What might the aircraft carriers of the future look like ?

[uk 75]

big jobs?

 

[uk 75]

The size of current US carriers is derived from the cancelled America and the USN's desire to carry bombers able to nuke the USSR. When Polaris finally killed this role off (making the lovely Vigilante a recce rather than àn attacker) the size of fighters needed to defend carriers against Soviet bombers and missiles was reaching Vigilante levels. The RN envisaged CVA01 operating a large VG fighter/attacker in the 70s before reality intruded.
The Cold War ended leaving the big US carriers in the same bushfire role as the UK and French ships, hence FA18s then F35Cs.
Does the US need a Vigilante attacker for the 2030s?.

 

[shin_getter]

Reusable rocketry, aka starship, means that fighters is not adequate defense, and neither would cruisers help very much. It'd take space superiority to safely operate an carrier, and that basically takes it out from being the point of the spear.

That said, in most wars the application of violence is limited, and aircraft carriers can do that. The reduction in (lower performance) aircraft costs means that everyone can have them, if only to take on nacrosubs. Giant "attack" aircraft carriers would only be for bullying minor powers.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The size of current US carriers is derived from the cancelled America and the USN's desire to carry bombers able to nuke the USSR. When Polaris finally killed this role off (making the lovely Vigilante a recce rather than àn attacker) the size of fighters needed to defend carriers against Soviet bombers and missiles was reaching Vigilante levels. The RN envisaged CVA01 operating a large VG fighter/attacker in the 70s before reality intruded.
The Cold War ended leaving the big US carriers in the same bushfire role as the UK and French ships, hence FA18s then F35Cs.
Does the US need a Vigilante attacker for the 2030s?.

Yes.

The effective strike range of the carriers when they had A-6s was some 800nmi. When the A-6s were replaced with Hornets, that range went down to maybe 300nmi. Super Bugs made that ~400nmi. The USN wants that 500nmi back.

 

[SSgtC]

Reusable rocketry, aka starship, means that fighters is not adequate defense, and neither would cruisers help very much. It'd take space superiority to safely operate an carrier, and that basically takes it out from being the point of the spear.

That said, most wars and application of violence is limited, and aircraft carriers can do that. The reduction in (lower performance) aircraft costs means that everyone can have them, if only to take on nacrosubs. Giant "attack" aircraft carriers would only be for bullying minor powers.

The number of nations that use anti-ship ballistic missiles to track, target, and hit a carrier at sea can be counted on no fingers. The US might be able to do so if they wanted to. No one else has proven the ability to do so.

 

[_Del_]

The USN wants that 500nmi back.

It's really the only justification to have a supercarrier. And with modern threats it probably needs even more reach.
Otherwise, it's an extremely expensive sea control ship. Which isn't useless, but probably hasn't justified the money spent on them in the past decade or two.

 

[royabulgaf]

I think the future of aircraft carriers will be smaller ships, like the Turkish assault carrier Anadolu. The air wing will be mostly unmanned and the anti-air is handled by SAMs. They also have a carrier in the 60,000 ton range in the planning stage. Again, this will have mostly unmanned aircraft.

 

[Nx4eu]

Type 076 like

 

[Scott Kenny]

It's really the only justification to have a supercarrier. And with modern threats it probably needs even more reach.

Agreed, I expect that the FAXX has a combat radius of at least 1000nmi, and probably desires 1500nmi. Which isn't unreasonable for an F111 sized aircraft with similarly efficient engines, as the F-111C has an 1100nmi combat radius.

 

[shin_getter]

The number of nations that use anti-ship ballistic missiles to track, target, and hit a carrier at sea can be counted on no fingers. The US might be able to do so if they wanted to.

The future is a long time. If it is proven doable and civilization do not collapse, every competitor would get it eventually.

Agreed, I expect that the FAXX has a combat radius of at least 1000nmi, and probably desires 1500nmi. Which isn't unreasonable for an F111 sized aircraft with similarly efficient engines, as the F-111C has an 1100nmi combat radius.

At this point land masses can fight each other directly and not bother with carriers. The ultimate limitation on aircraft carriers is the size of the planet and its oceans.

