CVNX-Expanded
Ca pa biIity Baseline
ABSTRACT AircraftCarrier ship
design study number 5, entitled
“Expanded Capability Baseline,”of the
CVN X Analysis of Alternatives (AoA)
(Part 3) ship design studies, represents
the Navy’s most capable and cost effec-
tive design to meet all of the Opera-
tional Requirements Document (Om)
objectives for CVN X This paper
describes the overall ship design and
provides insight into its key technolo-
gies and design innovations. With sig-
nificant attention being placed on new
manning reduction methods and in total
life cycle cost (LCC) reduction efforts.
It includes descriptions of key technol-
ogy improvements like: “Pit Stop”air-
craft servicing, improved below deck
weapons movement, electric aircraft
and weapon elevators, modular elec-
tronic spaces, centralized food service,
and robotic inventory and stowage sys-
tems. Also covered are increased crew
habitability, and optimized hull form
and survivability features. Results
address increased Flight Deck per-
formance and construction and cost
limitations.
NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL May2000
Aircraft Carrier
Design Study
Introduction
ver the past three years the U.S.Navy conducted an Analysis of
Alternatives (AoA) for future aircraft carriers. During the first two
years of the AoA (FY 97 and 98) the Navy‘s focus was on justi@-
ing the overall size of the carrier‘s air wing and the desired propul-
sion plant. Consideration of these studies led to the decision that
nuclear power and a large air wing (75 aircraft) would be best. At this same
decision milestone the acquisition cost and scheduling of the “CVX” (now
known as “CVNX”)was spread across a series of ship purchases. CVN 77 was
targeted as a technology transition platform, which would be used to develop
a new warfare system (i.e., radar, antennas, etc.). The follow on ship designated
“CVNX 1,” could be a repeat CVN 77 with a new nuclear propulsion plant and
the substitution of traditional steam catapults with the new ElectreMagnetic
Aircraft Launching System (EMALS). In addition, to further reduce the steam
systems on CVNX 1an AC Zonal Electrical Distribution System (ZEDS) was
selected: all auxiliary steam equipment would be converted to electric (i.e.
galley and laundry equipment, hot water heaters, air heating systems, etc.).
The potable water system was designed around replacing the existing steam
evaporators with reverse osmosis (RO) potable water plants.
Entering into its third year (FY 99), the AoA concentrated its efforts on
investigating manpower reduction, survivability options, and whether or not
to continue to build repeat Nimitz class designs like the CVN 77 (or CVNX 1).
The AoA sought to answer the question, should the Navy design and build a
complete new class of carriers, which would be referred to as “CVNX 2.”This
paper reflects the most ambitious of the alternative design studies, “Study
5,”that met all of the Operational Requirements Document (ORD) require
ments for CVNX 2.
AoA Study 5 (see Figure 1) was based on meeting all of the CVNX 2 ORD
requirements for the future carrier (i.e., signature, survivability and perfor-
mance goals, operational restrictions, etc.) ,while using the nuclear propul-
sion plant and auxiliary systems being developed for CVNX 1and operating
with the same projected air wing of 75 aircraft. Otherwise, this ship concept
was unconstrained (e.g., a new hull form, if need be, larger than existing facil-
ities could produce or maintain). The ORD requires significant increases in the
quality of life on board the ship for its operators.Goals were set to deliver a ship
concept with significant reductions in manning (27%less than current Nimitz
class carriers). The ship concept needed to be designed to meet a host of new
emerging threats that drove a balanced signature p a c k e and armor require
ments. Ship speed needed to be similar to that of the Nimitz class (ii order to
recover damaged aircraft, in no wind conditions, and to insure speedy transit
during a world crisis).
