[ Post a Response | The SteelNavy.Com Message Board ]
Posted by Ralph Wood on September 9, 2026, 22:33:02, in reply to "Re: what about a, smaller but modern CVS?"
In war, all plans go out the window at the first shot. Which is why hypotheticals often sound great, but don't always square with reality. A war over Taiwan has multiple different "levels," from coping with a Chinese blockade through dealing with invasion, all the way up to nuclear war. We've no treaty obligations to even come to their aid. How big it gets depends solely on how far each side is willing to go. Will we actually lob cruise missiles into China? Many theater commanders back, I read an interview with the then title holder. His answer was "You bet!" But, he no longer is there, and several administrations have also come and gone. So, while you might be "a war or two behind," half or more of what I wrote is probably garbage.
What I can say for certain is that China developed their antiship ballistic missiles specifically to counter our carrier groups. That they would then not use them, seems a bit unlikely. However, China's problem is not knowing how far we're willing to go. They might start by trying to keep the fighting limited with hopes we won't have the stomach to be involved, and not wanting to provoke us with attacks on our forces in the region. That risks them finding out we are getting involved, and they left our forces intact. Alternately, they could just assume we'll respond, and their opening moves will hit Guam, and any ships of ours in the region which they can target. If they attack our bases in Japan, they plan to take them on, too. How the war actually goes depends a lot on China's opening moves.
China has "carrier killer" antiship ballistic missiles. We have proposed, and are working on USV and UUV drone fleets. Asymmetric warfare is the current prevailing buzzword idea. What sort of war results from that remains to be seen. War has certain constants. (Logistics wins wars. That's one.) You are probably not behind as far as you think.
Appreciate your input! Thank you. 
Previous Message
Well, I suppose I am fighting the war I was trained for. And all of my year group have been retired for some time.
The item I was referring to was "convoy escort". I've lost track of who mentioned it - you, Lars, DAVID or one of the others
To point at a mark in history , consider the British CVE. They were not configured to do everything. Some were "Trade Protection" (convoy escort), some were "Fighter Direction" (for covering amphib landings), some were for "aircraft ferry. With those parameters, I am suggesting the trade protection role - ASW for convoys. Add in the modern linked networks on ships and their aircraft, and they can provide a strong underwater "umbrella" (I just made that up :-) ) for an open ocean convoy.
To minimize the "missile magnet function, I'm not advocating sending these vessels into an amphib landing area.
Yes, for support of Taiwan, I was still expecting use of our current gators, with support from our various missile shooters. I would expect a CVN or two farther offshore so that any incoming threats would be apparent against the lack of nearby clutter.
Yup, I'm a war or two behind. Previous Message
Large amphibious assaults are daunting, difficult, and likely to fail. That said, China has studied the "Taiwan problem" since the late 1940s, and has figured out how to inexpensively defeat our carrier groups since the late 1990s. Anything I have read--studies and wargame results--has shown that, if no one comes to Taiwan's aid, China will eventually, inevitably take them, no matter how daunting the undertaking. Taiwan simply can not hold on forever unaided.
To aid them means getting them weapons and supplies at the minimum. China's naval blockade will then contain a large portion of their diesel sub force. To get that force irradicated, to allow aid in, means ships and/or subs will have to get in close to Taiwan and China, right under the missile umbrella China has created to deal with the ships. A CVS with its escorts will be a missile magnet. When/if located and targeted, it will be pulverized. As would our CVN groups trying to get close to provide air support. To remove their subs from around the island approaches will require subs of our own, which have the least risk from the missile umbrella. Numerous dispersed smaller ships are at great risk, but not so much as a carrier group. In a past discussion on our current USV ideas, Lars correctly pointed out they'd be "not worth wasting a missile on." Asymmetry. They're even cheaper (and hopefully more numerous) than China's ballistic missile arsenal. That's what you put, along with subs of our own, into the opening phases of a Taiwan scenario. The current USV idea has them carrying Mk 70 launchers, which can launch cruise missiles. You provoke China into dumping their missiles on them ("worthless" as they are) by firing these cruise missiles at targets in China. Then, they can't be ignored, and China has to use resources of some sort on them, if not their missiles.
I was tempted to start this post with, "What war are you envisioning fighting?" The CVE of WWII, and Cold War CVS were for mid-ocean "uboat" wars. These would indeed be useful for our supply lines in the mid-Pacific. But, the closer we get to Taiwan and China itself, the better targets they become. The "real problem" in getting aid into Taiwan is getting into Taiwan. There will be a gauntlet of diesel subs under a missile umbrella. I have serious misgivings on how any sort of CVS/escort group fares in this scenario, and will happily entertain your thoughts!
Of course, if we're going to let Taiwan go, that certainly changes the discussion. A modern CVS protecting our supply forces is very sound. One would then only ask who we're protecting our supply forces from? Major NATO members aside, only Russia and China have the numbers of nuclear subs that would pose a threat requiring "global" escort. Most of the rest of the world's sub forces are diesel coastal vessels, and most nations that have subs have fewer than 10 of them. Russia is preoccupied with Ukraine. Not likely to generate a naval war with us. China's most likely war with us will be over Taiwan. See the above. Iran's sub force was mostly Ghadir class boats with no crew accomodations, which left port for patrols to the limit of their endurance, then returned to base, where we destoyed them all in air strikes. Their hold over the strait comes from mines, small boat swarms, and land based missile launchers..."classic asymmetry," which no CVS escorted convoy is required for.
What war do you have in mind? Would love your thoughts. Previous Message
This call for a smaller CV isn't a bad idea. But while WWII's CVE was intended to host a small number of fixed wing aircraft, our best modern ASW asset is a helicopter and VTOL aircraft.
Nuclear powered? There is no need. If we build a reasonable number of conventional ships, then the plus of "years without refueling" is not necessary.
Speed? If this ship is intended to escort convoys, then it doesn't need to be a greyhound. Gas turbine or diesel may not sound sexy, but they can move a big ship faster than the freighters or tankers, which are built for bulk, not for speed. 24 knots should be fine. Modern rotary winged aircraft can keep up with a track.
Size? 500-600 feet should be enough to handle the mission of convoy escort.
EMALS/CATOBAR? Not necessary with vtol.
Doesn't this just sound like our existing LHDs? They are optimized for carrying troops. This ship would be optimized for carrying/supporting a large number of rotary wing aircraft and a CIC-like facility for processing data. Maybe even two levels of hangar bay? This would leave room for all the area defense and point defense weapons described in the original post.
Needs?
--Take away the nuke and we need more refueling assets.
--Lose the E-2 and we would like an AEW asset like the British AEW Merlin, son of the Sea King that provided AEW during the Falklands war.
--As ever, more frigates would help, but they would be for support, not for sub-killing.
This CVS would not be pivoted to also carry strike aircraft, like the cold war CVS.
Sounds like the Spruance DDH? Not a bad start, but too expensive to cover speed and multiple missions. Previous Message
You take the the EMALS/CATOBAR system, shrink it the size of an angled deck Essex class SCB-27's
It carries a smaller airwing(3 squadrons including growlers), has nuclear propulsion but focuses on point defense against drones. Arm it to the teeth with CWIS(ammo is way cheaper), RIM-116 and smaller SAM's.
With a sleeker hull shape, they can go faster than than the Ford Class(CVN-65 had more of a of a cruiser like hull).
You build them on the West/East and Gulf coast, which alleviates the room required for the larger fleet CVN's that we build every 8 years?
Oh and make Nimitz a dedicated training carrier based in Pensacola.
Responses
« Index