The U.S. Navy’s Big Mistake; Building Tons of Supercarriers

War is Boring ^ | May 27, 2015 | David W. Wise

[central_va]

During wartime carriers would forgo constant overhaul and the cycles of operations sped up. 10 carriers allows for loses while still providing wartime service in theatre.

[USNBandit]

The Chinese carrier is 60,000 tons and carries 30 aircraft. You are suggesting a ship with half the displacement and twice as many aircraft.

The problem with small deck ships is the ability to generate sorties. Small decks can't conduct strikes and protect themselves at the same time. I won't even get into the speed differential between a small conventional ship and a nuke.

[2ndDivisionVet]

Project Habakkuk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Habakkuk

[notdownwidems]

Also, carriers do not travel alone. The modern destroyers and frigates provide layered defense and carry more raw firepower than a cruiser from WWII.@

True enough, but it is the sub-surface assets shadowing the carrier groups that provide the true layered defense. For now.

[KC_Lion]

M4L Battleship

lol, Mate For Life? As in The Show tells it how it is? ;)

[Timber Rattler]

Britain’s carriers were essential during the Falklands War, so I would not scrap ours just yet.

[mad_as_he$$]

Who said a million civilians? It doesn’t have to be a strategic attack.

[central_va]

A ChiCom monitor reading this thread would be astonished at the A/C Carrier mentality shown here.

[PCPOET7]

we need carriers to project strength but the reality of a carrier is all it is , is a Mobil airfield. a carrier is a high valued target easy to take out. we need the carrier but we also need the support fleet that goes with it.

[Army Air Corps]

They are part of the total CTF defensive package.

[Theoria]

'Tons of Supercarriers'

Great for nation building, humanitarian aid, and migrant rescue operation. Aka our foreign policy.

[Bogey78O]

I’m not talking overhaul or such. If an enemy gets a lucky hit and disabled a carrier or destroyed it, how fast could we plug the gap?

If this one ship is vital to operations, what will it take and how quickly can we adapt to its loss?

[KC_Conspirator]

The first question a president asks (well, maybe not this one...) when there is an international crisis is “Where are our carriers?”. Bad idea.

[wny]

"...Of course, the reason that no one had yet sunk a battleship from the air — in combat — was that no one had yet tried."

I believe this is incorrect...the RAF had attacked Italian battleships at Taranto prior to Pearl Harbor

[riverdawg]

” ... armchair admirals of Free Republic. Thank God nobody is listening to these lunes.”

My sentiments, as well.

[central_va]

You can disable an A/C Carrier with one or two torpedoes. But there are 3,000 guys trying to get the damage under control and back operational. If watertight doors are all shut it is almost impossible to sink one. The question is can air wing bingo to the beach while A/C gets back operational.

[The_Victor]

A good case can be made that we’d be better off with 25 or 30 25000 ton carriers operating 60 aircraft each opposed to 10 supercarriers operating 90.

This is one of the reasons for the navy's requirements for the F35. VTOL means a smaller flight deck and a smaller, less expensive carrier. Of course bringing up the F35 here will open a whole new can of worms on this discussion.

[Shamrock498]

no, you obviously didn’t read the article. you’ve missed the point completely. they aren’t saying carriers are bad. they are saying building additional and maintaining the existing carriers at the expense of a support fleet is bad. what makes carriers “invincible” is the fleet you surround them with. the navy is cutting production of other ships so they can continue the carrier force at its existing size. dropping the number of support ships makes the carriers vulnerable and ultimately useless because you cant afford to risk them in combat due to their value.

[central_va]

I just read anti carrier jive talk.

[Army Air Corps]

we need the carrier but we also need the support fleet that goes with it.

Indeed.