Medium-Aircraft Carriers: The Great U.S. Navy Mistake?

The United States Navy exclusively builds supercarriers, boasting 11 massive vessels like the Nimitz and Gerald R. Ford classes, while other nations deploy more conventionally-sized medium carriers. In the 1970s, the U.S. considered the Aircraft Carrier (Medium) (CVV) program to create smaller, cost-effective carriers to complement supercarriers.

What You Need to Know: The United States Navy exclusively builds supercarriers, boasting 11 massive vessels like the Nimitz and Gerald R. Ford classes, while other nations deploy more conventionally-sized medium carriers. In the 1970s, the U.S. considered the Aircraft Carrier (Medium) (CVV) program to create smaller, cost-effective carriers to complement supercarriers.

-Despite support from Presidents Ford and Carter, the program was shelved in favor of larger nuclear-powered ships under Reagan’s robust defense budget.

-Critics argue that medium carriers could handle day-to-day missions more efficiently and offer strategic flexibility. However, concerns about maintenance costs and manning led the Navy to maintain its focus on supercarriers, leaving no current plans to integrate medium-sized carriers into the fleet.

Supercarriers vs. Medium Carriers: The U.S. Navy's Strategic Choice Explained

The United States possesses more aircraft carriers than any other nation on Earth – 11 of them. Each of the US’s eleven aircraft carriers is a massive “supercarrier.” An American observer could be forgiven for believing that supercarriers are just default aircraft carriers. But worldwide, other nations deploy more conventionally-sized “medium” aircraft carriers.

For example, France’s Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier is 857 feet long and displaces 42,500 tons. India’s Vikrant is 860 feet long and displaces 45,000 tons. Italy’s Cavour measures 800 feet long and displaces 27,100 tons. Meanwhile, the US’s Nimitz measures 1,092 feet and displaces 100,020 tons. The cutting-edge Gerald R. Ford measures similarly.

So why does the US only build supercarriers without complementing the fleet with medium-sized carriers?

Conventionally-sized carriers

The US has considered building conventionally-sized carriers. “In the 1970s the U.S. Navy considered a conventional-powered carrier that was to be smaller and more importantly cheaper than the contemporary nuclear-powered Nimitz-class. Thus was born the Aircraft Carrier (Medium) (CCV) program,” National Interest defense expert wrote Peter Suciu.

When the Vietnam War ended in defeat, the US military budget constricted. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Elmo Zumwalt had a plan that would uphold a sizeable US naval fleet, within a more austere spending environment, with a mixture of high-end and low-end vessels. The plan even included a mixture of high-end and low-end aircraft carriers.

The low-end carriers would be the Aircraft Carrier (Medium) (CVV) “which was meant to supplement the U.S. Navy’s existing supercarriers,” Suciu wrote. “It would have been capable of operating all present and planned types of carrier aircraft but with just a 908-foot flight deck and able to carry only up to sixty planes.”

Obviously, the CVV would have been notably smaller than the Nimitz- and Ford-class supercarriers. Given the smaller size, the CVV would have featured only two steam catapults (rather than the four featured on the supercarriers), meaning that the CVV would only be able to launch about half the planes as the supercarriers.

Also, the CVV would have just two elevators (rather than three). And with less aircraft onboard, the CVV would carry less air defense and anti-submarine warfare (ASW) than a supercarrier.

More significantly, perhaps, the CVV would have been conventionally powered, rather than nuclear-powered like modern US supercarriers.

But while smaller, and with a lesser range, “the focus of the CVV would have instead been on its striking power and in that regard, the medium carrier was to be on par with that of a true supercarrier.”

No Medium Aircraft Carrier: Another Direction for Navy Aircraft Carriers 

Of course, the US never proceeded with Zumwalt’s CVV proposal. Curiously, two presidents, both Navy veterans, supported the proposal – Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. Instead, “the U.S. Navy opted not to go with medium carriers for the same reason many people buy a large popcorn at the movie theater,” Suciu wrote, there is just more value in buying the large.

“It was expected that the first of these medium carriers would cost about $1.5 billion per ship compared to the $2.4 billion for a fourth Nimitz-class carrier,” Suciu wrote. “But it was also determined that the USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-67) – the last conventionally powered large carrier built for the U.S. Navy – only cost about $100 million more than the CVV, and was far more capable.”  

In 1978, Secretary of Defense Harold Brown proposed that the Navy pursue another carrier comparable to the John F. Kennedy. But President Carter rejected the idea on account of the lower life-cycle costs stemming from smaller ships with smaller airwings. Then, in the Fiscal Year 1981 budget, a fourth Nimitz-class carrier was approved.

When President Ronald Reagan was elected – on a platform that countered the “dovish” policies of Jimmy Carter – Reagan advocated for a more robust defense budget. Reagan was successful, earning a larger budget, which the Navy used to build another nuclear-powered supercarrier. As a result, the CVV program was doomed.

Some think that avoiding the CVV was the right call. As Brent M. Eastwood wrote: “Medium-sized carriers were still going to need thousands of sailors that manned a smaller-sized group of aircraft on board. Then there were maintenance costs. Better to maintain one big ship than two smaller ones. Marginal costs would be prohibitive…Could a medium-sized carrier run its own battle group? Most likely, but it was going to take more escort ships – frigates and destroyers that were in shorter supply by the time the Cold War wound down and the Global War on Terror ramped up.”

However, some believe the US missed an opportunity to integrate the CVV into the fleet. Navy veteran Senator John McCain once wrote that “traditional nuclear-powered supercarriers remain necessary to deter and defeat near-peer competitors, but other day-to-day missions, such as power projection, sea lane control, close air support, or counter-terrorism, can be achieved with a smaller, lower cost, conventionally powered aircraft carrier.

Today, no plans exist to integrate the CVV into the naval force structure.

About the Author: Harrison Kass 

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer with over 1,000 total pieces on issues involving global affairs. An attorney, pilot, guitarist, and minor pro hockey player, Harrison joined the US Air Force as a Pilot Trainee but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

Image Credit: Creative Commons.