Operational Employment of a Light Aircraft Carrier

Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive

Faculty and Researcher Publications Student Papers and Publications

2009-09-11 Operational Employment of a Light Aircraft Carrier

Weisser, Frank

Monterey, California. Naval Postgraduate School http://hdl.handle.net/10945/35922 Operational Employment of a Light Aircraft Carrier

Team Washington LT Frank Weisser Tinya Coles-Cieply

September 11, 2009

MSA Project – OS4083 Agenda

 Problem Statement  Study Objectives  Bottom-line Up Front  Limitations and Assumptions  MOEs  Description of analytic tools used  Analytical Results  Conclusions and Recommendations

2 Problem Statement

 Cost of Nuclear aircraft carriers has steadily risen and is a concern as it is with many other warships  Funding to maintain 11 carrier battle groups over the next 50 years is optimistic at best  To continue their vital defensive role and maintain mobile airfields, we must find a way to meet the missions of today and the future, while being more cost effective. 3 Objectives

 Assess the operational aspects of having small 25-30K ton aircraft carriers (CVLs) that would operate in conjunction with other CVLs, in conjunction with a CVN, or autonomously.

 Primary Objectives:  Define CVL Air Wing WRT number of aircraft, types of aircraft, & manning requirements.  Determine which aircraft are best suited for CVL’s missions.  Identify “shared aircraft” when CVLs are operating in conjunction to maximize airborne fighters.

4 Bottom-line Up Front

 Two CVLs operating simultaneously provide greater Strike, ISR, and AEW effectiveness than our current CVN operations.

Variations of CVL operating with CVN Fighter Presence increase above current CVN One CVL plus current CVN 62%

One CVL plus future CVN-21 85%

2 CVLs plus current CVN 148%

2 CVLs plus future CVN-21 189%

5 CVL Limitations

Limitations:  Air wing consists of the following  F-35B STOVL  AEW Helicopter  UAVs (MQ-8 Fire Scout)  Helicopters (multiple variants of the MH-60)  Air wing will service the following missions  DCA + CAS/Airborne Strike  AEW  ISR  ASW  COD + SAR/CSAR

6 Assumptions

Assumptions:  CVL will have flight deck of sufficient length for launching maximum weight F-35B  CVL will not require arresting gear  CVL will not incorporate a ramp or ski jump  F-35B programmatic data shows  3 sorties/day or 4 surge sorties/day  F-35C programmatic data shows  2 sorties/day or 3 surge sorties/day  F/A-18 A-F data shows  3 sorties/day or 4 surge sorties/day  CVN Flight Ops require 2 F/A-18 E/F tankers airborne  Updated CVN Helo CONOPS require 19 MH-60R/S

7 Measures of Effectiveness

 Sortie generation rate per day (standard & surge)  1st scenario – CVL operating autonomously  2nd scenario – Two CVLs operating in conjunction

 3rd scenario – Two CVLs to supplement CVN (Nimitz & Ford Class)  4th scenario – CVL to supplement CVN (Nimitz & Ford class)  Mission aircraft airborne  1st scenario – CVL operating autonomously  2nd scenario – Two CVLs operating in conjunction

 3rd scenario – Two CVLs to supplement CVN (Nimitz & Ford Class)  4th scenario – CVL to supplement CVN (Nimitz & Ford class)

8 Analytical Approach

Current/Future CVN CVL(s) Mission Analysis Missions Aircraft vs. Missions Air Wing Composition Assign Aircraft-Mission Foreign CV Studies CVN vs. 4 Scenarios Leveraging AEW Mission vs. Aircraft Capability Analysis

Current U.S. and Foreign Small Carrier Data Use Data Displacement Air wing Manning Define Key Parameters Displacement Historical U.S Small Number of Aircraft Carriers Regression Manning Displacement Analysis Flight Deck Length Flight Deck Length 9 Number of Aircrafts

Number of Aircraft vs. Displacement

70 60 50 40 30 20 10

Displacement (x1000 tons) (x1000 Displacement 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Number of Aircraft

A 26,000 ton CVL can be expected to carry 28 aircraft.

