"Here Is Every Aircraft Carrier in the World" Topic

"Only a handful of countries have aircraft carriers in their arsenals. They form an exclusive club, one whose members who have decided their interests stretch so far from their own waters they need to put air power at sea.

Broadly speaking, there are three kinds of aircraft carrier today: larger aircraft carriers that carry both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters, smaller carriers that operate helicopters, and amphibious ships that have full-length flight decks, hangars, and carry helicopters. Some of the world's carriers are new, bristling with planes and capable of circumnavigating the globe without refueling. Others are a half-century old or older, carry just a handful of obsolete planes, and rarely leave base.

Here's a look at the world's fleet. Not surprisingly, it's dominated by the U.S. Navy, which boasts 19 of the 36 such ships currently plying the world's waters…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

So we possess over 50 percent of the number of carriers in the whole world, and bigger and better ones at that. If I didn't know better I'd think we're bent on world domination.

What do you mean "bent on"? As far as I can tell, we already have it.

Not only do you have more carriers, but your carriers have aircraft (compare to the sad tale of the UK aircraft carriers – no planes ! No planes! No….Point! )

That's true and other nations suffer from the same problem. They have inadequate launching methods for their planes.

@28mmFanatic: And yet the current USN is about the same size as the USN of 1930 (close to the height of US Isolationism) or the UK RN of 1930, and is expected to do the work of both.

Based on assigned missions, the USN is half the size it needs to be.

It's not really an "aircraft carrier" if you have no planes to go on it.

More like a large, flat-topped naval vessel, cargo ship, Flugtag launcher, or helo carrier.

'Based on assigned missions, the USN is half the size it needs to be.'

That makes for a fairly simple equation then. Double the fleet or halve the assigned missions. I know, both are easier said than done.

Perhaps when comparing the sizes of 1930s fleets with today, it would be better to be comparing capabilities…

Many of the non-US carriers are not used as aircraft carriers – rather LHDs (eg., Australia) and helicopter carriers(eg., Japan).

So I Guess the US slice of the pie is a little larger.

Lion-

You're assuming the ships in service today have the same capability as those in 1930 and that the all the other nations in the world have the same capability as they did in 1930. Neither of those things are even remotely true.

Lion…. a single modern UK frigate has the power to destroy the Argentinian air force in, more or less its totality, before it leaves Argentinian airspace whilst remaining in Falkland Islands territorial waters.

Capabilities have increased markedly.

That said sometimes you do need a hull in the right palce which is why, IIRC, the Royal Navy is considering building a class of 40-odd sloops for mine warfare and general patrol work.

yes many of the ship described here are helicopter carrier. I suppose that if you add US/UK and even France (which is currently operating 3 helicopter carriers) the shares of the pie will change a little bit.

Yes, all the hulls are generally more capable than their 1930s counterparts. Definitely more capable in anti-air and anti-sub. Not so sure about anti-ship and naval gunfire support.

One hull can still only be in one place at a time. The US doesn't have enough hulls to be in all the assigned missions at the same time.

'Based on assigned missions, the USN is half the size it needs to be.'

That makes for a fairly simple equation then. Double the fleet or halve the assigned missions. I know, both are easier said than done.

Yeah, you try selling the expansion plans, though the additional employment for several decades would be good.

I don't believe that the American people would accept a reduction in missions.