Monday, February 11, 2008

Dealing from a New Deck

The great carrier debate is over. While we are moving forward on the next-generation super carrier, I've doubted its survivability or value in a networked naval world. Shouldn't we plan for more but less capable platforms? Yet once you get to a certain size of ship, economy of scale argues for going the whole way to big.

I've noted that we essentially have a small-carrier fleet, too, in the form of our amphibious warship decks for the Marines. Put Harriers and helicopters on them and they match the carriers of any other nation but France. F-35s will make them even more potent. And since I think the amphibious warfare mission for the Marines isn't as central as it once was, these decks would be fine offensive warships properly fitted out.

As it seemed when I first heard of them, our next generation of amphibious decks seem to assume use as a small carrier:

Designed to project power and maintain presence, LHA-Replacement (LHA-R) large deck amphibious assault ships (also known as LH-X) will replace the LHA-1 Tarawa Class. They’re based on the more modern LHD Wasp Class design, but remove the LHD’s landing craft and well deck. The end product is essentially a revival of the World War 2 escort carrier concept, with integrated berthing, cargo, and light vehicle spaces for Marines. LHA-R ships will be almost 80 feet longer than USS Wasp and 10 feet wider, since they don’t have to fit through the Panama Canal. As a result, these ships will weigh in at 50,000 tons/ 45,700t fully loaded rather than 42,400t full load for LHD 8. Though DID uses the term “escort carriers” due to the size of their aerial complement, note that their overall displacement will be larger than France’s 43,000t FNS Charles De Gaulle nuclear powered aircraft carrier.


Note the picture with the article:



Those are F-35s pictured on the deck (I assume the STOVL version).

These ships will work as amphibious warfare platforms and also as an air component for an Expeditionary Strike Group when a carrier isn't available. Indeed, they will serve well as a carrier in a less stressful environment, which will free our super carriers for missions to destroy the enemy's fleet. Heck, should we find that our huge carriers truly don't fit into a network-centric naval environment, we'll already have our smaller back-up aerial platforms in service.

The great carrier debate is over. We're going to have super carriers and smaller carriers.