General Category > Military/Defense News

Why the U.S. Isn't Building Smaller Aircraft Carriers

(1/1)

DemolitionMan:
Harold C. Hutchison -

Let’s face it, the new Gerald R. Ford-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are expensive. According to Popular Mechanics, this ship cost $13 billion to build and also involved another $4 billion in research and development costs.

So why not build a smaller, cheaper carrier?

Well, let’s lay it out. The British were able to use the Invincible-class carriers, which came in at about 20,500 tons, according to naval-technology.com. It could carry up to 24 V/STOL aircraft and helicopters, including nine Sea Harriers or Harriers.

These ships were enough to win the Falklands War, but it was still a close call.


Here’s what a Ford-class carrier displacing about 100,000 tons (according to a Navy fact sheet) can bring to the table: Four squadrons of multi-role fighters (one with 12 F-35Cs, three with 12 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets), plus an electronic warfare squadron (five EA-18G Growlers), an airborne early warning squadron (four E-2D Hawkeyes), and a pair of C-2 Greyhound cargo planes. There’s also a helicopter squadron with a mix of MH-60R and MH-60S helicopters.

So, what about a somewhat smaller carrier, like France’s Charles de Gaulle or the Russian Kuznetsov? Well, naval-technology.com notes that the 42,500-ton de Gaulle can carry up to 40 planes, including the Rafale M, Super Etendard, and three E-2C Hawkeye, plus helicopters. The 58,500-ton Kuznetsov carries 18 Su-33 Flankers and 17 Kamov Helix helicopters according to MilitaryFactory.com.

https://www.scout.com/Article/Why-the-US-Isnt-Building-Smaller-Aircraft-Carriers-107370617

Navigation

[0] Message Index