41
CVNX-Expanded Capability Baseline Aircraft Carrier Design Sludy
Study 5 was designed using the US.Navy‘s Advanced
Surface Ship Evaluation Tool (ASSET)a computer para-
metric ship modeling program. The aircraft carrier s u b
module in ASSET is called MONOCV (for monohull CV
designs). The Navy has continuously invested in this
computer program over the period of the AoA and sig-
nificant enhancements have been made to address
emerging technologies and more refined weight and
area algorithms. New algorithms used in the latest ver-
sion of MONOCV allowed the structural design of Study
5 to be far more accurate (in weight prediction) than pre-
viously possible in prior ship feasibility level designs.
Since passive armor would have a significanteffect in the
development of the hull structure for Study 5, the ability
to specify the material type, minimal thickness and its
precise placement in the geometry of the ship allowed
the study to be optimized around SWBS Group 100 (Hull
Structure). A 3D CAD model was developed from initial
ASSET results, refined hull form and features were devel-
oped using the CAD model in other computer tools (RCS
modelers, Hull Form analysis and modeling tools, etc.)
and then parametrically linked back to MONOCV to fur-
ther home in on the design parameters of the ship. To
investigate the system level impacts and to evaluate the
potential manning reductions, a set of General Arrange-
ment drawings were developed, and expanded around
those key new innovations or applications of technology
that could result in manpower reduction or in meeting
specific ORD requirements (like signatures, survivabil-
ity, quality of life, etc.).
The remainder of this paper addresses specific
features of Study 5, and how it used key technical inno-
vations in addressing the Navy‘s CVNX requirements.
F IG U R E 1 . Computer Graphic of Study 5
48
Ship Arrangements
The Flight Deck (see Figure 2) is based upon the con-
cept of “Pit Stop” aircraft servicing. Pit Stop is a combi-
nation of several enhancements made to the carrier that
help decrease the amount of time needed to re-service
(fuel, arm, etc.) an aircraft during cyclic operations.The
key to Pit Stop is to provide a sufficient amount of clear
flight deck area that enables the pilot of the landing air-
craft to maneuver his plane from the recovery runway,
to the servicing Pit Stop area, shut down, be serviced,
start up, and then taxihis aircraft back to one of the ship’s
catapults for relaunch, all without the need of using any
aircraft towing tractors (yellow gear)! Substantial
amounts of time and manpower savings are expected by
using the Pit Stop configuration.
Traditionally,teams of flight deck personnel are used
to drag long heavy fueling hoses (located along the flight
deck edges) to the aircraft. These hoses clog up the
servicing area around the planes, making it impossible
to load weapons and refuel simultaneously. Study 5
assumes that there are 18Pit Stops (one for each plane in
a returning cyclic operation air wing). At each deckedge
Pit Stop,locatedjust inboard are two flush deck servicing
hatches (see Figure 3). One of these hatches contains
electric power and electrical LAN cable reels, while the
other has a fueling and de-fueling fuel line couple and
valve. The premise is that the aircraft is guided to the Pit
Stop (by a combination of Flight Deck Spotters and an
in-deck signal lighting system), the planes are parked
with their jet exhausts directed overboard (key for Flight
Deck personnel safety), and then shut down. A servic-
ing operator opens the electrical servicing hatch,
May2000 NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL

F I G U R E 2 . Study S Flight Deck During Cyclic Operations Using "Pit-Stop"
attaches grounding cables, and then electric hook-ups to
the forward end of the aircraft. A mobile fueling cart
(similar in size to a yellow gear towing vehicle) pulls up to
the fueling service hatch, the driver opens the hatch,
attaches a short fuel line to the appropriate valve, and
then pulls a short fuel hose off the vehicle to the aircraft
and attaches it to the plane. While the plane is being
fueled it is also being rearmed by other Flight Deck per-
sonnel equipped with human strength amplificationvehi-
cles, capable of allowing a single man to lift a bomb up
onto an aircraft's wing, which currently requires as many
as six men to do. To ensure that weapons are pre-spot-
ted so that they can arm the planes as fast as possible,
three strategicallylocated upper stage weapons elevators
have been provided, each being serviced from below
deck transient weapon stowage centers, located in the
ship's sponsons.
