Radically different post WW2 US Navy carrier policy

[Krases]

Not sure if I should have made this an AHC, but I am curious to hear everyone's thoughts on these ideas.

I was browsing Shipbucket earlier and noticed some really interesting designs that were never built and it got me thinking about US navy policy. The emphasis after WW2 was on powerful aircraft carriers instead of battleships. So this got me thinking about some different US navy policies.

Timeline 1: Instead of a dozen large aircraft carriers, two-three dozen small or medium sized carriers.

A small or medium sized carrier (roughly 18,000 to 30,000 tons) with about a quarter the aircraft compliment of a Nimitz class super carrier. Depending on its size, the medium version could potentially use a small number of F-14 or F-18 type aircraft, but most likely Harrier's or some intermediary between the F35 and the Harrier would be used. Around 25-35 such ships would be built.

Timeline 2: Many dozens of very small Sea Control Ships.

A small carrier/sea control ship weighing in at around 10-15,000 tons would be developed and could carry up to 20 harrier or harrier type aircraft, or any other mixture of helicopters and aircraft appropriate for its size. These ships would work in groups, with cruisers and destroyers seeing larger numbers of ships built. As many of 50-60 would be built, with major revisions taking place with each 'batch' of vessels built. I can see more stealthy designs appearing in later batches.

Timeline 3: A new fleet of 'battleships'. In reality, cruiser meets arsenal ship meets light carrier hybrid.

A large vessel of around 50-70,000 tons, a new fleet of cruisers would be built that would have much of the abilities seen in the British Invincible class, but taking cues from the Russian Kirov Class battlecruiser and looking to possible plans to classify early unbuilt US arsenal ships as battleships (according to Wikipedia, so not entirely sure if that is true or not).

Bonus ASB-ish timeline: A small number of 200-300,000 ton mega carriers.

Built as scaled up super carriers. Either 2-4 could be built as the main US carrier fleet, or 1-2 with a small number of lighter, scaled down Nimitz class carriers in support. While it sounds cool, it just seems much more unlikely compared to the other scenarios I painted.

 

[Gunnarnz]

Bonus ASB-ish timeline: A small number of 200-300,000 ton mega carriers.

Built as scaled up super carriers. Either 2-4 could be built as the main US carrier fleet, or 1-2 with a small number of lighter, scaled down Nimitz class carriers in support. While it sounds cool, it just seems much more unlikely compared to the other scenarios I painted.

No offense intended, but this actually seems more likely than any of the other options you suggest.
Put it this way: the real reason to have a carrier is the aircraft it carries and the things they can do, right? But the cost of a carrier is only partly based on the size of it's air group, it still needs a hull, and crew, and sensors/powerplant/etc. And these costs don't change a lot - sure, big ships cost more, but the difference in crew etc between a carrier that can carry 20 aircraft and one that can carry 80 is not 4x as much. So it is most cost-effective to have big carriers - they can carry more aircraft (and more capable ones) and more stores for them, permitting a greater number of more effective sorties. Small carriers cost a lot more per aircraft and can't sustain operations for as long.

 

[Krases]

No offense intended, but this actually seems more likely than any of the other options you suggest.
Put it this way: the real reason to have a carrier is the aircraft it carries and the things they can do, right? But the cost of a carrier is only partly based on the size of it's air group, it still needs a hull, and crew, and sensors/powerplant/etc. And these costs don't change a lot - sure, big ships cost more, but the difference in crew etc between a carrier that can carry 20 aircraft and one that can carry 80 is not 4x as much. So it is most cost-effective to have big carriers - they can carry more aircraft (and more capable ones) and more stores for them, permitting a greater number of more effective sorties. Small carriers cost a lot more per aircraft and can't sustain operations for as long.

While I think you make a lot of sense, just relative to some of the designs that were put forward at the time I would have to disagree with Timeline 4 being most likely. With Timeline 2, there was a big program to develop Sea Control Ships, but it was cut with some of its features living on or being defacto adopted by the British Navy, albeit with a larger vessel and in smaller numbers.

With timeline 3, the Soviet navy also adopted some of my ideas for a modern battleship in their Kirov class and even their Admiral Kuznetsov carrier, which is classified as an aircraft cruiser. Mine would be considered a battleship due to its larger size.

Timeline 1 was just the 'safe' timeline, though what you say about cost is definitely a good point and maybe timeline 4 (scaled up super carrier) is maybe more likely than timeline 1 (large numbers of medium carriers). It probably shouldn't call it ASB like I did though.

