Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Small carrier missions
Keywords: carrier
Message-ID: <11226@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 8 Nov 89 04:40:40 GMT
References: <11197@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Oregon Graduate Center, Beaverton, OR
Lines: 46
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: terryr@ogccse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker)
In article <11197@cbnews.ATT.COM> siyt@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (p.jayne) writes:
>
>
>From: siyt@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (p.jayne)
>
>When the subject of small carriers comes up, everyone assumes they need
>to perform the same missions as big ones.  

Actually, very few people in the decision making loop make that 
assumption.  The problem with small carriers is deciding what 
missions can be safely sone with them.  Yes jeep carriers were used
for convoy escort and amphibious support, but under limited
conditions.  The problem is the usual question about the applicability
of yesterday's war for today's combat.  In WWII, the allied convoys
did not have to face a serious air threat.  Today, in the North 
Atlantic they might have to face massed bomber attacks.  Look at
the British performance off the Falklands.  Even with all the 
advantages the Argentines faced, they still damaged a large part
of the British fleet.  There are other examples; air support off 
Korea and Vietnam.  In these situations the carriers never faced a
serious threat to their security, so smaller carriers may have been
sufficient.  Unfortunately, it is impossible to know if the 
defensive ability of the carrier battle groups deterred any attacks.
The arguments go on and on.  

A related discussion is the cost of operating the ships.  Smaller 
carriers would not probably be nuclear powered.  In a simple 
analysis, this results in cheaper operating costs.  But after
considering all the support requirements (less time on station
for refueling, more support vessels to carry the extra fuel, more
escorts for the oilers, etc) they may cost much more.  In view of
a shrinking defense budget, where is this money going to come from?
It is particularly difficult to justify small carriers to congress
when everyone admits they have less capability.  Added to which,
there is no clear cut mission for which they are capable, and a
better choice than a supercarrier.  

This position pains me.  As I was a surface sailor, I don't like 
carriers :-).  

--
Terry Rooker
terryr@cse.ogc.edu