35С aircraft in the dimension of 60-70 thousand tons at a price of 5-6 billion.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: MaxWRX

they have a lot (like about 200) air tankers.

If. This number of tankers is only in storage. There are about 700 tankers in service + a large number of private tankers. Those. only about 1000 pieces.

Quote: MaxWRX

Ford cost 12,8 billion (100 thousand tons) to 90 aircraft
Most likely they will make an average aircraft carrier for 50-60 F-35С aircraft in the dimension of 60-70 thousand tons at a price of 5-6 billion.

It looks like a mini Ford version, I am for a converted America 50-60 thousand tons, a displacement of 40-50 aircraft / heavy UAVs / Osprey. At a cost of 3-4 billion. Cheaper due to unification and reduction of amphibious capabilities.

[Maxwrx]

You are probably confusing, I'm talking about tanker planes
I think America will not go if we consider the F-35C. In the F-35B version, with a short takeoff and vertical landing, the radius is too small. Therefore, they need an electromagnetic catapult (+200 million) and a nuclear reactor (+ 1-1,5 billion), too much to redesign. It's easier to make a new project.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: MaxWRX

You are probably confusing, I'm talking about tanker planes

I do not confuse. Service + storage + private 900-1000 pieces. I count all types of troops.

Quote: MaxWRX

if we consider the F-35C. In the F-35B version, with a short takeoff and vertical landing, the radius is too small.

There, the difference is not fundamental in the region of 200-300 km, it is solved by refueling in the air. AWACS and Tanker can be made at the Osprey base. There are such projects.

[Maxwrx]

Well cool, what can I say.
Considering the fact that the aircraft carriers are located 500 km from the theater of operations 200-300 km, there is a significant difference and the ospreys with the massive use of aircraft will not cope with the task. And in general, extra hemorrhoids and, again, rise in price.
+ Still, the US will not abandon nuclear aircraft carriers, they provide significant advantages.
Otherwise, America can be upgraded to a clean aircraft carrier, but the question is why? If the UDC has a much wider application, with all the same f-35b

[OgnennyiKotik]

The F-35B has a combat radius larger than the F-14/18, they suited the fleet.
They will not give up nuclear AB, that's a fact. They can reduce the number. They can build lung AV without reducing the number. Resources allow.
The aircraft carrier and the UDC are different ships with different missions. On paper, America can carry 22 aircraft, but whether it can actually carry them raises questions and this means that there will be no helicopters on it at all.
I wrote above, they are considering several options. There are two basic ones: mini Ford, what you wrote, but without a nuclear installation and based on America, what I am writing.
You can equip a light AB with a springboard, the F-18 can take off from it exactly, the F-35C is likely. Another major role will shift to UAVs, they can take off in different ways. In my opinion, the F-35B + Osprey + UAV will close all the main tasks. The rest is heavy atomic AB. In short, there are many options.
By the way, here is a variant of the AWACS aircraft based on Osprey, with it the need for a catapult disappears.

[bk0010]

Quote: OgnennyiKotik

By the way, here is a version of the AWACS aircraft based on Osprey

Get the same disadvantages as AWACS on a helicopter: weak radar (due to the energy of the board), short range and flight speed (too much engine power is taken to power the radar), low flight altitude (essential for the radio horizon), there is no room for management commands.

[OgnennyiKotik]

Osprey swaps the C-2 in the Navy, the E-2 Hawkeye and the C-2 are the same aircraft. Osprey is better or comparable to this aircraft in all respects. The only thing inferior in height to the practical ceiling is 7,6 against 9,4 km. This is a 40 km difference in the radio horizon. I don't think it's critical.

[antivirus]

for a laugh ----- on the way for amers hypersound and KR + RCC. thrust into the RTO (Zel Dol) and target designation is the main thing.
another interconnected placement of shock and air defense capabilities.
saving.

[Maxwrx]

No, they seem to have adopted a new doctrine that moved from the coast by 200-300 km compared to the old version.
Why do you think a mini-Ford should be without a nuclear installation? Electromagnetic catapult, speed, less propulsion volume (including fuel), lower operating life cycle cost, the ability to launch F-35Cs with maximum takeoff weight and drills. Too big benefits for about 1-1,5 billion

[OgnennyiKotik]

Quote: MaxWRX

Why do you think a mini-Ford should be without a nuclear installation?

The price is high, it is approaching Ford and there is simply no point in making an easy AB. The price of the next serial Fords will go down, it should fit into 10 billion, with a nuclear installation a lightweight AB 5-6 billion. And is there any point in launching a series for the sake of such savings? If you fit into 3-4 billion, then instead of (maybe not instead of) 4 Fords, you can make a whole series of 12-15 light ABs. It makes no sense to make a smaller batch. Moreover, modern engines are very efficient.
The tasks of the lung AV are mainly export. It is necessary to ensure the protection of your strike group and strike at enemy ships. A wing of 40 aircraft is enough for this, two ABs are already 80 aircraft.
They are preparing for a war with China, given the geography of the Asia-Pacific region and the enemy, they need more dispersal, more ships, more flexibility. It was the other way around against the USSR; it was necessary to concentrate forces in several spaced limited points.

[Ryusei]

This topic comes up every time people in Russia think about the construction of an AB.
The United States will never build these non-aircraft carriers, unfortunately there are no fools making decisions, this time.
Secondly, they have enough UDC capable of taking on board the F35.

[bk0010]

Stupid idea. Hokai will also take off from light aircraft carriers? We remove strike missions from aircraft carriers, only air defense (a serious load cannot be raised without a catapult)? PLO only by escort ships and helicopters? A light aircraft carrier can fully act only as an addition to the normal one, as part of one AUG.

[Evgeny Seleznev]

An option for building full-fledged light aircraft carriers capable of carrying all types of carrier-based aircraft, rather than universal amphibious assault ships with short take-off and vertical landing aircraft. It makes sense to provide air defense and anti-aircraft defense of groups of ships (the same UDC).

[Castro Ruiz]

Dumayu eti lyogkie / malie AV budut dla BPLA.