10 Flight Deck Length

Flight Deck Length vs. Displacement

70 Regression is based on 10 historical 60 foreign and domestic small carriers 50 40 30 20 10

Displacement Displacement (k Tons) 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 Flight Deck Length (feet)

A 26,000 ton CVL can be expected to have a 720’ flight deck. Length meets the JSF F-35B data without ski-jump or arresting gear.

Air Wing Manning Number of Aircrafts Number of

A 26,000 ton CVL with 28 aircraft can be expected to have a 270 person Air Wing.

12 Air Wing Manning Breakdown

Aircrew Maintenance Admin Total & Ops F-35B 24 120 10 154 AEW Helo 8 25 6 39 MQ-8 0 20 4 24 MH-60R 8 20 6 34 MH-60S 8 20 6 34

Total 48 205 32 285 • Personnel numbers are lower than current CVN squadron maintenance requirements due to newer aircraft and similar aircraft types onboard.

Air Wing manning estimates are commensurate with regression analysis 13 Mission to Aircraft

Missions Assigned Aircraft DCA/CAP F-35B Strike/CAS F-35B AEW August Westland AW101 Merlin (Italian Navy) ASaC Mk 7 Sea King (Royal Navy) Ka-31 (Indian Navy) ISR MQ-8 Fire Scout ASW MH-60R SAR/CSAR MH-60S MH-60R VERTREP MH-60S

14 1 x CVL operating autonomously

Total Aircrafts Sorties/day Surge On Aircrafts Ready Possible Sorties Station Possible F-35B 16 12 36 48 7.0 AEW Helo 3 2 6 8 2* MQ-8 4 3 12 16 3** MH-60R 3 2 6 8 2** MH-60S 2 2 4 6 N/A***

Total 28 21 61 82 14 * < 2 AEW on station for 30 minutes refuel/crew swap (2 of 12 hours – 16.7%) ** Limited by A/C vice sorties due to fuel endurance *** 3 to 6 VERTREPS daily based on A/C availability 15 Summary of 4 Scenarios

Carrier(s) Average Average Average Average Fighters AEW ISR ASW CVN 15 2.25 0 3.67 2 x CVLs 18.7 2.71 2.83 2.75 CVN + CVL 24.3 2.25 2.83 4.59 CVN-21 + CVL 22.8 2.25 2.83 12.83 (F-35C update) (24.5) CVN + 2 x CVLs 37.2 3.95 2.83 4.59 CVN-21 + 2 x CVLs 35.6 3.95 2.83 13.75 (F-35C update) (37.3) * F-35C update incorporates a higher (3/4 vice 2/3) sortie per day utilization. The most significant increase in airborne fighters is found

with any combination of 2 CVLs. 16 Fighters vs. Displacement

Carrier(s) Average Fighters/ Percent Increase Fighters Displacement Over CVN

CVN 15 0.0150 % 0.0 % 2 x CVLs 18.7 0.0360 % 139.7 % CVN + CVL 24.3 0.0193 % 28.6 % CVN-21 + CVL 22.8 0.0181 % 20.6 % (F-35C update) (24.5) (0.0194 %) 29.6 % CVN + 2 x CVLs 37.2 0.0245 % 63.2 % CVN-21 + 2 x CVLs 35.6 0.0234 % 56.1 % (F-35C update) (37.3) (0.0245 %) 63.6 % Maximum fighters per displacement is 2 CVLs operating in conjunction. 17 Autonomous CVL Air Plan Conclusions-1

 A single CVL is capable of carrying 28 aircraft and servicing all required missions.  While servicing all missions, the CVL Air Wing can have 46.7% as many fighters airborne as a CVN.  In addition to the F-35B, the CVL’s “power projection platform,” the CVL can expect to have the following aircraft onboard:  AEW Helicopter (type and model TBD)  MQ-8 Fire Scout  MH-60R/S 19 Conclusions-2

