Air wing for an American CVL (post Cold War)

[Burton K Wheeler]

Introduction could be copied from my "A Helicopter for the USMC" thread: https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/a-helicopter-for-the-usmc.428328/

I'm plunging the depths of my own ignorance quite deeply here. Anyway, for a bit of background the POD is a long messy Iraq occupation following the Gulf War in 1991, which prevents the US military from reaping the peace dividend of the 1990's as much as OTL.

The Navy and Air Force use the extra funding to pay for a high/low mix of forces, with high-dollar programs being balanced with off the shelf simpler programs. The Navy goes more in on littoral policing, with closer cooperation with the Marines and Coast Guard. The Navy commits to keeping 9 MEUs afloat, with four ships (1 LHD, 1 LPH, 2 LSD or other cargo staging ship), as well as entire Marine companies associated with carrier battle groups. The Marines have a full wartime structure of 6 MEBs (plus the 9 MEUs) instead of 3 MEFs. Three MEBs are associated with the three MPSRONs and have standing headquarters at Okinawa, Rota, and Bahrain, one each is amphibious on the East and West coasts, and one, in the USMC Reserve, is associated with the prepositioned stocks in Norway.

The Navy of the Cold War wanted 12-13 carriers at least to meet its needs. The current Navy is no less busy, but reduces to the OTL 10 CVNs, and launches 7 CVL, approximately the size of the old Essex class or the current America. This means the Navy can have three carrier battle groups on station at all times (one in the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf, one in the western Pacific, and one in the Med or Atlantic), with two smaller battlegroups either accompanying the CVN or dispersed.

The CVN air wing is much like the Cold War. Two VF(fighter) squadrons with modernized F-14s, one VA(attack) squadron with either updated A6 Intruders or more Tomcats, and two VFA(fighter/attack) squadrons with F18s. The Tomcat/Intruder modernization programs replace the OTL F-18E/F Super Hornet and the Navy plans to start taking delivery of the NATF, a Tomcat-like aircraft based on the F-22 airframe, in the mid-2000s. The Hornets will eventually be replaced by a subsonic vectored-thrust SVTOL (S if V isn't practical) which also replaces the Harrier and A-10 Warthog. The E-2 Hawkeye, EA-6 Prowler, S-3 Viking, and C-2 Greyhound detachments on the ship are all replaced by modernized aircraft based on a Common Support Aircraft (probably an updated Hawkeye or Viking airframe). Also a mix of helicopters for various purposes. The Osprey is on the table, and the Navy has Sikorsky S-92s as well as Blackhawks.

Here is a very open ended question:

What does the air wing of this CVL look like? It can probably carry 30-40 aircraft (both fixed and rotary wing). If it has a catapult, it can operate Hornets, and Intruders worked fine off Essex decks as well. The CSA and Tomcat might be able to fly off a properly configured CVL, but they should probably be associated with the CVN instead.

Associated questions:

What is the structure of Marine Air?

OTL the Marines have 10 VMFA with Hornets and 4 VMFA(AW) with Super Hornets (replaced Intruders), plus 3 offensive EW squadrons with EA-6G. These aircraft go as part of Navy air wings, which they started doing in the mid-90's. A MEU ACE consists of a HMM of 12 Sikorsky S-92, a HMMA detachment of 6 AH-60, and HHM detachment of 4 CH-53, and a VMA detachment of 6 AV-8B. In the 4 prepositioned MEBs, the Marines use ground-based rather than carrier-based aircraft, so there are A-10s instead of AV-8s (4 squadrons A-10, 5 squadrons AV-8). I haven't thought of how the whole MEB ACE should look, but keep in mind that there are four ground-based MEBs and two amphibious.

It occurs to me that one full squadron of 18 (rather than the OTL 12) Hornets and possibly a VMFA(AW) det of 6 aircraft could go on each CVL. This means the CVL would accompany the amphibious MEB if it ever has to do an amphibious assault. The rest of the air wing could consist of some mix of USMC and Navy helicopters. The V-22 honestly looks like it could be useful in this context. While it can't carry much cargo and it's worse than a helicopter at helicopter jobs, it can go pretty far pretty fast if it's just carrying people.

