Reading this I am reminded of study after study talking about how big, nuclear carriers are more efficient than smaller ones.
Those studies are correct. A big CVN like Ford is more efficient than resurrecting something like an SCB-125 Essex class.
The total number of aircraft carried is similar, but the super carriers carried larger and more capable planes.
Oriskany carried five squadrons of 12 planes each. 2x F-8 Crusader and 3x A-4 Skyhawk squadrons.
Forrestal carried five squadrons too. 2x F-4 Phantoms, 2x A-4 Skyhawk and 1x A-6 Intruder. A lot more capable.
That's as close to apples and apples comparison as I can get with CV v CVL.
The modernized Essex boats were getting long in the tooth when the decision to go all CVN super carriers was made. They were more expensive to operate than conventionally powered super carriers at the time.
I wonder if the math is different now.
Admitting we lose efficiency, but gain survivability with three lighter carriers with 2/3 the aircraft each as a Ford for the same shipbuilding cost might be worth it in a real fight. If nothing else, the enemy has to get 3x as lucky to get rid of all the carriers.
Yes, I understand that 3 ships for only twice the planes is less efficient. It's a given.
But I've always wondered if we took a Wasp or America class LHD/LHA and put an angled deck on it if we'd have a winner.
An America is $3.4b. A Ford is $13b.
It's worth thinking about. If they MUST be nuclear powered, steal the reactor from a Virginia class sub and get some benefit of standardization! Don't forget you're going to need two...
What I am reminded of is an old GDW game set in Traveller: Trillion Credit Squadron.
What worked for me, over and over, was a larger fleet of mid-range ships over a small fleet of expensive ones. It would often overcome a TL advantage from my opponent.
I am not reassured that China appears to be using my strategy...
Which is why the Wasp and America class ships are being certified for the F-35B and why the new Carrier Onboard Delivery aircraft is a version of the V-22 Osprey instead of a cargo-capable version of the S-3 mighty War Hoover.
ReplyDeleteAnd there is also talk of F-35B rating of helo platforms on destroyers and cruisers and making F-35B platforms for Navy container ships.
A lot is riding on the F-35B. But at least they are trying.
There is nothing wrong with a mix of carriers, so long as the aircraft carried are largely of the same type.
ReplyDeleteHaving multiple carriers where any carrier borne aircraft can take off, land, refuel and re-arm would be huge. Essentially this would create a distributed naval airpower system with redundancies. A naval airpower cloud.
Supercarriers and their fleets would be the core of such a system, while smaller carriers and fleets would create a vast picket cordon that allows power to extend much, much farther.
Air war in the Pacific during World War Two. The American fighters couldn’t compete with the Japanese Zeros, so we put twice the number of fighters up against them. I know it’s more complicated than that, but that’s a good strategy to win a fight. But bigger, shiny boats are what flag officers dream of.
ReplyDeleteJFM