 2 CVLs operating simultaneously can have 25% more fighters airborne than a CVN.  For 2/3 the displacement and manning of a CVN, 2 CVLs provide more fighters airborne and better ISR coverage.  2 CVLs also allow for 24 hour flight operations if required.  A combination of a CVN (Nimitz class or Ford class) with one CVL provides 62% more fighters airborne.  A combination of a CVN (Nimitz class or Ford class) with 2 CVLs provide 248% more fighters airborne. 20 Conclusions-3

 The Air Wing of the CVL can reasonably expect to have 270-300 personnel.  The CVL can service the following required missions:  DCA  Strike/CAS  AEW  ISR  ASW & SAR  VERTREP  When operating in conjunction with another CVL or CVN, the AEW, ASW, SAR, & VERTREP missions can be “shared” and therefore allow for additional fighter aircraft for the Strike missions. 21 Recommendations

 Considering the rising costs of warships, specifically CVNs, the Navy should investigate further the addition of CVLs in our carrier fleet.  The Navy should further investigate the cost-effectiveness of CVLs across all maritime mission sets.  Smaller size = Smaller expected production cost  Smaller size = Expected reduction in manning = Expected reduction in personnel

cost 22 Recommended Follow-on Analysis-1  Additional studies should focus on:  Specific Air Wing maintenance requirements (personnel, parts, etc…)  Exact flight deck size, aircraft handling and movement, along with superstructure and elevator positioning.  CVLs with arresting gear and catapult systems to better incorporate UCAS aircraft.  CVL Air Plan specifics WRT deck movement, cycle times, simultaneous launch and recovery, elevator runs, on-deck maintenance and refueling requirements. 23 Recommended Follow-on Analysis-2

 Additional studies should investigate:  Specific operationally demonstrated F-35B & F-35C capabilities (range, payload, sorties, etc…). “Mission-configured” CVLs similar to LCS CONOPS.  Possible pitfalls of CVLs operating autonomously .

24 Questions? Back-up Slides Current Carrier Regression

NumberNumber of ofAircraft Aircrafts vs.vs. Displacement Displacement

70 60 y = 1.418x - 10.396 50 R2 = 0.9104 40

30 (k Tons) Tons) (k

Displacement Displacement 20 10 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 Displacement (k Tons) Displacement (k NumberNumber of Aircrafts of Aircrafts

27 Older Carriers Regression

FlightFlight DeckDeck LengthLength vs. vs. Displacement Displacement

70 60

50 y = 0.0876x - 37.159 40 R2 = 0.8686 30 20

Displacement (k Tons) (k Displacement 10

Displacement (k Tons) Displacement (k 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 FlightFlight Deck Deck Length Length (feet)(feet)

28 Summary of 4 Scenarios-2

Total Aircrafts Non-surge Surge On Aircrafts Ready Sorties/day Sorties/day Station

CVL 28 21 61 82 14.0

CVN 62 44 131 174 26.0

2 CVLs 56 44 129 173 27.7

CVL + CVN 90 66 195 260 38.7

CVL + CVN21 106 83 226 308 46.8

2 x CVLs + CVN 118 89 264 352 53.2

2 x CVLs + CVN21 132 105 293 398 61.3

29 2 x CVLs operating in conjunction

Total Aircrafts Sorties/day Surge On Aircrafts Ready Station F-35B 40 32 96 128 18.7 AEW Helo 4 3 9 12 3* MQ-8 4 3 9 12 3** SH-60F 4 3 9 12 3*** MH-60S 4 3 6 9 N/A****

Total 56 44 129 173 27.7 • 2 x CVLs for 12 hour flight ops * 2 x AEW for 3.5 hrs (29%), 3 x AEW for 8.5 hrs (71%) ** 2 x ISR for 2 hours (17%), 3 x ISR for 10 hours (83%) *** ASW, AEW, & ISR limited by A/C

