Lots of CVE & CVL Vs Small group of "Supercarriers"

[Ultimo Tiger]

What's best? A large group of small carriers or the current US fleet of 11 CVN's?

I'm just curious as to which people think is better. It's based on an article I read which I can't link to because when I try and post it, I get a forbidden message.

[Gerarddm]

IMHO more & smaller CVs are just more potential targets for an adversary. I think the Falklands showed what happens when you're not equipped with a Nimitz.

[Dick J]

Smaller CV's were discussed at length during the Carter administration. However, you have to understand how many of the dimensions of the CV are fixed by external factors. First parameter is the performance of the aircraft. To compete with land based planes, high performance is required. That sets the landing speed, and when coupled with the strength of the airframe, sets the stopping distance. (Human limitations also apply.) This fixes the length of the angle. The height of the aircraft (like the E-2) fixes the hangar height. This establishes the beam necessary to keep the ship upright. Launching requires a minimum wind speed over the deck, as does landing. For the fixed beam, a short ship requires massive power - more than will fit inside the hull, so a longer ship is necessary. In addition, fuel and ordinance must also fit inside the hull. The CVV from the Carter years was about half the size (tonnage wise) of a Nimitz. However, it carried only a third of the airgroup. It also needed almost the same amount of electronics (radar, radios, CIC, etc.) so no savings there. Even worse, the low power available meant that 6 months out of dock (with lots of green growth attached to the hull) the ship couldn't generate enough speed to launch aircraft. A Nimitz would carry enough fuel and ordinance for 9 days operations. The CVV would be good for about 2. The CVV carried about 70-75% of the crew, and cost about 85% of the price of a Nimitz. The Navy passed on Carter's CVV offer.

[Werner]

Friedman discusses this at length in his policy and design tome.

The general conclusion is, if you're going to build a ship, steel is the cheapest part. A 40,000 ton nuclear carrier is precious little savings over a 100,000 ton carrier, when you consider cost or offensive power.

[Ultimo Tiger]

Well the article itself did have several flaws in it which lead me to question if he knew what he was talking about. He suggested the US could have used the Aleutian islands instead of doing the island hopping in the Pacific��.Yet we all know that the conditions on those islands would make it near impossible to mount bombing operations from there. Not to mention we would not have starved the Japanese of their vital supplies such as oil.

I understand some the points he makes, such as having heavily armed carriers in the same vain as the Kiev class so carriers could defend themselves, yet we all know that CV�s travel with large escort groups for that purpose.

One of the main arguments he made was that �Super Carriers� can�t get through the Panama Canal and hence going around the bottom of South America represents a great ambush spot for enemy Submarines.

Personally I think he�s a bit bonkers (he stars ranting about the Forrestal fire and how McCain was involved for some reason). The CVN allows you to field a nice big hammer as well as aircraft which wouldn�t get off the deck of a smaller carrier unless they were STOVL fighters such as the F-35 or Harrier. Then again the F-35 is going to become the main fighter for both the Royal Navy & the USN (IIRC, please correct me I�m mistaken) so maybe smaller ski jump carriers to supplement the CVN�s wouldn�t be that ridiculous an idea. I�m not an expert by any means but the F-35B is designed to work on the STOVL principle so you could probably use it off an Invincible sized CV or something such as Hermes.

Just my opinion. To write off the CVN is sheer stupidity in my opinion.

Here is the article in question:
http://www.geocities.com/usnavyindanger/midwaymyth.htm

[C T]

If you look at the limitations the Brits were faced with in the Falklands because of the limited airgroups of their carriers. No E2's to spot incoming raids, could not keep a round the clock CAP. Very limited ground support because the fighters couldn't be in two places a once. The inability to orbit tankers to keep CAP available on station. It was remarkable that more ships weren't lost to the Argentine Naval aircraft. If the Argentine Airforce had been half as agressive the Brits could have lost the whole task force.
C T

[Lesforan]

A few supercarriers are better than lots of smaller ones, for the reason they can take on more different mission roles.
A lot of this has to do with what Congress will allow them to buy. A supercarrier should be able to take on both attack and ASW roles, with other roles thrown in: CAP coverage for the battle group, non-combat emergency response, spacecraft recovery. The larger aircraft they can carry enables them to take on more tasks.

While the nuke plant can keep the hull moving for a long time, the time sustained operations can be carried out still depends on unrep capability of the battle group, so nuclear power may not be the advantage it would be to, say, a sub.

If the bean counters do not want the CVN's to continue in their ASW role, something else will have to substitute. With the retirement of the Essex-class carriers, what remains are the amphibious attack ships, which are really Essex-size carriers under another name. The big difference, aside from the amphibious capability, is the fact that these smaller ships are set up for VTOL aircraft exclusively.

McCain was involved in the Forrestal fire, alright. He was sitting in his A-4, armed and fueled, waiting to be moved to launch. The fire engulfed his plane and he had to climb out on the nose to avoid jumping down into the fire. See the book "Sailors to the End."

Two of the many heros that day were trapped deep below decks in an auxiliary steering compartment. They died at their posts, helping steer the ship when its regular steering mechanism was knocked out. They were in communication with the bridge until the fire killed them.

The Argentine Navy pilots put forth a good effort, but were hampered by operating at the range limits of their aircraft, and by a shortage of Exocet missles. The Argentine Air Force was not as effective: B-57 night bombing missions; Lear Jet photo recon flights; C-130 supply attempts. Both could have benefitted from long-range escort fighters.

[winstonshu]

the guy who wrote the article the OP refers to is obviously bending facts to fit his agenda.

i mean, you get as far as the first few lines, and he's using the oriskany's sinking as an example of how flawed the design of a supercarrier is?

what?

a sinking of a carrier with prepared charges is comparable to battle damage?

obviously a smidge loco.

and oh yeah, the entire let's-go-through-alaska battleplan.

just... wow.

