WI the Italian navy had build the AQUILA by 1940

[Bob in Pittsburgh]

The primary purpose of an aircraft carrier is power projection. So what would be the likely targets? Gibraltar, Alexandria, Crete and the Suez Canal. With the exception of Crete, the target would have 3 or more times as many planes as Aquila. Another possible use would be against the Malta conveys. Convoys from Gibraltar generally had one or more RN carriers in support. Considering the notable lack of success and vigor of the Italian Navy my sense is that they would not want to expose their only carrier.

Unlike the RN neither the German or Italian air forces had any experience in carrier operations. I think the learning curve under wartime conditions would be insurmountable.

 

[Shadow Hawk]

I'd say what the Italian Navy needed was not a aircraft carrier but rather air units under direct naval control, trained to co-ordinate with naval units to provide search, asw, cap, and strike missions with the navy...

The easiest way for them to get that might well be to have a carrier under construction to justify owning and training thier own air units independent of the Italian Air Force.

 

[lukedalton]

People criticize the Italian Navy a lot for not having carriers. IMO, this is unjustified. Italy needed much better land based Naval Aviation. Almost everything that needs to be defended can be defended from land. Airfields are cheaper than carriers and they can't be sunk. As the Japanese showed, quality land based naval aviation can cause serious issues for British capital ships.

The Po Valley to Libya Axis is what can be and does need to be defended. Italian East Africa is indefensible against the British Empire without ridiculous levels of expenditures. Against almost anyone else assuming a neutral UK, it is easy to defend. Japan and the USA will not invade Africa. Germany and France involve a direct land war that is much more important than the colonies. i.e. Take Paris or Berlin and you get all you colonies back. Lose Rome and you lose all you colonies. Italy is trapped by Gibraltar and Suez. Unless these are in friendly hands, carriers are not useful compared to other items the funds can be spent on.

In general i totally agree with you...the problem is more about the pre-war politics of Mussolini; basically keeping your potential enemy at each other throat and try to augment interservice rivalry so people are too occupied to fight amongself than to try to oppose you is great in peacetime...unfortunely during wartime create the total lack of coordination between service that the italian armed forces showed; at least the carriers will give Regia Marina something (it's showy and a 'status symbol' so there is much more possibility that can be given to RM instead of a real land based naval aviation), but if the Air Force and the Navy talk to each others and coordinate is much more better (

 

[AdA]

CV roles

The CV is not just about power projection. The Italian Battle fleet was handicapped by lack of air cover when facing the RN. An Italian carrier main mission would be to provide air cover for the battle fleet. The RM was so desparate for air over that they resorted to deploying Re2000 fighters from the catapults of BB, CAM style...

 

[Rubicon]

The CV is not just about power projection. The Italian Battle fleet was handicapped by lack of air cover when facing the RN. An Italian carrier main mission would be to provide air cover for the battle fleet. The RM was so desparate for air over that they resorted to deploying Re2000 fighters from the catapults of BB, CAM style...

That has more to do with lack of cooperation between the Regia Aeronautica and the Regia Marina then it does with power projection, due to the reasons lukedalton stated just before you.
Virtually the entire Mediterranean Sea is within range of land based Italian air forces.

 

[sharlin]

it was more handicapped that the Airforce and Navy barely got along, didn't co-ordinate and didn't train together, what air support they got was more a case of the planes blundering across their ships in sheer blind luck than anything else.

 

[BlondieBC]

The CV is not just about power projection. The Italian Battle fleet was handicapped by lack of air cover when facing the RN. An Italian carrier main mission would be to provide air cover for the battle fleet. The RM was so desparate for air over that they resorted to deploying Re2000 fighters from the catapults of BB, CAM style...

And weren't most of these operations within range of land based fighter?

 

[AdA]

Cooperation or not...

You see a general lack of effective air cover for RM operations. Understandably the navy wanted its own aircraft.
And within fighters range, and under fighter cover, are two diferent things. See how much trouble Galland had to cover the Channel dash.

 

[Richter von Manthofen]

With a carrier the RM could sortie further out and still have fighter cover.

Even OTL battle of Matapan could have gone differently if you add an Italian CV...

 

[HMS Warspite]

The Regia Marina and Regia Aeronautica better had to cooperate first and the later one was perhaps better of with longer range attack aircraft, as well as more modern fighters, also with more range. In such a case the presence of a Carrier was not essential, as the geographical possitioning of Italy in the Med. already gave it an advantage from the start.

An Italian Airforce, with ties to the Navy and not too much in competittion with its sister armed forces, could have been devastating already, as the Italian Airforce had quite a lot of specialised bombers, capable of delivering torpedoes against shipping. With the propper fighter protection, it could have made life difficult for the Allies at Sea. The main issue would be cooperation, as this was historically not the case between the two armed branches of the Italian Military.