Could a NATF-22 work today?

MY statement. mixel correctly points out that USAF to USN fighters RARELY work. The YF-17 to F/A-18 is the shining example of it working. I merely point out that USN to USAF programs tend to be historic. FJ-1 into F-86, F-4, and A-7 all worked wonderfully in the USAF. The Hornet success has nothing to do with the success of Navy designs moving to the Air Force.

The AF was directed, by McNamarra, to take the F-4 and A-7; the F-4 was inferior in A2A to the F-106 and the A-7 was
inferior to the F-5 variant considered. Both were short lived in frontline roles where they were replaced as soon as
F-X and A-X got anything like usable airframes into production.

The Air Force view, post-Vietnam, was that the F-4 was no better and in fact worse in the strike role
than the F-105 particularly from a payload @ range perspective.

The A-7D was a comparative flop since it ending up costing more than an F-4 but was inherently less flexible.

That the YF-17 and its derivatives went on to kill EA-6/KS-6/KS-3/AFX/A-X/NATF/F-14D/ATA and now so
completely dominates the CVW to the extent that no other bird has *ever* done
renders the Navy -> AF transfers a rounding error in comparison.

And the Hornet's performance in GW1 was the only bright spot in the NAVAIR's otherwise dismal record.

CVNs still rely on big wing USAF tankers.

CVNs also rely on forward USAF 5th-gens to cover them so that SH + weapons remain good enough. Context matters more than raw USN fighter capabilities on paper.

Okay, here is a stupid question? If you can get two networked F-35's for the price of one F-22, why would you buy F-22's? The two F-35's let you be in two places at once.

The one rational for quality over quality with a CVN is they have a more finite amount of airplanes to contribute. If they can only carry say 50 airplanes, they need to be quality. (theoretically anyway)

There are smarter carrier bubbas here than me, but the dirty little secret of CVNs is they aren't really the lynch pin people think. CVNs still rely on big wing USAF tankers. I don't think people (meaning other services) complain because its good to have more help rather than less, but a CVN is really expensive way of putting fighters into the air. its not that big bombers made CVN obsolete, its more big tankers in some ways. though the bombers really make an impression as all CVN stuff the last 50 years is primarily air to ground strike on land targets and not the fleet battles of old. Whats happened at the very least the last 30 years, is CVNs have been not much more than a redundant method of mud moving.

People can argue with me on this, and I'm happy to hear the points. this could indeed be grossly oversimplified. but from my perspective thats what it looks like. Thank god for the US Navy strike fighters, or we would have to rely only on thousands of other strike fighters and heavy bombers to do the same thing.


And I can't find it at the moment, but a big chart showing that something like 80 percent of bombs dropped in the GWOT are from heavy bombers. its insane, but again I can't find it.

No, CVNs/CVWs often provide air cover under conditions that land based fighters can't deliver. Even when supported by large USAF Tankers. (KC-10s, KC-46s, KC-135s, etc.) With a good example being Afghanistan at the opening stages of the conflict. Without Naval Air much of the country would have no air support at all. (history is full of such examples)

Let's also not forget we have a very modest number of bombers available at any given time. Which, usually fly from vast distances. These are not "quick" reaction forces. Nor, can they stay on station indefinitely or quickly deploy from one region to another. On the other hand naval fighters can often be stationed near by and even make multiple sorties on a given day. Which, is why sorties rates are very important to carrier operations.

Of course with the advent of the MQ-25A Stingray. The requirement for USAF Tanker Support will be much less....Especially, as the F-35C and Super Hornet Block III come online.

Also, as long as you bring up Tankers and Bombers. Their survival rates aren't going to be very high. Without substantial fighter protection. At least against a serious near peer threat!

Honestly, such comparisons are really apples and oranges. As Carriers and Naval Strike Fighters have their niche. Just like Heavy Bombers do....

