Instead of making big huge "shoot me!" targets ie. fleet carriers why not instead make 3x as many light carriers?Pros:>same number of airplanes but dispersed>much more flexibility with how you deploy your forces>requires massively more effort to take down because more targets>economies of scale from building 20-30x of the same ship model instead of only a handful>everything is just easier when your ship doesn't displace 100 000 tonsCons:...
>>62527533Cons:The navy doesn't have enough other ships to make that many carrier groups. Carrier by itself is useless.The speed of a ship is directly correlated to its waterline length. Big ship = faster and more seaworthy than little ship.
>>62527533
>>62527533>same number of airplanesbut up to half the sortie rate>economies of scalewrongeconomies of scale work AGAINST small carriers
Because you need a 3x fleet to support it? Jesus, just fucking think through your idea.
Yes, the most dominant naval force the planet has ever known could not possibly have better minds that some goofballs on /k/ at work on this sort of question.
>>62527576>appeal to authority
>>62527589>appeal to novelty
>>62527589>>62527624fuck off reddit niggers
>>62527639>appeal to faggotry
>>62527555>speed of a ship is directly correlated to its waterline length>other shipsThose other ships just so happen to be totally tiny compared to fleet carriers. I wonder how they keep up...
>>62527568>but up to half the sortie rateHow would that be? If anything the sortie rate is increased since not you've got 3x as many decks to launch from.>economies of scale work AGAINST small carriersWhy would that be?Per item cost goes down the more you make 'em.
>>62527571They're 3x less valuable targets so they don't need such an autistically huge support fleet.
>>62527657LMAO
>>62527533centralization is efficientit's the same idea as the soviets and Chinese. the commies failed because the central figures failed to adapt and predict, the Chinese failed because the machine has too much momentum to stop and will inevitably LiveLeak the entire civilization.but for a warship during a hot war, it means making more of the other poor bastard die for his country.
>>62527699It doesn't scale like that. The supporting ships will pretty much remain the same size/cost regardless of how "large" the carrier is.
>>62527691>How would that be?smaller deck sizes affect aircraft handling, which you have no clue about, but can cut daily sortie rates by up to 50% on a 40kton carrier i.e. one the size of LHA-6 vs. one the size of Nimtiz>Per item cost goes down the more you make 'emExcept this isn't a like for like comparison>Why would that be?in nearly every metric, large carriers are more cost efficient than small carriersthe big one is size and cost of ships' crew; instead of one set of engines etc you're now paying for threeno, it does not scale linearly; three small carriers built to operate the same number of aircraft as one large carrier is much more expensive than one large carrier, and requires at least half again the ships' crewalso, the square cube law means that they will also carry much less fuel and bombs, so not only is your daily sortie rate slashed, your sustained sortie rate is slashed as wellonce again: stop thinking you're smarter than the thousands of people who are paid to figure this out
>>62527533Speed, endurance, and price.>SpeedBigger ships move faster on the ocean. Not terribly useful tactically, very useful strategically.>EnduranceLarger ships can store more shit, so they can do more for longer between replenishment. Particularly useful for what are essentially mobile airbases.>PriceThree small carriers need more people and resources than one big one, and while they are individually cheaper they are not as a whole. We aren't pumping out enough carriers to make the lower per-unit price worthwhile.
>>62527681The carrier can go slower than it's max speed, the smaller ships can't go faster than their max speed. I know it's a difficult concept to understand but that's how it is.
>>62527533Cons:>building three ships is more expensive than a larger one, nevermind three control towers versus one.>can only launch smaller planes>can only launch STOVL planes with much worse performance than simply carrier capable planes
>>62527853>3 ships is more expensive than just 1Not actually true in the short term, America class LHA's cost 3.4B~ each vs almost 13B for a Ford class carrier. The Ford class probably saves money on fuel and logistics but i'm not sure what the mid-life refuel costs. There is something to be said about the Columbia's nuclear engine apparently being good enough it won't need a refuel but i'm not sure if that'll be applicable for the Ford carriers.
>>62527533Nuclear reactors are already over powered on aircraft carriers and generally overkill on anything smaller.
>>62527893Thanks for relaying excerpts from Wikipedia. You've completely missed the point as the unit price per ship is almost irrelevant. What matters is capability, and to generate the same capability from 3 smaller carriers is more expensive than 1 large one.
>>62527893>Not actually true in the short term, America class LHA's cost 3.4B~ each vs almost 13B for a Ford class carrierthe Ford class carrier has lots of new technology however which contributed to the higher costsa better comparison is the last Nimitz-class carrier, George Bush, because it pre-dates LHA-6 by less than a decade and cost about $7 billioncompared to LHA-6 America, Bush cost twice as much but carries three times more aircraft, three times more jet fuel, and has twice the combat sortie rate (in exercises)tell me again about "economies of scale"?