The Hangar Bay (see Figure 4) was sized similar to
the Nimitz class; however, instead of having three bays
F I G U R E 3 . Study 5 Aircraft Being Serviced in "Pit-Stops"
NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL May2000
CVNX-Expanded Capabiliiy Baseline AircraH Carrier Design Study
divided by two hangar division doors, Study 5 has two air-
craft servicing bays subdivided by one hangar division
door. This choice was driven by the placement of the
enlarged starboard aircraft elevators, and their structural
impacts on the large elevator openings in the ship's hull
and hangar side bulkhead. Damage control in the
reduced number of bays was of concern, but historical
data found in earlier carrier designs that also had only one
subdivision door, indicated that this was not a problem.
The hangar is two decks high, vice the three-deck
height traditionally found in the Fleet today. The air wing
projected for this ship did not need the additional clear-
ance, so the height was dropped to help reduce the over-
all KG of the ship. There is a high hat region located in
each hangar bay that provides an additional two meters
of maintenance clearance to accommodate removal of air-
craft components requiring an overhead removal path.
An enlarged aircraft Composite Material Repair Shop
was added to the aft end of the hangar. This shop is capa-
49
CVNX-Expanded Cspablllly Basellne Aircraft Carrler Deslpn Study
F I G U R E 4 . Study 5 Main (Hangar) Deck
ble of holding one of the ship's largest spread-wingattack
aircraft (used to repair future smart skinned aircraft).
The forward most end of the hangar is only one deck in
height. Under this area there exists access to the indeck
elevator hatches for cargo and weapon elevators,as-well-
as dedicated stowage for all of the aircraft servicing "yel-
low" gear. Above this stowage area, hanging between
the structural bents and below the Gallery Deck, is an
area designed to store 50 standard 2O'x8'x3' modular
electronic equipment rafts (see Figure 9). Along the aft
hangar sidewalls are two large cargo elevators sized to
transfer canned aircraft replacement engines from below
deck storage areas to the Jet Engine Shop located at the
stern of the Main Deck (thereby resolving a traditional
stowage problem of canned engines displacing aircraft,
when stored within the current carriers hangar bays).
Of note is the addition of a cargo ramp along the star-
board aft hangar wing wall. This ramp provides pier side
access of fork driven (pallet size) cargo into the hangar,
thus speeding cargo strike-down into one of the eight
(pallet) storage elevators located along the hangar floor.
These new elevators replace traditionalpackage convey-
ors (each designed to accommodatesix pallets of cargo);
thereby reducing manning and shortening the duration
of pier-side and atsea replenishment.
Inboard Profde (seeFigure 5) Study 5 is approximately
70 feet longer than the Nimitz class along its waterline
(1,110 feet), but unlike the Nimitzclass the length overall
is not based solely on its Flight Deck length (which is
1,164 feet). Because of Study 5's unique bow design, its
I I
F I G U R E 5 . Study 5 Inboard Profile
50
overall length (bulbousbow to Flight Deck overhang) is
1,202 feet. The hangar bay length is approx. the same
length as that found on the Nimitz class (650 feet), but
Study 5 has an additional 158footforward extension for
yellow gear stowage and access to 50 modular electronic
rafts (stored in the upper level of the hangar). Note the
two recessed aircraft servicing high-hat areas in the
hangar.