**** 9 VERTREPS daily 30 2 x CVLs vs. CVN

Total A/C Sort Surge On Total A/C Sorties/ Surge On 2 x A/C Ready ies/ Station CVN A/C Ready day Station CVLs day F/A-18C 22 16 48 64 8.0 F-35B 40 32 96 128 18.7 F/A-18E/F 24 18 54 72 9.0 AEW Helo 4 3 9 12 3 EA-6B 4 2 6 8 1.0

MQ-8 4 3 9 12 3 E-2C 4 3 9 12 3*

SH/HH-60F 6 4 12 16 4* SH-60F 4 3 9 12 3 C-2 MH-60S 4 3 6 9 N/A 2 1 2 2 N/A

Total 56 44 129 173 27.7 Total 62 44 131 174 25.0

• 2 x CVLs for 12 hour flight ops • 1 x CVN for 12 hour flight ops • F-35B up status = 80% (conservative) • F/A-18C up status = 73% (opt.), F/A-18 E/F = 75% • 3 x AEW – 71%, 2 x AEW – 29% • 1 x AEW – 25%. 2 x AEW – 37.5%, 3 x AEW – 37.5% • 3 x ISR – 83%, 2 x ISR – 17% • Equaling CVL ISR capability requires 23 fighter sorties • F-35B req’d for EA msn (=17.7 “on-station” fighters) • Dedicated EA platform: 1 x EA – 100% • 9 VERTREPS daily (equivalent to 4-5 COD “hits”) • 2 COD “hits” daily • MQ-8 “Watch Section” allows double ISR coverage • 16 tanker sorties daily = “on-station” fighters of 2 less 31 2 x CVLs + Current CVN

Present CVN Total Aircrafts Aircrafts Ready Sorties/day Surge On Station

F/A-18C 22 16 48 64 8.0 F/A-18E/F 24 18 54 72 9.0 EA-6B 4 2 6 8 1.0 E-2C 4 3 9 12 3.0 SH/HH-60F 6 4 12 16 4* C-2 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 x CVLs F-35B 46 38 114 152 22.2 AEW Helo 2 1 3 4 1.7 MQ-8 4 3 9 12 3* SH-60F 2 1 3 4 1.3 MH-60S 2 2 4 6 N/A Total 118 89 264 352 53.2 CVL Total 56 45 133 178 28.2 • + 2 F-35Bs for less AEW requirements • 3 x MQ-8 for 24 hour coverage • + 4 F-35Bs for less ASW/SAR requirements • 3–6 VERTREPS w/ CVL helos + more availability if req’d • CVLs provide 48% more fighters “on-station” than CVN 32 2 x CVLs + Future CVN-21

Future CVN-21 Total Aircrafts Aircrafts Ready Sorties/day Surge On Station

F/A-18E/F 24 18 54 72 9.0 F-35C 20 14 28 42 5.3 EA-18G 5 4 12 16 2.0 E-2D 4 3 9 12 3.0 MH-60R/S 19 14 42 56 14* C-2 2 1 2 2 N/A 2 x CVLs F-35B 48 40 120 160 23.3 AEW Helo 2 1 3 4 1.7 MQ-8 4 3 9 12 3* SH-60F 0 0 0 0 0.0 MH-60S 2 2 4 6 N/A Total 132 105 293 398 61.3 CVL Total 56 40 136 182 28.0 • + 2 F-35Bs for no SH-60 requirements • Future CVN includes 280% more helo sorties • CVLs provide 89% more fighters “on-station” than CVN than current CVN due to updated HELO CONOPS • CVN’s F-35C up status = 70% 33 1 x CVL + Current CVN

