Lightening Carrier Concept

Similar to Jeep Carriers or escort carriers (CVE) in WWII. Of course they weren't also amphibious support ships.

This is a great idea for supplying ground support during the assault.
 
This is actually a spin on Admiral Zumwalt's notion of the Hi and Medium mix of carriers. There had been some work done on this back at the Naval War College in 2014 by a guy who wound up being the first Captain if USS TRIPOLI. Bet no one knows who that guy was.
 
GWU PNS said:
This is actually a spin on Admiral Zumwalt's notion of the Hi and Medium mix of carriers. There had been some work done on this back at the Naval War College in 2014 by a guy who wound up being the first Captain if USS TRIPOLI. Bet no one knows who that guy was.
Click to expand...
Some of us might just know. . . ;)
 
NJROTC-CC said:
www.thedrive.com

Marines To Test Lightning Carrier Concept With 20 F-35Bs Aboard USS Tripoli This April

The Lightning Carrier concept has been in the works for years and will effectively see big deck amphibious assault ships turned into light carriers.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com

I like it. Better to have more smaller, economical carriers than only a few large “too big to fail”carriers.
Click to expand...
I'm not a big fan of the light carrier concept because I participated in a number of wargames that examined the concept from different angles during my five years on staff at the Naval War College in the Wargaming Center. Lots of issues but basically, the capabilities are EXTREMELY limited unless you have a CVN relatively close by to provide Airborne Early Warning and Strike Support Jamming (E-2 & EF-18) along with the ability to add in ASW capabilities because there is room for a mix of helo types. There is also the issue of "taking" the ships from their amphib duties which our already too small amphib force can't afford to give up. We're already down one LHD for the foreseeable future due to Kearsarge and even taking one away would be a big problem let alone several of them.
 
I just fear that large carriers are too costly to risk in battle with near-peer adversaries with long range hypersonic missiles. But so would smaller carriers.

I wonder whether the era of the carrier may be ending and I question how long we should keep building more.
 
Thanks for posting, I find this topic very interesting as I spent my entire time in the service doing MEU rotations on “gator freighters.” I do not know enough to comment either way but I’m interested to hear the opinions on this good and bad. I was lucky enough to do multiple maiden voyages when they rolled out the LHDs.
 
GWU PNS said:
This is actually a spin on Admiral Zumwalt's notion of the Hi and Medium mix of carriers. There had been some work done on this back at the Naval War College in 2014 by a guy who wound up being the first Captain if USS TRIPOLI. Bet no one knows who that guy was.
Click to expand...
I do but it took some research.
 
What USMC mission requires organic sustained F-35/stealth capabilities? (Especially without AEW support?) Why not let carriers do carrier things and amphibs do amphib things?

It seems like overloading the Tripoli with ospreys and more attack aircraft is more in line with the revamped USMC mission. But I’m just a lowly midshipmen, so what do I know.


I recall reading a very in depth discussion on the “lightning carrier” on AirWarrios a few months ago. I’ll put the link here when I find it.
 
Skipper07 said:
What USMC mission requires organic sustained F-35/stealth capabilities? (Especially without AEW support?) Why not let carriers do carrier things and amphibs do amphib things?

It seems like overloading the Tripoli with ospreys and more attack aircraft is more in line with the revamped USMC mission. But I’m just a lowly midshipmen, so what do I know.


I recall reading a very in depth discussion on the “lightning carrier” on AirWarrios a few months ago. I’ll put the link here when I find it.
Click to expand...
An Amphib landing does frequently call for Close Air Support and the ability to do LIMITED Airborne self defense is a good thing when the CVNs are being called upon to move into other areas. That said, as I said earlier, the lack of AEW, ASW and other capabilities makes the capabilities extremely limited and if they are keeping V22's and non Airwing marines plus their organic equipment aboard then the space available for a more functional "lightning airwing" just is not there.
 