Midship Section (see Figure 6) From keel to Flight
Deck the ship's depth is 96 feet (4.9 feet less than the
Nimitz class), however internal deck spacing is greater
and there are only two (not three) decks in the hangar
that yield the depth of the hangar to be 65.5 feet (1.1feet
higher than the Nimitz class). Combined with a shal-
lower draft of 37.5 feet, Study 5 provides an additional 2.2
feet of freeboard (hangar to waterline) than that of the
Nimitz design with a lower overall KG. Designed to meet
current Navy design standards (more stringent than
those required for the 30 year old Nimitz design), the
damage stability requirements drove the waterline beam
to 144.4 feet (10.4 feet greater than the Nimitz).This
combined with the flaring of the hull sides (for RCS
reduction), allowed the overall Flight Deck beam to be
increased to 285.4 feet (23.0 feet wider than the Nimitz)
without compromising the structural strength of
the underlying bent and sponson designs. The added
Flight Deck beam was needed to properly align the Pit
Stop aircraft servicing lanes and the aircraft recovery-
landing zone. By keeping the Hangar Bay width approx-
imately the same as the Nimitz,the overall structural
May2000 NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL

F I G U R E 6 . Study 5 Midship Section
bent legs (the port/stbd. vertical components of a
transverse structural “arch” that holds the Flight Deck
up over the Hangar) are wider and can accommodate
larger longitudinal access openings. These openings
provide a rapid method to move weapons longitudinally
(at the Gallery Deck level) between several sponson
weapon ready service staging areas,. which allow
for increased flow rates and improved selection of
the weapons needed in the aircraft Pit Stop servicing
concept.
F I G U R E 7 . Study5HullForm
NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL May2000
CVNX-Expanded Capebiiiiy Baseline AircraH Carrier Desi#n Study
Improved Hull Form
Study 5’s hull form (see Figure 7) was developed to
achieve several desired enhancements. The above water
line shape was designed to help reduce radar cross
section (RCS),while the below waterline design was cen-
tered on reducing resistance and improving hydro-
dynamic responses. The gradual keel rise required the
use of twin skegs to help support the hull when it was in
dry dock. The bow was designed using a traditional bul-
51
CVNX-Expanded Capabilily Baseline Aircraft Carrier Oesifln Study
bous bow, but in conjunction with a bow knife. A bow
knife is a geometrical method that reduces the hull’s half
entrance angle so that it will let the hull form pierce
through the water easier. It also provides a reverse hull
flare to the hull allowing the bow waves to climb up the
hull surface instead of having the wave breaking at the
stem and forming spray.
SurvivabiIity Features
Many advances in passive protection have been incorpo-
rated into Study 5. Enhanced torpedo and missile
protection systems became critical structural drivers in
the early stages of the concept design. Signature con-
cerns also drove much of the hull form and sponson
designs. The island design was not addressed in this
study. Since the design of the CVN 77 island structure
had not been finalized, the study used a weight and VCG
reservation for that island and assumed a similar foot-
print on the Flight Deck. Alternate island locations and
size were also analyzed separately.
Carriers have always relied upon their air wing and
battle group escorts for their primary active defense.
Study 5 is no different. However, secondary active
defense onboard Study 5 shows the historical NATO Sea
Sparrow missile box launchers and Close In Weapon
System (CIWS) gun mounts have been replaced with
vertically launched missiles (located on the aft port side
of the Flight Deck). Decoy launchers are provided
around the ship and a host of sensor suits have been
employed to help detect, track, evade, and avoid enemy
attacks. The ship concept also features an advanced anti-
torpedo torpedo system
The ship has many enhancements over the current
class to absorb weapon detonations and to keep on fight-
ing. Included in the concept design is a limited (40%of
berthing/sanitary and messing) Collective Protection
Systems (CPS),to provide a safe haven from chemical,
biological and radiological attacks, for the crew. The hull
concept design itself provides added protection for the
ship’s shafts and propellers, with the incorporation of the
twin skegs. Separation and armor of vital spaces was key
in the placement of critical functions. Redundancy in the
concept design was heavily pursued as in the use of an
AGZonal Electrical Distribution System (ZEDS). Finally,
several new passive armor systems were integrated into
the ship’s structure.
Manpower Reduction Initiatives
Study 5 has a CVNX ORD manpower reduction goal of
1,500 personnel less than that found on the CVN 76.