At the current moment it is unclear whether to invest in carriers or invest in running TBM under some Japanese islands and fund that stealth tanker program.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

The future is a long time. If it is proven doable and civilization do not collapse, every competitor would get it eventually.

I don't think that's true once you reach a certain level of technological complexity. Otherwise, every nation in the world would have an impressive arsenal of nuclear weapons. I can't imagine seeing ballistic missiles like the DF-21 on the international market soon.

 

[Scott Kenny]

The future is a long time. If it is proven doable and civilization do not collapse, every competitor would get it eventually.

I'm quite confused on how exactly the targeting works out.

At this point land masses can fight each other directly and not bother with carriers. The ultimate limitation on aircraft carriers is the size of the planet and its oceans.

At the current moment it is unclear whether to invest in carriers or invest in running TBM under some Japanese islands and fund that stealth tanker program.

Stealth tankers need to happen regardless.

Carriers have significant advantages over subs, for example. All an SSGN can do is a single, pretty impressive strike of ~154 Tomahawks/or whatever, before it has to go back and reload. A carrier can do multiples of those.

 

[shin_getter]

I'm quite confused on how exactly the targeting works out.

Sensors are ever improving, and forces with reusable space launchers can throw up 10,000 constellations for the cost of a cruiser. A handheld nikon is enough to get good ID of Carrier sized object no problem from LEO. Radar is more involved, but tens of thousands of AESA arrays in orbit is profitable and just need some preplanning and programming to serve the other role.

The proper counter measure for the side attacking with carriers would also run a space campaign to remove the opposing constellation.

Even without space assets, hypersonic gliders can be thrown over the place with reusable rocketry.
------
Also when one side wins the space campaign, persistent space based ISR and strike is on the table. The total throw weight here may not be the greatest, but it can be allocated to the most decisive targets as terrestrial defense in depth provides no protection. Destruction of launch infrastructure and asat systems would be the first shot.

I'm not sure how one would fight a conventional war against a opponent with real time 1m resolution across your entire territory and enough processing power to OODA out of that data set.

Carriers have significant advantages over subs, for example. All an SSGN can do is a single, pretty impressive strike of ~154 Tomahawks/or whatever, before it has to go back and reload. A carrier can do multiples of those.

154 tomahawks? That is two sorties on a starship and time to target is even better. Insert your expectation for turnaround time. If the fleet size is significant due to dual use for purpose of space infrastructure, like power sats or solar shades or something, well that can quickly become the bulk of the national throw weight. If starship is built for ~250m each as some have guessed.... it is plausible to crank them out in fleets.

SSGN is also extremely inefficient solution to the underwater missile shooting problem. It makes more sense to tow float upward missile pods and preplace them, dragged by extremely cheap vehicles like crawling on 5knots with pure electrics UUV without a pressure hull. Missiles would be the expensive part of the system. "Subsurface superiority" vehicles should be ones with performance, not the missile haulers.

 

[Dilandu]

The proper counter measure for the side attacking with carriers would also run a space campaign to remove the opposing constellation.

I kinda doubt it would be possible. Destruction - or even significant degradation - of thousands-satellite constellation would require a comparable number of interceptions either with kinetics, or with directed energy weapons. Not even considering the opponent countermeasures, it would be a space battle of truly epic proportions. Hardly something that could be done merely in support of naval operations.

And even the complete elimination of enemy own constellations would not prevent him from receiving all required data from neutral nations constellations - even just from commercial ones.

Also when one side wins the space campaign, persistent space based ISR and strike is on the table. The total throw weight here may not be the greatest, but it can be allocated to the most decisive targets as terrestrial defense in depth provides no protection. Destruction of launch infrastructure and asat systems would be the first shot.

I doubt that such kind of "total space superiority" could be achieved, unless one side is very significantly more powerful than other.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Sensors are ever improving, and forces with reusable space launchers can throw up 10,000 constellations for the cost of a cruiser. A handheld nikon is enough to get good ID of Carrier sized object no problem from LEO. Radar is more involved, but tens of thousands of AESA arrays in orbit is profitable and just need some preplanning and programming to serve the other role.

