Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Smart Bombs: Military, Defense and National Security

Medium Aircraft Carriers Have No Future in the U.S. Navy

Wasp-Class U.S. Navy
U.S. Marines with Bravo Company, 2d Assault Amphibious Battalion, 2d Marine Division approach the USS Wasp (LHD 1) in assault amphibious vehicles off of Onslow Beach during a three-day ship-to-shore exercise on Camp Lejeune, N.C., June 27, 2020. During the exercise, the Marines conducted amphibious maneuvers and dynamic ship-to-shore operations with the USS Wasp (LHD 1). (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Lance Cpl. Jacqueline Parsons)

Key Points and Summary: The U.S. Navy’s preference for larger aircraft carriers, such as the $13 billion Ford-class, reflects their unmatched capabilities in modern warfare. Despite past proposals for medium-sized carriers like the CVV, the Navy has consistently prioritized supercarriers for their ability to project power, carry more aircraft, and sustain extended combat operations.

-While medium carriers are cheaper and require fewer crew, they lack the Ford-class’s catapults, larger magazines, and air defense capacity.

-In high-stakes scenarios, like a conflict with China or Russia, supercarriers provide unmatched flexibility and mission adaptability, proving that for the Navy, bigger truly is better.

The Medium Aircraft Carrier Debate: Could Smaller Ships Handle China or Russia?

The United States Navy is spending tremendous amounts of money ($13 billion) to build the Ford-class supercarriers.

There has always been discussion on why the Navy doesn’t add medium-sized aircraft carriers.

During the Cold War, the Navy proposed the CVV medium-sized conventionally powered aircraft carriers as a cheaper alternative to Nimitz-class carriers. These medium-sized carriers would replace the Midway class. Presidents Ford, Carter, and Reagan initially supported this proposal. But in the end, they all shelved the idea in favor of building more Nimitz-class carriers.

Budget Cuts Were Behind the CVV Concept

In the aftermath of the Vietnam War, the size and budget of the military were slashed. Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), had difficult decisions. How can the US maintain naval power with such limited resources? 

He opted for high-end-low-end aircraft carriers. The low-end carriers (CVV) would be just over 900 feet long and carry sixty planes. These medium carriers would augment the existing supercarriers and still be able to launch all types of aircraft. 

President Ford canceled the proposed fourth Nimitz-class carrier in 1976 and approved the CVV proposal to build two medium carriers. However, in 1977, President Carter rejected the idea on the basis that smaller ships were more expensive and had a shorter life span. 

Differences Between Medium And Supercarriers

There were several pros and cons associated with each carrier, but there were some notable differences:

Two steam catapults instead of four on the larger carriers. Only two elevators, instead of the standard three on the Nimitz class. The medium CVV carriers would carry less air defenses and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) than the Nimitz class. And the ship would be conventionally powered instead of nuclear-powered. 

But the cost was a huge consideration. “One hull with a six-thousand-man crew was cheaper to operate than two hulls that required a total of nine thousand men—but collectively had just as many planes. A single carrier also required only one set of cruisers, destroyers, and frigates as escorts. Finally, larger carriers could also generate more air sorties than a smaller carrier and could operate more and larger aircraft,” wrote Kyle Mizokami.

However, the Navy veteran and Senator John McCain had a different perspective. He wrote in his “Restoring American Power” that “traditional nuclear-powered supercarriers remain necessary to deter and defeat near-peer competitors, but other day-to-day missions, such as power projection, sea lane control, close air support, or counter-terrorism, can be achieved with a smaller, lower cost, conventionally powered aircraft carrier.”

Comparing Large Carriers to Medium-sized LHAs

The Naval Institute looked at the possibility of using smaller, lighter ships, and when looking at aircraft carriers, they compared larger carriers to amphibious assault ships (LHAs). 

While LHAs are typically built for only about a third of a Ford-class carrier’s costs, several factors must be considered. The article used the DoD’s mission statement for carriers from 1996. 

“Independent of land bases, the aircraft carrier’s airwing must simultaneously perform surveillance, battle-space dominance, and strike in extended combat operations forward.”

The LHAs can’t operate airborne early-warning E-2D Hawkeye aircraft. They have no catapults to launch them and no angled deck with arresting gear to recover them. The Hawkeyes have three times the range of the Aegis radars on cruisers or destroyers and can move the center of that surveillance umbrella 10 times faster around a carrier battle group than Aegis escort ships.

Aircraft Carrier

ARABIAN SEA (May 24, 2012) The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) transits the Arabian Sea. Abraham Lincoln is deployed to the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility conducting maritime security operations, theater security cooperation efforts and support missions as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Amanda L. Kilpatrick/Released)

Battle space dominance refers to the carrier’s ability to see and defend against threats in the battlespace—under the water, on it, and above it. The Ford-class carriers can respond to threats by carrying 56 aircraft spots on the flight deck and 24 in the hangar bay.

The LHAs, however, can carry only 20 aircraft spots on the flight deck and 10 in the hangar bay. The layered defenses of a large carrier cannot be done with that few aircraft. 

Extended operation strikes come down to magazine size and how much ordinance carriers can carry. The weapons magazines on an LHA don’t even compare to that of a larger CVN, like the Ford class. The magazines on an LHA are about 16,000 ft, but those on the Nimitz- and Ford-class carriers are 375,000 ft—allowing enough weapons to conduct strike and battle-space dominance missions for two weeks of extended combat operations.

Super Hornet on Aircraft Carrier.