CVNX 1has an equivalent goal to reduce its manning by
over 900 personnel. The following list of key manpower
reduction initiatives do not reflect all of the manpower
savings identified for Study 5 or for CVNX 1, but it does
52
reflect those key technologies or design features that
play a substantial role in striving to achieve these goals.
Since Study 5 incorporated all of the manpower reduction
initiatives identified for CVNX 1 (AoA Part 3, Study l), it
was already assumed to have associated a manpower
reduction of 900.
The New Nuclear Propulsion Plant being devel-
oped for CVNX 1and used in Study 5 is based on reduc-
ing the Reactor Department staffing by approximately
half.
ElectromagneticAircraft Catapults and Arrest-
ing Gear also provide manpower reductions. EMALS is
expected to reduce the Air Department by 44 (accord-
ing to estimates based on AoA Part 3 Study 1).The Elec-
tromagnetic Aircraft Retrieval System (EARS), as used in
Study 5, which only replaces the current aircraft recov-
ery system’s cable hydraulic tensioning engines with
electromagnetic technology, was able to take off another
31 crewmembers.
“Pit Stop” Aircraft Servicing can reduce the over-
all time needed to service and relaunch aircraft during
cyclic flight deck operations and with over 63 fewer
Flight Deck personnel and 18 less aircraft towing trac-
tors, providing an estimated class (10 ships) potential Net
Present Value (Nw) cost savings of $457 Million (1999
dollars) over the lie of the class.
Electric Weapon and Aircraft Elevatorsin Study 5
replace the traditional hydraulic cable driven elevators in
use by the fleet today, Technology (developed in Japan)
taken from elevatorsused in commercial sky-scrapersuse
electrically driven motors attached to the base corner
points of an elevator platform, each gripping aligned guide
rails, as it pulls itself up hundreds of stories. Not only can
these elevators replace the need for cables, but they can
move up inclined elevator trunks and some can even per-
form horizontal movements along their vertical ascent.
Study 5 uses this concept by allowing lower stage and
upper stage weapon elevators to be combined. Tradition-
ally weapons are elevated from the lower protected ship
magazines in two stages. The first stage is a vertical
ascent from the below waterline magazines to the Sec-
ond or Hangar Decks. At this point weapons are manually
moved to second stage weapon elevators, which complete
their passage to the Flight Deck. This causes a great d i s
ruption to hangar operations and below deck crew mess-
ing and passageway access, not to mention a great deal
of manual labor. Utilizing a combined weapons elevator
trunk that can move upward in an inclined manner will
enable the avoidance of hangar deck and personnel d i s
ruptions, while speeding up the whole weapons delivery
process. Together (inclined trunks and cableless eleva-
tors) an additional 124 crewmembers can be removed
from the ship’s Weapon Department.
The three large aircraft elevators used in Study 5 were
outfitted with electric vice hydraulic cable lifting engines.
Though these elevators keep their l i n g cables, there is
May2000 NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL

an additional manpower savings of 18 (Air Department)
crewmembers, by moving to an all-electric lifting system.
These two combined yield an additional 142 personnel
that can be removed, which provides an estimated class
NW cost savings of $1.4billion over the life of the class.
Improved Inventory Control and Storage was
aggressively pursued in Study 5. Several off-the-shelf
commercial technologies (robotic pallet storage &
retrieval systems, radio frequency-RF ID tags & SMART
card technologies), were used on the premise that it
requires less people to move large bulk items than small
items (i.e., pallets not boxes). Study 5 was able to reduce
the projected Supply Department manning by 109 crew
members resulting in a class NPV LCC cost avoidance
of $2.2 Billion (FY 99$).
All 39 below Second Deck storage spaces (including:
provisions, flammables. liquids, rotatable pool, aviation,
and engine. spare parts, etc.) were designed to be
accessed by a pallet elevator, and each storeroom was
equipped with a pallet storage and retrieval system (sim-
ilar to existing systems already being utilized on com-
mercial ships). Assuming all storage items would have
attached RF tags with unique identifiers it is possible to
pass an entire pallet (of different items) past an RF
receiver capable of scanning up to 50 items per second
within a 2-meter area. Thus entire contents of pallets
could be automatically placed into a computer inventory.
