The latest version I've seen is

24 F/A-18E/F
20 F-35C
5 EA-18G
5 E-2C
6 HH-60

The F-35C numbers will depend on how many the Navy buys; they would like 12 per squadron, but at present they may only have 10 per squadron which is reflected above.

60 aircraft seems light compared to the huge airwings of the 1980s, but the capability of today's air wings are far greater with fewer aircraft.  That will be even more true when the F-35 joins the fleet.  And fewer aircraft leads to safer operations.

The helo should be MH-60R, and I guess by then most of the E-2s will be E-2D.

Herald

About 2020...

"http://www.cnaf.navy.mil/nae/content.asp?AttachmentID=27"


DA

The idea is that currently, F/A-18Fs are replacing the F-14 (The only exception to this is that VF-14, a former Tomcat squadron, transitioned to the single seat F/A-18E) and the oldest F/A-18A+ and C squadrons are transitioning to the F/A-18E.  The current notional airwing is 24 Super Hornets and 24 legacy Hornets.  This will be the standard until the F-35 joins the fleet.

The F-35s will then begin replacing the legacy Hornets, which will be pretty old by then since the USN F/A-18s were all delivered between 1987 and 2000.

Carriers and aviation ships ARE going to be hit. Size matters when it comes to battle damage and survivability. Compartmentalization.

It also matters as a function of usability. Not only are these base ships bomb depots and chicken coops; but when needed they are also food/fuel/maintenance supply ships for the small fry frigates/destroyers/cruisers running around with them  in a forward deployment. Big ship=large fuel bunkers/lots of refrigerator space and machine shops.

A big carrier is a useful disaster relief propaganda asset and a useful mobile power station as well as a fresh water supply point and hospital. Don't forget those machine shops. Ad hoc on the spot manufacturing matters in the middle of a disaster.
Big aviation ship means big troop support ship when so configured. You can smack Somalia around when needed.

It's nuclear powerplant means a big electric weapons platform. A large carrier will have the killowatts to spare to operate a charged particle beam whenever we get one as well as the radars/groundpath ionizing lasers to aim it. Stick one of those 50M/W+ DEWs on the carrier fantail or in a rotator mount aft of the island [2025] and watch out TD 4 and PRC "stealth bomber".

Plus with 60+ bombers and 30+ UCAVs[or maybe the reverse]  you can just about ruin the PRCs daydreams about becoming the middle kingdom again at the least expense to yourself for dollar invested and that is always desirable.

Its mighty useful, a big carrier.

Herald

Everything Herald just said is true, but this is the most important thing when considering whether it is "prudent" to build Midway size vs Nimitz size CVs:

Plus with 60+ bombers and 30+ UCAVs[or maybe the reverse]  you can just about ruin the PRCs daydreams about becoming the middle kingdom again at the least expense to yourself for dollar invested and that is always desirable.

The economy of scale of large carriers is hard to overstate.  The cost of a carrier does not scale up with size; the capability difference between a 1100 foot, 90,000 ton carrier and a 850 foot, 50,000 ton carrier is vastly greater than the cost difference.  Over the lifetime of the ships, the operating cost of the ship itself will not be that much different. 

If you can't affort to operate the larger CV at capacity, then don't.  In the 80s, the USN operated close to 90 aircraft on their CVs (typically 24+24+10+4+4+4+10+6) whereas today it's closer to 60 (24+24+5+5+6) on the same size ship.  While it could be argued that with the smaller air wing, you don't "need" as big a carrier, the fact is that operating on a less cramped ship gives a huge increase in safety and efficiency, and allows you to carry more fuel, supplies, and munitions for the aircraft.  Plus, if you operate carriers in groups, if one of your carriers gets hit and is unable to recover aircraft, your other carriers can pick up the slack.  Harder to do that if your carriers are already at capacity.

Building small carriers is one of those decisions that looks good on paper but that you wind up having to make up for over the lifetime of the carrier with increased replenishments, decreased safety, decreased operational tempo, and decreased robustness.

Just a few comments that came to my mind, heard from various sources:

1) I would not be so sure about those 20 F-35Cs, because Marine Corps intended to buy STOVL F-35B version. Currently some CVWs have Marine F/A-18A+/C units assigned, but no one knows what happens when F-35B is introduced.

2) Currently F/A-18A+/C squadrons tend to have only 10 aircraft assigned as a result of shrinking quantity of available legacy Hornets, F/A-18E/F being allowed to keep 12 aircraft due to the fact they provide organic refueling to the air wing.

3) Not only MH-60R, but also MH-60S (present SH-60F squadrons transitioning to "Sierra"model). All Carrier Strike Group MH-60R/S are going to be formally assigned toCVW (different than it used to be), though half of them still flying from "smallboys" and support ships. I met three variants of MH-60R/S squadron mixes:
- 12 MH-60R and 8 MH-60S,
- 10 MH-60R and 10 MH-60S,
- 12 MH-60R and 12 MH-60R.
Maybe you have some idea which is the final one?

Best regards,
Jacek