Another example of supercarriers being needed.

[Dayton3]

Armed US fighter jets launched from a Navy aircraft carrier are flying overwatch for evacuations in the Afghan capital

You don't always have a friendly air base in the right location at the right time.

 

[DudleySmith]

There are advantages and disadvantages; it depends on your enemies. One the one hand, a few large carriers would be easier to defend and more efficient to operate against certain kinds of attacks abd for big missions, but the smaller 'pocket carrier' strategy FDR decided on worked best in the Pacific, given the scattered real estate all over the place, and were quicker to build and didn't have to stay in port as long. A few other reasons as well, but I don't have time to list them. A 'super carrier' in the Med or around the Gulf would probably work better, since there is a lot of land nearby to base supplemental ground support and air bases on. If we can afford it doing both would be best.

 

[whitehall]

What kind of targets are they looking for? Pretty ironic that "super-carriers" which have been around for a couple of decades would finally be used only as cover for a U.S. evacuation.

 

[Dayton3]

What kind of targets are they looking for? Pretty ironic that "super-carriers" which have been around for a couple of decades would finally be used only as cover for a U.S. evacuation.

Supercarriers have been around for 70 years.

 

[Mushroom]

There are advantages and disadvantages; it depends on your enemies. One the one hand, a few large carriers would be easier to defend and more efficient to operate against certain kinds of attacks abd for big missions, but the smaller 'pocket carrier' strategy FDR decided on worked best in the Pacific, given the scattered real estate all over the place, and were quicker to build and didn't have to stay in port as long. A few other reasons as well, but I don't have time to list them. A 'super carrier' in the Med or around the Gulf would probably work better, since there is a lot of land nearby to base supplemental ground support and air bases on. If we can afford it doing both would be best.

That was because he had no choice. Not because that was the "strategy".

The "Fleet Carriers" of the era (Lexington and Yorktown classes) were essentially armored cruisers with their decks modified. Huge, and very time consuming to build. And they needed from 2 to 3 years to build. But the escort carriers could be converted from other ships like oilers in as little as 4 to 6 months. As most of those used standard designs, it was easy to just rip off the top, and throw on a hangar and flight deck and send them back out into service. But the downside, is that they were essentially sending out quickly and cheaply converted oil tankers and cargo ships into war zones.

The only purposeful built "Escort Carrier" that was not a conversion was the late war "Commencement Bay" series. Based on the hull of a T3 class tanker, it was still built from the start as a carrier, and took over a year to build. Started in 1943, 35 were planned in the class. But only 9 of the 19 built were finished before the war ended. But they were also the ships used to test the LPH concept, and many were considered to conversion to the first LPH class ships, until it was decided to build them from scratch rather than do yet another conversion.

But the "pocket carrier" was not any kind of design or strategy. It literally was the only things they could pull out of their arse because it took so long to build fleet carriers.

 

[Mushroom]

Supercarriers have been around for 70 years.

Exactly. At about the same time they started to use Heavy Cruiser hulls rather than oilers and colliers and converting them.

In reality, the hull size of a heavy cruiser and a battleship is not all that much. The biggest difference is the armor on the hull, and the guns.

Top is the USS Missouri (BB-63), and below that is the USS Alaska (CB-1). The BB weighs a lot more, but size wise there is not a huge difference.

And so see the scale, the carrier at the bottom is the USS Croatan (CVE-25), which after the war was transferred to the Military Sealift Command. Where she remained in service until 1970. If any ever wondered how the Air Cavalry got their helicopters to Vietnam, you are looking at it. She spent most of her time until finally removed from service moving aircraft all around the world.

The largest destroyer on the bottom is a Fletcher class. The other smaller ones are WWI era 4 stackers.

Of course, you also have exceptions to that. Like the IJN Shinano.

Literally built on a Battleship hull, intended to be the third ship of the Yamato class. But after losses at Midway, it was instead finished as a carrier. Rushed into service, and sunk ten days into it's service life. But the concept was as old as carriers.

 

[DudleySmith]

That was because he had no choice. Not because that was the "strategy"

Actually it was a choice, as was everything else when decided what and how much to build.

