Re:The U.S. Navy’s Big Mistake: Building Tons of Supercarriers
by dragontamer on Tuesday June 14, 2016 @01:07PM
(#11903443)
Yeah, seventeen Amphibious Assault Ships, because they're cheaper.
But with only Helicopters and V/STOL aircraft... the Supercarrier is actually a better system. Helicopters don't provide the straight immunity or take advantage of modern asymetric warfare: Helicopters can be shot down by enemy rockets.
V/STOL aircraft like the Harrier Jet or F35B are expensive (either in lives: due to the high number of accidents on the Harrier, or costly in specs. IIRC, the F35B doesn't have the same specs as the other fighters). The Supercarrier filled with F18s might be cheaper than an Amphibious Assault Ship filled with V/STOL aircraft.
So from an overall cost perspective, Supercarriers with standard aircraft still remain the best bang for their buck.
Re:The U.S. Navy’s Big Mistake: Building Tons of Supercarriers
by spacecowboy_lon on Wednesday June 15, 2016 @08:55AM
(#11908998)
But you can operate Harriers from converted merchantmen at a pinch.
If you count things in the class of what the US calls carriers, the rest of the world has, I believe, 0 (some sources refer to these as "large-deck" carriers.)
If you want to include what the rest of the world has for carriers, you need to go to "medium-deck" carriers, where the US has more (even without counting the large-deck ships) than the rest of the world combined in the form of its amphibious assault ships (LHA/LHD).