Aircraft Carriers III


Intrepid

Captain
There will soon be no country in the world that can support an aircraft carrier force of a dozen flattops. We are entering the age where missing ships are being contributed by allies who themselves only have one or two units and are dependent on partners for every act of war.
 

gelgoog

Captain
Registered Member
Well, I think the US will have to cut down on its carrier force eventually.
One factor in it is the outrageously expensive cost of latest generation carriers like the Ford class.
I think the future of the US Navy will require a cost reduced nuclear supercarrier class.
 

azretonov

Junior Member
Registered Member
South Korea is an ambitious nation. They are looking to build a blue water navy that can be deployed to places like the Gulf of Aden or Persian Gulf. It's a nation that is heavily dependent upon international trade and protection of those lanes of communication is important.

Agreed, and let's not forget about their overseas investments.

I don't know, it seems a bit exaggerated to me for South Korea to build all these carriers just to protect a couple of rocks on the ocean.

Aside from the immediate regional necessities such as Japan and China, some food for thoughts:
It's planned to be in service by the mid-2030s. As they don't have a preceding carrier experience, it would take them some 7-10 years to achieve some degree of actual combat readiness. We might be unaware of their yet to be undisclosed overseas concerns related to that timeframe. One thought is that ROK has considerable economic interests in several dangerous geographies as it is, and in time, these interests would require the safeguard provided by a carrier force. In that timeframe, it is quite possible to develop the African hydrocarbon reserves to achieve some degree of energy independence from the Gulf politics. There are many external actors in Africa and some don't hesitate to use proxies to hinder their rivals' efforts.
 

AndrewS

Major
Registered Member
There will soon be no country in the world that can support an aircraft carrier force of a dozen flattops. We are entering the age where missing ships are being contributed by allies who themselves only have one or two units and are dependent on partners for every act of war.

I actually think China will be able to support a larger fleet of aircraft carriers in 10 years time.
After all, China would have a significantly larger economy than the USA.
 

Ndla2

New Member
Registered Member
I actually think China will be able to support a larger fleet of aircraft carriers in 10 years time.
After all, China would have a significantly larger economy than the USA.
More like in 20 years, if the "significantly larger economy" that you meant is in a nominal GDP, instead of PPP.
 

stan hyd

New Member
Registered Member
Just out of interest if you lot were looking at the CVL for the US Navy, what would you advocate by way of inclusions. Interested in peoples idea of size, air wing size and formation etc.
 

kentchang

Junior Member
Registered Member
Just out of interest if you lot were looking at the CVL for the US Navy, what would you advocate by way of inclusions. Interested in peoples idea of size, air wing size and formation etc.

The AMERICA class LHA is used as a starting point but CVL will be larger if you go by chatters in USNI Proceedings.

It would be funny if the CVL turns out to be a 076-lookalike (w/o well deck). An oversized LHA with angled deck and EMAL.

I doubt much will come out of this CVL/Distributed Lethality discussion. Once you have driven a BMW, hard to back to a Kia.
 

stan hyd

New Member
Registered Member
The AMERICA class LHA is used as a starting point but CVL will be larger if you go by chatters in USNI Proceedings.

It would be funny if the CVL turns out to be a 076-lookalike (w/o well deck). An oversized LHA with angled deck and EMAL.

I doubt much will come out of this CVL/Distributed Lethality discussion. Once you have driven a BMW, hard to back to a Kia.
The AMERICA class LHA is used as a starting point but CVL will be larger if you go by chatters in USNI Proceedings.

It would be funny if the CVL turns out to be a 076-lookalike (w/o well deck). An oversized LHA with angled deck and EMAL.

I doubt much will come out of this CVL/Distributed Lethality discussion. Once you have driven a BMW, hard to back to a Kia.
The idea of the CVL being brought in on a 2:1 is interesting. I was imagining either going for something like the CVV with 2 cats operating 36 F-35C or CVF type carrier operating 36 F-35B. Looking at it fr the RN the idea of the US developing an AEW option for STOVL carrier would be amazing
 

azretonov

Junior Member
Registered Member
Just out of interest if you lot were looking at the CVL for the US Navy, what would you advocate by way of inclusions. Interested in peoples idea of size, air wing size and formation etc.

If I'm not mistaken, the goal is about the quantitative edge with budgetary advantage. I don't follow up on this topic closely, but here is my opinion:
- I imagine the US Navy would settle for a STOVL carrier, between 40K-70K tonnes range, capable of sustaining flight operations for two squadrons of F-35B on its own. Theoretically, it could be able to generate up to 80 sorties per day under normal conditions. That's about a third of what Nimitz class could generate for a relatively lower cost.

One should remember that some allied nations would be operating their light STOVL carriers with F-35B by the 2030s, which would provide logistical advantages.
 

Top