What does the Marine aviation detachment that accompanies the FAST-like Company on the CVN look like?

I haven't given much thought to Navy escorts, though I think Flight 2 Arleigh Burkes would replace the Ticos as AAW escorts starting in the late 1990's, there would be a Spruance replacement class for ASW escorts, and then a new FFG class (not the thrice-damned LCS) would be available as a low-end ship. My thought is that one platoon is on the carrier itself, one split into 13-man squads on the three accompanying FFGs, and maybe one on the Ticonderoga cruiser?

Marines always deploy as a MAGTF, and even if it's only a company-sized element, it needs air support. I feel like either 6 V-22 or 6 S-92 would be the best option. That's enough to carry two platoons worth of reinforced rifle squads.

Anyway, post Cold War naval aviation enthusiasts, please weigh in. You can shoot holes in any of this.

 

[CV12Hornet]

The Hornets will eventually be replaced by a subsonic vectored-thrust SVTOL (S if V isn't practical) which also replaces the Harrier and A-10 Warthog.

Why a subsonic plane? If you're replacing a fast mover like the Hornet, you're going to want a fast mover, especially since this plane would make up a majority of the CVL's air wing.

What does the air wing of this CVL look like? It can probably carry 30-40 aircraft (both fixed and rotary wing). If it has a catapult, it can operate Hornets, and Intruders worked fine off Essex decks as well. The CSA and Tomcat might be able to fly off a properly configured CVL, but they should probably be associated with the CVN instead.

Call it two Hornet squadrons, an Intruder squadron, two AWACS, and helicopters at max. Or swap out one of the striker squadrons for jammer/tanker support.

I haven't given much thought to Navy escorts, though I think Flight 2 Arleigh Burkes would replace the Ticos as AAW escorts starting in the late 1990's, there would be a Spruance replacement class for ASW escorts, and then a new FFG class (not the thrice-damned LCS) would be available as a low-end ship. My thought is that one platoon is on the carrier itself, one split into 13-man squads on the three accompanying FFGs, and maybe one on the Ticonderoga cruiser?

Why replace the Ticos starting the late 1990s? The Mk. 26 ships, certainly, but at, say, 1998, then the VLS Ticos range from 12 to 4 years old.

Why an ASW-focused Spruance replacement? Burkes with a flight deck will do just fine; the class has the sonar from the start and via the magic of VLS has all the weapons necessary except the helicopters, which the Flight IIA takes care of just fine.

Edit: double-checking some things, I'm not sure the upgraded Tomcat/Intruder path is really viable. You'd need a point of divergence in the late 1980s rather than early 1990s to get them. The A-12 program seriously fucked up the Navy's air wings.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

Uh last time the USN tried to design a smaller carrier, they ended up with something over 70% the pricetag of an all up Nuclear Supercarrier for about half the capability, or over 90% the cost of a Conventional Supercarrier. This is even less capable than that but probably cheaper, but I imagine you are talking half the price of a CVN for a third the capability at best. Ops costs are cheaper, but you have to either accept battlegroups that can't operate independently, or you drive up costs that way by having to pay for escorts. Basically for your 7 CVLBGs you could probably get 4 CVNBGs or 3 and a bunch of extra escorts. Still I presume you have a reason for that

Anyways assume 40 aircraft, 2 squadrons of 12 Hornets, 3 Hawkeyes, that's 27, 3 Helos for support, that's 30, leaving 10 left, either 10 Intruders or 5 Prowlers and 5 Tankers or 10 Common support aircraft ASW variant. Personally I would lean towards ASW if you want to deploy them independently, you can't get a real decent strike (figure 1 hornet squad for CAP, 1 escort, have only one squadron for strike, no tankers so short ranged and no EW, or have tankers and EW but send Hornets in unescorted) from integrated resouces

 

[Matt]

Oh I didn't realize the CVLs were completely separate hulls from the LHDs. Are these ships CATOBAR?

Tomcats were too big to be used on the late service Essex or Midways, so they'd be a tough fit on a CVL. The carrier and battle group will need some air cover, so there should be a squadron of Hornets. Hopefully the Hornets aren't falling apart by the time they're replaced in the 2020s. Maybe the lines can be held open 'll get with more blocks a la the F16.