 

[Matt Wiser]

The name of the game in the carrier business in peacetime is power projection. To project power in places like the Western Pacific (WestPac), the IO/PG (Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf), and the Med, you need a hull that can support an adequately sized air wing. The minimum air wing that the Navy felt was necessary was 70 aircraft (the most you could stuff on a modernized Essex), with up to 102 (design capacity of a Nimitz-class ship). At the very least, ships that are Midway-sized or larger are what you are likely to get.

The SCS was meant to be a convoy escort-sort of a modern-day CVE, with ASW helos and a few Harriers to deal with Bear-Ds and the like. The big-carrier admirals were against it, and so was Admiral Rickover.

The Carter Administration tried to get a medium-sized conventionally powered carrier in the late '70s, even going so far as to veto the FY 81 Defense Budget because it had CVN-71 (U.S.S. Theodore Roosevelt). Again, the carrier admirals, plus their supporters in Congress, and Admiral Rickover got the ship approved when Congress overrode Carter's veto.

Bottom line: the big carrier lobby became very entrenched post-WW II, and wasn't likely to go away.

 

[Minchandre]

Don't forget also that the Navy had an interest in nuclear delivery. Nuclear weapons - especially in the 50s and 60s - are large and unwieldy; little planes can't carry them. Of your proposals, only the Navy having even gianter carriers is plausible, as this was actually discussed at length (in order to be large enough to base nuclear-capable strategic bombers) before the Air Force managed to to secure a monopoly on air-delivered nuclear weapons, resulting in the Revolt of the Admirals. The late 40s saw the design (and keel-laying) of the USS United States, an 80,000 ton, 1090ft monster which would have been larger even than the Forrestal-class which got built in the 50s (the first of the "supercarriers"). If the Navy wins that particular battle, the 5 hull United States-class could easily be the first in a series of ever-bigger supercarriers, taking the role of world-wide strategic strike that was OTL fulfilled by the B52.

EDIT: Actually, I guess that we could get your first idea if the Air Force wins even harder, and the Navy never gets funding or approval to make carriers larger than about the Midway class.

 

[Krases]

Interesting history. So that actually makes what I thought was an ASB aircraft carrier design for timeline 4 more likely.

Taking a 3d model done by 'Generalfeldmarschall' from the sketchup warehouse and making a modified version, I made a little size comparison. I put this huge new carrier at around 1450 feet long and 300k tons.

 

[Matt Wiser]

It wasn't long, though, before the bombs got smaller and lighter. The F2H-4 Banshee and the A4D had the Mark 7 and Mark 11 gravity bombs (c. 2,000 pounds) by 1955. And the Essex-class ships could fly the A3D Skywarrior (which could carry heavier bombs). And by the early '60s, the B28 and B43 bombs were widely available for tactical aircraft-including carrier aircraft.

 

[Shevek23]

"Harrier-type" planes, which all your alternatives but the "ASB" megaship ones all require, became possible only with--the Harrier. Mid-1960s at the earliest.

Of course you might be imagining instead that until a proper VSTOL jet fighter is available, the USN just soldiers on with really good prop planes, perhaps powered by turboprops by the later 1950s.

But the whole point of carriers is, to have aircraft that are as capable, or anyway pretty close to being just as capable, as the highest-performance landplanes.

Now if the Navy kicks back and thinks about just what a carrier is for, in the age of nuclear weapons, perhaps they might rethink the whole thing and decide they don't really need the planes to match the best the strongest opponents might be basing on land, because the carriers will only be used in highly asymmetrical situations, where some fast and high-thrust turboprop plane (and before that, cylinder-engine powered) is quite good enough. But that seems unlikely in the extreme to me! Consider that carrier-based planes were used in Korea and Vietnam; if the Navy had resigned itself to planes not much improved over the Corsair, they'd have been totally sidelined in those conflicts.

So--the difference between a WWII escort carrier and a big capital ship flattop was, the size of the forces they could embark. If we had a bunch of small carriers, scaled up in proportion to the degree a Nimitz class is larger than the top of the line WWII US carrier, I don't think the smaller ones could embark any F-18s at all. No room to land even one. And modern frontline fighters are if anything more capable of landings on short decks than the 1950s type planes. It was enough of a challenge for the Navy to get its contractors to give them designs that could operate within the constraints of the biggest decks they had; escort carriers became platforms for auxiliary aircraft--helicopters and prop planes perhaps.

The Harrier, in all its deployed upgrades, is a fine aircraft and weapons system, with some unique advantages. And also some serious drawbacks; it can't go faster than sound for instance. The more the vertical take-off and landing option is used, the less payload the plane can carry--that's ammo and fuel. Planes of its capabilities have a valuable place in any strategy or tactics of combined forces. To rely on them exclusively--that would be dumb.

Now I have a couple wacky ideas of my own for alternatives to carriers similar to OTL.