Independence-class aircraft carrier - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Adapted from the design for the Cleveland-class light cruisers, this class of ship resulted from the interest of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in naval air power. With war looming, Roosevelt, a former Assistant Secretary of the Navy, noted no new fleet aircraft carriers were expected to be completed before 1944.[1] He proposed to convert some of the many cruisers then under construction to carriers. Studies of cruiser-size aircraft carriers had shown the type had serious limitations, and on 13 October 1941, the General Board of the United States Navy replied that such a conversion showed too many compromises to be effective.

Undeterred, President Roosevelt ordered another study. On 25 October 1941, the Navy's Bureau of Ships reported that aircraft carriers converted from cruiser hulls would be of lesser capability, but available much sooner.[2] After the December 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor, the need for more carriers became urgent. The Navy accelerated construction of the 34,000-ton Essex-class aircraft carriers, but these large ships could not be finished quickly. The Cleveland-class light cruisers then under construction were adopted for this purpose.

Plans developed for this conversion showed much more promise than expected. Nine light cruisers were reordered as carriers in the first half of 1942. The Independence-class design had a relatively short and narrow flight deck and hangar, with a small island superstructure. The hangar, flight deck, and island represented a significant increase in the ship's topside weight. To compensate for this, blisters were added to the original cruiser hull, which increased the original beam by 5 feet (1.5 m). Ships of this class carried a small air group – only about 30 aircraft. This was originally set to consist of nine fighters, nine scout bombers, and nine torpedo bombers, but later revised to about two dozen fighters and nine torpedo bombers.

These were limited-capability ships, whose principal virtue was near-term availability. Their limited size made for seakeeping difficulties in the many typhoons of the Pacific, and their small flight decks led to a high aircraft accident rate. However, being based on a light cruiser, they were fast ships, much faster than the Casablanca-class escort carriers. The cruiser hull and engineering allowed them the speed necessary to operate with the main fleet carrier task groups. Their names followed the US Navy's policy of naming aircraft carriers after historic navy ships (Independence) or historic battles (Cowpens).

Fleet tactics changed during the war; they still had the fleet carriers, but the light carriers came along because they were fast enough to keep up with the Essex class fleet carriers, which the escort carriers couldn't do. Same thing now, what choices to make; if one can afford both, build both; flexibility is always good.

The Yorktowns and Essex classes, the fleet carriers, were not ' super carriers'; those came along after WW II was over. They turned out to be enough for WW II, and were around for a long time after.

 

[DudleySmith]

With drone development moving along nicely, these super carriers will be fewer, though, and the light carriers will have their aircraft contingents increased. We know from our own and Iran's successful use of drones in attacks all the noise about 'ecm jamming n stuff' is just wishful thinking and new weapons systems and tactics will dominate naval air tactics in just a couple of decades.

 

[Dayton3]

Exactly. At about the same time they started to use Heavy Cruiser hulls rather than oilers and colliers and converting them.

I was referring to when the U.S.S. Forrestal was commissioned.

 

[Mushroom]

Actually it was a choice, as was everything else when decided what and how much to build.

Which only proves what I was saying in the first place!

I said quite clearly, that building a fleet carrier from scratch takes 2-3+ years.

Converting another ship only takes from 6 months to 1 year.

And to prove your point, you bring up yet another conversion?

Did you even read what I said, then compare it to what you actually wrote? Obviously not, because your post is actually agreeing with me. Conversions were done because they had no choice. It does not matter if it was an existing ship, or the hull of another ship already being built, then finished as a carrier instead of the original design. Like the 9 Cleveland class light cruisers.

The first of which was the former USS Amsterdam, then renamed after the change from CL to CVL was so considered excess that it was expended in the first post-war atomic bomb test.

And "CVL" is really no different than "CVE". The biggest difference is those were actually on the hulls of combat ships, and not merchant vessels. And had a slightly larger capacity. But the Independence Class were still converted from other ships, and not specifically built to serve as carriers.

