CVN-77, CVX, and CVN-21 Design Studies

[Sqorpio]

Four projects are studied for next generation for replacing Nimitz-class :

1. CVN 8X : nuclear propulsion 100,000t
2. CVN LX : hybrid propulsion 70,000t
3. CV LX : fossil fuel–powered 43,000t with V/STOL aircraft
4. CV EX : fossil fuel–powered 20,000t with V/STOL aircraft

Source : https://pilotonline.com/news/military/local/the-navy-just-commissioned-its-newest-aircraft-carrier-it-s/article_27754130-a74a-5a72-84a8-26c7862cf9a3.html

 

[TomS]

Full study here:

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2006.html

Basically concludes that any of the STOVL options are unacceptable, since there are no AEW or EA aircraft for their airwings. The slightly smaller CVN-LX is a viable alternative to CVN-8X, which is basically a repeat FORD. CVN-LX gives up some max surge sortie generation rate, which is based on flying strikes within the standard 1+15 deck cycle. But CVN-LX can match real-world sortie generation from existing carriers when strikes require longer missions than a single 1+15 cycle.

 

[sferrin]

Full study here:

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2006.html

Basically concludes that any of the STOVL options are unacceptable, since there are no AEW or EA aircraft for their airwings. The slightly smaller CVN-LX is a viable alternative to CVN-8X, which is basically a repeat FORD. CVN-LX gives up some max surge sortie generation rate, which is based on flying strikes within the standard 1+15 deck cycle. But CVN-LX can match real-world sortie generation from existing carriers when strikes require longer missions than a single 1+15 cycle.

The Ford is designed the way it is because, all things considered, it is the best bang for the buck.

 

[TomS]

Full study here:

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2006.html

Basically concludes that any of the STOVL options are unacceptable, since there are no AEW or EA aircraft for their airwings. The slightly smaller CVN-LX is a viable alternative to CVN-8X, which is basically a repeat FORD. CVN-LX gives up some max surge sortie generation rate, which is based on flying strikes within the standard 1+15 deck cycle. But CVN-LX can match real-world sortie generation from existing carriers when strikes require longer missions than a single 1+15 cycle.

The Ford is designed the way it is because, all things considered, it is the best bang for the buck.

This study does make an interesting point, that the FORD design is driven by a fairly unrealistic model of Sortie Generation Rate -- it gets that very high 160 sorties per day SGR by assuming that strikes can be flown within a 1+15 deck cycle. Operationally, we know that's pretty rare -- most contemporary strike sorties in particular require significantly more than a 1+15 mission time.

So, CVN LX has roughly the same airwing as CVN 8X but only half the nominal SGR due to a slightly smaller flight deck and other constraints. But it can still fly the same number of strikes in realistic operational environments where you can generally manage one sortie per plane per day because each sortie is actually several hours long, not one hour or so.

 

[sferrin]

Full study here:

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2006.html

Basically concludes that any of the STOVL options are unacceptable, since there are no AEW or EA aircraft for their airwings. The slightly smaller CVN-LX is a viable alternative to CVN-8X, which is basically a repeat FORD. CVN-LX gives up some max surge sortie generation rate, which is based on flying strikes within the standard 1+15 deck cycle. But CVN-LX can match real-world sortie generation from existing carriers when strikes require longer missions than a single 1+15 cycle.

The Ford is designed the way it is because, all things considered, it is the best bang for the buck.

This study does make an interesting point, that the FORD design is driven by a fairly unrealistic model of Sortie Generation Rate -- it gets that very high 160 sorties per day SGR by assuming that strikes can be flown within a 1+15 deck cycle. Operationally, we know that's pretty rare -- most contemporary strike sorties in particular require significantly more than a 1+15 mission time.

So, CVN LX has roughly the same airwing as CVN 8X but only half the nominal SGR due to a slightly smaller flight deck and other constraints. But it can still fly the same number of strikes in realistic operational environments where you can generally manage one sortie per plane per day because each sortie is actually several hours long, not one hour or so.

And if you bump the airwings back up to the size they're designed for? (~90 aircraft) Also you'd be losing a catapult (redundancy & cycle rate hits). That's also going to affect flow as now you've cut in half the number of catapults servicing either the back or front of the ship. Lastly, when's the last time the USN has been pushed HARD to get cycle times down? With the Ford, assuming you can get them down, you have the capacity. With LX you're stuck with what you've managed in peace time. Not a position I'd want to be in given China's behavior, their aims, and their plans regarding their carrier fleet.