>>62527533>this thread againThe navy did studies and concluded that large supercarriers are always more efficient than smaller carriers for reasons other anons have said. The Lightning Carrier concept that this whole meme comes from recently is a niche application that is helpful in certain circumstances but not worth building an entire navy around. America-class LHAs switched back to well-decks for flight I. No one operating smaller carriers is doing so because it's better, the US just happens to be the only country in the world with the expertise/economy for building/operating/maintaining +100k ton supercarriers. Sortie rate aside, there's facts like endurance, munitions capacity, fuel capacity, ability to operate varied aircraft (AWACS is a big one here for smaller carriers), survivability, escorts required, maintenance required, and finally dry dock space for said maintenance that all factors into the equation. China has been steadily increasing their carrier sizes too, the most recent type 003 is 80k tons in displacement, and with that size disparity in mind it has one less catapult than the Nimitz/Ford. They didn't start small for efficiency, they started small because carrier shit is hard and operating a most efficient supercarrier tier CVs is something you need to spend decades building up to.
>>62528029>this thread againI bet it's the battleship nigger on a new bugaboo>The Lightning Carrier concept that this whole meme comes from recently is aP.R. cope for building two mistake ships, let's face it
>>62528046>P.R. cope for building two mistake ships, let's face itkek yeah I agree, I didn't really understand the initial decision and once the criticism came, it sounded like bullshit they made up to seem like they had some semblance of a plan. there's only two real scenarios I can think of where flight 0s might be good to have but they're so niche it doesn't justify the ships to me.
>>62527533I'm pretty sure that past a certain point size doesn't matter when it comes to target size.
>>62527846A carrier is not gonna be gunning it all alone dummy
>>62527681Unironically the Iowas could outrun destroyers and cruisers if they go full mad dash. The same applies to today's nuclear super carriers - they usually don't because that shortens the reactor life (to refueling/overhaul) a little. The thing is that kind of burst of speed is totally, totally valid for trying to deal with torpedos and potentially for positional maneuvering before ASHMs arrive.So yes, they can totally outrun their escort if needed in emergencies.
>>62529415>they can totally outrun their escort if neededtheir main trick is sustained speed, rather than top speed per sea Burke trying to go as far as it can at 30 knots will run out of fuel in 3 hoursa Nimitz can theoretically run at 30 knots indefinitely
>>62527533I wonder if after a neer peer war we do not see aircraft carriers fare as poorly as MBTs in Ukraine.The future is missile and drone spam. It is gay, but inevitable.
>>62529609>I wonder if after a neer peer war we do not see aircraft carriers fare as poorly as MBTs in Ukraine.carriers would be even more valuable in a peer war, since they can shut down sea lanes and deny maritime traffic
>>62527699>>62527750You can put 3 smaller carriers in the center the same as we do now with one super carrier.It is going to be FFG(X), DDGs and SSNs with VLS.
>>62527533Just make 3x as many big carriers. Simple as.
>>62529615Valuable to both us and the enemy. Suicide run with a chink attack sub makes sense. Huge morale loss to lose a carrier. Would we really respond with nukes if one is sunk? I think that depends a lot on who holds the Presidency.I could even see borderline Naval coup if one gets sunk and a President does not respond with a tactical strike.
>>62529628>Time/man hours are infinite
>>62529642>Suicide run with a chink attack sub makes sensecarrier battle group has a hunter-killer sub to stop enemy subschinese subs are also hindered by having to pass through shallow water to get out into the blue seas, making it easier to keep track of their movementschinese would not risk losing one of their valuable subs to try and penetrate a battle group screen
>>62529642What the fuck are you talking about
>>62527533Why stop there? We should stop building carriers and make 20,000 flying boats.
>>62529615If only their was a type of ship that could launch a lot of drones and planes that carry missiles.
>>62527533This has been done to death over the last 60-70 years. Look up "Sea Control Ship".What it boils down to is that a supercarrier can produce far more sorties than its equivalent (in steel, men, or money, the result is the same) light carrier. The *only* advantages of light carriers are 1) losing one is less painful, and 2) they can be in more than one place at a time. Everything else is in the supercarrier's favor, by such a degree that it generally offsets both of the above advantages.There's also the AWACS factor, which other anons have mentioned. A light carrier can't really deploy a high-quality AWACS, which is crucial for getting the most out of your airwing (and for protecting your ships from air attack). And, you'll need roughly the same number of escorts for each carrier, light or super.Now, drone swarms *might* change the picture... but, drone swarms don't typically have the range of, say, ASCMs, which are far more expensive. We haven't seen a cheap, long-range drone that can effectively complement, much less replace, ASCMs.