Nothing on the planet could have allowed them to rush out new fleet carriers in a year or less. Nothing, period. They had no choice but to resort to conversions and other hacks just to get carriers at sea at all. The choice was to have no carriers for 2-3 years, or to make some hack job conversions. There was no middle ground. This is not a "choice",

 

[Mushroom]

With drone development moving along nicely, these super carriers will be fewer, though, and the light carriers will have their aircraft contingents increased.

Drones will never take over as combat aircraft.

And obviously, you have absolutely no idea how big a combat drone really is.

You obviously have been completely fooled by the fact that most images tend to never show them standing next to an identifiable reference point, so any sense of scale is lost. In fact, most combat drones are as large or larger than an actual jet fighter. And has a smaller weapons load. You obviously think that these are the size of a Yugo, and not the reality. They are as big or bigger than the F/A-18 aircraft they would be replacing if the drone fanatics had their way.

 

[DudleySmith]

Drones will never take over as combat aircraft.

And obviously, you have absolutely no idea how big a combat drone really is.

You obviously have been completely fooled by the fact that most images tend to never show them standing next to an identifiable reference point, so any sense of scale is lost. In fact, most combat drones are as large or larger than an actual jet fighter. And has a smaller weapons load. You obviously think that these are the size of a Yugo, and not the reality. They are as big or bigger than the F/A-18 aircraft they would be replacing if the drone fanatics had their way.

And you're just a troll, so what's new? The fact is you don't know any more than anybody else, and it chaps your ass no end, which is why you have tantrums when your rather shallow knowledge you got from Reader's Digests and old Time/Life collections isn't the last word on anything. And, your obsessive hatred of drones is just hilarious; they can built in all sizes, despite your delusions to the contrary, and they will carry more bang for the buck than manned craft will, at about half the costs. Get used to it.

 

[DudleySmith]

Which only proves what I was saying in the first place!

I said quite clearly, that building a fleet carrier from scratch takes 2-3+ years.

Converting another ship only takes from 6 months to 1 year.

And to prove your point, you bring up yet another conversion?

Did you even read what I said, then compare it to what you actually wrote? Obviously not, because your post is actually agreeing with me. Conversions were done because they had no choice. It does not matter if it was an existing ship, or the hull of another ship already being built, then finished as a carrier instead of the original design. Like the 9 Cleveland class light cruisers.

The first of which was the former USS Amsterdam, then renamed after the change from CL to CVL was so considered excess that it was expended in the first post-war atomic bomb test.

And "CVL" is really no different than "CVE". The biggest difference is those were actually on the hulls of combat ships, and not merchant vessels. And had a slightly larger capacity. But the Independence Class were still converted from other ships, and not specifically built to serve as carriers.

Nothing on the planet could have allowed them to rush out new fleet carriers in a year or less. Nothing, period. They had no choice but to resort to conversions and other hacks just to get carriers at sea at all. The choice was to have no carriers for 2-3 years, or to make some hack job conversions. There was no middle ground. This is not a "choice",

And of course your little attempt at semantics fails as usual. Even short Wiki articles verify what I said, and they indeed made choices, especially FDR. At the time they thought the wars would last a lot longer than they did, so a two year wait wasn't all that critical in planning, but tactical changes were rapid and the escorts built on tankers were too slow, hence the pocket carriers and breaking up the carrier fleets won out.

 

[Meathead]

There are advantages and disadvantages; it depends on your enemies. One the one hand, a few large carriers would be easier to defend and more efficient to operate against certain kinds of attacks abd for big missions, but the smaller 'pocket carrier' strategy FDR decided on worked best in the Pacific, given the scattered real estate all over the place, and were quicker to build and didn't have to stay in port as long. A few other reasons as well, but I don't have time to list them. A 'super carrier' in the Med or around the Gulf would probably work better, since there is a lot of land nearby to base supplemental ground support and air bases on. If we can afford it doing both would be best.

The escort carrier you speak of cannot be adapted to modern planes except for those like Harriers which do not offer the range to patrol inland.

 

[DudleySmith]

The escort carrier you speak of cannot be adapted to modern planes except for those like Harriers which do not offer the range to patrol inland.