Maybe think about two squadrons of combat capable T45 for light attack. You can sub them out for Harriers as needed, or for extra fun crossdeck them from the FAA as they reduce their decks.

I'm not sure on what to do with AEW on these ships. The E2 may also be too big. I'd include a squadron of helicopters in a sea control squadron (HSC?).

I'll go over the Marine stuff when I get to my desk at work.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

Why a subsonic plane? If you're replacing a fast mover like the Hornet, you're going to want a fast mover, especially since this plane would make up a majority of the CVL's air wing.


Call it two Hornet squadrons, an Intruder squadron, two AWACS, and helicopters at max. Or swap out one of the striker squadrons for jammer/tanker support.

Subsonic is because the F-35B has taught us you can either have VTOL or supersonic, but not both. I understand that doctrinally, the F-18s, like the A-7 and F-4s they replaced, are supposed to be doing close in fighter and attack work while the big dogs handle far and fast. I suppose it would be possible to have separate F-18 and AV-8 replacements, but from the Marine perspective, the SVTOL is more useful than the supersonic.

If I go with the big Marine squadron idea, I could have one Marine F-18 squadron, one Marine Intruder detachment, and one Navy F-18 squadron. I have only the foggiest idea of what this ship looks like, but I suppose if it has a catapult it could launch a Hawkeye from a ~900-foot deck. The Navy F-18s could be replaced by a Marine CSA squadron of about 6 aircraft that can do the jamming and refuelling.

Why replace the Ticos starting the late 1990s? The Mk. 26 ships, certainly, but at, say, 1998, then the VLS Ticos range from 12 to 4 years old.

I mean building, not replacing the actual ships. I can't figure out exactly what you'd build a cruiser for if the Burke is doing the AAW escort job. I've heard it suggested that the cruiser niche could be a sub-carrier capital ship job, basically a big ship with armor and a few helicopters that can do independent operations, but this Navy has the CVLs and 40+ amphibs, so no shortage of big ships with big decks.

Why an ASW-focused Spruance replacement? Burkes with a flight deck will do just fine; the class has the sonar from the start and via the magic of VLS has all the weapons necessary except the helicopters, which the Flight IIA takes care of just fine.

My thought was that the escorts should be more specialized, but I suppose if you have a viable (non-LCS) replacement for the Oliver Hazard Perry class, there's no need for a new Spruance

Edit: double-checking some things, I'm not sure the upgraded Tomcat/Intruder path is really viable. You'd need a point of divergence in the late 1980s rather than early 1990s to get them. The A-12 program seriously fucked up the Navy's air wings.

The Navy was originally planning on replacing the Tomcat with a variant of the Advanced Tactical Fighter, starting in 1986. The navalized version of the F-22 was in development, but the Navy dropped it in early 1991. When the A-12 was cancelled later in 1991, the Navy had nothing and had to decide between a modernized Tomcat and the Super Bug as the F14/A6 replacement. They chose the Rhino because it was cheaper. In this scenario, the Navy sticks with the NATF, so when the A-12 is cancelled, it is able to build a B variant to replace the Intruder. As it was, the F-14 stayed in service until 2006 and the EA-6 is still soldiering along in the Marines. These aren't new-build Tomcats and Intruders from 1991-2005, they're the same old warhorses. The Intruders might have to be scrapped prior to the mid-2000's, though.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

Oh I didn't realize the CVLs were completely separate hulls from the LHDs. Are these ships CATOBAR?

Tomcats were too big to be used on the late service Essex or Midways, so they'd be a tough fit on a CVL. The carrier and battle group will need some air cover, so there should be a squadron of Hornets. Hopefully the Hornets aren't falling apart by the time they're replaced in the 2020s. Maybe the lines can be held open 'll get with more blocks a la the F16.

Maybe think about two squadrons of combat capable T45 for light attack. You can sub them out for Harriers as needed, or for extra fun crossdeck them from the FAA as they reduce their decks.

I'm not sure on what to do with AEW on these ships. The E2 may also be too big. I'd include a squadron of helicopters in a sea control squadron (HSC?).

