CV-41, The USS Midway in its final configuration prior to its decommissioning in 1992
Commissioned 8 days after the end of World War II, the USS Midway, CV-41, was the largest ship in the world until 1955, as well as the first U.S. aircraft carrier too big to transit the Panama Canal. During her 47 years of service, more than 200,000 Americans sailors and officers served aboard her. During her time the Midway saw action in Vietnam, the Persian Gulf and numerous other conflicts, crises and actions. After being the first aircraft carrier forward deployed for 17 years in Yokosuka, Japan, she returned to North Island Naval Air Station in San Diego for decommissioning in April of 1992.
In her final form, the Midway displaced more than 67,000 tons at full load, about two-thirds the displacement of a Nimitz or Ford Class carrier. Yet, at 1001 feet in length she is 90 percent as long as our newest nuclear carrier. The Midway also carries the distinction of being the first supercarrier and was capable of carrying 65 to 70 modern aircraft. The Midway's 212,000 hp steam turbines (same engines as the Iowa Class battleship) could travel up to 15,000 nautical miles before needing refueling with a maximum speed of over 30 knots per hour. Of course standard Navy doctrine would have it refueling well before then to make sure it did not drop below 30 percent fuel reserves.
During the Gulf War the Midway had the highest sortie generation rate per number of planes carried of any carrier, nuclear or conventional, at 1.59 sorties per day per aircraft. The closest nuclear powered carrier was the USS Theodore M. Roosevelt (CVN-71), with 1.36 sorties per day per aircraft. However, the Roosevelt, with 22 more strike craft than the MIdways' 56, was able to generate 106 total sorties per day vs. the Midway's 89. Still for a carrier about 2/3 the displacement with 3 catapults vs. the Roosevelt's 4 catapults the Midway more than held its own.
So the Midway's evolution from the the largest World War Il Carrier to being a modern supercarrier was extremely successful and with an armored deck and excellent compartmentalization, the Midway was also a very tough ship.
But enough about the CV-41, the question before us is would the United States be better served building a number of Midway sized carriers going forward to complement the Nimitz and the Fords? Former Secretary of Navy John Lehman and architect of President Reagan's 600 ship Navy believes that there is a strong case to be made that the U.S. Navy would get the most bang for its buck and have the best chance of meeting its carrier needs by moving away as quickly as possible from building more Ford Class carriers to building a new class of of 65,000 to 70,000 ton supercarrier.
According to Captain Lehman, USN retired, the primary advantages to moving away from building more Ford Class carriers include:
1) The fact that there is only one naval shipyard in the United States capable of building a new Ford Class Carrier, whereas there are 4 shipyards capable of building carriers of 65,000 to 70,000 tons .
2) The Ford Class is too expensive and too unreliable to keep building, And its single-point of failure for it EMALS and AAG is a major flaw that could prove fatal to the carrier and the fleet it is responsible to protect.
3) The cost of these smaller carriers will be much less than that of the Ford or even a new Nimitz.
4) They can be be built faster and are can easily fill the vast majority of roles currently fulfilled by Nimitz Class Carrier.
5) They could be conventionally powered or nuclear powered, but while the standard for the United States for decades has been to build nuclear carriers, studies show that conventional carriers stack up very well against nuclear carriers with each having advantages and disadvantages. (0ne big advantage conventional carriers have over nuclear is that they do not require two years of being out of service to be refueled.)
6) Combining smaller supercarriers (conventional or nuclear) with our Nimitz and Ford Class carriers will give the United States far more bang for its buck than continuing to build $15 billion dollar nuclear carriers one at time at one shipyard.
CONVENTIONAL VS NUCLEAR CARRIERS (1998 GAO Study)
Using the Navy’s Force Presence Model and data, GAO’s analysis shows that, on a relative basis, a force of 12 conventional carriers, when compared to a force of 12 nuclear carriers, can provide a greater level of overseas presence in the European Command, the Central Command, and the Western Pacific or that a force of 11 conventionally powered carriers
can provide an equivalent level of forward presence as a force of 12 nuclear-powered carriers. Because a conventionally powered carrier’s maintenance requirements are not as stringent and complex as those of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the conventionally powered carrier spends a smaller proportion of its time in maintenance than does the
nuclear aircraft carrier and, thus, is more available for deployment and other fleet operations. Unified Commanders consider the quality of presence of the two types of carriers to be the same.
Navy Aircraft Carrier: The Cost Effectiveness of Conventionally and Nuclear-Powered Carriers
GAO/NSIAD-98-1 Nuclear Carrier Cost-Effectiveness
NOTE: Because the U.S. now only has one shipyard capable of building nuclear supercarriers, the case for smaller, but still massive conventional carriers become even stronger than it was in 1998.
FOR MORE INFO
For more info the number and the type of carriers needed to meet U.S. needs see John Lehman's 2021 Naval War College paper at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8219&context=nwc-review
John Lehman is not alone in believing that trying to replace all the Nimitz class carrier with Ford Carriers is too expensive and not the best use of resources. For another excellent article exploring options other than the Ford Class for our future carrier force see Paul McCleary's excellent piece in Breaking Defense https://breakingdefense.com/2020/03/beyond-uss-ford-navy-will-study-next-generation-aircraft-carriers-exclusive/
FOR MORE ON FORD CLASS ISSUES AND PROBLEMS
Comments