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.
Medium Aircraft Carrier: 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 Super Aircraft Carriers
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.
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.
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.