I'll go over the Marine stuff when I get to my desk at work.

I figure this CVL would be commissioned in 1998 at the very earliest and more likely the mid-2000's. I'm using the Essex as a rule of thumb, so I was figuring Tomcats were out, and I think forcing the CSA to fit on this smaller carrier would be a mistake. I'd like to get away with not using CATOBAR if at all possible. Maybe a V-22 as the CSA platform for these smaller carriers? You'd wind up procuring less than a hundred, which would make the already obscene unit price even worse. That would mean the Marines would need a AV-8 replacement as well. The T-45 or a neo-Skyhawk is the model for what I was picturing as the F-18 replacement, but I'm not sure we can fit the development cycle of something even that simple into 10 years.

Uh last time the USN tried to design a smaller carrier, they ended up with something over 70% the pricetag of an all up Nuclear Supercarrier for about half the capability, or over 90% the cost of a Conventional Supercarrier. This is even less capable than that but probably cheaper, but I imagine you are talking half the price of a CVN for a third the capability at best. Ops costs are cheaper, but you have to either accept battlegroups that can't operate independently, or you drive up costs that way by having to pay for escorts. Basically for your 7 CVLBGs you could probably get 4 CVNBGs or 3 and a bunch of extra escorts. Still I presume you have a reason for that

Anyways assume 40 aircraft, 2 squadrons of 12 Hornets, 3 Hawkeyes, that's 27, 3 Helos for support, that's 30, leaving 10 left, either 10 Intruders or 5 Prowlers and 5 Tankers or 10 Common support aircraft ASW variant. Personally I would lean towards ASW if you want to deploy them independently, you can't get a real decent strike (figure 1 hornet squad for CAP, 1 escort, have only one squadron for strike, no tankers so short ranged and no EW, or have tankers and EW but send Hornets in unescorted) from integrated resouces

I was thinking that the important thing is not so much construction cost as crew size, which conventional power and smaller size should help with. 70% of the cost is acceptable, even if the wing is only half the size of the CVN. This thing frees up the CVN.

Really good breakdown on the wing, and I think you're right that ASW would be the best use for the CSA on this thing.

 

[Matt]

Anyone know if you can launch a Hornet off a ski-ramp? Hornet may not even be possible if it's not CATOBAR.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

Anyone know if you can launch a Hornet off a ski-ramp? Hornet may not even be possible if it's not CATOBAR.

Boeing told the Indian Navy that it can:

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...compatible-with-indian-navy-ski-jump-carriers

Rafales and Flankers can, why not a Hornet? Probably not with full payload, though.

 

[SsgtC]

I'd like to get away with not using CATOBAR if at all possible.

If you're building something the size of the Essex-class, you might as well go CATOBAR. Otherwise there really isn't any point in building the thing in the first place. In the grand scheme of things, adding cats and traps to it is a miniscule cost for a huge upgrade in capability. You could even go cheap with it and put only 3 wires for recovery and 2 bow cats, instead of the 4 wires on the CVNs and 4 cats.

Boeing told the Indian Navy that it can:

Boeing told the Indian Navy the SUPER HORNET can. Not the standard bug. And if the Navy is not going to the 18E/F, the super bug never gets built. It's far too expensive for the Corps even in OTL. ITTL, with a hugely smaller buy, it's cost just trippled. The Corps wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Subsonic is because the F-35B has taught us you can either have VTOL or supersonic, but not both. I understand that doctrinally, the F-18s, like the A-7 and F-4s they replaced, are supposed to be doing close in fighter and attack work while the big dogs handle far and fast. I suppose it would be possible to have separate F-18 and AV-8 replacements, but from the Marine perspective, the SVTOL is more useful than the supersonic.

If I go with the big Marine squadron idea, I could have one Marine F-18 squadron, one Marine Intruder detachment, and one Navy F-18 squadron. I have only the foggiest idea of what this ship looks like, but I suppose if it has a catapult it could launch a Hawkeye from a ~900-foot deck. The Navy F-18s could be replaced by a Marine CSA squadron of about 6 aircraft that can do the jamming and refuelling.

