What you are now proposing has been studied multiple times, and rejected (at least 70 times in one article I saw.) Besides lack of range, speed and endurance, the airwing they could carry would have been so limited as to be much less effective. However, aircraft technology is changing. In perhaps as little as the coming decade, a useful mix and load of aircraft could become reality. That still leaves the issues of range and endurance...these light carriers would not be nuclear, and would require fuel for themselves, their planes, and frequently their escorts, which is a tremedous drain that kills both range and endurance. And there remains the money issue. We will never get the big carriers back. Any regrets after the fact will not be reversible. So, my point is that we had better really be sure if we take the plunge. The doubts that come from the range/endurance and other issues is why we have not yet done so, and it's likely we will take a good long time to study it more before it happens, if it ever should. I would not hold my breath.
Speaking of which...by the time these two new carriers enter service most of us will be either dead, or pretty old. The only ones around will have been children when those presidents served. For them, it will be like the carrier Truman. He's a historical figure, not a recent memory. So, it will be seen in a different light, and no doubt be less objectionable. Previous Message
You are thinking that I am espousing LHA/LHDs in current configuration. No, maybe slightly larger with 28+ knot speed, at least 1 catapult and arresting wires. Can build 2 or 3 for the price of 1 big deck. Technology is changing, time to move on from the dinosaurs.
P.S. I am not saying to decommission the existing ships, just not build any beyond JFK and Enterprise. Previous Message
And like I have said...
We will never get the ability to build big carriers back again if we stop them. So, we had better be really, really sure we no longer want them when we do.
Our one carrier yard will close down, the very specialized work force will disperse, and the skill sets will be lost. Same for the CATOBAR naval aviation industry. And do not even begin to think that we can do both...build large carriers and small ones simultaneously. I can state here over and over how poor the financial situation is, but unless/until anyone is willing to actually sit down and look at the numbers, I am just some sort of broken record. We currently have our two submarine yards share the building of one sub just to keep them both open. That is but one of the better illustrations of our state.
So, if "we the nation" decide to commit at any point to these smaller VSTOL carriers, everyone bid goodbye forever to big carriers, and never look back. Previous Message
Time to stop building big decks and switch to Lightning carriers. LHA/Ds with no troop capability and better speed. Previous Message
I guess we should consider ourselves lucky for getting Enterprise. Previous Message
Navy Secretary Del Toro has named the future aircraft carrier CVN-82 and CVN-83 for former Presidents William J Clinton and George W Bush.
Del Toro Names CVN-82 and CVN-83
Responses