AHC: 20 supercarriers post 1975

Could the US economy even aford this? The extra CVs would need extra escorts as well, so those would have to be built as well...
 
Could the US economy even aford this? The extra CVs would need extra escorts as well, so those would have to be built as well...
Yes, the US has 10 now and spends 3.3% of GDP on the Military, of that ~40% is the navy, so increasing the budget to 4.6% of GDP would allow for a doubling of the Naval budget, and still be less, proportionately, than what the US was spending in the late 80's
 
Yes, the US has 10 now and spends 3.3% of GDP on the Military, of that ~40% is the navy, so increasing the budget to 4.6% of GDP would allow for a doubling of the Naval budget, and still be less, proportionately, than what the US was spending in the late 80's

Ok, but (and apologies if I misremember US politics/economy wrong), '75 was right out of the Vietnam mess. If I remember correctly, there was marked public aversion to increased miltary spending. This, plus the still lingering efects of the oil crash of '73, plus the upcoming in 79, wouldn't help getting that much extra money...
 
Ok, but (and apologies if I misremember US politics/economy wrong), '75 was right out of the Vietnam mess. If I remember correctly, there was marked public aversion to increased miltary spending. This, plus the still lingering efects of the oil crash of '73, plus the upcoming in 79, wouldn't help getting that much extra money...
Talking about present day, and I think that is what the OP means, as there were 13 around in '75, question is how quickly can 20 be reached and how can it stay at 20
 
According to Wikipedia, Lehman's 600 ship navy only required 16 post-essex class carriers. Given the controversy and cost around this, it's fair to say you would need a major POD to justify 20, most likely one that involves the emergence of a naval power with its own blue water, carrier capabilities. The Soviets got close to this by the mid 80s but barely close. And as a continental power, I am skeptical that they would have gotten much closer. Their carriers were predominantly ASW and never really an offensive threat to the US. Frankly, I think you need a POD pre-1942 - most likely earlier - where a legitimate naval power like Britain, France or Japan is an economic power and an enemy of the US. But that that point the butterflies are so crazy you can run with your imagination.

That said, what could the navy have wanted for a hot war? Presumably a 2-4 carrier task force for each likely hot spot - Eastern Atlantic, Western Pacific, Med, Indian/Persian Gulf, Caribbean, and Eastern Pacific. Give me 4 each for the Eastern Atlantic and Western Pacific. 2 each for the Med and Indian/Persian Gulf. That gets you to 12 carriers. Figure to 2 more carriers for the Caribbean, Eastern Pacific, and ad hoc situations as the conflict calls. That gets you to 14-16 carriers plus 2-4 undergoing overhauls and refitting. It gets you to 20 but you have to convince congress that those 4 carrier TFs cant be reduced to 3 and that all those theatres need carrier support simultaneously. Can the caribbean be supported by land based air craft and is a carrier required for the eastern Pacific where its mostly ASW operations? Will the Med and Persian Gulf each need 2 carriers immediately or can they clear one theatre first and then proceed to the next one?

I think you need a clear, offensive blue water threat to get this.
 
What would be the use of having 20 aircraft carriers instead of 10 ?

Put in other words, what' sur the use of CVs today ?

CVs are appropriate against enemies that have a weak air defense system.

But given the progress in missiles technology, CV's are very vulnerable against enemies with a good air defense system.

Just consider that the CV of the 5th fleet moved hundreds of miles away from iranian coasts when tension rose.
 
Maybe have them built instead of the LHDs, with the Harrier judged a neat idea that killed too many of it's pilots.

But the big deck amphibs - LPH/LHD/LHA were not built to be Harrier carriers, that was a nice to have addition. They were built to carry Marines around the world with their equipment and their helicopters. Unless you make that part of the CVV's mission.
 
That's my what I meant. With or without the Harrier the Marines need air support close by. I see the medium carriers being used much like the RNs new QEs are supposedly going to be. They'll carry the Helicopters and assault troops as well as a fighter/ground attack jet fairly close inshore while the larger carriers are further out providing cover for the entire force and striking targets further inland than the FGA's over the beach.
 