The proper counter measure for the side attacking with carriers would also run a space campaign to remove the opposing constellation.

Even without space assets, hypersonic gliders can be thrown over the place with reusable rocketry.

Right, but how does the hypersonic see the target?

Thermals are just about useless due to plasma sheath temps. Radar is out due to carbon-carbon parts being reflective to radar waves. How fast can you go before the ionization blackout cuts any communications?

Hypersonics versus a fixed target is easy, we've been doing that for 60odd years now with fancy inertial units.

But hypersonics versus maneuvering targets is a different discussion.

 

[_Del_]

How fast can you go before the ionization blackout cuts any communications?

Real fast. That one is solved. The other problems asked are lasting questions that would need answers. Some potential solutions exist for some of those others to various degrees of satisfaction, but those are still open questions.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Real fast. That one is solved. The other problems asked are lasting questions that would need answers. Some potential solutions exist for some of those others to various degrees of satisfaction, but those are still open questions.

Yeah, I'm seeing "off-weapon targeting tells hypersonic where it's going" as the least-bad targeting method.

Which implies people identifying and engaging those off-weapon targeting assets.

 

[shin_getter]

Hypersonic is the delivery method, and it is not the entire flight regime. You can skip out into space or burn energy to slow down before turning on the sensors. The point is to provide a credible threat while being extremely expensive to intercept. Since the time to target is short and one can always reinforce with a stream of sensors, only a short snapshot is needed to complete the kill chain.

You can also mix in cheap gliders without high performance sensors, this is very neat if it is order of magnitude cheaper than interceptors. The point is that you can likely figure out where the carrier is just by looking at what is being shot down and win virtual attrition by draining interceptors from fleets. If the defender tries to get lucky by intercepting less and then you can increase the fraction sensors shot at the problem.

Alternatively just target the ABM escorts. If the escorts rely on active sensors, easy targeting. If the escort works on passive sensors (if it can be done at all) than one can surprise them with active radar in poor weather or something, and surface ships no matter how stealthy still leave wakes. High energy interceptor projectiles are also likely easy to detect at range.

This become much more difficult if the carrier defense includes space based top cover. That said I haven't figured out how exactly does "contested" space warfare could work.

 

[A_Random_Guy]

Hypersonic is the delivery method, and it is not the entire flight regime. You can skip out into space or burn energy to slow down before turning on the sensors. The point is to provide a credible threat while being extremely expensive to intercept. Since the time to target is short and one can always reinforce with a stream of sensors, only a short snapshot is needed to complete the kill chain.

You can also mix in cheap gliders without high performance sensors, this is very neat if it is order of magnitude cheaper than interceptors. The point is that you can likely figure out where the carrier is just by looking at what is being shot down and win virtual attrition by draining interceptors from fleets. If the defender tries to get lucky by intercepting less and then you can increase the fraction sensors shot at the problem.

Alternatively just target the ABM escorts. If the escorts rely on active sensors, easy targeting. If the escort works on passive sensors (if it can be done at all) than one can surprise them with active radar in poor weather or something, and surface ships no matter how stealthy still leave wakes. High energy interceptor projectiles are also likely easy to detect at range.

This become much more difficult if the carrier defense includes space based top cover. That said I haven't figured out how exactly does "contested" space warfare could work.

I find the notion of a cheap HGV fairly laughable. Sure you don’t have a terminal guidance system. You still need your INS, datalink, launch vehicle, and oh yeah, the extremely complex and expensive glider body itself. If your idea is to use them as pen-aids there’s far better ways of going about that.

Not every escort needs to be running their radars. Both detection and defense can easily come from off-board (and sometimes airborne) sources. Network-centric warfare works on the defense as well.

Trying to get a weapons grade track on a ship based on it launching defensive weapons, in time to redirect your own warheads (which are likely in their terminal stages) is easily an order of magnitude more difficult task than intercepting said warheads. And if you say “just launch another wave” ask why you didn’t launch that with the first wave to give a higher PK against your primary target.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Hypersonic is the delivery method, and it is not the entire flight regime. You can skip out into space or burn energy to slow down before turning on the sensors. The point is to provide a credible threat while being extremely expensive to intercept. Since the time to target is short and one can always reinforce with a stream of sensors, only a short snapshot is needed to complete the kill chain.

