CompuServe Messages

>>And as for carriers, I think that whole strategy is wrong headed. They're huge targets. I've read arguments for fleets composed of large numbers of mid-range and smaller ships that make a lot of sense.<< While such an argument appears to make sense, it is not correct. The argument goes something like this. With the advent of missle technology, there are now extremely accurate weapons with a high probability of hitting their targets. It is reasoned from here that because of the existence of these weapons, we shouldn't put "all our eggs in one basket" and we should distribute our assets on a larger number of ships. Some have gone so far as to say that missle technology is making aviation warfare obsolete. This last idea is easily countered. Missle technology has not made aviation warfare obsolete because missles technology can be used by aircraft to counter the missle technology of the enemy. In other words, no new weapon system is going to make aircraft relatively more vunerable than other platforms if aircraft themselves can use the technology. In contrast, consider directed energy weapons. Current experimentation in directed energy weapons always seem to require very large facilities. An Airforce experimental airborne chemical laser weapon does (or did) exist, but it is my understanding that it could only take enough chemical on board to allow a very few "shots". The Navy has worked for some time on a chemical laser Fleet Air Defense ship concept. If it continues to be true that directed energy weapons require rather large installations, here is a technology that has a potential of impacting the relative effectiveness of aircraft in warfare. The problem with the "smaller carrier" line of reasoning is the tacit assumption that if you have have 100 aircraft on a say 4 small carriers, they will be as effective as 100 aircraft on one large carrier. This is not true however. It turns out there is a certain economy of scale when in comes to aircraft carriers. For instance, the installation of steam catapults and arresting gear require large ammounts of space. That is why on the small carriers of the US (in the gator Navy) and the Brits use VSTOL aircraft. But these carriers, have a number of negative points with respect to the aircraft on large carriers. These include: 1. Launch recovery rates. I forget the exact figures, but on a modern large aircraft carrier you can launch and recover aircraft much faster than on a small deck or even faster than on a number of small decks. Even with short takeoff ramps, VSTOL jets require more deck space to takeoff than aircraft catapulted off the deck. A large carrier using all four catapults can shoot aircraft into the air much faster and this can be of tactical importance. Also, on large carriers you can recover aircraft at a rate of about one every 55 seconds. It takes longer on a small deck because the aircraft have to land vertically and this is a delicate thing that must be taken slowly. 2. VSTOL aircraft use too much fuel on takeoff and landing, dramatically effecting the "legs" or combat operating range of the aircraft. Another advantage of large carriers in the much larger storage spaces allow them to operate for longer periods independent of resupply. Large carriers also allow the operation of larger aircraft. For instance, an F-14 cannot be effectively deployed off a small deck carrier. There is a dynamic envolving deck surface area and the ability one has to suffle the aircraft arround the deck that makes large flight decks important, especially for larger aircraft. When I was on the USS Midway, we did not have F-14's in our airwing for just this, and perhaps other, reasons. The F-14 is a very important asset for air defence of the battle group and a group of small carriers would be without its services, or the services of a future aircraft with similar capabilties. As far as large carriers being vunerable, all of the above are factors that make it less likely that a missle will get through the air defenses and strike the ship. Let's say some get through anyway. It is a fact that in general, large ships are more survivable than small ships. A large carrier is more capable to take hits and keep on fighting, or at least remain sailing to be repaired and fight another day. The kamakazi experience in WWII bears this out. A modern missle is quite similar, in some respects, to a kamakazi in terms of distructive power, when you factor in the relative size of carriers from WWII to today. Not one of the fleet carriers hit by kamakazis were sunk, but a number of the smaller "jeep" carriers were. Also, the fact that super carriers are "huge targets" is not a more important factor due to missle technology. The important thing about modern missles are their accuracy, ie there ability to hit smaller and smaller targets. Missle technology actually makes smaller carriers more venerable, not the larger ones. I could go on and on, but let me just conclude by saying that even for regional conflicts with small nations, a large carrier is much, much more effective and also COST effective than a larger number of smaller carriers. ._ _ _ INTERNET: mshea@math.arizona.edu | | |ichael _>hea COMPUSERVE: 76665,3360