Two problems. First, the F-35B proves nothing of the kind; for all the program mismanagement, the planes themselves work just fine, and the Soviets were working on a supersonic V/STOL plane themselves. Second, it's not just the Marines that need to replace F/A-18s; the Navy needs to replace it in their own squadrons, there are going to be separate F/A-18 and AV-8 replacement programs if you split things (and I think you should; mixing the STOVL requirement into an F-16/F-18 replacement was not a good idea, IMO) regardless.

And if you're wondering what the ship will look like, think something akin to a somewhat larger, sanely designed Charles de Gaulle.

I mean building, not replacing the actual ships. I can't figure out exactly what you'd build a cruiser for if the Burke is doing the AAW escort job. I've heard it suggested that the cruiser niche could be a sub-carrier capital ship job, basically a big ship with armor and a few helicopters that can do independent operations, but this Navy has the CVLs and 40+ amphibs, so no shortage of big ships with big decks.

Oh, certainly. But there is a reason to build a cruiser even with the Burkes: the AMDR radar, which simply doesn't fit in a Burke hull. But that's a good ten years in the future, so not something to worry about yet.

My thought was that the escorts should be more specialized, but I suppose if you have a viable (non-LCS) replacement for the Oliver Hazard Perry class, there's no need for a new Spruance

Exactly. Don't replace the "low" in a "Hi-lo" mix with "high".

The Navy was originally planning on replacing the Tomcat with a variant of the Advanced Tactical Fighter, starting in 1986. The navalized version of the F-22 was in development, but the Navy dropped it in early 1991. When the A-12 was cancelled later in 1991, the Navy had nothing and had to decide between a modernized Tomcat and the Super Bug as the F14/A6 replacement. They chose the Rhino because it was cheaper. In this scenario, the Navy sticks with the NATF, so when the A-12 is cancelled, it is able to build a B variant to replace the Intruder. As it was, the F-14 stayed in service until 2006 and the EA-6 is still soldiering along in the Marines. These aren't new-build Tomcats and Intruders from 1991-2005, they're the same old warhorses. The Intruders might have to be scrapped prior to the mid-2000's, though.

Ah, that's what you meant. And the NATF replacing the Tomcat and Intruder has merit, assuming it enters service around the F-22's OTL date. The issue, though, is that that's not until 2005, and both the F-14 and A-6 are old planes not getting any newbuilds. It's likely that something has to come in in the interim, as the A-6E and F-14A/B retire through the 90s, and there aren't enough F-14Ds to cover everything.

Further, with these CVLs the importance of the Hornet has just been elevated, which is only going to magnify its flaws. I think a Super Hornet still makes sense, but not as a direct Intruder/Tomcat replacement. Instead, it would replace the A/B-model Hornets, and early on fill the gap between the A-6E/F-14A/B and NATF (F-22S?). Basically, early on they replace CVN Hornet A/B squadrons and fill the vacated Intruder/Tomcat squadrons; once the NATF is available, the latter planes can be moved to the CVLs and replace their A/B-model Hornets.

I'd like to get away with not using CATOBAR if at all possible.

Not gonna happen. The US Navy will not give up proper AEW, which means flying the Hawkeye, which in turn means catapults. Further, if you want to launch strike-loaded Hornets, you're going to need catapults. I'd have to check, but I don't think the MiG-29K (the closest STOBAR equivalent) can take off with a full weapons load.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

If you're building something the size of the Essex-class, you might as well go CATOBAR. Otherwise there really isn't any point in building the thing in the first place. In the grand scheme of things, adding cats and traps to it is a miniscule cost for a huge upgrade in capability. You could even go cheap with it and put only 3 wires for recovery and 2 bow cats, instead of the 4 wires on the CVNs and 4 cats.

The crackpot blog I got this idea from actually suggested exactly that, two cats instead of four. And I think you're right. No catapult requires us to have a nonexistent SVTOL fighter and a V-22 instead of the CSA.

Boeing told the Indian Navy the SUPER HORNET can. Not the standard bug. And if the Navy is not going to the 18E/F, the super bug never gets built. It's far too expensive for the Corps even in OTL. ITTL, with a hugely smaller buy, it's cost just trippled. The Corps wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole.