The robotic pallet storage system knows precisely
where each pallet is located within a storage area, thus
where every part is. Using SMART cards crewmembers
can withdraw equipment and supplies while a complete
record of each transaction is kept in a database. Supplies
can be reordered automatically. For small parts, modu-
lar cabinets designed to the same size as a commercial
pallet are used bou might think of them as mobile cabi-
nets, racks or bins). One concept being proposed by the
Navy supply service is to periodically exchange these
mobile bins (even if they are not empty) with pre-outfit-
ted bins, thus the need to restock each unit while on ship
would disappear. Restocking could be done ashore, and
the ship would be confident that it always had what it
needed, when it needed it.
Figure 8 shows one of the provision storerooms of
Study 5. In it you can see the flow of the pallets: from the
elevator to a pallet check-in station (where it is RF
scanned), then it is picked up by a pallet robot, which
passes it through an air lock (ii need be) and off loads it
into a storage row. The walls and floor of each stowage
row are smooth and easy to clean. Deck Drainage is pro-
vided for quick washdowns. The same robot that stores
the pallets can retrieve another robot that is capable of
placing a lockable door next to the last open stored pallet.
This locks in the entire row and ensures that the cargo
is properly secured for rough seas.
Modular Electronic Spaces (see Figure 9) are a
concept developed for Study 5 that uses commercial stan-
NAVAL E N G I N E E R S J O U R N A L May2000
CVNX-Expanded Capabilily Baseline Aircraft Carrier Desiun Study
dard 2O'x8'x8' shipping containers that have been modi-
fied to have a removable top, leaving behind a 3' thick
rafted deck that supports high value electronic equip-
ment (those that are commonly updated throughout the
life of the ship).These containers can be airlifted around
the world to meet the ship. Once there, they can be
hoisted on to the ship (onto the Flight Deck or a lowered
aircraft elevator) and moved to one of the hangar main-
tenance high hat areas. There, the top can be removed
with an overhead bridge crane and the raft can then be
moved into place under the forward hangar overhang
(01 Level). Support rails are lowered from the above
structural openings and attached to the lifting points on
the raft. Once hoisted into the overhead and secured,
the rafts are matched up.with electrical, cooling water,
and computer LAN connections. The gaps between the
rafts and their targeted openings are sealed from the bot-
tom by thin aluminum adhesive tape strips (forming an
air tight barrier) and by rubber floor straps along the
matching false flooring above (to provide a trip barrier).
Ventilation, lighting and communication hook-ups are
already provided in the ship cavities.
Centralized Food Complex. Significant manpower
can be saved by combining the many existing (crew,
CPO and Officer) galleys into a single galley. Study 5
does this on the Second Deck. All food is prepared in one
large galley (a small kitchen is provided adjacent to the
Flag and Captain's quarters). The Second Deck Galley
and adjoining separate mess decks for crew, CPOs, and
officers is all confined to one CPS/Fie zone. This makes
it possible for crewmembers to process through a chow
line, proceed to a messing area, eat, and then drop their
dishes at a scullery without ever having to navigate an
air/pressure lock with a tray of food. Below the galley is
60%of the ship's stored provisions, also protected by an
adjacent CPS zone. Cooks move food in pallet form from
the storerooms directly to adjacent galley thaw rooms for
easy access. There exists a robot pallet moving system
along Second Deck that can store or retrieve pallets of
provisions from the forward below deck storerooms to
the aft below deck storerooms; this minimizes the need
for food handlers. Located between the two forward cat-
apults on the Gallery deck is a smaller food messing area.