>>62530824>Now, drone swarms *might* change the picture.if its tiny quadcopter drones, then they really cannot seriously harm a ship unless its in portand they would be spotted on radar and destroyed at rangeif its larger global-hawk sized drones, then you cant really get them to swarmsince they still need runways and the swarm would lack surprise as it would be obvious to everyone that they are amassing hundreds of drones for the initial strike, enough time to amass the necessary air protection to attack the drones at a far enough distance
>>62527555>The speed of a ship is directly correlated to its waterline length.Or rather, it's beam-to-length ratio.
>>62529642>I could even see borderline Naval coup if one gets sunk and a President does not respond with a tactical strike.You sound as retarded underage
>>62529609>aircraft which greatly outrange and perform drones unless they are of similar size and necessitate a carrier anyway>massive energy source and capacitance fore electronic warfareGee I wonder why a carrier would be a good platform even if your faggy "meta" were true which it isn't. The only reason Ukraine looks the way it does is because neither side fields a competent air force.
>>62529707Chink subs are hindered by being shit of late 90s quality at best in the case of the last 3 Shangs, or diesel boats which means they have effectively zero endurance while submerged. They are this age's monitors, static defense once emplaced. Chink carriers are the equivalent of coastal defense battleships, fire brigades that can rush around to plug holes in a naval defense line. And all the small shits are openly just the the French New School from the 1870s. Everything old is new again, same as it ever was.
>>62531611No, length. Look it up.For subs, it's surface area.
>>62529589>a Burke trying to go as far as it can at 30 knots will run out of fuel in 3 hourslol no
>>62528281But they do.
>>62535843lol yesBurke fuel consumption at top speeds is astronomical
>>62532850Yep, exactly. China doesn't have jack shit for force projection but that's fine because they're not planning on going very far - invading Taiwan and harassing the SEAmonkeys is all they're planning on doing and honestly like 90% of that is well within range of shore batteries and domestic air bases.
>>62532819>MISSILE and drone spamHigh altitude, long endurance surveillance aircraft are still drones if unmanned.
>>62529642Except that subs are a meme. Their technology has not advanced nearly as quickly as the technologies that counter them. Their only use these days are as second strike platforms for nuclear weapons. There is no amount of armor or "super secret silent" engine you can put on a sub that will prevent a dingy destroyer that costs a thirtieth of its price from just going "lol" and dunking it. They CAN be sneaky, but only in the context of sneaking past things outside of engagement range. There's a reason Finland joining NATO has been so contentious: and it's because them doing so and allowing western assets in their country basically cucks the entire Russian arctic sub fleet.
>>62536215An impressively shit post anon, I applaud you>There's a reason Finland joining NATO has been so contentious: and it's because them doing so and allowing western assets in their country basically cucks the entire Russian arctic sub fleetAt this point I legitimately cannot tell if you're baiting or just incredibly retarded
>>62536215>There is no amount of armor or "super secret silent" engine you can put on 3 billion dollar sub that will prevent a dingy destroyer that costs a 100 million dollars from just going "lol" and dunking it
>>62536215>There's a reason Finland joining NATO has been so contentious: and it's because them doing so and allowing western assets in their country basically cucks the entire Russian arctic sub fleet.I did not know my country still borders the Arctic ocean, or that NATO now has access to it that it previously lacked.I think poopin got mad for entirely different reasons
>>62536284Petsamo is rightful Finnish clay.
>>62527893America class LHA's don't have steam catapults or nuclear reactors.
>>62530846I'm thinking cheap "cruise missiles", as in tens-to-low-hundreds of thousands apiece. Stuff like what Ukraine has been working on, but scaled up in quantity. It's hard to guess how much of a threat that'll be over the expected 50-year lifespan of a new carrier. And details really matter, because what might work in a peacetime ambush in the Red Sea might not work in open combat in WestPac. That's why I kept it vague, because I have no idea what will be possible/practical/economical in 20 years, much less 50.
I know this one! Our friend the square cube law, means you canfit more stuff into a big carrier than the same tonnage spread out.