 

[TomS]

And if you bump the airwings back up to the size they're designed for? (~90 aircraft) Also you'd be losing a catapult (redundancy & cycle rate hits). That's also going to affect flow as now you've cut in half the number of catapults servicing either the back or front of the ship. Lastly, when's the last time the USN has been pushed HARD to get cycle times down? With the Ford, assuming you can get them down, you have the capacity. With LX you're stuck with what you've managed in peace time. Not a position I'd want to be in given China's behavior, their aims, and their plans regarding their carrier fleet.

We're never going back to 90-aircraft airwings, in large part because planes have gotten bigger. There are no small airframes like the A-4 or even A-7 left -- the spot factor for an F-35C is significantly larger than the F/A-18C it will replace in the airwing and the E/F is as roughly the same spot as the F-14. The study's notional CVN LX carries 70-80 aircraft, which is the basically same as the capacity of CVN 8X.

They make a bunch of points about CVN LX sortie generation in the study -- the 80-sortie SGR they credit to the CVN LX is very conservative and based mainly on observed combat experience with Forrestals. Incorporation of improved deck arrangements (like pit stop) from FORD could improve that number even in a slightly smaller carrier.

But SGR really does matter less when sortie length extends. If you can't get to the target and back in a 1+15 cycle, it doesn't matter if you could theoretically generate 160 sorties per day -- the airplanes just aren't available to launch that second wave because they're still flying the first sorties, so the practical SGR drops down to ~80 anyway. Sure, there are scenarios where you can benefit from really rapid cycle time, but they're rare. A China conflict, for example, probably won't see them, because the carriers will have to stand back for their own protection.

Interestingly, the one major change in CVN 8X versus FORD is the removal of one catapult. If catapult reliability is good enough, that has basically no impact on SGR.

 

[sferrin]

We're never going back to 90-aircraft airwings, in large part because planes have gotten bigger. There are no small airframes like the A-4 or even A-7 left -- the spot factor for an F-35C is significantly larger than the F/A-18C it will replace in the airwing and the E/F is as roughly the same spot as the F-14. The study's notional CVN LX carries 70-80 aircraft, which is the basically same as the capacity of CVN 8X.

And yet they also had A-5s and A-3Ds, both of which had significantly larger footprints than anything today, and that was on a smaller flight deck with more elevators.

But SGR really does matter less when sortie length extends. If you can't get to the target and back in a 1+15 cycle, it doesn't matter if you could theoretically generate 160 sorties per day -- the airplanes just aren't available to launch that second wave because they're still flying the first sorties, so the practical SGR drops down to ~80 anyway. Sure, there are scenarios where you can benefit from really rapid cycle time, but they're rare. A China conflict, for example, probably won't see them, because the carriers will have to stand back for their own protection.

Not every scenario would be against China, in which case we might be able to get much closer. Also, even with China taken into account, the decision could be made to move closer anyway (specifically to take advantage of a shorter flight time or to control the airspace closer to shore), once an antiship threat had been dealt with. You could end up with a situation where tankers are constantly cycling between the carrier and their orbits to keep things like E-2s and UAVs in the air.

Interestingly, the one major change in CVN 8X versus FORD is the removal of one catapult. If catapult reliability is good enough, that has basically no impact on SGR.

Until it gets hit with a missile anyway. With 3 you're down to 2 (or half a Ford) where with a Ford you could lose one and still have the capacity of one of these replacement concepts. Furthermore they also take a 10 year hit in service life. Cha-ching.

 

[DrRansom]

On the airwing size, I do think that we are discounting the potential for stealth UAVs. Strike stealth UAVs can probably get the airwing back up to size, as they should be smaller than existing fighters.

Thanks for posting the Nimitz concept video. I wonder if a stealthy carrier + smaller UAVs might be a viable option in the future. Stealth to help evade some long-range radars and sensors and smaller UAVs to allow rapid sortie generation off a small platform.

 

[TomS]

On the airwing size, I do think that we are discounting the potential for stealth UAVs. Strike stealth UAVs can probably get the airwing back up to size, as they should be smaller than existing fighters.

I don't agree. UCLASS envisaged a Tomcat-size aircraft, which seems likely for any future Navy strike UAV. The emphasis is on large platforms with lots of payload (either fuel or weapons), not small attack drones.

And those big UAVs are not likely to fly inside a 1+15 deck cycle. Their whole CONOPS is based on either long-range penetrating strike or high-endurance loitering. In both cases, the very high sortie-generation rate stressed in the Ford and CVN-8X designs does very little to increase actual strike capacity.