Skipper07 said:
What USMC mission requires organic sustained F-35/stealth capabilities? (Especially without AEW support?) Why not let carriers do carrier things and amphibs do amphib things?

It seems like overloading the Tripoli with ospreys and more attack aircraft is more in line with the revamped USMC mission. But I’m just a lowly midshipmen, so what do I know.


I recall reading a very in depth discussion on the “lightning carrier” on AirWarrios a few months ago. I’ll put the link here when I find it.
Click to expand...
As to your first question on what USMC mission........I'd ask that you open the aperture and consider that the days of each service component having unique missions have almost completely gone. There are Joint Missions, with essential task lists (JMETLs). It is true that there are definitely service unique capabilities....ie no one really handles USW as well as the Navy, but Air Force does have a capability......no one specializes in Mountain Warfare in the specific detail of our Army, but the Marines certainly are capable, etc. So, to the point, if there is a way to bring significant fire power of the F35 into play from the sea, where we can establish maritime dominance, then the range of missions available is more than a few.

As to letting carriers do carrier things......does anyone know why there is typically a squadron of Marine F-18's on them? It goes back a ways when we used to "roll up" an amphibious force as part of the larger CBG (Carrier Battle Group). And then the amphibious AEW support, Close Air Support, and other support could come from the carrier. YES.....it's true, a carrier can actually support something besides strike warfare!

As to the nominal loadout of aircraft on an LHA, that is a technical factor based on overall tonnage and displacement and a factor called meta-centric height, but you need to come to GWU and attend one of my lectures for that. ;)

But if one considers the cost differential between a single LHA vs a CVN, and the fact that HII could build 2 LHAs concurrently in less time than a single CVN, then all of a sudden, this notion of a lightning carrier isn't so weird. To the question of will we have enough to support the Marines.....I submit to you.....simply.......build........more.

One other note as to the need for AEW. I promise you, the F35 has tremendous capability, to the point we can't talk about it. But, the AEW issue isn't that big of a deal anymore.

Yours Truly,
First CO of LHA 7 :cool:
 
GWU PNS said:
But if one considers the cost differential between a single LHA vs a CVN, and the fact that HII could build 2 LHAs concurrently in less time than a single CVN, then all of a sudden, this notion of a lightning carrier isn't so weird. To the question of will we have enough to support the Marines.....I submit to you.....simply.......build........more.
Click to expand...
This is what interests me. The cost to put hulls to sea. Also, the vulnerability of large carriers today, reminds me of the battleship navy at the outset of WWII. I am not a military man. But I can see an advantage of having many smaller ships to spread the risk and vulnerability of the fleet.

It is difficult to predict what missions our navy will be required to fulfill in the future. Obviously, we need the proper assets to accomplish those missions. But it seems like we are always fighting the last war. How about building no more big fleet carriers and instead put the budget into something more useful. Like hypersonic missiles and small defensible platforms to carry them, like maybe submarines or converted Zumwalts.
Don't get me wrong, I am NOT in favor of cutting the budget for the Navy. To the contrary. But we need to spend the $$$ wisely.
 
GWU PNS said:
One other note as to the need for AEW. I promise you, the F35 has tremendous capability, to the point we can't talk about it. But, the AEW issue isn't that big of a deal anymore.
Click to expand...
I was one of the Program Managers during development of the F35 Integrated Electronics System and am a huge believer in the ability of Programmable Radio/RF electronics to fulfil multiple functions that are far beyond that which were contemplated when the platform was designed. That said, there are lows of physics regarding antennas and power amps at play here as well as human factors/task loading considerations to consider.
.
Agree that Metacentric height needs to be monitored but hopefully, the different aircraft being considered here are less of a issue to it than Armored vehicles and some other USMC gear like RT forklifts and the like.
 
Carrier capabilities/capacities don't scale in linear fashion. So, there are definitely drawbacks to small carrier operations. That said, more carriers can do more than fewer carriers. It might be good to do some tests and keep it as a reserve capability, or have a few hulls tasked with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top