>>62527533Capacity and Escalation.The smaller carriers will not be able to support the systems required to support an escalated conflict, and increasing the number of boats increases cost. Precision weapons only get more precise, so spreading your capacity out thinly over a fleet in an attempt to mitigate "all eggs in one basket" proceeds to eat shit.Economy of scale doesn't apply to complex military grade systems. That is why smaller, cheaper, simpler things are essentially disposable, while larger things are treated in a very risk adverse fashion.The future of warfare is "to the horizon" direct energy weapons just slapping shit out of the sky, and hypersonic buckshot to damage sensors to create a gap to allow the kill vehicle to actually kill the thing.You are better off with a J-MOB that can deploy better, heavier, launch vehicles at a distance, while having more power for absurdly robust defenses and enough sonar amplitude to make future generations of whales retarded from the present. As it stands, the carrier mission is getting close to obsolete, like the tank mission.
Even if every major country had light carriers, someone will eventually build a bigger one.People forget that owning carriers is a national prestige. There's a reason why Chyna are building as many as they can.Even an old hand me down or a small light carrier is the pride of that country's navy and the logistics plus training required to man such vessel is enormous.
>>62536291I'd take the L3/33s in a heartbeat>L3/33s encounter Abrams>immediately spill spaghetti in the face of bigger and stronger tank>more than a hundred tanks full of wops project massive wall of spaghetti countermeasures>entire battlefield now covered in slippery spaghetti and sauce>abrams immobilized and blinded>L3/33s were never mobile to start with>both sides must eat their way out of spaghetti mountain>Americans consume spaghetti faster, which would be an advantage if they didn't start out dangerously pre diabetic>Strategic Italian victory.
>>62527533Cons:Will need multitudes of engineering crew for each ship increasing the manpower demands collectivelyWill need escorts for every vessel requiring more ships and thus more sailorsYou shouldn' try to win a carrier war through attrition Big ships are actually far more suvivalble and seaworthy than small ships which is good for stable flight ops
>>62527533>India, Brazil, Japan, Italy and ThailandWhy? They don't have overseases bases or have dependencies like UK, France and maybe Spain do.
>>62539674Indian wants to super power by 20XXBrazil used kind of rolled into operating a carrier when they got a WWII second hand one and kept it goingJapan is all sea around them with a metric fuck ton of island several of them disputed. You'd want naval force projection.Italy, it's part of their being the biggest navy in the med doctrine and allows them to project in the parts they can't from Sicily or the boot.Thailand kind of like Brazil. But it makes sense when you look at their area.
>>62539674>Indiapretensions to regional power>Brazilditto>Japancan lilypad a small number of fighters at the edge of Chinese missile range, or create a thick ASW bubble, or raid Chinese outposts in the SCS>Italyallows them to assist in protecting the Channel or the Baltic>Thailanduseless prestige white elephant
>>62527533>same number of airplanes but dispersedExcept that crashes the sortie rate due to the loss of two catapults and due to the tiny runways you can't launch shit like E2s or C130s. The smaller size also means you're extremely limited on the auxiliary craft like EA-18s and helicopters you can carry and deploy>much more flexibility with how you deploy your forcesYou still need a CBG to go with a carrier. More carriers just mean you need more CBG actually limiting your number of hulls you have free to use for other things >requires massively more effort to take down because more targetsSmaller ships are easier to bring down. Super carriers have the bulk to take some damage and keep flights ops up and running. The carrier's escort also only has to protect one ship instead of 2-4.>economies of scale from building 20-30x of the same ship model instead of only a handfulThese ships don't exist in a vacuum as a hull. You need to maintain another 30-40 ships, crew then with the increasingly shrinking numbers of crewman available, a carrier is useless without planes to launch, you need more escorts to protect the carrier which increases the burden even further. >everything is just easier when your ship doesn't displace 100 000 tonsAs explained above, no. Literally every study the US. Has done into the matter has said a consolidated force of super heavy carriers is better then a large force of lighter ships. The LHA/LHD/LPA/LPH/whatever we're redesignating it this time exist for a fundamentally different role then a carrier and those roles while having some overlap are not interchangeable. You can reach out and touch someone at 800 yards with both a DMR and a 249 but we both know what is the proper tool
>>62536158Not really true, they have a lot type 055s and their 052 destroyers are all loaded with capable anti-ship missiles. It is likely they will have local supremacy in VLS tubes in both number and throw weight. That group operating between the first and second island chains would be able to threaten any US carrier group. Between that and the IRBM spam from the main land things would be very uncomfortable in the eastern pacific. In most simulations the first move for the USN is to run out of the AO because what they have there is not sufficient to defend itself against China. For now they can't push beyond the eastern pacific but for their purposes they don't need to and another 200 years of being a huge ship producer will enable them to catch up to the global navies in terms of logistics and support ships.
>>62527533Why are these ordered in such a weird way?
>>62540186By their length?