 

[Tzoli]

Some little tidbit info from:

IMAGES OF WAR
AIRCRAFT CARRIERS OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY
RARE PHOTOGRAPHS FROM WARTIME ARCHIVES
by Michael Green - 2015

Nimitz-Class Replacement Carrier
With the extremely long lead-in time between the authorization of a modern carrier
and its commissioning, the US navy began thinking about the replacement for the
Nimitz-class carriers as far back as the early 1990s. The first ship in this new proposed
class of carriers would be a prototype referred to as the CVX.
In 1998 a US navy spokesman stated that the CVX prototype would be designed
with a ‘clean sheet of paper’, suggesting that it would not be an evolutionary improvement
over the previous Nimitz-class carriers but a revolutionary improvement with a
dramatic rise in operational capabilities. Also implied was the fact that the CVX might
not be nuclear-powered and would be more affordable and less costly to operate
than the preceding Nimitz class.
Despite the 1998 pronouncement by the US navy on what they visualized for the
CVX prototype, the funding necessary for the implementation of the revolutionary
ship never materialized. Instead, in 2001 the new Secretary of Defense, Donald
Rumsfeld, proposed that a prototype carrier be built as an evolutionary improvement
over the previous Nimitz-class carriers and be labelled as CVX-1. It would be
followed into production by the building of a more revolutionary improved Nimitzclass
carrier designated the CVX-2.
The US navy then decided to merge the concept of the CVX-1 and CVX-2 into a
single ship initially referred to as the CVN-21, with the numbers in the designation
code representing the twenty-first century. Building of the new carrier, named the
Gerald R. Ford and given the designation code CVN-78, began in 2007 with a tentative
commissioning date of 2016. As indicated by the ship’s letter suffix designation
code, the Gerald R. Ford is nuclear-powered.

 

[Tzoli]

Did any new info or data (dimensions armament engine power etc) emerge on the Ford class preliminaries like the CVX / CVNX studies?

 

[westlife_100]

Did any new info or data (dimensions armament engine power etc) emerge on the Ford class preliminaries like the CVX / CVNX studies?

Norman Friedman's U.S. Aircraft Carriers will be updated revised edition this year.
Hoping to contain some unpublished information about Ford class design.

 

[Hood]

Highly unlikely, you might get a couple of grainy Powerpoint illustrations at best I would say.
(From what I've heard the revised editions so far have been disappointing in updated material on recent developments)

 

[TomS]

Highly unlikely, you might get a couple of grainy Powerpoint illustrations at best I would say.
(From what I've heard the revised editions so far have been disappointing in updated material on recent developments)

The updated U.S. Destroyers has good info on DD-21/SC-21. Less on LCS, which was just happening as the book was updated.

 

[Tzoli]

Can we presume the proposed radar set as follows? :
SPY-1D/E for the AEGIS / 3D search set
SPS-69 /71 /73 for surface search complementing the SPY (Like the SPS-74 on the Ford class for the SPY-3/4

 

[sferrin]

 

[that_person]

Does anyone here actually own the updated version of Friedman's US Carriers?

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Does anyone here actually own the updated version of Friedman's US Carriers?

CVN-21/CVNX/CVN-77 is barely discussed (and not in any detail). Not worth getting the book of that's the subject your interested, and print quality and images are noticeably worse than the original issue.

 

[A Tentative Fleet Plan]

Thought that this had already been uploaded here, but apparently not. I'm sorry but I cannot remember the source.

 

[that_person]

Thought that this had already been uploaded here, but apparently not. I'm sorry but I cannot remember the source.

View attachment 711947

It’s from FAS

 

[TomS]

It’s from FAS

They got it from NAVSEA PEO Aircraft Carriers.

 

[Scott Kenny]

They got it from NAVSEA PEO Aircraft Carriers.

Are there more images of the stealth carriers?

 

[CIC-TAO]

From the 1997 CVX web:

SHIP CONCEPTS GALLERY

This information resides on a DOD interest computer.
Important conditions, restrictions, and disclaimers apply.
To make sure you are viewing the latest version of this page,
please press the Reload button.
The CVX Gallery has a number of rooms filled with exciting illustrations of CVX configurations:

Small Air Wing Studies (40 Aircraft)

CTOL--Conventional Take Off and Landing Aircraft
Conventional
Study 4 (Traditional FLT DK)
Study 4A (Study 4-Alt FLT DK #1)
Study 4B (Study 4-Alt FLT DK #2)
Nuclear
Study 4C (Traditional FLT DK)
STOVL--Short Take Off and Vertical Landing Aircraft
Conventional
Study 5 (Traditional FLT DK)
Study 5A (Study 5-Alt FLT DK #1)
Study 5B (Study 5-Alt FLT DK #2)
Study 5D (CVV Equivalent)
Nuclear
Study 5C (Traditional FLT DK)
Medium Air Wing Studies (60 Aircraft)