Yeah, no Super Hornet in this timeline. I was just assuming that if it can launch a Rhino, it can launch a smaller regular Bug.

 

[SsgtC]

Yeah, no Super Hornet in this timeline. I was just assuming that if it can launch a Rhino, it can launch a smaller regular Bug.

Not even close actually. Keep in mind, despite sharing a designation and name, the standard Hornet and the Super Hornet are completely different aircraft. McDonald Douglas and the Navy called it a varieny of the F/A-18 as a political slight of hand. Congress at that time was not going to authorize a brand new aircraft. Not after the debacle of the A-12. The Rhino and the Hornet only share about 10% parts commonality (basically from the cockpit forward). The Rhino is also a much larger, more powerful aircraft. It's the size of an F-15! Whereas the original -18 is about the size of a Falcon. A standard Hornet doesn't have the thrust or lift to launch of a ski jump.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

Two problems. First, the F-35B proves nothing of the kind; for all the program mismanagement, the planes themselves work just fine, and the Soviets were working on a supersonic V/STOL plane themselves. Second, it's not just the Marines that need to replace F/A-18s; the Navy needs to replace it in their own squadrons, there are going to be separate F/A-18 and AV-8 replacement programs if you split things (and I think you should; mixing the STOVL requirement into an F-16/F-18 replacement was not a good idea, IMO) regardless.

And if you're wondering what the ship will look like, think something akin to a somewhat larger, sanely designed Charles de Gaulle.

You're right, there's no reason the F-18 can't be replaced with a supersonic aircraft that doesn't have to be all things to all people like the F-35. A sane light twin-engine Mach 2 jet with a gun which can possibly also replace the F-16 in the Air Force. It needs to start coming on line in the 2020's, but if it doesn't require magic to work like the F-35, it can wait until the NATF hits the fleet. Let the subsonic SVTOL replacement go to the Marines and on the CVLs.

Oh, certainly. But there is a reason to build a cruiser even with the Burkes: the AMDR radar, which simply doesn't fit in a Burke hull. But that's a good ten years in the future, so not something to worry about yet.

My rough guess of how to do things is 1 Tico per CSG, 1 per PHIBRON, and possibly one paired with each CVL. So 20-27 total. Two Burkes per ESG and CSG, one per CVL, so 47 total. Then maybe three FFGs per two DDGs, so 70-some. This is about two-thirds of the 600-ship Navy.

Exactly. Don't replace the "low" in a "Hi-lo" mix with "high".

One thing I think I'd stick to is not putting helos on the Burkes. That's a lot of space for doing something that isn't really its primary mission. The Burke should be an escort, so there should be helos around wherever one is.

Ah, that's what you meant. And the NATF replacing the Tomcat and Intruder has merit, assuming it enters service around the F-22's OTL date. The issue, though, is that that's not until 2005, and both the F-14 and A-6 are old planes not getting any newbuilds. It's likely that something has to come in in the interim, as the A-6E and F-14A/B retire through the 90s, and there aren't enough F-14Ds to cover everything.

Further, with these CVLs the importance of the Hornet has just been elevated, which is only going to magnify its flaws. I think a Super Hornet still makes sense, but not as a direct Intruder/Tomcat replacement. Instead, it would replace the A/B-model Hornets, and early on fill the gap between the A-6E/F-14A/B and NATF (F-22S?). Basically, early on they replace CVN Hornet A/B squadrons and fill the vacated Intruder/Tomcat squadrons; once the NATF is available, the latter planes can be moved to the CVLs and replace their A/B-model Hornets.

So what would be the difference from the C/D Hornet that was built 1987-2000 OTL?

Not gonna happen. The US Navy will not give up proper AEW, which means flying the Hawkeye, which in turn means catapults. Further, if you want to launch strike-loaded Hornets, you're going to need catapults. I'd have to check, but I don't think the MiG-29K (the closest STOBAR equivalent) can take off with a full weapons load.

I've been convinced.

