More aircraft carriers, 1990s on

[anon_user]

Simply put, how many more aircraft carriers than OTL could plausibly be fielded starting around the end of the Cold War?

Some possibilities -

• Greater sales of the Chakri Naruebet's design
• Earlier Soviet commitment to carrier aviation
• China actually buying a carrier in the '90s
• Australia buying a carrier in the '80s

Any other suggestions?

 

[Archibald]

Simply put, how many more aircraft carriers than OTL could plausibly be fielded starting around the end of the Cold War?

Some possibilities -

• Greater sales of the Chakri Naruebet's design
• Earlier Soviet commitment to carrier aviation
• China actually buying a carrier in the '90s
• Australia buying a carrier in the '80s

Any other suggestions?

Since Brazil bought Foch, I can see Argentina buying the Clemenceau. Even more since they have Super Etendard.

 

[anon_user]

Not sure the Argentines ever actually seriously considered a replacement to the 25 de Mayo. Costs strike me as the biggest issue for an Argentine carrier purchase; suggestions on how to get around that?

Besides, I'm looking for, ideally, new construction.

 

[ThatGuyOverThere]

Both CVFs being built rather than whatever the fuck is happening would help, as would a SDR that wants the invincibles replaced on a 1-1 basis. By 2020 you'd have 3 more large carriers in operation. Maybe China builds its own instead of buying Varyag

 

[anon_user]

I'd actually count a Chinese Varyag, since the ship wasn't completed in OTL.

Was there ever any thought given to transferring the Midways or Forrestals?

If we go back to the '70s, the US Navy could potentially have ended up building some Harrier-carriers of our own; Zumwalt was pushing that, due to the perceived need for a cheaper, lighter navy in the era of low budgets and poor morale.

 

[archaeogeek]

The only way I can see it would be if Germany and Japan are somehow allowed Carriers and Light Carriers remain in service longer (probably by adding catapults like was done on Majestic) - it increases the operational costs slightly but allows more types of aircraft to remain available for them. Otherwise costs are pretty prohibitive for a lot of nations.

Colossus-class might be workable; it's bigger than the majestic, but with similar crew requirements, airwing and barely a third higher operational costs.

 

[CalBear]

By far the best bet for additional carrier decks is the RN. The UK wound up having a much tougher fight in the South Atlantic than anyone would have expected because of limited air cover, especially AEW. The UK lost four combat ships (2 DDG and 2 FF) as well as two amphibious assault ships at a cost of around $200,000,000 for lost ships and WAY more than that to replace them (each lost Type 21 & 42 lost had to be replaced by a newer ship at a much greater cost). Every one of the ships lost would probably have been saved of the RN had been able to provide AEW (E-1 Tracer or E-2 Hawkeye) support. Given this reality it would have made a lot of sense for the RN to get either a Honest to God full deck carrier or several more "through deck cruisers" as fleet support so the fleet could have reasonable CAP for medium range fleet defense.

An easier way to get the number fluffed WAY up is to get the USN to reclassify the LHA & LHD as CVL.

 

[anon_user]

I seem to recall that the Chakri Naruebet emerged from a series of design studies of helicopter-carrying (and STOVL-capable at the upper end) OPVs by a German shipyard.

What would lead to a German Harrier-carrier, though? Maybe if Britain sells her carriers to the Aussies, so Germany decides to take up the North Sea ASW role with a CVS or two?

EDIT: I was wondering when you'd show up, CalBear. Just waiting on Mac and TheMann, now.

Agreed that the British strike me as particularly likely to consider more carriers.

 

[ThatGuyOverThere]

I seem to recall that the Chakri Naruebet emerged from a series of design studies of helicopter-carrying (and STOVL-capable at the upper end) OPVs by a German shipyard.

What would lead to a German Harrier-carrier, though? Maybe if Britain sells her carriers to the Aussies, so Germany decides to take up the North Sea ASW role with a CVS or two?

EDIT: I was wondering when you'd show up, CalBear. Just waiting on Mac and TheMann, now.

Agreed that the British strike me as particularly likely to consider more carriers.

Yeah, GB definitely seems the most likely route. A RN that focuses on "true" carriers and power projection seems likely to have had 3 strike carriers, with Germany maybe having 3/4 CVS to cover the North Atlantic. Australia seems a possibility, for smaller carriers at least, with perhaps two light carriers. If Malaysia's economy was big enough, and the threat from Indonesia/anyone else was great enough, she might get a CVS or 2. Japan seems another possiblity-whilst I dont think politics will allow her to get full-size carriers again, political change plus a more hawkish China/ NK may allow her up to 4/5 ASW carriers. Carriers are like any other military technology, probably the best way to get them is to increase the perceived military threats major economies face

 

[Life In Black]

You would need a potential threat, for this to happen, such as a more prosperous Russia, or China and Russia being trading partners, if not outright allies. That would allow both Kuznetsov class carriers to be built, if not more, and the Russians would probably sell the designs to China who would begin building them with Russian assistance.

