http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/why-the-us-navy-should-build-smaller-aircraft-carriers-1600899834
Very interesting article, kinda long but a great read if you are interested.
Right now I am inclined to agree with the author: having a composite force of 5-7 supercarriers and around a dozen 50-60,000 ton carriers would probably be ideal. I am not sure how this would affect overall budgets/expenditures, since, while it does mean more ships (more maintenance?, more duplicated personnel - not necessarily bad) the ships will be cheaper to build and maintain. This should also provide the United States with far greater tactical flexibility. The points the author makes about Carrier Air Wings and reduced aircraft numbers on a cruise is an important deciding factor. Related being the case in Libya which highlights our current situation: we have two levels of naval striking power (a) Carrier Battle Group and (b) Marine Amphibious Assault groups. The former can certainly be (and often is) overkill for a limited engagement or patrol function, but the latter is woefully under-capable for the majority of situations.
Perhaps more importantly, having an overall increased number of carriers should reduce manpower strains and extended deployments which are rapidly decaying the veteran officer corps. The attrition rate is high and the job satisfaction is dwindling causing many good officers and enlisted to leave the Navy earlier than they otherwise would. Having the extra carriers I think would help to alleviate some of this with better rotation cycles.
There are good points for the opposing view of retaining only and inventory of supercarriers. My inclination is that we can be just as, if not more effective, with a composite fleet than with only supercarriers. However, we should not eliminate our use of supercarriers by any means. Having a number of them as frontline forces in case of a large-scale war is incredibly important. It is unlikely that the DoD/politics of the matter will create a smaller, Queen Elizabeth-esque carrier class, but it is interesting to think about.
Yes to the super carriers!
IMO the world is seeing more and more micro conflicts and crisis, super carriers that can move in quickly, and operate off the coast of a crisis zone, are probably the most capable tool in managing these types of challenges.
Managing evacuations, combat missions, running off shore hospitals, and aid supply drops/shipments from a secure and nye untouchable location provides the stability these types of situations require.
And these types of challenges require massive amounts of manpower, and space. Both of which the super carriers provide in abundance over their smaller counterparts.
Quantity has a quality all its own. Versatility is my preference. And while supercarriers undoubtedly have a roll to play it is “putting all your eggs in one basket.” I can’t see how you don’t need both.
As a believer in American primacy, I want the United States to be able to dial up or dial down the level of violence in any conflict, anywhere in the world. Hence, I support super-carriers.
I’m also open to the idea of building smaller carriers, on the order of what Europeans build, or even more robust MAGTFs able to launch S/VTOLs platforms for limited engagements.
And, I support the diversification and hardening of bases around the world (i.e., the reopening of the airfield at Tinian and explorations to expand basing rights in South East Asia), since it moves the eggs into multiple baskets, which is especially important when going against PLA ballistic missile capabilities.
I’ve only had time to read the article quickly once, so I haven’t formed a detailed opinion on how well the author’s arguments hold up. There’s certainly something to be said for the argument that smaller carriers could handle some of the jobs presently handled by the big ones, and it’s also a good point that having greater numbers of carriers allows more deployment flexibility than having smaller numbers (since any warship has to spend a good percentage of her career steaming to and from her deployment zone and sitting in drydock for repairs and refitting). What I’m not sure about is whether a large number of smaller carriers would be cheaper than a small number of large ones. In principle, having a small number of larger carriers should offer economies of scale – for example, by reducing unnecessary duplication of functions, notably in one of the most expensive parts of any warship: its crew.
I must say I’m also a bit suspicious about the part of the article which promotes the use of Expeditionary Strike Groups built around smaller carriers, since the author’s argument seems to hinge on the future potential of the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter. The F35 is, if I’m not mistaken, way behind schedule in its development, and under severe criticism for its astronomical cost. If the author is basically trying to demonstrate that big supercarriers are too expensive, he may be undercutting his own case by proposing an alternative built around smaller carriers equiped with an airplane that has itself been accused of being too expensive.
Quantity has a quality all its own. Versatility is my preference. And while supercarriers undoubtedly have a roll to play it is “putting all your eggs in one basket.” I can’t see how you don’t need both.
I can see how we do not need both; we have been functioning for the past 60+ years with only supercarriers and could continue to do so. However, I wonder how feasible it becomes for us to not utilize both types of carriers in the near future. Both in terms of economics and manpower considerations. If we had a wealth of extra money and resources of people, I would say supercarriers every time… they are more capable in every way. However, we do not live in that reality and must adapt to the changes in tactical need and fiscal limitations. Otherwise I fear that the fleet of carriers will shrink as time progresses. We will be able to buy fewer and fewer, leaving us with just a couple operational. We may only have supercarriers at that point, but they won’t be very effective.