No, CVNs/CVWs often provide air cover under conditions that land based fighters can't deliver. Even when supported by large USAF Tankers. (KC-10s, KC-46s, KC-135s, etc.) With a good example being Afghanistan at the opening stages of the conflict. Without Naval Air much of the country would have no air support at all. (history is full of such examples)

Let's also not forget we have a very modest number of bombers available at any given time. Which, usually fly from vast distances. These are not "quick" reaction forces. Nor, can they stay on station indefinitely or quickly deploy from one region to another. On the other hand naval fighters can often be stationed near by and even make multiple sorties on a given day. Which, is why sorties rates are very important to carrier operations.

Of course with the advent of the MQ-25A Stingray. The requirement for USAF Tanker Support will be much less....Especially, as the F-35C and Super Hornet Block III come online.

Also, as long as you bring up Tankers and Bombers. Their survival rates aren't going to be very high. Without substantial fighter protection. At least against a serious near peer threat!

Honestly, such comparisons are really apples and oranges. As Carriers and Naval Strike Fighters have their niche. Just like Heavy Bombers do....

wrt OEF:

from "American carrier air power at the dawn of a new century / Benjamin S. Lambeth."

The opening-night attacks were carried out by 25 F-14 and F/A18 strike fighters launched from Enterprise and Carl Vinson operating in the North Arabian Sea, along with five U.S. Air Force B-1B, ten B-52, and two B-2 bombers.

75% of the bombs delivered in the first 6 months of the air campaign over Afghanistan were delivered
by Air Force bombers. And the CVWs were completely dependent on Air Force tankers from Day Zero onwards.

The distances involved for carrier air in OEF resulted in some *very* low sortie generation rates.

You're right in that the CVW can provide fighter escort, SEAD and AWACS for Air Force heavies but it is
*very* lightweight on payload @ range relative to Air Force heavies for typical OEF missions radii.
And SGR will, absent a huge increase in the CVW strike aircraft or supercrusiers, suffer accordingly.

75% of the bombs delivered in the first 6 months of the air campaign over Afghanistan were delivered
by Air Force bombers. And the CVWs were completely dependent on Air Force tankers from Day Zero onwards.

The distances involved for carrier air in OEF resulted in some *very* low sortie generation rates.

You're right in that the CVW can provide fighter escort, SEAD and AWACS for Air Force heavies but it is
*very* lightweight on payload @ range relative to Air Force heavies for typical OEF missions radii.
And SGR will, absent a huge increase in the CVW strike aircraft or supercrusiers, suffer accordingly.

Your missing the point....land based tactical fighter support was not available. So, are you saying it wasn't needed and heavy bombers could have performed all missions alone???

Plus, in this case there was no serious air threat.

Your missing the point....land based tactical fighter support was not available. So, are you saying it wasn't needed and heavy bombers could have performed all missions alone???

Plus, in this case there was no serious air threat.

Land-based support aircraft (the F-15E and the AC-130) were there within a week which was part of the air campaign;
the first week's campaign was directed primarily against fixed targets, C&C and the Taliban's air defenses
(they did have SAMs and radar guided AAA).

Strafing doesn't seem to have been common at all in the early phases though some forward firing direct
attack munitions like Maverick were employed against caves.

Practically all other weapons were bomber employable; B-1B ultimately proved to be the workhorse over
Afghanistan since it could dash to trouble spots and loiter for long periods with large payloads.

The big thing that bombers were missing then is the same thing they are missing now: very fast, high loadout direct
attack munitions. Something like an ejector-rack compatible Solid Fuel Ramjet APKWS.

Your missing the point....land based tactical fighter support was not available.

utterly false

No, CVNs/CVWs often provide air cover under conditions that land based fighters can't deliver.

such as?

Even when supported by large USAF Tankers. (KC-10s, KC-46s, KC-135s, etc.) With a good example being Afghanistan at the opening stages of the conflict. Without Naval Air much of the country would have no air support at all. (history is full of such examples)

Without USAF tankers there would be no support at all. what a fun game!