I'm not talking about the escort carriers, but the light carriers, but yes the escorts' decks were too small even then for some then 'modern' aircraft, which is why the pocket carriers came along; they too were replaced eventually, as planes needed bigger decks. The Essex class were still around and used in Viet Nam and later, for that matter. The 'super carriers' are an entirely different animal, and air power is now the Big Boy on the Block in all branches. they don't replace the need for smaller carriers, though. Like I said if we can afford them build both, and as drone tech advances the smaller carriers will be carrying a lot more firepower. So will land Army brigades. If that weren't the case then the Army wouldn't be ordering small carriers for themselves.

And, just a reminder, but it is the Army that won wars, not the Marines.

 

[Mushroom]

And you're just a troll, so what's new? The fact is you don't know any more than anybody else, and it chaps your ass no end, which is why you have tantrums when your rather shallow knowledge you got from Reader's Digests and old Time/Life collections isn't the last word on anything. And, your obsessive hatred of drones is just hilarious; they can built in all sizes, despite your delusions to the contrary, and they will carry more bang for the buck than manned craft will, at about half the costs. Get used to it.

Sure they can be.

But to be effective in combat, they have to be essentially the size of a conventional fighter jet.

What, do you think you are going to strap on a ton of bombs onto a drone no larger than you are?

I do not hate drones, I have used them myself. I simply am not some mindless moron who thinks they are the best thing ever, and will win wars all by themselves.

You know, after the last War to end all wars", one famous wag even said the era of armies and ground combat was at an end, the wars of the future would be fought by bombers. Well, it is over 70 years later, and it still has not happened.

But I see your typical response. Somebody posts something you do not like, you immediately resort to insults, and do not actually talk about the context of what was said.

But fine, you are right. Now show me a comparison of a much smaller combat drone. You are the one that made the claim that there are many that are smaller, now it is up to you to prove it.

So go ahead, prove me wrong.

 

[Mushroom]

so a two year wait wasn't all that critical in planning

Yea, screw Australia then, I guess. I have absolutely no idea what reference you are trying to talk about, but they are absolutely clueless. If the US had just sat back and waited things out for two years until fleet carriers were built, the war in the Pacific would have been lost.

 

[harmonica]

DudleySmith what wars were those? in Korea, it was the Marines that saved the Army's ass---the NKs beat the Army all the way down to Pusan --the Marines saved the day there...then they landed at Inchon
.....AND THEN, the USMC was the only unit NOT to get their ass whipped when the Chinese came over,....the USMC decimated the 9th Army Group--AND saved some of the Doggies east of the Chosin..RCT-31 got decimated
..the Doggies got a big bloody nose all over when the Chinese came over......USMC Gen Smith '''''disobeyed''' Army Gen. Almond's STUPID order to race to the Yalu --and good thing he did

.....USMC air was critical in the Doggies--- east of Chosin ----not being totally wiped out--the Marine FO for air support took charge....brought in devastating air strikes during and after the Chinese attack ........read East of Chosin--a good book on it.....my dad was at the Chosin....I was in for 8 years

 

[Mushroom]

I'm not talking about the escort carriers, but the light carriers, but yes the escorts' decks were too small even then for some then 'modern' aircraft, which is why the pocket carriers came along; they too were replaced eventually, as planes needed bigger decks. The Essex class were still around and used in Viet Nam and later, for that matter.

The problem is, you are missing that they are the same thing.

Escort Carrier, was a ship converted into a carrier that used a hull from a commercial vessel. Mostly fuelers, old colliers, or cargo ships.

Light Carriers were converted from existing combat ship hulls, most typically light cruisers like the Cleveland Class light cruiser.

They are both indeed conversions, as neither one is a fleet carrier.

Then you bring up the Essex class. Which by the time of Vietnam was barely even the same ship as was launched in WWII. And after major refits and modifications that would allow them to use "modern" jets of the 1950's and early 1960's. And even then, it was operating aircraft that were half the weight of a modern naval aircraft. Primarily the F-4, not the F/A-18. And they were primarily "Long Hull Essex". In fact, it is funny you are trying to talk about "pocket carriers", yet use as your example what is commonly known as the first of the "supercarriers". That is of course the long-hull Essex class.