You still need to get the glider within kinematic footprint of the target. And I suspect that's about as small a circle around the flight path as the defensive missiles coming up have.

Remember, even MIRVs slow to Mach 2 at about 20,000ft. (Of course, that's ~5nmi from impact, depending on slant ranges)

 

[A_Random_Guy]

Th fundamental issue with smaller carriers is that they’re not a whole lot cheaper but they are a good deal less flexible due to their size. If you have the budget and shipbuilding capacity (like the U.S.) bigger is significantly better.

People often point to the QEs vs the Nimitzes/Fords to justify smaller carriers when that really is an issue of nuclear vs conventional propulsion which drives up cost and crew requirements for the CVNs. A better comparison would be CDG vs Nimitz or CVV vs JFK. There, the economies of size are readily apparent.

Now there is a decent argument to be had for nuclear vs conventional but that is fundamentally dependent on the concept of operations for a carrier. For the USN nuke propulsion is probably worth it given the time units spend in far flung regions like the Indian Ocean or sprinting between crisis zones. For a nation like China it might make less sense due to operations being focused on the 1st and 2nd island chains though this depends on foreign policy.

As for drone carriers these are the successors to the CVS role, focused on ISR and maritime patrol with light strike and offensive operations as a secondary capability (their ISR being used to direct attacks by other platforms). They really aren’t a replacement for the traditional “CVA(N) type” of carrier in popular imagination.

Such “Attack Carriers” as are operated by France, the UK, India, China, and the US (Russia having a somewhat halfway-house carrier doctrine), are necessarily dependent on size since it allows higher performance strike aircraft, increased munitions loads (and thus staying power), and a higher operational tempo (through more strike aircraft and/or through improved weapon handling).

Additionally, big carriers bring an important thing, a Combat Air Patrol and AEW&C. These have been shown in Ukraine, The Red Sea, and the Israel-Iran scuffles to be incredibly effective against conventional CMs and Drones. As such, to attack units under a CVBG umbrella an adversary is pretty much forced to use Ballistic Missiles or Hypersonics lest they be countered with comparative ease. This places significant costs on the attacker and is often glossed over in discussions of ASBMs and carriers.

Another matter is heavily armed aircraft carriers. I frankly do not think this is going to take off (pardon the pun). Point defenses work fine but there is only so much space in dockyards and ports and you really want to maximize the aircraft carrying part of your Aircraft Carrier. Unlike aircraft operations, VLS cells do not significantly benefit from scale when you can use offboard sensors, so spreading them out among more ships (some likely minimally/optionally manned) is a reasonable move for survivability and flexibility purposes.

As for the future design of carriers? We’ll probably see more drone carriers but as mentioned these are not replacements for larger carriers. Larger carriers will stick around and may even grow in size depending on airwing makeup and airframe sizes. Ultimately major changes in design are likely to be oriented around improving sortie generation rates (as is the case of the Fords) with some comparatively minor changes meant to improve survivability as situations evolve.

The most salient changes will be in the aircraft and weapons carried by them. Perhaps air-to-air missiles that have an ABM mode so they can contribute to the ABM defenses of the battle group. Perhaps (more) airborne DEWs to exploit the thinner air of the upper atmosphere. But these are outside the scope of the discussion.

 

[SSgtC]

Now there is a decent argument to be had for nuclear vs conventional but that is fundamentally dependent on the concept of operations for a carrier. For the USN nuke propulsion is probably worth it given the time units spend in far flung regions like the Indian Ocean or sprinting between crisis zones. For a nation like China it might make less sense due to operations being focused on the 1st and 2nd island chains though this depends on foreign policy.

Actually, the high sustained speed and time spent on foreign stations are not really meaningful drivers for nuclear carriers. While speed to deploy was a consideration when the United States was also building nuclear powered escorts, it was a small consideration. The main driver for going nuclear was aviation storage space.