Present CVN Total Aircrafts Aircrafts Ready Sorties/day Surge On Station

F/A-18C 22 16 48 64 8.0 F/A-18E/F 24 18 54 72 9.0 EA-6B 4 2 6 8 1.0 E-2C 4 3 9 12 3.0 SH/HH-60F 6 4 12 16 4* C-2 2 1 2 2 N/A CVL F-35B 20 16 48 64 9.3 AEW Helo 0 0 0 0 0 MQ-8 4 3 9 12 3* SH-60F 2 1 3 4 1.3 MH-60S 2 2 4 6 N/A Total 90 66 195 260 38.7 CVL Total 28 22 64 86 13.7 • + 3 F-35Bs for less AEW requirements • No CVL AEW requirement because of proximity to CVN • + 1 F-35Bs for less ASW/SAR requirements and E-2Cs airborne. In event of CVN loss, we anticipate • 1 CVL “on-station” fighters = 62% of CVN fighters supplementing with land-based AWACS 34 1 x CVL + Future CVN-21

Future CVN-21 Total Aircrafts Aircrafts Ready Sorties/day Surge On Station

F/A-18E/F 24 18 54 72 9.0 F-35C 20 14 28 42 5.3 EA-18G 5 4 12 16 2.0 E-2D 4 3 9 12 3.0 MH-60R/S 19 14 42 56 14* C-2 2 1 2 2 N/A CVL F-35B 22 18 54 72 10.5 AEW Helo 0 0 0 0 0 MQ-8 4 3 9 12 3* SH-60F 0 0 0 0 0.0 MH-60S 2 2 4 6 N/A Total 106 83 226 308 46.8 CVL Total 28 23 67 90 13.5

• + 2 F-35Bs for no SH-60 requirements • CVL’s F-35B up status = 82% • 1 CVL “on-station” fighters = 85% of CVN fighters 35 Historical Small Carriers

Flight Flight Flight Deck Deck Deck Displacement Length Width Area Country Carrier Class (k tons) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet2) US Independence 11 622.5 109.25 68,008 US Saipan 14.5 622.5 109.25 68,008 US Midway 45 972 136 132,192 US Essex 27.1 862 147.5 127,145 US Forrestal 65 1047 250 261,750 Italy Giuseppe Garbaldi 14 570 68 38,760 England Empire 8 460 62 28,520 England Colossus Class 18.3 630 119.5 75,285 England Majestic Class 17.78 630 80 50,400 England Centaur Class 27 650 90 58,500

36 Current Light Carriers

Displace Max Ship’s ment Speed Range, nm Company / Ski Country Carrier Commission (tons) (kts) (Speed, kts) Air Wing Aircraft Jump Additional Info AV-8B + CH-47,cargo helos, V- Spain Juan Carlos 2011 27 K 21 9000 (15) 243 / 172 30 12 22

Principe de AV-8B, SH-3H, AB-212, SH-3 Spain Asturias 1988 16.7 K 26 6500 (20) 600 / 230 29 12 (AEW) helo Queen Eliz. England class 2014-2018 65 K 25+ 10000 (15) 600 / 900 40-50 13 36 JSF + 4 AEW Invincible England class 1980 20.7 K 28 7000 (18) 650 / 350 20+ 7 AV-8B, Sea King & Merlin helos

Charles de Rafale, Super E, E-2C, Dauphin France Gaulle 2001 42 K 27 unlimited 1350 / 600 40 N/A Helo AV-8B, JSF, general purpose Italy Cavour 2008 27.5 K 28+ 7000 (16) 451 / 203 20-24 12 helos, EH101 surveillance helos

Guiseppe Italy Garibaldi 1985 13.9 K 30+ 7000 (20) 730 / 100 16-18 4 AV-8B + Agusta helos

LHD Wasp AV-8B, CH-53, CH-46, AH-1W, US Class 1989-2009 40.5 K 20+ 9500 (20) 1200 26-30 N/A UH-1N

LHA Tarawa AV-8B, CH-53, CH-46, AH-1W, US Class 1976-1980 40 K 24+ 10000 (20) 1059 25-45 N/A UH-1N

LHA America F-35B, MV-22B, UH-1Y, AH-1Z, US Class 2014 45.7 K 20+ 1059 34 CH-53K, MH-60S

37 Autonomous CVL Air Plan (increased F-35B turn time)