Alternatively, since the Nimitz-class carriers have large flight decks and hangars plus accommodations for thousands of personnel, the Navy could repurpose these vessels into amphibious assault ships (LHA). Much larger and faster than an America-class LHA, a repurposed, nuclear powered Nimitz would carry, when compared to current or planned amphibious assault ships, more Marines and more of that Service’s types of aircraft (F-35B, CH-53, and MV-22). From a budgetary perspective, the Navy would realize savings from not having to build new amphibious assault ships, and the Marine Corps would have use of the ultimate LHA.
Five years ago I suggested something a little more comprehensive by advocating building more Ford class carriers to serve as both strike carriers and as amphibious warfare ships to replace the smaller Navy amphibs that are being tasked as reserve light carriers.
If you add up all our big deck carriers and big deck amphibs, I figured you could get more capacity with a smaller total number of Ford hulls--some optimized for strike and others as amphibs--that would add flexibility to the fleet by being usable in their non-primary role, depending on the missions the Navy has to achieve at the moment.
I tried getting an article on that subject published last year but it was rejected. I'll try again.
Certainly, using a Nimitz hull that would otherwise be retired would be a good way to test the proposal.
Oddly for an Army guy, I seem to be big on converting warships, like this proposal and this one (membership required), both published.
It seems odd that the author of the initial article didn't cite World War II APDs (small armed amphibious transports) converted from old destroyers and destroyer escorts as a massive example of repurposing warships, which was the basis of that second proposal behind a pay wall.