If for some reason every USAF tanker was grounded the US Navy would do nothing more than aggressively fly hundreds of miles from target, before returning to the ship for more exciting landing practice. (Oh how they love to land!!! only silly aviators think "combat aviation" should be judged on more than the ability to land. )

Moreover, we already had big bombers working targets.

Let's also not forget we have a very modest number of bombers available at any given time.

unlike the hundreds of carriers.

Which, usually fly from vast distances. These are not "quick" reaction forces.

I've never seen a carrier move at 500 knots. B-2s can be combat launched from within CONUS. There was nothing quick about CVN aviation in Iraq, nor Afghanistan. They often flew from further away, they often left sooner, and were more limited in their capability. They're not quick in that sense.

Moreover, Afghanistan air war didn't kick off until october 7th nearly a full month after the towers fell. with weeks of preparedness, the USAF was just as ready to kill things as the USN's CVNs. in fact it killed more.

Nor, can they stay on station indefinitely or quickly deploy from one region to another.

define "quickly" because as the above, that really depends.

The Air Force's record-breaking B-1 deployment

2 Aug 2012

The airmen of the 7th kept a bomber in the air over Afghanistan every moment of their deployment, according to an Air Force announcement, in the largest B-1 overseas deployment in 10 years.

That translates to nine bombers, 400 airmen, and a whole litany of fun facts as broken out here by the Air Force:

The airmen of the 9th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron and 9th Expeditionary Aircraft Maintenance Unit provided more than 25 percent of the total fixed-wing close-air support coverage for coalition ground forces in Afghanistan every day by launching the most B-1 sorties executed on a single deployment in more than 10 years of sustained conflict.
Over the course of the six-plus month deployment, the squadron flew more than 770 combat sorties, encompassing over 9,500 hours, to provide 24 hours of coverage every day.

They also responded to more than 500 troops-in-contact situations, with the enemy as close as 300 meters from friendly forces, and another 700 priority air requests, delivering more than 400 weapons on target.

"We were able to achieve these great stats through pure hard work," said Lt. Col. Matthew Brooks, 9th Bomb Squadron commander. "Our squadron flew 130 more sorties than any B-1 squadron had flown in any other six month deployment.


do the math on what you think it would take for a CVN(s) to fly its fighters to land locked Afghanistan and maintain 9500 hours straight 24/7 coverage with dozens and dozens of bombs ready to drop for 6 months straight with coverage across the whole country.

Imagine Diego Garcia is a carrier, but launches "fighters" that provide 24/7 coverages with bomb loads measured in the 80s as opposed to 2-4 bombs dropped from individual fighters.

think of our precious sortie generation, think how many bombs an F-18 can carry, then mulitiply how many you need to do what a single B-1 does, then take into account making room for fuel and such and then the multiple tanker tracks.


Carriers can't stay on indefinitely either, they take months of work ups and predeployment before they sortie out as well.

On the other hand naval fighters can often be stationed near by and even make multiple sorties on a given day. Which, is why sorties rates are very important to carrier operations.

youre right about that apples to oranges thing here, because they weren't making "multiple sorties" in the A-stan example you mention. Being that A-stan is landlocked, Distance was the number 1 problem.

Why do I care if 12 hornets sortie 4 times in a single day when a single B-1 does that with 1 sortie, and with longer time on station?

Of course with the advent of the MQ-25A Stingray. The requirement for USAF Tanker Support will be much less....Especially, as the F-35C and Super Hornet Block III come online.

sure thing! one look at that bad boy, and I just know it can carry what KC-46, 135, or -10 can carry. How many dozens of strike fighters do you think that MQ-25 will be topping off per day?

again we see the USN trying to "catch up" to capabilities the USAF has long had.