Not even close actually. Keep in mind, despite sharing a designation and name, the standard Hornet and the Super Hornet are completely different aircraft. McDonald Douglas and the Navy called it a varieny of the F/A-18 as a political slight of hand. Congress at that time was not going to authorize a brand new aircraft. Not after the debacle of the A-12. The Rhino and the Hornet only share about 10% parts commonality (basically from the cockpit forward). The Rhino is also a much larger, more powerful aircraft. It's the size of an F-15! Whereas the original -18 is about the size of a Falcon. A standard Hornet doesn't have the thrust or lift to launch of a ski jump.

Aha! Such is my ignorance in naval and aviation affairs, it never clicked that the different engines would make that different. Still, it's a settled issue, I'm pretty sure we'd just go ahead and go with CATOBAR.

 

[CV12Hornet]

My rough guess of how to do things is 1 Tico per CSG, 1 per PHIBRON, and possibly one paired with each CVL. So 20-27 total. Two Burkes per ESG and CSG, one per CVL, so 47 total. Then maybe three FFGs per two DDGs, so 70-some. This is about two-thirds of the 600-ship Navy.

The 22 VLS Ticos should suffice, then. As for destroyers/frigates, you need more destroyers and fewer frigates. Especially fewer frigates. You want more destroyers (probably closer to four for the CVNs and two for the CVLs) for the carrier groups, since they're the primary defense and are closer to actual Cold War numbers, and you don't need that many frigates when you don't expect to be doing REFORGER convoys. For the US Navy, frigates are cheap vessels for things like ocean patrol, antipiracy, and maybe littoral ops. 50 would be better than 70.

One thing I think I'd stick to is not putting helos on the Burkes. That's a lot of space for doing something that isn't really its primary mission. The Burke should be an escort, so there should be helos around wherever one is.

What do you think the Spruances were for? They were carrier escorts, too, just ASW-focused. And the Burkes have similar sonar capability and ASW weapons fit, as I said. The only thing missing are the helos. Maybe ASW isn't the primary focus of the Burkes, but the Burkes are a do-everything destroyer, and they're very good at doing everything. Also, the hangar is mostly extra superstructure; most of that deck space was already dedicated to a landing pad and the VLS fit in the roof. All things considered, it's a very low-cost (monetary and opportunity-wise) upgrade.

Also, as the Brits found out with the Type 82, counting on your carrier to provide the ASW helicopters is not a great idea. There's a reason every carrier navy has trended towards more and more helo-capable escorts despite having, y'know, carriers.

So what would be the difference from the C/D Hornet that was built 1987-2000 OTL?

Like the OTL Super Hornet, a larger fuselage and more powerful engines to carry more fuel and weapons.

Edit: one more thing. A Hornet replacement needs to come online sooner than the 2020s. The OTL birds are about ready to fall apart right now.

 

[Matt]

Regarding the not-JSF JSF: Even the GAO has concluded that the program would have been much cheaper if they broke it up into 3 different aircraft a "F-24" for the F-16, "F-25" for the F/A-18, and a "AV-24" for the AV-8. Maybe you can take that route?

Okay regarding the Marines, I'll just lay out I'm planning on doing it in my TL, and see if you like it.

Each MAG needs to move from being a functional group (eg, rotary-wing aviation, fix-wing aviation, support groups, etc) to being a mirror image, cross-functional unit. They have the following units:

MAG HQ, which functions are the air element command group inside the MEB

2 HMM Squadrons with CH-46 or replacement (reduced to 1 VMM in MPF oriented MEBs)
1 HMH Squadron with CH-53E or replacement
1 HMLA squadron with UH-1/AH-1 (replaced by your American Hind ITTL)
2 VMFA squadrons with F/A-18 Hornet
1 VMA squadron with AV-8 Harrier
1 VMA(AW) squadron with A-6 Intruder (replaced by A-10N in my TL, and presumably yours as well)

There's less sexy things like a Marine Aviation Logistics Squadron, 2 Marine Support Squadrons, an Air Control Squadron, and a Low Altitude Air Defense Squadron.

You should align some additional squadrons inside each MEF to meet the needs of the MEUs, or even form permanent composite squadrons. Maybe form a non-deployable MAG HQ to hold this squadrons during training, and also the VMAQs, and VMGRs.

 

[CalBear]

A lot depends of the ship is the size of the Essex class CV (~30k tons for the "long hull" original) or the noticeably more robust America class (45K tons, same as the Midway class out of the box) and the speed the ship is designed for. High performance CATOBAR needs 25 knots or higher, less than that makes it VTOL.