CTOL--Conventional Take Off and Landing Aircraft
Conventional
Study 3B (Study 3-Conventional)
Study 3B1 (CVV Equivalent)
Study 3D (Stealth Catamaran)
Nuclear
Study 3 (Traditional FLT DK)
Study 3A (Study 3-Alt FLT DK)
Study 3C (Stealth Monohull)
Large Air Wing Studies (80 Aircraft)

CTOL--Conventional Take Off and Landing Aircraft
Conventional
Study 2B (Traditional FLT DK)
Study 2B1 (CVV Equivalent)
Nuclear
Study 2 (Traditional FLT DK)
Study 2A (Study 2-Alt FLT DK)
STOVL--Short Take Off and Vertical Landing Aircraft
Conventional
Study 2C1 (STOVL FLT DK)
Nuclear
Study 2C (STOVL FLT DK)

Return to CVX Home Page



Last updated on August 27, 1997.
This site maintained by Margaret von Kolnitz (mvonkolnitz@jjma.com) and Frank McEvoy (fmcevoy@jjma.com).
URL: http://www.navsea.navy.mil/cvx/cvxhapn/gallery.html

all study image

 

[Tzoli]

Is there a site with data about them? Dimensions, displacement etc?

 

[TomS]

Is there a site with data about them? Dimensions, displacement etc?

This thread has everything I've ever seen. Page 1 especially has stats for one of the stealth carrier configurations.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Would a 'stealth' carrier design need some kind of barrier along the flight deck? Something to cover the parked aircraft while they are wating to be launched/hangered?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Would a 'stealth' carrier design need some kind of barrier along the flight deck? Something to cover the parked aircraft while they are wating to be launched/hangered?

No aircraft on deck unless in the process of launching or landing. At all.

 

[TomS]

No aircraft on deck unless in the process of launching or landing. At all.

Exactly. A couple of the paintings are from Popular Science/Mechanics and the artists didn't get this. But the operating plan here would be for an aircraft to trap on that upper axial deck and immediately be struck below using one of the two forward elevators. Likewise, aircraft would be brought op via that aft elevator for launching only when a high-tempo launch evolution was underway. More routinely, aircraft would be stored on the upper hangar deck and brought out to the side cats via those doors that line the cat trough.

It's a design that deserves to be in an anime (Macross, probably)

 

[Scott Kenny]

Exactly. A couple of the paintings are from Popular Science/Mechanics and the artists didn't get this. But the operating plan here would be for an aircraft to trap on that upper axial deck and immediately be struck below using one of the two forward elevators. Likewise, aircraft would be brought op via that aft elevator for launching only when a high-tempo launch evolution was underway. More routinely, aircraft would be stored on the upper hangar deck and brought out to the side cats via those doors that line the cat trough.

It's a design that deserves to be in an anime (Macross, probably)

I was thinking a second swing at Supersylph Yukikaze. Though the carrier scene in the original Yukikaze scared the hell out of an Aviation Ordnanceman I know...

 

[Cjc]

Artist's impression of Study 3C (Stealth Monohull) for nuclear-powered medium air wing
(60 aircraft) CTOL (Conventional Take Off and Landing) aircraft carrier.

Source: http://www.fas.org/man//dod-101/sys/ship/docs/cvx-alt/index.html

I'm really struggling to understand what the benefits of that deck aragmint is. I would guess it would allow quicker launches, but it also seems like it would make landing far more difficult and dangerous. Unless, can you land on those lower side strips?

 

[TomS]

I'm really struggling to understand what the benefits of that deck aragmint is. I would guess it would allow quicker launches, but it also seems like it would make landing far more difficult and dangerous. Unless, can you land on those lower side strips?

The goal of this design would not be to launch large cycle operations, most likely, but to launch at a lower tempo while avoiding the signature of planes on the flight deck. There would probably not be a permanent deck park on this design and total capacity would be much smaller than a classical design of the same displacement.

The main operating mode would be to move from the hangar to launch from the side "trenches," then recover on the upper axial deck and immediately strike below via the forward elevators. The upper deck cats would be used only when launching a large package (or if the other cats were "down"). That would require staging aircraft on the upper deck aft of the JBDs. And hope you don't need an immediate recovery, because the equivalent of an "emergency pull forward" probably requires striking everyone down to the hangar, or maybe stacking them along the trenches temporarily. Or rigging a barrier and hoping for the best.