By getting rid of the oil fired boilers, all those now empty bunker spaces could be converted to hold JP-5. Most of the former boiler spaces could be converted to magazine spaces to hold bombs, missiles, and rockets. What this meant in practice is that a nuclear carrier could sustain high tempo operations for between 5 and 6 days before needing to pull off the line to replenish stores, verses the 2.5 days that a conventional carrier could manage before needing to hit the supply ships.

And that's the other thing. Just because your carrier is nuclear doesn't mean you don't need fleet oilers and other supply ships with you. Even the nuke boat is hitting its local at sea Walmart every few days to bring on board fresh stores. The main driver today is cost. Nuclear boats are very much more expensive than an equivalent sized conventional carrier. And the crew to man them are equally expensive (and hard to retain). Nuclear trained personal are in high demand in the civilian world. Just keeping enough nucs on your carrier requires a constant stream of new bodies who take years to train.

 

[A_Random_Guy]

Actually, the high sustained speed and time spent on foreign stations are not really meaningful drivers for nuclear carriers. While speed to deploy was a consideration when the United States was also building nuclear powered escorts, it was a small consideration. The main driver for going nuclear was aviation storage space.

By getting rid of the oil fired boilers, all those now empty bunker spaces could be converted to hold JP-5. Most of the former boiler spaces could be converted to magazine spaces to hold bombs, missiles, and rockets. What this meant in practice is that a nuclear carrier could sustain high tempo operations for between 5 and 6 days before needing to pull off the line to replenish stores, verses the 2.5 days that a conventional carrier could manage before needing to hit the supply ships.

And that's the other thing. Just because your carrier is nuclear doesn't mean you don't need fleet oilers and other supply ships with you. Even the nuke boat is hitting its local at sea Walmart every few days to bring on board fresh stores. The main driver today is cost. Nuclear boats are very much more expensive than an equivalent sized conventional carrier. And the crew to man them are equally expensive (and hard to retain). Nuclear trained personal are in high demand in the civilian world. Just keeping enough nucs on your carrier requires a constant stream of new bodies who take years to train.

The fuel/ordnance advantages are not nearly that dramatic.

Constellation vs Enterprise saw aviation fuel store grow from 2 million to 2.5 million gals but ordnance (1,800 tons) stayed the same and Enterprise had about 8,000 tons on the Constellation.

The Nimitz improved this up to 2500-3000 tons of ordnance (with about 2.7million gallons of fuel) but this is with larger and thus more space efficient reactors and with 3,000 more tons on the Enterprise.

Nuclear reactors are heavy and take up a lot of space. Gas turbines and marine diesel engines are perfectly viable alternatives to a nuclear reactor when combined with EMALS and IEP. They do put an increased burden on resupply but they do not place much if any burden on flight operations (except in so far as that general logistical burden interferes with it, which in turn depends on CONOPS).

 

[Scott Kenny]

Notice that the air wing of a carrier grows a LOT faster than displacement increases. Compare QE-class to Nimitz. QE has an air wing of maybe 40, while Nimitz has an air wing of over 70.

 

[SSgtC]

Notice that the air wing of a carrier grows a LOT faster than displacement increases. Compare QE-class to Nimitz. QE has an air wing of maybe 40, while Nimitz has an air wing of over 70.

And the Nimitz sails fairly light in the air wing department compared to what she carried during the Cold War. Since the Cold War ended, American super carriers have landed 2+ squadrons worth of strike-fighters. In the Mid 70s, before the anti submarine squadrons were put on the CVAs, a typical American super carrier CVW went to sea with 2xF-4 or F-14 squadrons, 1xA-6 squadron, 3xA-7 squadrons, 1xE-2 squadron, 1xSH-3 squadron, 1xRA-5 or RF-8 detachment, 1xEA-6 or EKA-3 detachment, 1xC-2 detachment and 4-6 KA-6 tankers operated by the A-6 squadron. All told, some 90+ aircraft.