Perhaps a 2 tier fleet

10 Enterprise / Nimitz / Ford class vessels all nuclear powered

10 Forrestal / Kitty Hawk - all replaced with a 10 ship series of 70,000 ton* 'cheaper' conventional powered super carrier in the 90s and noughties - carries an airgroup 2/3rds that of a CVN and is capable of operating as an assault ship with barrack space for a USMC battalion and the ability to operate USMC AV8Bs and Transport Helos / Ospreys


*70,000 ton being the minimum weigh for a super carrier.

so the second vessel closer to the RN's Queen Elizabath class carriers ?
 
Ok, but (and apologies if I misremember US politics/economy wrong), '75 was right out of the Vietnam mess. If I remember correctly, there was marked public aversion to increased miltary spending. This, plus the still lingering efects of the oil crash of '73, plus the upcoming in 79, wouldn't help getting that much extra money...
Spot on. The delays and cost overruns on new military equipment in the 1970s didn't help either.

In 1967 the planned fleet for 1975 was for 826 ships including:
20 aircraft carriers
137 amphibious ships
243 escort ships
105 attack submarines (69 SSN and 36 SS)​

In 1968 the planned fleet for 1975 was for 793 ships including:
21 aircraft carriers
99 amphibious ships
238 escort ships
105 attack submarines (68 SSN and 37 SS)
In 1969 the planned fleet for 1975 was for 713 ships including:
20 aircraft carriers
77 amphibious ships
240 escort ships
107 attack submarines (69 SSN and 38 SS)
In 1970 the planned fleet for 1975 was for 578 ships including:
15 aircraft carriers
67 amphibious ships
205 escort ships
87 attack submarines (68 SSN and 19 SS)
I don't have the actual figures for 1975 but I suspect that they were even less than planned in 1970. IIRC by the end of the decade the USN was down to around 450 ships and IIRC from reading editions of Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet published in the late 1970s the total was expected to be well under 400 ships by 1990 because new ships were not being built at the rate required to maintain even a 450-ship navy.
 
I wonder if they'd been invented in the US if they'd still have that aversion. The argument that they eliminate a helicopter landing spot has always seemed dubious to me.

indeed , and given the benefit they do / did give to the Harrier family ...
 
I wonder if they'd been invented in the US if they'd still have that aversion. The argument that they eliminate a helicopter landing spot has always seemed dubious to me.

From what I understand you can't launch a fixed wing AEW aircraft like and E-2 and are therefore stuck with a helicopter AEW. You also don't get the same amount of fuel and ammunition coming off the flight deck. In other words, a ski jump carrier is grossly inferior to catapults.
 
That's true, but they're not meant to replace catapults, though I know they do on the Chinese, Indian and Russian carriers. They're meant to give a Vstol aircraft a boost, increasing the weight that they carry on take off.

Stobar Carriers to my mind give you the worst of both Conventional and Vstol carrier operations. You get the reduced capability that comes with the Ski Jump but all the stresses, difficulty and danger of the controlled crash that an arrested landing is.

Still the USN by refusing to use the Ski Jump are reducing the effectiveness of their Harriers and eventually their F35Bs.
 
That's true, but they're not meant to replace catapults, though I know they do on the Chinese, Indian and Russian carriers. They're meant to give a Vstol aircraft a boost, increasing the weight that they carry on take off.

Stobar Carriers to my mind give you the worst of both Conventional and Vstol carrier operations. You get the reduced capability that comes with the Ski Jump but all the stresses, difficulty and danger of the controlled crash that an arrested landing is.

Still the USN by refusing to use the Ski Jump are reducing the effectiveness of their Harriers and eventually their F35Bs.

Concur with that, I've never understood why the US didn't put ski jumps on the big deck amphibs unless it would mess up the weight or something although that makes very little sense with the new America class LHAs because those were designed from the start for the F-35B.

Good point on the STOBAR carrier being the worst of both worlds, I never thought of it that way but that pretty much says it.
 
Top