Food is prepared in the main galley and moved forward
and up (using one of several personnel elevators) by s p e
cial carts designed to keep the food warm, to the Gallery
Deck mess area. It is then served in a buffet manner to
the crew. Overall the Supply Department can further
reduce its manning by an additional 39 billets which
equates to a class estimated N W LCC cost avoidance of
$560 Million (in FY99$).
Improved Habitability
Significant efforts were made in Study 5 to improve the
quality of life for its sailors. The average "Hotel Service"
53
CVNX-Expanded Capability Baseline AircraH Carrier Design Study
F I G U R E 8 . Study 5 Provision Storeroom
area Q.e.living spaces, sanitary spaces, messing, recre-
ation, library and chapel, etc.) requirement per accom-
modation was increased from 45 to 66 sq-ft/man (for
SSCS Group 2). This additional area was needed to meet
the current Navy habitability standards for surface ship
crews. No longer would crew members have to share a
bunkroom and sanitary facility with more than a hundred
fellow crewmates. In Study 5 crew bunkrooms were
reduced to no more than 18berths (including associated
lockers and a small table with chairs). Each bunkroom
has an adjacent sanitary facility equipped with two show-
56
ers, three washbasins and three toilets. Every crew berth
in Study 5 was designed to be one of the new modular
“Sit-up”berths (allowing each person the ability to sit-
up on his/her own bunk). Even though the sit-up
berthing unit is not required to meet the Navy‘s current
habitability standards, it was felt that it provided a man-
ageable method to help insure privacy in an otherwise
crowded arena. With this new bunkroom concept, incor-
poration of Women-At-Sea is more easily attainable.
Reduced sized berthing will generate better security,
tighter camaraderie and a quieter place to relax and
May2000 NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL

F I G U R E 9 . Modular Electronic Containers
sleep. Those that work together can more likely be
berthed together, when one is sleeping it is likely that the
others sharing their bunkroom will also be sleeping;thus
providing less stress for the individual. Study 5 also took
the initiative to incorporate four personnel elevators
(each designed with a wraparound stair case).These e l c
vators double as conveyors helping the crew move large
items between the decks bounded by the Second Deck
and Gallery Deck. Ninety percent of the vertical ladders
presently used on carriers today have been replaced with
inclined ladder ways. These ladder ways have been
spread out to reduce steepness in order to increase safety
and help eliminate excessive long-term wear on human
leg joints.
Summary
Study 5 was projected to exceed the CVNX 2 ORD man-
ning reduction goal of 1,500 (see Figure 10) by address-
ing current design short comings and implementingnew
technologies Most of all, Study 5 showed the proper inte
gration of each into a balanced ship design while still
being able to meet all of the other ORD mission require
ments (both thresholds and goals).
Increased Flight Deck Performance is achieved
by teaming Pit Stop Flight Deck arrangements with
improved below deck weapons movement and storage.
NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL May 2000
CVNX-Expanded CapabliityBaseline Aircralt Carrier Desiun Study
NAVAIR's predictions show the number of surge aircraft
sorties Study 5 can produce is up to 50%more than the
CVN 76 class can achieve (depending on mission radius
and given an equivalent air wing complement), and with
far less cost and manning. In Study 5, Nimitz class 12-hr.
sustained sortie rates are increased by 76 more sorties
per day. While comparable surge sortie rates are esti-
mated to be substantially higher as well. Based on a 144
sustained sortie rate of a Nimitzclass carrier, Study 5 will
provide a LCC savings per ship of $1,900 (constant FY
99 dollars) for every sortie over the life of each ship.
Improved Survivabilityis necessary in the coming
century. Existing and emerging threats have become
more accessible to our potential future enemies. As such,
the likelihood that a ship of this class would be attacked
and hit is much greater than our present Fleet now
encounters. Study 5 provides the volume, armor, and
technology to defeat these emerging threats. There are
many levels to a successful defense, namely: avoidance,
detection, evasive action, and engagement. Study 5 can
sustain damage and still continue on mission. Study 5 is
not a dreadnaught; however, Study 5 is the most surviv-
able surface ship ever designed for the U.S. Navy.