@CWO:
I must say I’m also a bit suspicious about the part of the article which promotes the use of Expeditionary Strike Groups built around smaller carriers, since the author’s argument seems to hinge on the future potential of the F-35B Joint Strike Fighter. The F35 is, if I’m not mistaken, way behind schedule in its development, and under severe criticism for its astronomical cost. If the author is basically trying to demonstrate that big supercarriers are too expensive, he may be undercutting his own case by proposing an alternative built around smaller carriers equiped with an airplane that has itself been accused of being too expensive.
I think his point is slightly more nuanced than just the fact that supercarriers are too expensive. However, my understanding of the general consensus on the F-35 program is that at this point it is essentially too big to fail. It has come so far and so much has been spent on it that to either start over or approach a different solution would be a much larger net loss than buying the pricier-than-expected F-35 when it finally hits production.
In that respect, his conception of future strike groups using the F-35 is more an inevitable reality (at some point) rather than being biased towards the program for other reasons. In fact, I read one of his articles about the A-10 (now being deployed to fight ISIS) and he wrote that:
“Finally, it would sure be contradictory of the USAF to deploy the perfect asset [A-10] for the job in force seeing as they want to desperately retire this asset so that they can replace them with less capable machines that cost exponentially more to procure, fly and sustain (see the F-35).” http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-usafs-much-maligned-a-10-warthogs-are-deploying-to-1640395280
So, I don’t think he is supportive of the F-35 program for anything other than the fact that it will end up panning out and the aircraft will be utilized. I am not aware of any other manned fighter programs that the Navy is looking into because the F-35C was supposed to be their solution. While delayed, it still remains the best candidate to replace aging F-18C/Ds and eventually E/Fs when they wear out. I am not saying that the F-35 is a better aircraft than the F-18 E (because overall I am not sure that it is), but I think it will become a reality and the Navy will have to deal with that one way or another.
Yes to the super carriers!
IMO the world is seeing more and more micro conflicts and crisis, super carriers that can move in quickly, and operate off the coast of a crisis zone, are probably the most capable tool in managing these types of challenges.
Managing evacuations, combat missions, running off shore hospitals, and aid supply drops/shipments from a secure and nye untouchable location provides the stability these types of situations require.
And these types of challenges require massive amounts of manpower, and space. Both of which the super carriers provide in abundance over their smaller counterparts.
I think Canada should build some to have their own bad-ass navy. North American solidarity.
Though I suppose that would mean Canada’s entire Air Force would be transferred to the carrier’s air wing and the entire navy budget would be devoted to the carrier(s).
I’d be up for selling the Canadians a recently retired Super Carrier along with the aircraft. US Navy could train them up on operating it, etc. Would be great to have a Canadian CSG.
I support this notion! Excellent idea!
I’d be up for selling the Canadians a recently retired Super Carrier along with the aircraft.� US Navy could train them up on operating it, etc.� Would be great to have a Canadian CSG.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Navy
Per the above, the entire Canadian Navy would need to be scraped together to constitute a force worthy of a single US CSG. Not only that, but one Nimitz class carrier would comprise over half the manpower of the current active RCN. I bet the US would sell the Nimitz or Eisenhower to them when they retire her (no storing, deactivating or defueling costs!), but the Canadians would never buy it. Aircraft are a different story. Since the Air Wings are independent of the carrier, there wouldn’t exactly be any planes to sell. The Canadians can just slap some tailhooks on their existing Hornets. Steeper learning curve for their pilots trying to land on the boat though.
To continue this fantasy, I do have some reticence giving the Canadians one of our illustrious ships and seeing the USS George Washington or the USS Chester Nimitz being renamed the HMCS Mississauga or the HMCS Quebec … what a downgrade.
Home port would probably be Thunder Bay, ON. Patrols would consist of the Lakes Superior, Huron, Erie and Ontario.
I’d be up for selling the Canadians a recently retired Super Carrier along with the aircraft.� US Navy could train them up on operating it, etc.� Would be great to have a Canadian CSG.
Per the above, the entire Canadian Navy would need to be scraped together to constitute a force worthy of a single US CSG.
I agree, that’s true, but you get a composite capability that is able to project real power and force. Â Onsies and twosies isn’t really that useful from a warfighting perspective.
Per the above, the entire Canadian Navy would need to be scraped together to constitute a force worthy of a single US CSG. Not only that, but one Nimitz class carrier would comprise over half the manpower of the current active RCN. I bet the US would sell the Nimitz or Eisenhower to them when they retire her (no storing, deactivating or defueling costs!), but the Canadians would never buy it. Aircraft are a different story. Since the Air Wings are independent of the carrier, there wouldn’t exactly be any planes to sell. The Canadians can just slap some tailhooks on their existing Hornets. Steeper learning curve for their pilots trying to land on the boat though.
To continue this fantasy, I do have some reticence giving the Canadians one of our illustrious ships and seeing the USS George Washington or the USS Chester Nimitz being renamed the HMCS Mississauga or the HMCS Quebec … what a downgrade.
