That’s what I had in mind: smaller carriers in the 40k ton range. Not doing away with tem altogether.
The US Navy conducted many design studies and fleet exercises to investigate these very questions back in the twenties.
The very first US carrier was a 10,000 ton converted job, the Langley (former Jupiter).
There’s reasons why one big ship is better than the equivalent to two or three smaller ships, even if they add up to the same in tonnage.
Off the top of my head:
-
a fewer number of bigger carriers was actually easier to defend than multiple groups of smaller ships.
-
A larger ship will be able to operate it’s airgroup in heavier seas as compared to a smaller ship. A larger ship can steam faster through heavy seas than a small one.
-
A larger ship is able to compartmentalise (meaning to subdivide with fire- or water-tight boundries) to a greater degree, meaning it’s more resistant to killing blows (like from torpedos) than smaller ships.
-
A larger ship can carry a greater amount of supplies (food, jet fuel, munitions), and thus can stay in action/stay on station longer. [Note: Most of the smaller carriers currently employed are conventionally powered, not nuclear. The same cost cutting benefits that provide the motive for moving to a smaller ship may also provide a reason to use a non-nuclear propulsion plant. This reduces their global reach somewhat, although refueling at sea helps mitigate that somewhat, and also takes up precious space onboard (for ship’s fuel), cutting into room for other things.]
“Even the Army”? Look here, squid!
shakes fist
Interestingly, my old man, a retired Army major general, and I were having a recent conversation about this. He was explaining to me that Donald Rumsfeld, as much of an asshole as he was, was a huge driving force behind the modernizing of the US military, helping to bring the equipment and concepts into the 21st Century.
Well, yeah, but they weren’t comparing 100,000 ton nuclear carriers to 40,000 ton gas turbine carriers, so they’re probably not very useful today 
In what fantasy scenario do you see planes from a carrier attacking China without retaliation?
I disagree. I don’t think the points I laid out in that post have changed in the last century.
Can the 40,000 ton design be made “acceptable enough”? Sure. There are gonna be trade offs (in reduced capabilities), no matter what, though.
You could argue that the Army has done the most to modernize away from the Cold-War era. The Navy may have modernized its TT&P, but I don’t think we actually changed our internal structure at all. The Army did that and ushered in (from the little I gleaned at the Army Staff College) an actual cultural change to marry up with its shift to lighter/smaller/more mobile.
Why do you assume retaliation will be nuclear?
He’s assuming that because they have nukes. In his world, have = will use if attacked, period.
I don’t. But the risk of such an exchange falls under the MAD principal. The risk of such an event is high enough that we wouldn’t attack a country like China. That risk increases with the capacity to strike a carrier with non-nuclear weapons. Risk assessment changes with the cost of failure. Smaller chances of success are weighed against the higher cost of failure. The chances of China succeeding in the disabling of a carrier with conventional weapons is probably small as a percentage but very real nonetheless. We can’t afford it. We have half the carriers we use to have since the Cold war. Not only is Russia still there we’re seeing the emergence of China as the next financial superpower and they’re building up their military at a time where nobody is threatening them. I would posit that they intend to use gunboat diplomacy just as the US has done against 3rd world countries who represent a threat to their financial interests.
Flyboy has stated that we have the capacity to attack a major power based on plans he’s personally seen. This is a flawed argument. The idea that we “could” attack a nuclear power is countered by the political likelihood we would. We can’t afford the outcome on any level.
Technically, we’ve already fought a shooting war with China without our side resorting to nukes, despite taking a terrible beating. The Chinese did not yet have them, but the Russians did, and the US shot down Russian pilots in MiG Alley.
I don’t think I said that. I’d have to look through what I wrote upthread, but my rationale is such that we have weapons and can attack anyone, anywhere, any time when so ordered. Based on the plans I’ve seen (and I’ll add in my years of experience and knowledge of national defense strategy), you have no idea what you’re talking about.
You keep using phrases like “we wouldn’t” or “we would” or “we won’t.” You have demonstrated you know nothing about what we would, wouldn’t, will, or won’t do. You are spitballing with no education to stand on. You know what? While I can say that you’re clueless about this topic, I can’t say what we will or won’t do. At the end of the day, what we will do is whatever POTUS decides after CJCS, NSA, and the President’s cabinet advise him. It’s that simple. One thing that will not happen is a summary preclusion to attack or retaliate simply because the other side has or is suspected to have nukes.
We’ve fought a number of proxy wars. But we’ve never fought directly against the countries mentioned.
you keep saying this as if the US Military is invincible. I’ve already cited examples of other countries who demonstrated a capacity to breach the surveillance capabilities of the Navy using conventional equipment. Your statement that we can attack anyone, anywhere any time is simplistic and arrogant. Any nation could say that.
I have history and common sense to back up what I’ve said. We’ve never attacked a major power since WW-II. It’s always been 3rd World countries that can’t defend themselves. Under what fantasy scenario do you see this happening. No more of your anyone/anywhere/anytime bullshit bragging of what the Navy could do.
Cite one instance where the US used a carrier to attack a major power since WW-II. Despite a growing nuclear threat we’ve reduced the number of carriers from 26 to 11 since then. One would conclude the number would go up under those circumstances. It went down. There is no need for a carrier to defend the country from such a threat. The only possible scenario would be a preemptive strike and that is just as easily covered by the air force which has long range aircraft as well as the latest stealth fighters and bombers. Tankers make short missions astronomically cheaper than a carrier group.
Whether you like it or not a carrier represents a slow moving fuel depot for airplanes that are design limited to the requirements of a short runway.
Let me rephrase our positions flyboy. You contend the Navy has the equipment and know-how to attack aaaaaanybody it is directed to attack.
My contention is that it’s not going to happen against a major power because of the consequence and that defines the role of the carrier. It’s not a necessary part of the MAD doctrine that keeps these exchanges from happening therefor it’s role is that of a 3rd world policeman. It’s not a function of what in theory it could do, it’s a function of what it’s funded for. We don’t need them to defend this country in any capacity beyond 3rd world interests.
I cannot envision a scenario at this point where we would preemptively attack China. They would have to attack us, or one of our allies (most likely Taiwan), first.
And I disagree with your assertion that aircraft carriers would not be helpful in that regard. Being able to fly thousands of sorties from a position of strength (which in my mind is what a carrier battle group is) is not some lame, 3rd world country bullying.
I do agree that there is risk. There’s enormous risk in every military operation, skirmish, war of losing important assets.
I just don’t see that conflict going nuclear on either side, if in fact China did something dumb like invade Taiwan and the USA honored it’s pledge to defend it.
What is that “pledge” anyway? Do we have treaty obligations with Taiwan or is that just “our word” that we’d defend them?
Hokey dokey. The difference in our positions is that I know what I’m talking about. Or more accurately, my guesses are educated. Yours are not.
What position is that exactly since you can’t seem to answer any of my questions.
Do you really think a carrier is funded with the intent of attacking a major power?
Taiwan is an interesting argument unto itself. we’ve had to stand down on confrontations in the past with China. Consider the E-P3E that was damaged by a Chinese fighter and forced to land. We sent strongly worded objections. Then there are the numerous incidents with US naval ships such as the USNS Impeccable where the ship was chased away by the Chinese (only to return with an escort). There are lots of cat-and-mouse examples that show the political nature of the interactions.
But would we actively challenge China with a blockade if they decided to float over for a meet and greet? Possibly. Would that blockade fire on ships running through it? That’s a multi-billion dollar question. And it’s a political question.
Maybe it’s because I was born and raised in Alabama, but I’ve read this six times and I’m still not sure I understand what it means.