With the addition of the S-3 Viking to the big decks, one squadron of A-7s was landed to make room (one 10 plane S-3 squadron replaced one 12 plane A-7 squadron). And once the Cold War ended, the S-3s were landed as the airframes timed out and the dedicated reconnaissance aircraft were also sent into the bone yard (mostly because the Vigilante and the Crusader were fucking ancient by then). Then the A-6 squadron was landed as they aged out (and with them went the KA-6 which were all almost literally falling apart from use). All told, American carriers have dropped 30+ aircraft from their air wings since the Cold War.

 

[Yellow Palace]

Notice that the air wing of a carrier grows a LOT faster than displacement increases. Compare QE-class to Nimitz. QE has an air wing of maybe 40, while Nimitz has an air wing of over 70.

While this is definitely true - compare CVV to NIMITZ - there's also a doctrine element. When the RN was proposing ESSEX-sized carriers in the 1950s and 1960s, they were looking at smaller air wings than the USN was putting on the ESSEX class.

 

[SSgtC]

While this is definitely true - compare CVV to NIMITZ - there's also a doctrine element. When the RN was proposing ESSEX-sized carriers in the 1950s and 1960s, they were looking at smaller air wings than the USN was putting on the ESSEX class.

Keep in mind, the USN was pretty much considered to be insane for doing some of the things they did at sea during this period. The Essex class were stuffed to the gills during the Vietnam era. The Navy was squeezing roughly 80 aircraft onto 44,000 tons of ship. The class was only a few planes away from being deck locked they were so full

 

[Yellow Palace]

Keep in mind, the USN was pretty much considered to be insane for doing some of the things they did at sea during this period. The Essex class were stuffed to the gills during the Vietnam era. The Navy was squeezing roughly 80 aircraft onto 44,000 tons of ship. The class was only a few planes away from being deck locked they were so full

No argument there - but it was a thing that they decided to do, which the RN decided not to do. Even when they eased off, they were happy with much denser decks than the RN. At one point the doctrinal difference equated to an RN carrier having 60% the capacity of an equivalent sized USN carrier.

Another carrier operator could do something different - or an existing operator could change their doctrine.

 

[CV12Hornet]

The RN could squeeze in more aircraft in an emergency, as they did during Suez. Albion and Bulwark normally operated with only two fighter squadrons, but for Suez both embarked three. Eagle normally embarked three, but went to sea with five.

This capability was gradually lost as carrier aircraft got bigger - while CVA-01 would likely retain the capacity to add a squadron in wartime, the existing carriers were getting full to their limits. I think if you added any more aircraft to Ark Royal's final air wing you'd wind up in a similar position to Vietnam-era Essexes.

 

[Scott Kenny]

While this is definitely true - compare CVV to NIMITZ - there's also a doctrine element. When the RN was proposing ESSEX-sized carriers in the 1950s and 1960s, they were looking at smaller air wings than the USN was putting on the ESSEX class.

Granted, but that's why I'm comparing with the GWOT era air wings, which didn't have a dedicated recon squadron/detachment, refueler squadron, or S-3 squadron.

As opposed to the mid-1980s "height of the cold war" air wings, that IIRC also added one additional Fighter squadron and one additional attack squadron to the list, and were running 90-100 airframes.

 

[SSgtC]

Granted, but that's why I'm comparing with the GWOT era air wings, which didn't have a dedicated recon squadron/detachment, refueler squadron, or S-3 squadron.

As opposed to the mid-1980s "height of the cold war" air wings, that IIRC also added one additional Fighter squadron and one additional attack squadron to the list, and were running 90-100 airframes.

For reference, this was Theodore Roosevelt's Air Wing during Desert Storm. She went to the Gulf with 2xF-14 squadrons, 2xF/A-18 squadrons, 2xA-6 squadrons, 1xE-2 squadron, 1xS-3 squadron, 1xSH-3 squadron, 1 EA-6 squadron, and 1xC-2 detachment (plus another likely 4-6 KA-6 tankers). All told, she deployed with roughly 100 aircraft on board.

While this is her Air Wing from her 2008/2009 Med cruise: 4xF/A-18 squadrons, 1xE-2 squadron, 1xEA-6 squadron, 1xSH-60 squadron, and 1xC-2 detachment. Total? About 65 aircraft.