When the Nimitz was built the USN expected to deploy about 90 aircraft on each, but now, even in “war”, only about 60 are carried. And with UCAVs around the corner… So why does the follow-on class of USN carrier need to be the same size as the Nimitz? Surely it’d be a better deal for the US tax-payer to have 50-60 ton carriers similar in size to the British Queen Elizabeth class being built, but CTOL. ?

Hi Planeman6000 , (sorry for my bad english)

I find your analysis (drawings, diagrams) very very interesting

Yes, for me, the big 90000 tons U.S. aircraft carriers are now outdated.
Why?
There are several reason:
– In a world where economies are increasingly constrained, with tight budgets, the huge 90000 tons are too expensive. (7 billions $ for CVN 77, more than 11 billions $ for CVN 78……..)

– The current and future trend is to reduce the number of aircraft on ships. Before the ships had 90 aircraft, now no more than 75 and with the emergence of future F35 (very very expensive, 200 million each), it is very certain that the number of aircraft will further lower (50/60? Maximum).
So why have a huge ship 330 meters long and 100,000 tonnes with 50/60 aircraft … … … … .. when a ship of 50,000 tons and 280 meters can be 40!

– The huge U.S. current vessels are not as stealthy as ships with a more modern design (such as B52 with B2 … … … …)

comparaison of modern aircraft carrier

– The huge American ships have a crew of more than 5,000 sailor! this is now outdated, because the trend is a sharp reduction in crew because they are very expensive … … … …. (Americans studying the possibility of 1,000 sailor per aircraft carrier), but as the U.S. current large ships are not a flexible design … … … … … … .. it is very certain that the Americans study design smaller, more stealthy, more automated.

Regarding the future of aircraft carrier, I do not think the solution is large ships stealth:
a exemple of design study in the 90’s for CVN 77/78

because their costs would be astronomical.

I think a 3 futur ranges of aircraft carrier:

– 35000/50000 tons range (English CVF, Italian conte di Cavour, French Charles de gaulle) with 30/50 aircraft and 1000/1500 sailor. Hull design remained probably “monohull design” in the foresable futur because a radical new hull for a big ship were astronomicaly expensive

– 20000/35000 tons range (Spanish BPE, futur south corean & japan ships ?, ect…..) with 20/30 aircraft and 200/600 sailor. Same as more bigger range, Hull design remained probably “monohull design” in the foresable futur, but with possibility of change

– 8000/18000 tons rang (south corean Dokdo, japanese Hyuga…….) with 5/20 aircraft and 100/400 sailor. For this range, a monohull design were non economical (in term of space….). For this, i think that futur design of smaller aircraft carrier were of a new kind of hull (catamaran, trimaran)

various studies of smaller aircraft carrier, 1990’s-2000’s
monohull uvx
http://i78.servimg.com/u/f78/11/68/74/47/uxv10.jpg
catamaran hull
http://i78.servimg.com/u/f78/11/68/74/47/projet10.jpg
http://i78.servimg.com/u/f78/11/68/74/47/design10.jpg
http://i78.servimg.com/u/f78/11/68/74/47/carrie10.jpg
trimaran hull
http://i78.servimg.com/u/f78/11/68/74/47/cvf-tr10.jpg
http://i78.servimg.com/u/f78/11/68/74/47/cvf-tr11.jpg
http://i78.servimg.com/u/f78/11/68/74/47/stac2010.jpg

I think that the future aircraft carrier is:
– 3 Range: 30000/50000 tons, 20000/35000 tons and 8000/18000
– Strong automation and crew reduction (200 to 1000 sailor maximum)
– 10 to 60 aircraft (include more UCAV)
– Design with more stleath capacity
– Carrying drones UCAV for the most dangerous missions (reco, strike….)

And despite what may have believed, small vessels may be as robust as large ships if well designed

For me, large ships are like battleships years 1930/1940, very powerful but doomed to disappear ….

As the dinosaurs