Why Is the U.S. Navy ‘Trashing’ Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carriers Now?

[rangerrebew]

Why Is the U.S. Navy ‘Trashing’ Nuclear-Powered Aircraft Carriers Now?
Story by Christian Orr •
22h
 
Recent developments in anti-ship missile technological capabilities, especially their usage to deadly effect by Ukraine against the Russian invaders’ naval forces, have many American defense pundits concerned about the viability and survivability of surface warships. Concerns are especially sharp over aircraft carriers.
 
While it can be argued that carriers are becoming obsolescent, they’re far from becoming truly obsolete. They’re not going out of the U.S. Navy arsenal anytime soon. Not in the general sense, at least. However, those of us who still believe in the vitality of aircraft carriers as global power projection tools are quite concerned about the recent announcement that the U.S. Navy is getting ready to decommission not just one, but two of these mighty warships.

The Basics
This latest news comes to us from Lauren Wurth, writing for the Past Chronicles:

“The USS Nimitz leaves active duty in 2026 due to the Navy’s proposal for an additional five and a half months of maintenance availability. Before the carrier’s anticipated retirement, this maintenance phase will ensure it is in top shape and is ready to perform its tasks efficiently. Afterward, the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower will retire the following year. This action is a component of a larger, strategic plan to update the 297-ship fleet now in service.”

 
Brief History and Specifications of the Two “Retiring” Warships

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/why-is-the-u-s-navy-trashing-nuclear-powered-aircraft-carriers-now/ar-AA1hshlb?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=423ca94c41604831bf2d145579a3b44c&ei=32#image=1

[PeteS in CA]

The silly Carriers-Are-Obsolete argument dates to when the USS Nimitz was being designed and built. The USS Nimitz was commissioned in 1975, and if she is decommissioned in 2026, it will be due to her age, over 50 years in commission. Even the longest-served Essex class carrier, USS Lexington (CV-16) served just short of 50 years (commissioned for the first time in 1942, and decommissioned for the final time in 1991).

Unlike the Essexes, the Nimitz class remained capable of carrying and servicing the most modern USN aircraft their entire careers. By way of contrast, in the 1970s, some USN aircraft were too large for Essex class carriers, and many Essex class carriers were decommissioned the final time in the 1970s. USS Enterprise's commission time is, well, interesting. She was commissioned in 1961 and was decommissioned in early 2017. However, she had been deactivated at the end of 2012. So in commission 51 years or 56 years, take your choice. At some 51 years in commission, USS Nimitz's career was among the longest for USN carriers, and her coming decommissioning is simply due to age, not the also aging Carriers-Are-Obsolete shtick.

[LadyLiberty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyHMNcBT1-Q&list=PLzf21wgUlJwygsX0UVZ3oJl4c7A_ldAFt&index=20

[Timber Rattler]

I don't think that CVs are obsolete, since mobile acreage at sea is a tremendous strategic asset,  but that they are too big, and too expensive.  I'd rather have more smaller CVs in the fleet than just a few larger ones.

[Smokin Joe]

I don't think that CVs are obsolete, since mobile acreage at sea is a tremendous strategic asset,  but that they are too big, and too expensive.  I'd rather have more smaller CVs in the fleet than just a few larger ones.

I agree. The 'Jeep carriers' of the second World War did tremendous duty as power projection. Keeping in mind that the warplanes of today carry multiples of the ordnance of those planes, and have combat capabilities multiplied by standoff capability, targeting systems that use less to do more, a few planes can accomplish what took many more in the past. That's without considering the possibilities of unmanned systems, V/STOL systems and more.
Smaller platforms, and more of them, might be the way to go.

[PeteS in CA]

Escort carriers (CVEs) did do significant service in WW2, but in specific roles. They were originally intended for anti-submarine use, for which their low speed and limited air group were adequate. Whether in convoy escort or in hunter-killer task groups, their planes could scout for prowling submarines, and often carried depth charges. If the planes didn't sink a submarine, the accompanying destroyers (DDs) or destroyer escorts (DEs) could follow up. Just as CVEs were slower and smaller but quicker to build than full sized carriers, DEs were slower and smaller, but quicker to build than DDs. DEs were also designed especially for anti-submarine use, while DDs for anti-submarine and fleet engagements as well.

In the Pacific, CVEs provided air support for island invasions, freeing the larger and faster fleet and light carriers (CVs and CVLs) from being tethered to the relevant island (group), allowing the CVs and CVLs mobility and to take on other tasks. Being 12 or so knots slower and having about a third of the air group of a full-sized CV, their role in power projection was in the support they provided and in freeing up the much more capable CVs and CVLs.

Fast-forwarding to the present, with the Wasp and America class amphibious assault ships now being capable of carrying F-35s or a mix of F-35s and AH-1Z helicopters (plus 1600+ Marines and a number of landing craft), they are kind of like CVEs, but almost quadruple the displacement and 3 or 4 knots faster (the USN has 9 of these in active commission, 2 of the newer America class being built, and a further 7 planned).

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I'm pretty sure that, on a per aircraft basis, smaller carriers come out to be more expensive than supercarriers.  Things like propulsion plants, CIC, Ops, etc. have to be repeated on multiple ships instead of just consolidated on one.  That means more crew, more space, etc..  The virtue of supercarriers is that the escorts and fleet defensive fire control have to focus on that one ship.  If you've got multiple small carriers instead, you're either going to need a larger escort fleet, or some of those still very valuable and expensive small carriers are going to be more vulnerable.

Larger carriers also are going to be more survivable if they are hit.