 

[NothingNow]

Building STOVL carriers on a fairly cheap hull, like that of the Adams-class, and using them for just about everything might be a good way to do it, as would having the USN give away Midway, Coral Sea and/or Rooseveldt, along with the Essex-class ships to NATO and Commonwealth nations, plus Japan and South Korea as newer ones are built for the Navy.

If we go back to the '70s, the US Navy could potentially have ended up building some Harrier-carriers of our own; Zumwalt was pushing that, due to the perceived need for a cheaper, lighter navy in the era of low budgets and poor morale.

We have a few of those now that just need Ski-ramps fitted. Seriously, Counting the Tarawa-class, and Wasp-class as light Carriers (which they are,) the US Navy currently operates some 21 Aircraft Carriers, in four Classes.

The Closest Nations, are France which Opperates One Fleet Carrier and Two Assault Ships/Helicopter Carriers, Italy with Two Light Carriers, and Spain which operates another two Light Carriers/Assault Ships.

 

[ThatGuyOverThere]

Building STOVL carriers on a fairly cheap hull, like that of the Adams-class, and using them for just about everything might be a good way to do it, as would having the USN give away Midway, Coral Sea and/or Rooseveldt, along with the Essex-class ships to NATO and Commonwealth nations, plus Japan and South Korea as newer ones are built for the Navy.


We have a few of those now that just need Ski-ramps fitted. Seriously, Counting the Tarawa-class, and Wasp-class as light Carriers (which they are,) the US Navy currently operates some 21 Aircraft Carriers, in four Classes.

The Closest Nations, are France which Opperates One Fleet Carrier and Two Assault Ships/Helicopter Carriers, Italy with Two Light Carriers, and Spain which operates another two Light Carriers/Assault Ships.

Essex-class to Japan? The irony...

 

[anon_user]

I suppose if Suharto sticks around, rather than being overthrown, then the Indonesian threat would remain a major issue; they got a Sverdlov-class cruiser in OTL, after all, so they clearly posed a naval threat.
Would a carrier be the best way of projecting power against a Communist Indonesia, though?
Keep Suharto in power, and maybe Singapore stays part of Malaysia. Not sure what implications this would have.
SEATO gets much more attention with Suharto still in power, naturally.
***
I wonder if having an Indonesian ally would've caused the Soviets to go more heavily into carrier aviation, and to perhaps sell a carrier to the Indonesians?
***

We have a few of those now that just need Ski-ramps fitted. Seriously, Counting the Tarawa-class, and Wasp-class as light Carriers (which they are,) the US Navy currently operates some 21 Aircraft Carriers, in four Classes.

They do have a secondary Sea Control role; could we have gotten more ships with a primary Sea Control role, though?

 

[Riain]

While I don't belive it for economics I believe in the trickle down effect with aircraft carriers. Firstly I would avoid the P1154-RN debacle and only have the RAF version developed, it would be bought by the RAF in big numbers, think Harrier and Jaguar. Navalising the P1154-RAF would provide capability that Sea Harriers and AV8s can't, its simply a bigger, faster, longer range plane. When the choice of plane comes down to A4/Etenard/P1154 or getting out of the carrier business I think the P1154 will look pretty good.

Secondly I'd not have the USN shrink to 12 carriers, I'd have the FDR given the big rebuild the CS and Midway got so it can serve into the 80s, giving at least 13 USN carriers at all times.

Thirdly, and here's the big potential, have the RN build CVA01 & 02 and push first Centaur and later Hermes out into the Commonwealth. Perhaps Canada could take Centaur in 1965 instead of it being laid up in reserve. Australia could take Hermes in 1976 when it and Ark Royal are replaced by CVA 02. India could take Albion when it is replaced by a SCS/LPH, and Bulwark could be canabalised for spares. India, Brazil and Argentina could canabalise the Magestics to keep their carriers in sevice longer.

Fourthly have the Kievs less missile dependent and develop a better naval plane for them.

 

[anon_user]

Could the Greeks or Turks have considered a carrier, given the tensions that existed between those two in the '70s and (to a lesser extent) in the '90s?

Any chance of the Shah purchasing a carrier? Odds aren't good that it would survive the Revolution and the Iran-Iraq War, but it's worth considering; it would certainly have had interesting implications on the Tanker War.