0) There's always the seaplane option of course; if your high-performance planes can land on water and take off from it without compromising its airborne combat capability.

1) Huge gigantic ginormous airships serving as carriers, able to launch planes by simply dropping them and (in my wacky imagination anyway) recover them using hook-on trapezes attached to swinging lines (trapezes indeed!) or rolling funicular carts. I've been serious about it but I'll admit there probably isn't enough helium in the world! So the less said the better.

My other wacky notion is

2) some kind of very fast boat--be it a hydrofoil, air cushion vehicle, or catamaran--ekranoplans sometimes fit in too--that can go so fast on the water that a high-performance airplane (think F-14 for the 60s-80s) can get airborne without having to accelerate down the runway, or be catapulted. More to the point (since catapulting is always an option) it can land, without needing a long deck to be arrested on, because the boat is moving as fast as the approaching plane is.

The logical conclusion would be, one boat per airplane.

If that is, one can imagine such a fast boat being a stable enough platform for these operations!

 

[Krases]

Problem with a seaplane is that you have to spend a ton of money to get it up to spec with a traditional land based aircraft, if that is at all possible. Plus the zeplin thing is pretty much impossible or economically unfeasible at best. The closest I can see to that idea is a drone launching solar powered plane with a gigantic wingspan that can also fly for months at a time. And even then we are talking maybe a half dozen drones, probably reaper drones or something like it.

Personally I like my modern 'battleship' idea a lot more. It would probably have to be bigger than I originally said so there are fewer compromises with a normal aircraft carrier. So maybe 120k tons.

 

[FlyingDutchman]

Personally I like my modern 'battleship' idea a lot more. It would probably have to be bigger than I originally said so there are fewer compromises with a normal aircraft carrier. So maybe 120k tons.

There are a few issues with the other 3 options as mostly mentioned by the other posters, but there are also a few issues with option 3.

A compromise battleship/carrier hybrid is going to have the disadvantages of both these ships and you're probably much better off with a 100k tons Nimitz carrier and two 10k tons DDG.
Also the Soviets built the Kiev class with a different naval policy in view; the aircraft mostly served for Air to Air protection whilst it's heavy missile armament served it's offensive capabilities. It's mission was to support other vessels. For the Americans to do this after any kind of WWII is extremely unlikely.

 

[Krases]

There are a few issues with the other 3 options as mostly mentioned by the other posters, but there are also a few issues with option 3.

A compromise battleship/carrier hybrid is going to have the disadvantages of both these ships and you're probably much better off with a 100k tons Nimitz carrier and two 10k tons DDG.
Also the Soviets built the Kiev class with a different naval policy in view; the aircraft mostly served for Air to Air protection whilst it's heavy missile armament served it's offensive capabilities. It's mission was to support other vessels. For the Americans to do this after any kind of WWII is extremely unlikely.

I think a ship of this scale would lean less toward the Kiev class and much more towards the Admiral Kuznetsov class. Perhaps 70-80 aircraft and a large number of cruise missiles.

Though honestly now the idea of a gigantic 300k ton aircraft carrier interests me. I wonder what kind of policies would bring about such a monster. One could be a less interventionist military policy that allows for fewer foreign naval bases, meaning a large carrier is needed to double as a defacto mobile base. Perhaps it can land C-130's regularly to resupply other ships.

 

[asnys]

Though honestly now the idea of a gigantic 300k ton aircraft carrier interests me. I wonder what kind of policies would bring about such a monster. One could be a less interventionist military policy that allows for fewer foreign naval bases, meaning a large carrier is needed to double as a defacto mobile base. Perhaps it can land C-130's regularly to resupply other ships.

Something like this, perhaps?

 

[Krases]

I am thinking more of an actual ship, not a series of rigs strapped together.

 

[Carl Schwamberger]

... But the cost of a carrier is only partly based on the size of it's air group, it still needs a hull, and crew, and sensors/powerplant/etc. And these costs don't change a lot - sure, big ships cost more, but the difference in crew etc between a carrier that can carry 20 aircraft and one that can carry 80 is not 4x as much. So it is most cost-effective to have big carriers - they can carry more aircraft (and more capable ones) and more stores for them, permitting a greater number of more effective sorties. Small carriers cost a lot more per aircraft and can't sustain operations for as long.

The USN has tested the smaller carrier option several times & 'proved' the efficiency of the larger ship in terms of higher sortie rate and longer operational cycle or 'on station' time. The smaller carrier was less flexible in making up strike packages of aircraft. The efficiency problems of the smaller carrier did not go away when three were substituted for the equivalent in cost of two large deck carriers.

