This report is an exploration of possible alternatives for further consideration to potentially replace the U.S. Navy's legacy aircraft carrier force as it begins reaching expected service life in decades to come. The variants are possible alternatives that could be developed for less cost than the current program and potentially with sufficient capability. This is neither a formal analysis of alternatives nor a detailed engineering study.

Future Aircraft Carrier Options

Bradley Martin, Michael McMahon

ResearchPublished Oct 6, 2017

Although the integrated carrier air wing is the actual component of sea-based tactical aviation delivering warfighting capability for power projection, the individual air wings require aviation support for launch and recovery at tactical distances, fuel and flight crew replenishment, maintenance, and other sustainment. The aircraft carrier and embarked crew provide this support.

Some are concerned that continuing the current carrier program imposes high acquisition cost and might unduly affect the whole of the Navy shipbuilding budget. The Senate Armed Services Committee noted that alternatives could be developed for less cost and potentially with sufficient capability. This led to a request for the Navy to examine lower-cost alternatives.

This report is a shorter version of a classified, restricted-distribution report provided to the Navy in July 2016. Neither report is of a formal analysis of alternatives or detailed engineering study, nor is either a requirement document. It is an exploration of possible alternatives for further consideration to potentially replace the legacy force as it begins reaching expected service life in decades to come. The variants analyzed are possible alternatives and do not represent recommendations for a specific future course of action.

Key Findings

Each Variant Affects Force Sortie Generation

  • A CVN 8X, a descoped Ford-class carrier, offers similar warfighting capability to that of the Ford-class carrier.
  • A CVN LX offers an integrated, current air wing with capabilities near current levels but with less organic mission endurance for weapons and aviation fuel.
  • The CV LX, which is a version of the LHA 6 platforms, might be a low-risk, alternative pathway for the Navy to reduce carrier costs if such a variant were procured in greater numbers than the current carrier shipbuilding plan.
  • The smallest concept variant reviewed, the CV EX, does not provide either a significant capacity or an integrated air wing.

Each Variant Affects Cost

  • A CVN 8X might generate fewer sorties than the Ford class and might only incrementally reduce overall platform cost.
  • A CVN LX concept would allow considerable savings across the ship's service life.
  • A CV LX could potentially reduce overall construction costs if it allowed for reduced carrier numbers were reduced.
  • A CV EX is not practical at all without considerable revision of Navy warfighting concept of operations.

Order a Print Copy

Format
Paperback
Page count
112 pages
List Price
$18.00
Buy link
Add to Cart

Topics

Document Details

  • Copyright: RAND Corporation
  • Availability: Available
  • Year: 2017
  • Print Format: Paperback
  • Paperback Pages: 112
  • Paperback Price: $18.00
  • Paperback ISBN/EAN: 978-0-8330-9918-1
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.7249/RR2006
  • Document Number: RR-2006-NAVY

Citation

RAND Style Manual
Martin, Bradley and Michael McMahon, Future Aircraft Carrier Options, RAND Corporation, RR-2006-NAVY, 2017. As of September 19, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2006.html
Chicago Manual of Style
Martin, Bradley and Michael McMahon, Future Aircraft Carrier Options. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2017. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2006.html. Also available in print form.
BibTeX RIS

Research conducted by

This research was sponsored by the Assessment Division of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and conducted within the Acquisition and Technology Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Unified Combatant Commands, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the defense agencies, and the defense Intelligence Community.

This publication is part of the RAND research report series. Research reports present research findings and objective analysis that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND research reports undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.