Posted on 09/10/2020 2:07:16 PM PDT by Retain Mike
A number of Proceedings articles and commentaries in the past several years have advanced the idea of saving money and fulfilling the vision of “distributed maritime operations” by building a fleet of more, smaller, lighter ships. For aircraft carriers, that argument tends to take the shape of more “Lightning carriers”—based on the hull form of amphibious assault ships such as the USS America (LHA-6) class—and fewer nuclear-powered carriers of the Nimitz (CVN-68) and Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) classes.
While LHAs are cheaper to build than CVNs ($3 billion vs. $10 or more billion), the argument misses several key principles that allow CVNs to pack a lot more punch (orders of magnitude more, in fact) and deliver it more economically—and more combat effectively—than the smaller flattops.
(Excerpt) Read more at usni.org ...
fewer, larger flattops are WAY easier to eliminate than a larger fleet of smaller ones ... i wonder if any “mathematics” were used to analyze that little issue?
no replacement for displacement...
And they can’t even keep one in port from burning to a crisp.
Fire is the main danger to any naval ship. And this one looks like arson, there is a suspect.
Even the Alternate Command Center within the Cheyenne Mountain Complex can be destroyed by an enemy nuclear strike. That doesn't mean it should be done away with.
The U.S. has used big carriers many times since WWII to our advantage. And as long as we have the right mix of nuclear and conventional weapons - and a tough Republican president - our big carriers are probably safe.
If a Democrat is elected president, all bets are off.
Many were modernized and used in Vietnam.
The Essex class were bigger than the ones you noted. The Essex were more up to date as well. Review your history.
Cool visual, but when I look at it I think of some s.o.b. trying to land on it. If he gets waved off he’s going to come off the front end of that aft strip, get sucked right into the port forward fan, and be ground to chutney.
At the end of the war, the Essex class were being phased out for the even bigger and heavier Midway class carriers that just missed the end of WWII, but went on to handle modern jets during Korea, Viet Nam and up through Desert Storm.
We took a carrier that was recently decommissioned and NUKED it.... still didn’t sink....had to be scuttled
I wonder if a nuclear powered “lightning carrier” could serve as a nerve center for Nimitz/Ford class carrier task force anti-submarine warfare (ASW) operations, significantly augmenting the fast frigate ships by allowing them temporary use of up to 2 or 3 additional helicopters and/or P-3s.
Throw in a limited but short-turn restockable anti-missile battery, and you might have a real game changer.
The big carriers are force projection. The smaller ones are really mission projection. But the smaller ones might also be imminently usable as force protection platforms, against air-breathing as well as missile threats.
I was a ground pounder (Army), but I’m an engineer, which means I like to think. Any maritime compatriots with thoughts on my suggestion? (I won’t get my feelings hurt if you strongly disagree - I’m just thinking outside the box)
Essex class were updated after the war (angled flight decks). Midway class missed the war but only three were built. The updated Essex class served until the 1970’s. The Forestall class were built in the 50’s and 60’s and were the backbone of the carrier fleet till the advent of Nimitz class CVN’s.
Good point.
What is the point of big carriers, when manned combat aircraft are becoming extinct, or mini-drone carriers themselves?
Wouldn't smaller platforms for unmanned drones, with perhaps a few manned "mission command" planes, be a better mix?
In WW2, we had a few ‘jeep carriers’, smaller than full-size carriers, but able to perform other missions.
I have it on good authority that Guam will tip over if you try to tow it.
Hot riders prime directive.
There is some merit to your argument.
The author of the article is trying to counter the recent naval report recommending capping the carrier numbers and building more smaller vessels.
I believe the future is in Armored Battleships armed with Rail Guns and lazier particle Anti-Aircraft weapons. I believe ships more like the Yamato than the Arizona.
I wonder about all the electronics. If a missile or EMP hits the island does the ship (big or small) become just a room temperature iceberg? Bigger has an attraction for me in that it has more room for more state of the art defensive systems and a greater variety of offensive capabilities. The admirals just have to think out of their boxes, but is there really a chance of that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.