Also, as long as you bring up Tankers and Bombers. Their survival rates aren't going to be very high. Without substantial fighter protection. At least against a serious near peer threat!

if only the air force had fighters, and not just fighters, but fighters that were even superior to what the navy has and in the hundreds too. Well we can dream right?

wait wait I'm confused. Is this a thread about how the Navy could try to get something like the F-22 or the USAF? because I'm pretty sure I know who has what, and who has dream threads on the internet.

Honestly, such comparisons are really apples and oranges. As Carriers and Naval Strike Fighters have their niche. Just like Heavy Bombers do....

and my point is that niche is increasingly limited. I'm not trying to be curt. I just don't know why I'm supposed to be impressed with a SH that takes off, tanks twice to target (from a big wing tanker) hits the target or loiters briefly in comparison to other fighters, tanks twice on the way back and then crash lands on a ship. vs an F-15E (USAF had F-15Es operating from Kuwait within weeks) or F-15 or F-22 that does the exact same damn thing, but takes off from a conventional runway. Somehow the USAF is incapable of replicating what the USN does? no that's precisely backward.



This idea that the USN is some unique uber tip of the spear door kicker is getting increasingly absurd. This is like old joke the engineers and sappers used to tell us "we cleared the area. tell the infantry its safe enough to be the tip of the spear now"

A lot of the stuff we say is so critical that the CVN does is retreaded propaganda that hasn't actually happened in decades. Has there been a time, honestly in the last 50 years where the USAF couldn't reach what the USN could? The world is covered in a constellation of US military bases. What happened the last 20 years, is the US has basically taken an "all of the above approach to everything"

We need close bases.
we need tankers.
we need strategic bombers
we need CVNs
we need thousands of strike fighters

We need all of these things, lest we be stuck with just 4 of them!! We need carriers in case we withdraw from all the bases, and then all the Tankers won't start, and then all the strategic bombers break half way to target. Then, then you'll see the ciritcal importance of the CVN, providing the target isn't too far away of course! and all the other fighters forget how to bomb.


The irony that the CVNs were critical to fighting a landlocked country, made only possible by the same USAF we are saying can't reach what they can, as quickly or as far is a level of cool aide I have yet to be able to consume fully. if we are using Afghanistan as the reason for CVNs, I've got some terrible news. Korea and Syria at least have shores where rapid sortie generation matters since the distance is actually cut (not ADDED!) with being land locked

So we need the CVN for strike fighters, that can't carry as much as far. we need them for sortie generation, which is irrelevant when it comes to Heavy bombers, and nothing special compared to land based strike fighters. We need CVNs so we can be closer to the shore, even when there is no shore, and/or they can't get close. We need them for the unique class of fighters they don't yet have. What would we do without them? probably the same thing with other assets like we do now.

I would have great liked it if the USN had done some land based CVW's but I know that would never happen. (they do the occasion det on the beach I know) but not the whole CVW. That would be downright logical (imagine flying to strike targets in Iraq while taking off in Iraq. Or targets in Afghanistan while flying from bases in Afghanistan. But if that happened the light bulb would go on, not just for the navy but for their budget and their future carrier allocation. Besides, those CVN/CVW schedules are made years in advance, we can't interrupt that because of something so small as a war.

Are you suggesting the CVN should focus on niches they currently have sacrificed, perhaps like open ocean air policing, ASW, and ASuW?

Are you suggesting the CVN should focus on niches they currently have sacrificed, perhaps like open ocean air policing, ASW, and ASuW?

Perhaps.

I don't know what I'm suggesting. my main point is that a lot of what the CVN is advertised to do, it doesn't. or at the least doesn't to a degree that the hype would suggest. as if to prove the whole thing backwards, the USAF which provides the tankers and 5th generation fighters, is in the bizarre position of trying to "prove" that the USAF is somehow not immobile, unadaptable, or slow, and that its somehow not less expeditionary?

the last 30 years has seen very few navies to fight, so its been about "projecting power ashore" since the battleships are all gone, that means airplanes. and since there aren't many air forces to shoot down over that shore, its meant basically mud moving. I'm all for warheads on foreheads, i like lots of that, with as few hindrances and obstacles as possible, and the USN has managed to find one of the most convoluted and expensive and (ironically?) least adaptable ways of putting warheads on foreheads.