 

[ThatGuyOverThere]

Would a carrier be the best way of projecting power against a Communist Indonesia, though?
Keep Suharto in power, and maybe Singapore stays part of Malaysia. Not sure what implications this would have.
SEATO gets much more attention with Suharto still in power, naturally.
***
QUOTE]

A Malaysia with Singapore would have much money to spend on defence, so 2 or maybe even 3 CVS arent out of the question. A carrier might not be used for power projection against Indonesia, but could get a more defensive role against subs

 

[CalBear]

Could the Greeks or Turks have considered a carrier, given the tensions that existed between those two in the '70s and (to a lesser extent) in the '90s?

Any chance of the Shah purchasing a carrier? Odds aren't good that it would survive the Revolution and the Iran-Iraq War, but it's worth considering.

Neither the Greeks or Turks have the pocket money to run a carrier (the Thais don't either, which is why their carrier literally never leaves port).

Iran had absolutely no use for a carrier, even the Shah wasn't that much of a spender to by a ship that was literally unsafe to operate inside the Gulf.

 

[archaeogeek]

While I don't belive it for economics I believe in the trickle down effect with aircraft carriers. Firstly I would avoid the P1154-RN debacle and only have the RAF version developed, it would be bought by the RAF in big numbers, think Harrier and Jaguar. Navalising the P1154-RAF would provide capability that Sea Harriers and AV8s can't, its simply a bigger, faster, longer range plane. When the choice of plane comes down to A4/Etenard/P1154 or getting out of the carrier business I think the P1154 will look pretty good.

Secondly I'd not have the USN shrink to 12 carriers, I'd have the FDR given the big rebuild the CS and Midway got so it can serve into the 80s, giving at least 13 USN carriers at all times.

Thirdly, and here's the big potential, have the RN build CVA01 & 02 and push first Centaur and later Hermes out into the Commonwealth. Perhaps Canada could take Centaur in 1965 instead of it being laid up in reserve. Australia could take Hermes in 1976 when it and Ark Royal are replaced by CVA 02. India could take Albion when it is replaced by a SCS/LPH, and Bulwark could be canabalised for spares. India, Brazil and Argentina could canabalise the Magestics to keep their carriers in sevice longer.

Fourthly have the Kievs less missile dependent and develop a better naval plane for them.

CENTAUR!... When I typed Colossus I meant Centaur; Colossus is just Majestic without a catapult and an angled flight deck.

 

[anon_user]

A Malaysia with Singapore would have much money to spend on defence, so 2 or maybe even 3 CVS arent out of the question. A carrier might not be used for power projection against Indonesia, but could get a more defensive role against subs

Big issue I see with that is why they wouldn't just go with ASW aircraft and choppers - you could probably buy a lot of Alizes or S-3s for the same price as a CVS and air group, and the training costs would be much lower.
Aussies might go with carriers, though - while *Malaysia mainly has to focus on protecting the Straits, Australia has to deal with PNG, the Torres Strait, and elsewhere. An Aussie Essex - optimized for ASW or not, depending on how much more naval aid Suharto gets - doesn't seem out of the question.
***

Neither the Greeks or Turks have the pocket money to run a carrier (the Thais don't either, which is why their carrier literally never leaves port).

Iran had absolutely no use for a carrier, even the Shah wasn't that much of a spender to by a ship that was literally unsafe to operate inside the Gulf.

Fair enough. I'm basically trying to look for any other possible carrier powers.

I suppose Ukraine could have briefly had a carrier, depending on how the break-up went and on how they felt about the Black Sea Fleet; more likely, though, would be to either auction it or sell it back to the Russians.

 

[aktarian]

Is the question "more carriers" as in countries that have them have more such ships or that more countries opt for such capability?

I think Australia is best bet for former, specially if Indonesia is seen as a bigger threat. Canada could opt for pocket carriers, if they define their role as keeping north atlantic open. Focus on anti-submarine warfare, and operate them with a mix of helicopters and Harriers (maybe joint development and production with UK?)

For later Italy and Spain could go for assault ship/pocket carrier mix (similar to Tarawa). Since they are more flexible than ordinary carriers more of them could be in use and when NATO reorients itself to out of area operations theywould prove a handy tool. Again, joint development and production. If Vietnam war is seen as a having bigger threat of spreading Thailand could decide to take their carrier force more seriously. Again, pocket carriers with Harriers would be the way to go.

Could Grippen operate from such ships with modifications? Not carrier/assault ship combination but small ones with ski jumps? If yes then they'd get a lease of life once Harriers start to end their useful life. Or Sweden sees a potential for Grippen in such market and develop naval model?