40k & 25+ knots lets the ship operate F/A-18 (Superbug is far edge of possible). 40 aircraft give two 12-14 aircraft squadrons of Hornet/Super Hornet, 2-3 EA-6B/EA-18G EW, 3-4 E-2C/D Hawkeye, and 4-6 SH-3/SH-60. Depending on mission some of the strike aircraft can be swapped out for additional helos.

30K & under 25 knots is effectively the Sea Control ship concept. 40 aircraft with a mix of AV-8B and helos depending on mission.

 

[RamscoopRaider]

I was thinking that the important thing is not so much construction cost as crew size, which conventional power and smaller size should help with. 70% of the cost is acceptable, even if the wing is only half the size of the CVN. This thing frees up the CVN.

Really good breakdown on the wing, and I think you're right that ASW would be the best use for the CSA on this thing.

Per ship ops cost I figure would be 50% of a CVN. Purchase cost probably 65%, as the 70% figure was for the CVV, which was to be 52,000 tons standard. Ops cost, CVV had a crew of 3400-3900 inc. air company and 55-65 aircraft. Nimitz has 3200 ships crew and 2500 aircrew. Figure on 40% airwing of 1000, plus at least 1200 for ships company (that is for Wasp class, but that lacks catapults, has 70% shp), probably 1500 plus. For that you get a ship with 2 CIWS and no other weapons, Electronics fit of an LHD, speed 3-6 knots slower than an Essex, simplified arrestor gear that cause more airframe stress, less combat endurance than a CVV and less passive survivability

But remember while you are freeing up a CVN you are tying down a CG (for air defense coordination, a DDG lacks flag facilities for this), 2+ other Aegis ships and 2+ ASW Helicopter equipped ships, an SSN and a Replenishment ship with each of these. Given the lack of nuclear power and much reduced combat stores you are going to need that Replenishment ship a lot more. You could one supposes reduce these escorts, but that leaves your already vulnerable BG more vulnerable and constrains your freedom of action

Plus what jobs can your ship do? You need at least say 12 Hornets for CAP to defend the ship, 3 Hawkeyes for AEW to avoid getting sucker punched, and 3 Utility Helicopters (SH-60 class), leaving you with an effective airwing of 22. What tasks do you imagine doing with 22 aircraft, mix how you like, that could not be done with simple surface forces or submarines?

 

[SsgtC]

Plus what jobs can your ship do? You need at least say 12 Hornets for CAP to defend the ship, 3 Hawkeyes for AEW to avoid getting sucker punched, and 3 Utility Helicopters (SH-60 class), leaving you with an effective airwing of 22. What tasks do you imagine doing with 22 aircraft, mix how you like, that could not be done with simple surface forces or submarines?

Convoy escort. Air Support/strikes in low intensity conflicts (for example, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars). Also useful as a force multiplier in conventional conflicts. Could be used as an aircraft ferry for the fleet to replenish CVN airwings in high intensity conflicts. Also extremely useful in Freedom of Navigation exercises in restricted waters where you don't want to risk a CVN, but a destroyer isn't a big enough show of force.

In short, a modern CVL is extremely useful. But you have to think a little outside the box to find it's uses.

 

[Archibald]

I don't like NATF very much. A VG wing F-22 or a delta-canard F-23 are essentially new (and insanely expensive) aircrafts. I think a much upgraded F-14 is a better option. Otherwise - no question that the A-6F is far better than either the Super Hornet or the Flying Dorito.

 

[Matt]

Convoy escort. Air Support/strikes in low intensity conflicts (for example, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars). Also useful as a force multiplier in conventional conflicts. Could be used as an aircraft ferry for the fleet to replenish CVN airwings in high intensity conflicts. Also extremely useful in Freedom of Navigation exercises in restricted waters where you don't want to risk a CVN, but a destroyer isn't a big enough show of force.

In short, a modern CVL is extremely useful. But you have to think a little outside the box to find it's uses.

I had the thought that it can embark most of an MEBs fast movers, which would certainly come in handy at times.