Home port would probably be Thunder Bay, ON. Patrols would consist of the Lakes Superior, Huron, Erie and Ontario.
I suspect that a Nimitz-class carrier would be too tight a squeeze for the Saint-Lawrence Seaway, in terms either of canal width or of bridge height clearance. A big CVN jammed under the Jacques Cartier Bridge here in Montreal would make a nifty tourist attraction (I’d be among the first in line to buy tickets), but as a military asset it would be of rather limited value because Montreal is about 1,000 miles from the Atlantic Ocean. And the Great Lakes are over 1,000 miles further inland, I think, which makes for an inconvenient deployment route to the high seas. Halifax would make more sense.
You’re quite right that personnel would be a problem. About 20 years ago, someone calculated that you could take the entire personnel complement of Canada’s Armed Forces at the time (I’m not sure if reservists were included in the figure) and seat them in Toronto’s Skydome stadium. The figures have perhaps improved since then, but Canada is still in a very different military manpower league from the US.
Navy-wise, Canada would probably be better off with some nuclear attack subs (to defend our territorial waters in the rapidly-melting Arctic) than with nuclear carriers. Our Navy has actually been saying that for quite a while, if I’m not mistaken. As a first step, we bought four “refurbished” diesel-electric boats from Great Britain about a dozen years ago. They turned out to be lemons – so if the USN ever came knocking on the government’s door to propose a terrific deal on a second-hand American CVN, it might take a lot of salesmanship to convince Ottawa that it wasn’t being offered a fixer-upper.
Ok, fair points Marc. How would they feel about some 688s fast attack subs, being replaced by the Virginia class boats?
Ok, fair points Marc. How would they feel about some 688s fast attack subs, being replaced by the Virginia class boats?Â
I’m sure our submariners would love to get their hands on a 688/Los Angeles-class SSN, like the one featured in The Hunt for Red October. A team of documentary filmmakers once accompanied the Canadian crew which brought over to Canada one of those diesel-electric boat we bought from Britain, and the film they made showed the off-duty crewmembers enjoying a nightly movie. Their favourites? Das Boot and The Hunt for Red October.
The problem, as with all military procurement, would be to find the money to pay for a couple of SSNs, which aren’t cheap boats. Especially if they come with a decent warranty, and not too many miles on the dashboard.
@CWO:
I suspect that a Nimitz-class carrier would be too tight a squeeze for the Saint-Lawrence Seaway, in terms either of canal width or of bridge height clearance.� A big CVN jammed under the Jacques Cartier Bridge here in Montreal would make a nifty tourist attraction (I’d be among the first in line to buy tickets), but as a military asset it would be of rather limited value because Montreal is about 1,000 miles from the Atlantic Ocean.� And the Great Lakes are over 1,000 miles further inland, I think, which makes for an inconvenient deployment route to the high seas.� Halifax would make more sense.
You’re quite right that personnel would be a problem.� About 20 years ago, someone calculated that you could take the entire personnel complement of Canada’s Armed Forces at the time (I’m not sure if reservists were included in the figure) and seat them in Toronto’s Skydome stadium.� The figures have perhaps improved since then, but Canada is still in a very different military manpower league from the US.�
Navy-wise, Canada would probably be better off with some nuclear attack subs (to defend our territorial waters in the rapidly-melting Arctic) than with nuclear carriers.� Our Navy has actually been saying that for quite a while, if I’m not mistaken.� As a first step, we bought four “refurbished” diesel-electric boats from Great Britain about a dozen years ago.� They turned out to be lemons – so if the USN ever came knocking on the government’s door to propose a terrific deal on a second-hand American CVN, it might take a lot of salesmanship to convince Ottawa that it wasn’t being offered a fixer-upper.
Oh, don’t get me wrong. This whole thing is a farce. It would never, ever even be contemplated, let alone assessed for feasibility. It does not fit Canada’s tactical footprint or correspond to any scope of influence. Their population, world status and industry level do not warrant such a purchase, even if they would get a lot of support from the United States.
Oh, don’t get me wrong. This whole thing is a farce.
Don’t worry – I took the proposal with same degree of seriousness as you made it. :-) I actually got a great laugh out of it.
@CWO:
Oh, don’t get me wrong. This whole thing is a farce.
Don’t worry – I took the proposal with same degree of seriousness as you made it. :-) I actually got a great laugh out of it.
That was my intent. Hard to judge its effects on the internet unfortunately.
What? You guys weren’t serious!
I want that Supa-carrier in my back yard damnit! We can call her “Artic Storm” leave her up north to fight Putin, and make er half out-o-ice!
I know how we can pay for it!!!
Next Olympics hosted in Canada, or in USA, we build the carrier instead of an “Olympic village”, way up in the artic, and play the games on the carrier/Alaska.
No one misses a few billion after the games, and we get a carrier to show for it!
