[ Post a Response | The SteelNavy.Com Message Board ]
Posted by Francine on September 10, 2026, 12:26:39, in reply to "Re: what about a, smaller but modern CVL-N?"
Take the LHA/LHD design, leave off the marines and associated capabilities and build it as a small carrier. Definitely up the speed to at least 28 knots, maybe add a slight angle deck - bang your in business.
Right now the LHD costs about 1/4 of a CVN and doesn't take 10 years to build. Of course the modifications would boost cost, to maybe a 1/3 of a CVN cost.
More ships, more places - distributed lethality. And by spreading the ships around, loss isn't as catastrophic. 
Previous Message
According to AI, the RN QE class carries 24 fighters, with a surge capacity up to 36. It carries 40 aircraft normally, with a surge capacity of 72. Our carriers' surge capacity is 90 aircraft. As I have noted, the reason we don't consider lighter carriers is that they lack meaningful numbers. Our WWII Essexes carried over 80 aircraft. Planes got bigger. So then did the carriers, to still be able to field such numbers. Smaller carriers would need to be gathered together into groups to conduct even the basic operations that one of our carriers can currently handle. In a global war, adding light carriers to supplement is a nice luxury. Also an expensive one, and one for which we don't even have the yard capacity. We are no longer the industrial giant we were in WWII. (And, our industry was not bombed during that war. It would be in a future one of comparable size, what industry we have.) Nearly all comparisons of our current situation to WWII are thus mostly meaningless. We are fortunate that our forefathers kept and maintained our ability to produce the large nuclear carriers we have. It is a fragile capacity, and if ever lost, it will be very hard and expensive to regain, if it even can be.
Theoretically, we could be about to lose it. If Congress won't fund steam, the current executive order prohibits the government from using anything else. That stops work at that one yard which does this. That then shuts down the yard. If steam is funded, the redesign and rebuilding will be massive. The current build(s) will basically have to be scrapped, and the yard will start over. Probably good for business, but the yard will stop producing carriers for a good decade or more. Only if this order is recinded will the situation return to okay. The faster that happens, the less the disruption. Congress also has the power to require EMALS by law. That then nullifies the directive. Directives which violate the law are invalid. That is another possibility. In any case, this is "one to watch" if you care at all about our carrier program.
The QE class is a product of its country's policies and abilities. It is not desired by ours, however, for the reasons presented. Previous Message
theUSN has repeatedly refused to consider "small" carriers, though USS AMERICA is a small carrier, without angled deck so it isnt a carrier🤪🤪🤪,but carries helo and f35b stovl
a better idea may be 65,000 ton RN QE class,which is big enough for fighters asw helo and an AEW flight, Previous Message
So, three squadrons of what? One's Growlers. The other two are? F-35? F/A-18...E or F? What about Hawkeyes? And Stingrays? There will also be helicopters.
The Navy learned a long time back that smaller carriers can't really carry a "useful load." One would have to gather multiples of them together for any sort of serious strikes. So, it fields the existing large carriers. 80 to 90 planes generates reasonable striking power. For a large global war like WWII, smaller escort carriers proved useful in auxiliary roles (the light carriers were a wartime emergency measure to quickly add numbers when we had suffered loses, and the Essex program looked too slow.) We don't especially need lots of ASW convoy escorts at the moment. We need the strike carriers we have.
As far as this paragraph: "You build them on the West/East and Gulf coast, which alleviates the room required for the larger fleet CVN's that we build every 8 years?"..."Alleviates?"... Odd word choice. We have one yard that builds carriers (and the work is deliberately spread out in time to keep the yard employed. They can actually build them faster, be done with the order, then close up shop. That's not what we want. That work pace is deliberate. It is meant for "the long haul.") We have a couple other yards that build surface ships, two that built the LCSs (and one yard is now occupied with the 2 Constelation frigates, while the other has received an offer from a Korean company to buy it.) We've two more yards that build subs. That's it. That is the sum total of our warship making ability. Adding these light carriers doesn't alleviate anything. It actually overloads the existing yards' capacities. To execute your plan,you will need to first create these yards that you speak of. The existing yards are having trouble hiring enough labor. You must also find enough labor for your extra yards.
It is good that people think creatively about the issue. The devil is in the details, though. Previous Message
You take the the EMALS/CATOBAR sytem, shrink it the size of an angled deck Essex class SCB-27's
It carries a smaller airwing(3 squadrons including growlers), has nuclear propulsion but focuses on point defense against drones. Arm it to the teeth with CWIS(ammo is way cheaper), RIM-116 and smaller SAM's.
With a sleeker hull shape, they can go faster than than the Ford Class(CVN-65 had more of a of a cruiser like hull).
You build them on the West/East and Gulf coast, which alleviates the room required for the larger fleet CVN's that we build every 8 years?
Oh and make Nimitz a dedicated training carrier based in Pensacola.
Responses
« Index