[Ultimo Tiger]

the guy who wrote the article the OP refers to is obviously bending facts to fit his agenda.

i mean, you get as far as the first few lines, and he's using the oriskany's sinking as an example of how flawed the design of a supercarrier is?

what?

a sinking of a carrier with prepared charges is comparable to battle damage?

obviously a smidge loco.

and oh yeah, the entire let's-go-through-alaska battleplan.

just... wow.

See that's what bothered me. I found the link through watching a video of the I-400 on Youtube and the guy is convinced the Panama Canal is some massive weakness that is going to screw us over. Not to mention the Oriskany stuff. Look at the CV's which survived Kamikze attacks and such.

I thought he made some poitns but half the time he came across as a bit millitant and crazy.

Internet:Serious Business.

[Werner]

Oriskany had been "Category X" for thirty years. In that status there is no maintenance or inspection apart from that necessary to keep the ship from sinking in her berth. Imagine what happens to unprotected steel in salt water for 30 years!!

Oriskany was also hardly a "supercarrier". She was approximately the size and displacement of the current and near future European carriers.

It's too bad years will pass before we have any idea how much punishment ex- USS America took before they pulled her plug. That, I am sure would change the tune.

[Seasick]

The CVV concept goes back before Carter. The plan for smaller Carriers came up in Congress because of the cost over runs involved with the construction of CVN-69 and CVN-70. One early proponent was Gerry Ford's Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. Carter listened to the Navy on that one. The CVV was half the size of the Nimitz with about a third of the air group. (as stated earlier)

Jimmy Carter was hopeing to get another JFK from Congress in 1982.

[Gerarddm]

I think Gary Hart liked more/smaller CVs too. Bad idea then, bad idea now.

[j leyland]

This arguement goes back to the days of the first Ranger and Wasp. In those days treaty tonage limits were a factor also, but WWII experience clearly shows the falsity of the small carrier position.

[Lesforan]

Ranger and Wasp were built to fill out remaining tonnage allowances. The problem, I think, was not so much their small size, but the idea that they were to function as fleet carriers in a variety of roles like their bigger brothers.

Better they would be assigned more specialized roles. Wasp was used as an aircraft ferry to bring aircraft to Malta. If we had more carriers, they probably would have been useful as training ships. They would have made great ASW carriers for Atlantic convoy escort, much more capable than the "Jeep" carriers.

[Dick J]

In the pre-war planning, Ranger and Wasp were to operate with the battle fleet, which is why they carried half fighters and half scout-bombers. After Pearl Harbor, with no battle fleet to cover, they were assigned new roles which were being re-defined on the fly. Wasp was one of those cases of "If I knew then . . .". She might have survived with damage control techniques learned on her and the other carriers, but which were not yet fully comprehended and codified when she was lost. The same could be said for Yorktown and Lexington. I am not saying that the smaller CV was just as good as the larger, just that we shouldn't read too much into the specific circumstances in which Wasp was lost.

[winstonshu]

She might have survived with damage control techniques learned on her and the other carriers, but which were not yet fully comprehended and codified when she was lost. The same could be said for Yorktown and Lexington. I am not saying that the smaller CV was just as good as the larger, just that we shouldn't read too much into the specific circumstances in which Wasp was lost.

lexington, yes. yorktown sounds like they'd already implemented about as many of the lessons as the navy would learn, which is the only reason she stayed in the fight as long as she did at midway.

truly a travesty that the USN doesn't have a carrier named yorktown.

times like this i wish the USN had adopted the RN tradition of transferring battle honors over to the next ship that carried the name... can you imagine names like lexington, saratoga, hornet and especially enterprise (who wants to bet that when the current Big E is retired, there won't be another CVN named enterprise?) and yorktown not being associated with carriers if that were the case?

[Ultimo Tiger]

I think with sunken ships they have to be careful. No ship has been named Hood in the RN ever since 1941. Granted there isn't a set rule, many ships in the RN do bear names of ships lost, the Submarine Repulse, the carriers Ark Royal, Hermes etc.

I don't mind using names of lost ships but naming an Aircraft Carrier Prince of Wales just seems.........................Odd.

[Werner]

There is currently no ship named Yorktown of any description. Nor Langley, Ranger, Saratoga, Lexington, Hornet, Intrepid, Guadalcanal, Reprisal, Franklin (one of the first US ships of the line), Independence, America,Constellation, United States, President or Ticonderoga. Since the decommissioning of the Flt. 1 Ticonderogas, there is also no Valley Forge.

When Enterprise retires, so will her name. She will be replaced by a ship and class named for a politician of little consequence, the USS Gerald R. Ford.

The USN naming scheme is asinine and bankrupt.

[winstonshu]

I think with sunken ships they have to be careful. No ship has been named Hood in the RN ever since 1941. Granted there isn't a set rule, many ships in the RN do bear names of ships lost, the Submarine Repulse, the carriers Ark Royal, Hermes etc.

I don't mind using names of lost ships but naming an Aircraft Carrier Prince of Wales just seems.........................Odd.

this may be true, but in general i think that so long as the circumstances of the loss are honorable, there's nothing wrong with naming a ship after a predecessor that was lost in battle.

certainly the USN doesn't have a hangup about this issue, having named a second carrier hornet, wasp, lexington, yorktown (the originals all having, obviously, been lost in battle).

on top of that, the USN has also never been shy about naming ships after hard-fought defeats (bunker hill, anyone?).

[mitchell300]

Much smaller once...
Becas when 1 bigger 1 is attacked and out of can be used..
Then u lost alot...
And smaller once are less easyer to hit

Mitchell.