While the USS Forrestal is often claimed as that, as it was the first such carrier designed from the start with an angled flight deck and to primarily service jets. But that title rightfully belongs to the USS Oriskany. A long-hull Essex, she was 85% complete when the war ended, so remained in the dock for a year until 1947, when the Naval Board ordered her to resume with a new plan. In essence, the upgrades they intended on putting on the rest of the Essex class.

A longer slanted flight deck, catapults, new arresting wire system, removing the AA guns, and adding blistering. The new ship came in almost 25% heavier than the other Essex class ships, and over a dozen more aircraft than the short-hull Essex ships. But they were all needed as the new supercarriers were being constantly redesigned and built. If you look at the Cold War carriers, there were a lot of ships that were alone or only had a few others in their class. With ships like the Midway class largely being a test bed for future designs.

But as an FYI, they did try playing with the concept once again, with the Saipan class. Two ships designed and built as a CVL, but by the time they were ready for service it was realized they were to small and light for the modern jets the Navy was transitioning to. So for the last ten years of their lives, one was converted to a communication relay ship, the other for a Command ship for use in amphibious task forces. With nothing but helicopters taking off and landing on her decks.

You keep screaming for a vessel which is obsolete. That was only built because there was no choice, and the only only ones built after the war were dismissed as unable to handle the needs. And once again the Navy had no choice but to use the Essex as long as they could. Between the end of WWII and the launching of the USS Enterprise, they only completed 11 carriers.

The Midway class once again was a pre-war update on the already under construction Essex class. The Independence class CVL (9 ships - 8 survived the war) were all retired by 1947, other than 2 retained as training ships for student pilots.

The Saipan class of 2 I already discussed. The USS United States was never even finished, cancelled just 5 days after the keel was laid.. A horrible design, and the least said about that abortion, the better.

Then the seven ships of the Forrestal and Improved Forrestal classes. Getting closer to a modern carrier, increased size because of the demands of supporting 90-100 jets as opposed to 60 propeller aircraft. Then we entered the start of the CVN, with the USS Enterprise.

Well, and the CV-67 USS JFK. Originally intended to be a "Nuclear Kitty Hawk" class, like the Oriskany already mentioned, she got so many upgrades (and dumping the planned nuclear reactor) that she was also a single ship class. But still underwent a year long refit to enable her to handle the F/A-18. But in 2007 it was the most expensive carrier in the fleet to operate, and was due to a year and a half long refit. So instead, she was retired. And for a decade she was being held for donation, but there were never any serious bids, and she is now scheduled to be scrapped.

You seem to have this fantasy that smaller carriers are the way to go. We already have them, the 2 (third under construction) ship America class. An LHA amphibious ship, she typically loads out with 6 F-35B aircraft, and in an "air mode" can have all the other aircraft removed and operate with around 30 of the F-35B. So maybe that is what you want, simply build more LHA class ships. At least those would actually be good for something else.

Oh, and even that, it is almost the same size as the old long-hull Essex class. So still nothing "pocket" about it, other than the number of aircraft it can have. Also, no other aircraft other than helicopters and the OV-22. No catapult, no arrestor system of any kind.

 

[JohnDB]

I know that I don't have all the answers...


But I know that an aircraft carrier is an awfully big target hard to miss...

Drones do seem to be more fuel efficient than regular aircraft...

And aircraft carrier GROUPS do seem to use a LOT of fuel... which isn't exactly always easy to obtain in a theatre of operation.

Which Germany had much much better tanks but without the gas/diesel they made for nice lawn ornaments too far away from battle lines to do any good.

Fuel, munitions, mobility, communications and food...these things are needed to win wars. I'm not sure that a C1-30 can land on an aircraft carrier...or take off from one. But I am about sure that an aircraft carrier group needs a container ship load of supplies on a regular basis to operate. But a floating city is hard to miss just the same.