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. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.

In executing its long-range shipbuilding plan, the U.S. Navy is facing financial challenges that require it to evaluate potential lower-cost options for its most-expensive platforms. We examine potential alternatives for replacing later Nimitz-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (CVNs) as they reach the end of their planned service lives in 2030 and beyond. Some in Congress, among others, have criticized the Gerald  R. Ford–class nuclear aircraft carriers (USS Gerald  R. Ford [CVN 78], USS John F. Kennedy [CVN 79], and USS Enterprise [CVN 80]), which are now in construction or early long-lead procurement, for high acquisition cost, and the Navy has been directed to consider lower-cost alternatives. The study reported here was an effort to consider those alternatives by asking what platform options should be considered, how different platforms would perform in various operational environments, and the costs of alternative platforms. This report provides an unclassified summary of a longer, restricted-distribution companion report.