Radically different post WW2 US Navy carrier policy

Dirk_Pitt

Banned
How about a Carrier the size of Conneticut?:eek:

I could see Liberatarians trying to get their hands on one to build their own little society.:cool:
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
What is being forgotten here is that you need larger carriers to operate the later aircraft. Even the Midway class ships were too small to handle the F-14.

The F-14 was critical to the role the USN had for the carrier in case of a confrontation with the USSR in Europe. The fleet would have been operating in an extremely high threat enviroment, both in the GIUK gap and off the Kola Peninsula and off the Capes.

There is also the fact that the U.S. HAD a vast number of "small" carrier, namely the Essex class ships (27,000 ton standard, 43,000 ton full load after the update to SCB-125 configuration) and operated them for years after the war, well into the 1970s. These ships were not able to operate the newer, heavier 1960's designs like the F4 and A5, although the Phantom could operate off the Midway class ships.
 
To the critics claimingthat small aircraft carriers don't fit into the USN concept, cause the assorted power projection wouldn't be sufficient:

You could put 3-4 of these ships into a group to have the necessary power projection. 1 ship for ASuW/nukes, 1 for ASW, 1 for AEW/EW and 1 ship for heavy AAW, with all ships carrying 6 fighters additioaly each. This way you could project the same power as a modern CVN. One major benefit would be that you could be more flexible in the size of the group, according to what kind of power projection you want to perform and who your enemy is. Furthermore the survivability of 3-4 small carriers is better than one big carrier, especially in the case of nukes, which the Soviets deployed both on subs and ASuW aircraft.
One lucky hit may obliterate your entire carrier force if you use a big CVN, losing just one of the small carriers would be less of an issue.
 
To the critics claimingthat small aircraft carriers don't fit into the USN concept, cause the assorted power projection wouldn't be sufficient:

You could put 3-4 of these ships into a group to have the necessary power projection. 1 ship for ASuW/nukes, 1 for ASW, 1 for AEW/EW and 1 ship for heavy AAW, with all ships carrying 6 fighters additioaly each. This way you could project the same power as a modern CVN. One major benefit would be that you could be more flexible in the size of the group, according to what kind of power projection you want to perform and who your enemy is. Furthermore the survivability of 3-4 small carriers is better than one big carrier, especially in the case of nukes, which the Soviets deployed both on subs and ASuW aircraft.
One lucky hit may obliterate your entire carrier force if you use a big CVN, losing just one of the small carriers would be less of an issue.
And those 3-4 ships will cost 2-3 as much as a proper Supercarrier and require 2-3x as many crewmembers, and will require more frequent resupply

Given a chose between 12 carrier groups or 4-6, 12 generally makes more sense
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
To the critics claimingthat small aircraft carriers don't fit into the USN concept, cause the assorted power projection wouldn't be sufficient:

You could put 3-4 of these ships into a group to have the necessary power projection. 1 ship for ASuW/nukes, 1 for ASW, 1 for AEW/EW and 1 ship for heavy AAW, with all ships carrying 6 fighters additioaly each. This way you could project the same power as a modern CVN. One major benefit would be that you could be more flexible in the size of the group, according to what kind of power projection you want to perform and who your enemy is. Furthermore the survivability of 3-4 small carriers is better than one big carrier, especially in the case of nukes, which the Soviets deployed both on subs and ASuW aircraft.
One lucky hit may obliterate your entire carrier force if you use a big CVN, losing just one of the small carriers would be less of an issue.
Problem is that you need at least 40,000 tons just to play the game (de Gaulle being the best example). You need nuclear power (the Kennedy used to lose 5-6 knots when she diverted steam to her cats). de Gaulle cost $4B, the Ford will cost twice that, but she will at least four times as capable. Smaller =\= cheaper.
 
Why didn't anyone tell me about Skyhook!?!

Skyhook2.gif


And here is a more practical version someone designed that is also more modern.

GBCVS_TrimaranSkyhookAU3.gif


It would weigh around 7k tons and ads a new 'tier' to my original post. Obviously its not practical for the US navy compared to super-carriers, but I wonder if it could fill some sort of niche. Perhaps see private use against pirates? Maybe make it out of a converted merchant ship if it were for private use.
 

sharlin

Banned
There was this US idea in the 80's or so to build large mobile bases that could become staging grounds for the USMC in war time and they had a flight deck etc, can't remember what the idea was called though sadly.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Why didn't anyone tell me about Skyhook!?!

Skyhook2.gif


And here is a more practical version someone designed that is also more modern.

GBCVS_TrimaranSkyhookAU3.gif


It would weigh around 7k tons and ads a new 'tier' to my original post. Obviously its not practical for the US navy compared to super-carriers, but I wonder if it could fill some sort of niche. Perhaps see private use against pirates? Maybe make it out of a converted merchant ship if it were for private use.

Who cam up with? Whoever it was should have all the CAD programs taken away, immediately. It would carry what, 1-2 aircraft? To do so it would lose all the interior hull volume need to carry a usful VLS, a properly situated CIC and to gain what? A single fighter, maybe two, at the cost of AAW, ASuW, and ASW capacity?

Can we convince the PLAN to build an entire fleet of these?
 
Who cam up with? Whoever it was should have all the CAD programs taken away, immediately. It would carry what, 1-2 aircraft? To do so it would lose all the interior hull volume need to carry a usful VLS, a properly situated CIC and to gain what? A single fighter, maybe two, at the cost of AAW, ASuW, and ASW capacity?

Can we convince the PLAN to build an entire fleet of these?

Well its an escort carrier, I think it obvious you wouldn't want a fleet consisting of nothing but these. I would imagine it would get paired with either a cruiser or a couple of destroyers as part of small group.

6313438509_c029677aed.jpg


^ That one is silly. But the second one was a lot cooler.
 
The military utility of the sky-hook concept is well demonstrated by the number of navies that built 'Harrier carriers' after the concept was revealed.

Detractors of carriers will tell you that big, conventional carriers exist because Admirals are blinkered careerists and Governments are dupes. But this ignores the simple and powerful logic behind big carriers, logic that doesn't go away with the invention of a stabilised crane and a STOVL aircraft.
 
Top