"Best Aircraft Carriers in Naval History" Topic

"The real litmus test for any man-of-war is its capacity to fulfill the missions for which it was built. In that sense George Washington, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, may not be "superior" to USS America, the U.S. Navy's latest amphibious helicopter carrier, or to Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force "helicopter destroyers"—a.k.a. light aircraft carriers—despite a far more lethal air wing and other material attributes.

Anyone who's tried to compare one piece of kit—ships, aircraft, weaponry of various types—to another will testify to how hard this chore is. Ranking aircraft carriers is no exception. Consulting the pages of Jane's Fighting Ships or Combat Fleets of the World sheds some light on the problem. For instance, a flattop whose innards house a nuclear propulsion plant boasts virtually unlimited cruising range, whereas a carrier powered by fossil fuels is tethered to its fuel source. As Alfred Thayer Mahan puts it, a conventional warship bereft of bases or a coterie of logistics ships is a "land bird" unable to fly far from home.

Or, size matters. The air wing—the complement of interceptors, attack planes and support aircraft that populate a carrier's decks—comprise its main battery or primary armament. The bigger the ship, the bigger the hangar and flight decks that accommodate the air wing…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

a flattop whose innards house a nuclear propulsion plant boasts virtually unlimited cruising range, whereas a carrier powered by fossil fuels is tethered to its fuel source

Unfortunately the CVN requires an escort of fossil-powered escorts and is thus tethered vicariously to their fuel source, so how this translates into a significant advantage is not clear.

Plus, of course, aircraft fuel and ordinance. Probably not an issue in peace time, but both likely to be degraded quyite quickly once people start shooting at each other.

Those aircraft use plenty of fossil fuel as well…

I think "My Five Favorite Aircraft Carriers" would be a better title. The Hermes isn't the first British carrier I'd choose, and the Midway over the nuclear Enterprise? The Akagi? No consistent criteria that I can see.

The original plan was to have the entire carrier battle group running on nuclear power. But the Virginia and California class nuclear cruisers were decommissioned in 1990s. Done due to the high cost of maintaining and operating them, according to the Navy. You would think the CVNs would be even more expensive to operate.

"…Like all of the nuclear cruisers, which could steam for years between refueling, the California and Virginia classes were designed in part to provide high endurance escort for the navy's nuclear aircraft carriers, which were often limited in range due to their conventionally powered escorts continuously needing to be refueled."

One advantage, is that CVNs themselves do not release carbon into the environment. But everything else on it sure does.

4th C. -- I *think* that nuclear power leaves significantly more room for aircraft fuel and ordnance. Nuclear carriers are also faster than conventionally powered carriers, though the exact number is classified. Not sure how important that is.

As an icon, first British carrier I would go for would be the WW2 Ark Royal.

Agree with the number 1 though.

Unfortunately the CVN requires an escort of fossil-powered escorts and is thus tethered vicariously to their fuel source, so how this translates into a significant advantage is not clear.

Part of the problem is that the USN went stupid. The original intent was to have the entire carrier group nuclear powered, but the USN failed to build enough of any one class to get a decent unit cost.

The Long Beach was a single-ship class, as were the Bainbridge and Truxtun. The California-class had 2 ships, and the Virginia-class had 4.

In comparison, the Ticonderoga-class had 27 members built, and there are 62 Arleigh Burke-class ships currently in service, with a total planned build of 76. If we'd built 60+ nuclear powered cruisers all to the same plan, we could have arranged some economies of scale.

On the flip side, since the air wing burns through immense amounts of fuel, requiring underway refueling of the carrier every week anyway, it's not that big a deal. Especially since all the escorts and aircraft run on the same fuel.

We refueled from the Eisenhower once during a Med cruise. They gave us the fuel they stripped from their aviation fuel tanks (the bad fuel). Normally fuel looks like iced tea in color and clarity. The stuff we got looked like lemonade. We ended up having to let it settle and strip 15% of it before we could use it.

Not related but I remember…

Also, Nuclear power is all very well, but, it limits the ports your allowed into, and, the main thing, people are not nuclear powered, they need food, water, and medical supplies. Also ordinance needs replacing, casualties need evac'ing, annnnnnd, when their life is up, you need to safely dispose of those nuclear cells, so, while it's great for fragile US egos to have them, nuclear powered ships are still 'tied' the same as conventional ships.

John

And the nukes have substantially higher lifetime costs compared to conventionally powered. Always important when budgets are tight.

I agree with #1 otherwise my favorite is CV-67, the JFK largely because I spent 40 months on her. ;)