 

[Krases]

The USN has tested the smaller carrier option several times & 'proved' the efficiency of the larger ship in terms of higher sortie rate and longer operational cycle or 'on station' time. The smaller carrier was less flexible in making up strike packages of aircraft. The efficiency problems of the smaller carrier did not go away when three were substituted for the equivalent in cost of two large deck carriers.

Its amazing how economics of scale can work. One large carrier can be far more capable than small carriers of the same total tonnage.

So here is my question to everyone: what would be the abilities and stats of a super large carrier that is around 300k tons? I am tempted to start a new thread for this, but I want to try this out here before I do that.

CVBN - 58 (Or just CVN?) To be built in 1975 (same as Nimitz OTL). Three or four will be built.

Type: Large aircraft carrier
Displacement: 310,000 tons
Length: Overall: 1,680 feet
Waterline: 1,040 feet (317.0 m)
Beam: Overall: 320 ft
Propulsion: 5 × Westinghouse A4W nuclear reactors
16 × steam turbines
16 × shafts
(490 MW)
Speed: 28+ knots
Range: Unlimited distance; 20-25 years
Complement: Ship's company: 8,300
Air wing: 5,700
Sensors and
processing systems: AN/SPS-48E 3-D air search radar
AN/SPS-49(V)5 2-D air search radar
AN/SPQ-9B target acquisition radar
AN/SPN-46 air traffic control radars
AN/SPN-43C air traffic control radar
AN/SPN-41 landing aid radars
10 × Mk 91 NSSM guidance systems
10 × Mk 95 radars
Electronic warfare
& decoys: SLQ-32A(V)4 Countermeasures suite
SLQ-25A Nixie torpedo countermeasures
Armament:
128 × RIM-7 Sea Sparrow or NATO Sea Sparrow missiles
18 × Phalanx CIWSs or RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missiles
Armor: 3.5 in (64 mm) Kevlar over vital spaces
Aircraft carried: 200-240 fixed wing and helicopters

This is just a rough outline of what this ships stats would be. I would imagine it sacrifices some aircraft for the ability to resupply other ships to some extent and do other types of missions.

 

[Matt Wiser]

One thing to keep in mind: carrier design is by the ports the Navy uses. Deep-draft ships like carriers can have problems in which ports they can use-and dredging is an expensive proposition. A Nimitz- or Ford-class CVN is about the largest hull you're likely to see the USN adopt. Build a ship with too much draft, and it can't get into a port like San Diego or Norfolk, let alone Pearl Harbor or Diego Garcia.

 

[phx1138]

The trouble with the small carriers is the reason they weren't adopted OTL: for the capability, the cost saving was too small (or nil), & the sacrifice in capability was perceptible, even unacceptable.

 

[Riain]

The CVA01 saga spells it out very well; the Ark Royal carried 26 heavy jets on 49,000 tons whereas with extra 20% displacement of CVA01 the air group would have gone closer to 40 heavy jets, about 50% more. In capability terms this makes that extra 10,000 tons a bargain. To add a touch more perspective the 80,000 ton USS Ranger and JFK carried interim air groups in the mid 80s of 2 A6E sqns instead of A7Es, making its CVWs have about 55 heavy jets, over double the Ark Royal's CAG on only 60% more displacement. All in all bigger is better and in terms of capability delivered, cheaper.

At the upper end, as others have said, basing and infrastructure are the limits. The British can't go much above 60,000 tons and 900 feet and the USN much above 100,000 and 1100 feet, which is why HMS QE2 and USS Ford are 'fat', to maximize displacement within limits.

 

[Minchandre]

With regards to ports: people also said that the A380 wouldn't work because it was too large for existing airport infrastructure; before the advent of super-PANAMAX and super-SUEZMAX ships, everyone thought that the size of those passages would be a bottleneck...with enough motivation, people can and have built bigger than the infrastructure allowed, and then upgraded the infrastructure. An American Navy in the mid-50s, flush with victory over the Air Force, masters of the American nuclear deterrent, planning a world-spanning empire...I could see them being willing to earmark some money for major port renovations.

 

[Krases]

With regards to ports: people also said that the A380 wouldn't work because it was too large for existing airport infrastructure; before the advent of super-PANAMAX and super-SUEZMAX ships, everyone thought that the size of those passages would be a bottleneck...with enough motivation, people can and have built bigger than the infrastructure allowed, and then upgraded the infrastructure. An American Navy in the mid-50s, flush with victory over the Air Force, masters of the American nuclear deterrent, planning a world-spanning empire...I could see them being willing to earmark some money for major port renovations.

Maybe not even post WW2, we could be looking at port expansion as part of the New Deal or even a late/end of WW2 project launched to relieve the short period of economic trouble in the US that followed the war. Really, at the time the US often over-built things like the City Hall of Buffalo City, NY.