PHILIPPINE SEA (Sept. 29, 2021) An F/A-18E Super Hornet assigned to the “Golden Dragons” of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 192 prepares to launch off the flight deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), Sept. 29, 2021. The Carl Vinson Carrier Strike Group is on a scheduled deployment in the U.S. 7th Fleet area of operations to enhance interoperability through alliances and partnerships while serving as a ready-response force in support of a free and open Indo-Pacific region. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Isaiah Williams) 210929-N-IW069-1057

Ultimately, larger carriers give the Navy more flexibility to adapt to changing mission profiles or situations. Adding assets to a large carrier is easier than a smaller one, especially in the case of a war with China or Russia

Bigger is better

About the Author 

Steve Balestrieri is a 19FortyFive National Security Columnist. He served as a US Army Special Forces NCO and Warrant Officer. In addition to writing for 19FortyFive, he covers the NFL for PatsFans.com and is a member of the Pro Football Writers of America (PFWA). His work was regularly featured in other military publications.

Written By

Steve Balestrieri is a 1945 National Security Columnist. He has served as a US Special Forces NCO and Warrant Officer before injuries forced his early separation. In addition to writing for 1945, he covers the NFL for PatsFans.com and his work was regularly featured in the Millbury-Sutton Chronicle and Grafton News newspapers in Massachusetts.

8 Comments

8 Comments

  1. Jon

    January 24, 2025 at 6:19 am

    They aren’t called medium aircraft carriers, they’re called amphibious assault ships. The medium aircraft carriers that you’re referencing were planned in the 1970’s and never built. They don’t exist. Guess what amphibious assault ships have that supercarriers don’t. A whole pile of Marines and the assorted vehicles they use to get from the ocean to land. You know, helicopters, Ospreys, RIB’s, those big hovercraft that carry their vehicles, and what not. Unless you just plan on getting rid of or seriously downgrading the Marine Corps, the AAS’s are here to stay. Maybe next time, instead of assuming you know everything and decide to write an article, try doing some research first.

  2. Colin

    January 24, 2025 at 9:08 am

    The Navy doesn’t operate medium carrier and never has. Amphibious Assault ships are not medium carrier. You even have pictures and LHD showing the MEU in action. They have a different mission than carrier and would never dream of replacing them. They support MEU, a self contained Marine infantry battalion along with all support elements, such as artillery,close air support and everything else needed to perform a forward operation. Crazy things like this get published.

  3. Capt. Tom

    January 24, 2025 at 12:42 pm

    As the previous commenter said, these are not medium size aircraft carriers. They are amphibious assault ships. Just because they both have flat decks doesn’t make them both aircraft carriers, they serve completely different purposes. It’s comparing literally, apples to oranges. Just because they’re both round and grow on trees doesn’t make an apple and an orange the same thing. You can’t substitute one for the other. The super carrier makes a lousy amphibious assault ship and an amphibious assault chip makes a lousy super carrier they perform completely different jobs

  4. Mark

    January 24, 2025 at 3:24 pm

    While my learned fellow commenters are correct about the ship pictured with this post, it is an amphibious assault ship. First, attaching the author personnaly is not the point here, discussing the proposal is the point.

    Depending on the carrier and its mission the current CVN has a crew in excess of 5000 and an airwing of possibly 2000 additional sailors and/or Marines. There is no doubt that should the next war involve a nation with a deep water fleet our CVNs are going to be a prime target. Should that opponent sink two of those ships they American people will be screaming for something to be done.

    The US Navy has had smaller carriers in the past mainly the Jeep Carrier concept of WW II. If properly constructed and missioned there is a modern use for smaller carriers in the US deep water fleet.

    Regardless of the argument the US Navy will never give up the Nimitz and larger CVN class of ship. The admirals running todays Navy are carrier admirals, in that they either worked carriers or worked the battle groups supporting carriers, they are no different than the battleship admirals of the early 20th century.

  5. Ken Truitt

    January 24, 2025 at 6:50 pm

    It all depends whether the carrier killing missiles that the Chinese have developed actually will be effective in a conflict. If they are then we lose 13 billion worth of ship and 5,000 Sailors and other staff in one blow. Meanwhile the lhas cost 3.4 billion to make and they have significantly fewer personnel but they still can be made to pack a punch carrying up to 30 f-35bs. They would seem to be ideal for covering our butts in areas that are not involved in a central conflict

  6. Bill B

    January 24, 2025 at 10:48 pm

    A recent report by The Center for Strategic and International Studies stated that in a war with China over Taiwan, the US military would run out of certain munitions such as long range ship based missiles. Many computer models
    predict that the Chinese would win such a conflict due to the extended supply lines that the US navy would face in addition to the numerical advantage that the Chinese military has in personnel under arms as well as a decisive advantage in the number of ships.
    I would be particularly concerned that the Chinese would overwhelm the US navy’s ability to defend these huge carriers, possibly sinking
    one or more, resulting in horrific casualties.
    We have shrunk our industrial base to dangerous levels in the last 30 years by closing thousands of manufacturing sites of all kinds, resulting in the loss of a skilled workforce needed to defend the country. The Chinese have done the exact opposite, and are a manufacturing juggernaut, along with pulling ahead of the US in AI and Cyber warfare.
    Our political leaders in the mid 1990’s dropped the ball when they allowed China to join the WTO and removed barriers to trading with the Chinese who moved quickly to build thousands of factories to manufacture for the American consumer. All across the US you can see abandoned manufacturing plants and the jobs that went with them. We did it to ourselves.

  7. Sam H

    January 25, 2025 at 8:46 am

    Well, at least we still have the Army Navy game. GO ARMY!! Beat navy.

  8. Bill Swilley

    January 27, 2025 at 9:58 am

    There are definitely pros and cons for the medium carrier. I just wish the author knew the proper spelling of Ordnance (weapons) and ordinance (laws). What a jackass

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Advertisement