The CVN isn't in danger of going anywhere, so don't worry what one weirdo says on the internet. I just don't put as much stock into the hype. Hype doesn't mean nothing is there, it means its harder to see what really there with all the hype in the way. I just keep hearing all this stuff that CVN's are supposedly critical and unparalleled for, and it doesn't seem to match up. They're not independent send and go a$$ kicking packages anymore.

"Air force says its safe for us to kick in the door boss, and they send us KC-135s there too."

"Hot damn sailor, I just love being the tip of spear, when trouble comes the president always says 'Where are the carriers' and I always say; where are the air forces tankers? where would anyone be without the carrier battle group?"

Your missing the point....land based tactical fighter support was not available.

utterly false

No, CVNs/CVWs often provide air cover under conditions that land based fighters can't deliver.

such as?

Even when supported by large USAF Tankers. (KC-10s, KC-46s, KC-135s, etc.) With a good example being Afghanistan at the opening stages of the conflict. Without Naval Air much of the country would have no air support at all. (history is full of such examples)

Without USAF tankers there would be no support at all. what a fun game!

If for some reason every USAF tanker was grounded the US Navy would do nothing more than aggressively fly hundreds of miles from target, before returning to the ship for more exciting landing practice. (Oh how they love to land!!! only silly aviators think "combat aviation" should be judged on more than the ability to land. )

Moreover, we already had big bombers working targets.

Let's also not forget we have a very modest number of bombers available at any given time.

unlike the hundreds of carriers.

Which, usually fly from vast distances. These are not "quick" reaction forces.

I've never seen a carrier move at 500 knots. B-2s can be combat launched from within CONUS. There was nothing quick about CVN aviation in Iraq, nor Afghanistan. They often flew from further away, they often left sooner, and were more limited in their capability. They're not quick in that sense.

Moreover, Afghanistan air war didn't kick off until october 7th nearly a full month after the towers fell. with weeks of preparedness, the USAF was just as ready to kill things as the USN's CVNs. in fact it killed more.

Nor, can they stay on station indefinitely or quickly deploy from one region to another.

define "quickly" because as the above, that really depends.

The Air Force's record-breaking B-1 deployment

2 Aug 2012

The airmen of the 7th kept a bomber in the air over Afghanistan every moment of their deployment, according to an Air Force announcement, in the largest B-1 overseas deployment in 10 years.

That translates to nine bombers, 400 airmen, and a whole litany of fun facts as broken out here by the Air Force:

The airmen of the 9th Expeditionary Bomb Squadron and 9th Expeditionary Aircraft Maintenance Unit provided more than 25 percent of the total fixed-wing close-air support coverage for coalition ground forces in Afghanistan every day by launching the most B-1 sorties executed on a single deployment in more than 10 years of sustained conflict.
Over the course of the six-plus month deployment, the squadron flew more than 770 combat sorties, encompassing over 9,500 hours, to provide 24 hours of coverage every day.

They also responded to more than 500 troops-in-contact situations, with the enemy as close as 300 meters from friendly forces, and another 700 priority air requests, delivering more than 400 weapons on target.

"We were able to achieve these great stats through pure hard work," said Lt. Col. Matthew Brooks, 9th Bomb Squadron commander. "Our squadron flew 130 more sorties than any B-1 squadron had flown in any other six month deployment.


do the math on what you think it would take for a CVN(s) to fly its fighters to land locked Afghanistan and maintain 9500 hours straight 24/7 coverage with dozens and dozens of bombs ready to drop for 6 months straight with coverage across the whole country.