Construction & Cost Iimitations play the biggest
role in deciding to invest in a design like Study 5. Study
5 is larger than our present maintenance facilities can
now support. Major modifications to several of the cur-
55
CVNX-Expanded Capability Baseline Aircraft Carrier Veslgn Sfudy
F I G U R E 1 0 . Integrated Liquid Discharge System Schematic
rent Navy and private yards would have to be made to
support a class of these ships. However the cost to mod-
ify all these yards is very small (approximately $350M)
compared to the Life Cycle Cost (LCC) savings this
design will bring to the Fleet. However, there is substan-
tial time to make these modifications and to amortize
their cost. The bottom line is that Study 5 would require
a significant non-recurring cost (for a clean sheet design
and to support key technology R&D
Of note is that of all the 74 carrier studies investigated
during the three year cvM(AoA, Study 5 produced the
greatest manpower reductions and the lowest LCC, while
providing a robust balanced survivability package and
substantially increasing the air wing’s potential sortie
rate! A remaining concern is the approximate 2.8 billion
dollar (R&D and design) delta cost “hump” it presents
to the DOD projected FY budgets during the lead ship
procurement. However, follow ships of this class are pro-
jected to be of the same cost magnitude as a repeat
Nimitz class design (like the CVNX 1).
56
Acknowledgments
The author wishes to thank Mr. Steven Toby at John J.
McMullen Associates and Mr. Siu Fung of NSWCXD for
providing valuable assistance in the development of the
Study 5’s hull form. The author also wishes to recognize
Mr. Bruce Wintersteen, Mr. Gary Smith, and Mr. Eric
Davis of NSWC-CD for their help in tailoring the ASSET
ship design tool to meet the needs of this design. And Mr.
Warren Baker of the Naval Air Engineering Center -
Lakehurst, for his collaboration in the development and
analysis of “Pit Stop” aircraft servicing.
Bibliography
Naval Sea Systems Command, PEO Carrier, “CVN X Opera-
tional Requirements Document,” September 1999
“ASSET-Advanced Surface Ship Evaluation Tool,” http://www.
dt.navy.mil/asset/ Naval Surface Warfare Center, Carde
rock Division
May2000 NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL
 CVMX-Expanded Capability Baseline Aircraft Carrier Desipn Study

James David McWhite is a naval architect currently work-
ingforthe ~~~~l Surface warfare Center, Cardero&
(code 24) Total ship systems Directorate. For the past 5 years,
he has been on-site at N A V ~ E A Carrierkficture
- ~ ~ ~ carrier
design site, as the senior naval architect in charge of new carrier
designs. Previously he spent two years as the Design Integration
Manager (DIM) for the Navy's future Surface Combatant
program (SC-21). Before transferring to Carderock, he spent
seven years with the Naval Sea Systems Command (SEA 0301)
in their Preliminary Ship Design Division, and another 5years
with (SEA 55w1) ship Arrawemenh Division. He a gradu-
ate of the NAVSEA Engineer-In-Training Program, and has a
BS in ocean engineering ('81)from the Florida Institute of
Technology~and a MSE in architecture marine
engineering ('88)fromthe University of Michigan.

Upcoming Meetings for Gulf Coast ASNE Section

ASElMaritechlNSRP
Rick Self, Energy Club on Poydras, validated parking in building. Joint meeting with
SNAME.
August 16,2000.

Shipbuilding Technology Info Exchange

Doubletree, New Orleans.
September 21-22, 2000.

Strategic Planning
, Steve Maguire at Carlone's in Metairie.
~ September 27, 2000.

Undersea Modeling, Simulation, Materials, Robotics, Exploration & Recovery

Dr. Mike Lynch, Tulane University. lmpastatoes in Metairie (3400 16th Street, near
N. Hullen).
November 15,2000.

NAVAL ENGINEERS JOURNAL May2000 57