Replies

The problems with SCS are that they can’t carry big enough aircraft, and can’t maintain combat ops for long enough to be effective.

They’re basically an evolution of the old CVE, good for anti-sub and supporting amphibious ops.

In WWII the US carried the war to Japan with the then-big Essex Class Carriers. Which by the end of the war had airgroups of slightly over 100 aircraft. The Independence-class Light Carriers, converted from light cruiser hulls, weren’t considered to be all that effective. They were supposed to carry 45 aircraft, but were cramped enough that they usually only carried in the mid 30s.

Seems to me that a super carrier can no longer go into dangerous waters, even with a battle group because of newer missiles and 'swarm' tactics with dozens of small, cheap boats. I read that the Chinese were developing or had developed hypersonic missiles, flying too fast to be intercepted or shot down by CIWS systems. There was also a post recently on FR concerning scads of radio and robotic controlled boats being used to attack capital ships, the idea being to overwhelm defences with sheer numbers.

Look at what the Brits accomplished in the Falklands with the HMS Invincible operating thousands of miles from home, close to enemy territory. After several tries at sinking her, the Argie AF ceased operations in the Falklands. They were outclassed by RAF pilots. It seems to me that if there are multiple smaller aircraft carriers operating in a battle (along with required picket ships in a battle group), there is a greater chance of success, because basically, not all your eggs are in one basket. Take, for example, the America-class amphibious assault ships. Two of those can be had for the price of a super carrier. Instead of 10 supercarriers, for the same price, there could be 20 carriers. If there were a major battle where the US had two supercarriers in battle instead, by building smaller carriers, like the America-class, there could be four carriers carrying the same or more aircraft and offering greater chance of survival, four ships to sink versus two.

It seems that in this day and age, where supercarriers are more easily at risk, they have become more about status symbols than anything else, a form of 'mine's bigger than yours'. Do ships that complex and expensive, really make sense any more?