Imagine Diego Garcia is a carrier, but launches "fighters" that provide 24/7 coverages with bomb loads measured in the 80s as opposed to 2-4 bombs dropped from individual fighters.

think of our precious sortie generation, think how many bombs an F-18 can carry, then mulitiply how many you need to do what a single B-1 does, then take into account making room for fuel and such and then the multiple tanker tracks.


Carriers can't stay on indefinitely either, they take months of work ups and predeployment before they sortie out as well.

On the other hand naval fighters can often be stationed near by and even make multiple sorties on a given day. Which, is why sorties rates are very important to carrier operations.

youre right about that apples to oranges thing here, because they weren't making "multiple sorties" in the A-stan example you mention. Being that A-stan is landlocked, Distance was the number 1 problem.

Why do I care if 12 hornets sortie 4 times in a single day when a single B-1 does that with 1 sortie, and with longer time on station?

Of course with the advent of the MQ-25A Stingray. The requirement for USAF Tanker Support will be much less....Especially, as the F-35C and Super Hornet Block III come online.

sure thing! one look at that bad boy, and I just know it can carry what KC-46, 135, or -10 can carry. How many dozens of strike fighters do you think that MQ-25 will be topping off per day?

again we see the USN trying to "catch up" to capabilities the USAF has long had.

Also, as long as you bring up Tankers and Bombers. Their survival rates aren't going to be very high. Without substantial fighter protection. At least against a serious near peer threat!

if only the air force had fighters, and not just fighters, but fighters that were even superior to what the navy has and in the hundreds too. Well we can dream right?

wait wait I'm confused. Is this a thread about how the Navy could try to get something like the F-22 or the USAF? because I'm pretty sure I know who has what, and who has dream threads on the internet.

Honestly, such comparisons are really apples and oranges. As Carriers and Naval Strike Fighters have their niche. Just like Heavy Bombers do....

and my point is that niche is increasingly limited. I'm not trying to be curt. I just don't know why I'm supposed to be impressed with a SH that takes off, tanks twice to target (from a big wing tanker) hits the target or loiters briefly in comparison to other fighters, tanks twice on the way back and then crash lands on a ship. vs an F-15E (USAF had F-15Es operating from Kuwait within weeks) or F-15 or F-22 that does the exact same damn thing, but takes off from a conventional runway. Somehow the USAF is incapable of replicating what the USN does? no that's precisely backward.



This idea that the USN is some unique uber tip of the spear door kicker is getting increasingly absurd. This is like old joke the engineers and sappers used to tell us "we cleared the area. tell the infantry its safe enough to be the tip of the spear now"

A lot of the stuff we say is so critical that the CVN does is retreaded propaganda that hasn't actually happened in decades. Has there been a time, honestly in the last 50 years where the USAF couldn't reach what the USN could? The world is covered in a constellation of US military bases. What happened the last 20 years, is the US has basically taken an "all of the above approach to everything"

We need close bases.
we need tankers.
we need strategic bombers
we need CVNs
we need thousands of strike fighters

We need all of these things, lest we be stuck with just 4 of them!! We need carriers in case we withdraw from all the bases, and then all the Tankers won't start, and then all the strategic bombers break half way to target. Then, then you'll see the ciritcal importance of the CVN, providing the target isn't too far away of course! and all the other fighters forget how to bomb.


The irony that the CVNs were critical to fighting a landlocked country, made only possible by the same USAF we are saying can't reach what they can, as quickly or as far is a level of cool aide I have yet to be able to consume fully. if we are using Afghanistan as the reason for CVNs, I've got some terrible news. Korea and Syria at least have shores where rapid sortie generation matters since the distance is actually cut (not ADDED!) with being land locked

So we need the CVN for strike fighters, that can't carry as much as far. we need them for sortie generation, which is irrelevant when it comes to Heavy bombers, and nothing special compared to land based strike fighters. We need CVNs so we can be closer to the shore, even when there is no shore, and/or they can't get close. We need them for the unique class of fighters they don't yet have. What would we do without them? probably the same thing with other assets like we do now.

I would have great liked it if the USN had done some land based CVW's but I know that would never happen. (they do the occasion det on the beach I know) but not the whole CVW. That would be downright logical (imagine flying to strike targets in Iraq while taking off in Iraq. Or targets in Afghanistan while flying from bases in Afghanistan. But if that happened the light bulb would go on, not just for the navy but for their budget and their future carrier allocation. Besides, those CVN/CVW schedules are made years in advance, we can't interrupt that because of something so small as a war.

I find it entertaining to listen to you make your case against the usefulness of large USN Aircraft Carriers. Right at the moment when nations across the globe. Invest very heavily in them........


FOR EXAMPLE........

UK - Two New Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers (Super Carriers)

India - Two Midsized Aircraft Carriers with aspirations for a third large one!

South Korea - One Midsized to Large Aircraft Carrier in development....

Japan - Two Helicopter Carriers converted into Light (CVL) Aircraft Carriers with further aspirations...

Italy - One Light (CVL) Aircraft Carrier...

Brazil - Has Aircraft Carrier aspirations but can't afford them at this stage.

Argentina - Has Aircraft Carrier aspirations but can't afford them at this stage.

France - One midsized CVN with a larger one in development. (Super Carrier)

China - Two large Aircraft Carriers in service and a third under construction. With plans to build more....(Super Carriers)

Then add to the above "Air Capable" LHA - LHD Aircraft Carriers. (Australia, Spain, Turkey, Italy, China, etc.)




As a matter of fact Aircraft Carriers of all sizes are experiencing something of a new renaissance over the last decade.

Seems odd that all of these Nations. Would waste such vast sums on money. On ships with such little utility...

FOR EXAMPLE........

UK - Two New Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers (Super Carriers)

India - Two Midsized Aircraft Carriers with aspirations for a third large one!

South Korea - One Midsized to Large Aircraft Carrier in development....

Japan - Two Helicopter Carriers converted into Light (CVL) Aircraft Carriers with further aspirations...

Italy - One Light (CVL) Aircraft Carrier...

Brazil - Has Aircraft Carrier aspirations but can't afford them at this stage.

Argentina - Has Aircraft Carrier aspirations but can't afford them at this stage.

France - One midsized CVN with a larger one in development. (Super Carrier)

China - Two large Aircraft Carriers in service and a third under construction. With plans to build more....(Super Carriers)

Then add to the above "Air Capable" LHA - LHD Aircraft Carriers. (Australia, Spain, Turkey, Italy, China, etc.)




As a matter of fact Aircraft Carriers of all sizes are experiencing something of a new renaissance over the last decade.

Seems odd that all of these Nations. Would waste such vast sums on money. On ships with such little utility...

You're moving the goal posts.

How many of those nations have vast fleets of tankers, or scores of bases across the globe? or Super Hornets vs F-22 capability like i spoke of? and LHA/LHD is not CVN!! (LHD and LHA have other important tasks.) or a hundreds of long ranged heavy bombers? I mentioned the United states unique situations throughout...

I don't know if I wasn't being specific enough or if you're being deliberately difficult.

My original argument was that a lot of the talking points for the CVN for the United states no longer hold water. You then countered with points that me and others debunked.




if you want to say the CVN is great for showing the flag, as an emergency stop gap until help arrives (even then it has to be in the area to beat other assets, and willing to take hits) or as a versatile hub or fleet support/ large operational support system that's great. But the idea its some door kicking, quick, independent, and packed with cutting edge airplanes, that's not the case.

you took my "it doesn't really do that anymore, and they no longer do that as well" as "obsolete" and "well no one else is building them!" then I think youre arguing extremes to "Win" CVN is no longer the top dog, doesn't mean its useless but its not what it used to be. I think we also know that those really don't compare to a US Navy style CVN, but whatever at this point.