The Influence of History

All non-US carriers operating fixed-wing aircraft (click to enlarge) The aircraft carrier has been the ultimate expression of naval power since World War II. Able to engage air, surface, and subsurface targets from hundreds of miles away, the carrier is a highly versatile class of warship and even a small number of carriers can turn the tide of an entire war. However, these ships (and the aircraft that they carry) are extremely expensive and only a handful of navies have ever operated them. Since the end of World War II, only 14 nations have operated a carrier with fixed-wing aircraft and no more than 9 nations have done so simultaneously. The above chart covers all non-US aircraft carriers operating fixed-wing aircraft from 1951-2020. I have not only excluded helicopter carriers, but also attempted to avoid counting commissioned ships that did not have available aircraft (for instance, I did not count the Soviet Kiev-class ships after 1991, when their Yak-38 fighters were phased out)...

Kaga and Hosho at anchor prior to the Second World War Japan entered the Second World War with a force of ten carriers, while the United States and Great Britain each had seven. However, four of the Japanese ships were light carriers while all seven American ships were fleet carriers, meaning that despite the difference in numbers both carrier forces could accommodate roughly 600 aircraft. In Britain's case all seven of her ships were light carriers and could only accommodate a total of less than 300 aircraft. Japanese Carrier Force 12/1941 (capacity of 600 aircraft): Hosho - 168 meters, 25 knots, 20 aircraft Akagi - 261 meters, 31 knots, 90 aircraft (battlecruiser hull) Kaga - 248 meters, 28 knots, 90 aircraft (battleship hull) Ryujo - 180 meters, 29 knots, 40 aircraft Soryu - 228 meters, 34 knots, 70 aircraft Hiryu - 227 meters, 34 knots, 70 aircraft Zuiho - 217 meters, 28 knots, 30 aircraft (converted submarine tender) Shokaku - 258 meters, 34 knots, 80 aircraft Z...

While Part 1 of this series dealt with the powerful CATOBAR and STOBAR carriers, this part covers the less capable VSTOL carriers. Although VSTOL ships are much less complicated and can be significantly smaller, the selection of VSTOL fighter aircraft is extremely limited and the reliance on vertical landings places further restrictions on aircraft operations. Wasp-class & America-class Ironically, the most powerful VSTOL airwing does not belong to an aircraft carrier at all, but to the eight  Wasp -class and single  America -class amphibious assault ships of the United States Navy. Although these flat-decked 257-meter ships may resemble carriers, they are primarily designed to transport and land large numbers of Marines and their equipment. This resulted in several design tradeoffs that limit their ability to conduct fixed-wing operations, such as a lack of a ski-jump, smaller maintenance facilities, and reduced magazine and fuel capacity. While the aviation facilities...

This post will cover the composition of the air wings of the world's current major aircraft carriers. This includes the American Nimitz -class, the French Charles de Gaulle , the Chinese Liaoning , the Indian Vikramaditya , and the Russian Kuznetsov . The air wings of the smaller VSTOL are covered in Part 2 . Nimitz-class The uncontested apex of carrier air wings is found aboard the United State’s 10 Nimitz -class carriers (the Gerald Ford -class will carry the same air wing, although the lead ship is not yet operational). These ships generally operate 64 aircraft, twice as many as their competitors. Further, unlike almost all non-American carriers, the Nimitz-class is equipped for catapult takeoff and arrested recovery (CATOBAR), permitting the operation of heavy aircraft with full loads of weapons and fuel. 2019 Nimitz-class air wing: 4x E-2D, 5x EA-18G, 44x F/A-18E/F, 11x MH-60R/S Arguably the most important aircraft in this air wing are its 4 the E-2 Hawkeye 29-ton fi...

The much-maligned USS Gerald Ford (CVN-78) The United States Navy's new Gerald Ford -class aircraft carriers, like virtually all modern military equipment, have come under intense criticism for their supposedly exorbitant cost. Accusations of their costing 2-3 times as much as their predecessors, the venerable  Nimitz -class have been thrown around and many believe that the Navy would have been better off not developing the Gerald Ford -class. However, I believe these criticisms are entirely unjustified and (as with the F-35, which I previously wrote about ) stem from the media's ignorant if not outright dishonest use of non-comparable costs and a poor understanding of timelines. When put into proper context, I believe that the ships of the  Gerald Ford -class are actually only marginally more expensive than those of the Nimitz -class. First the numbers. The Navy's budget submissions reveal the exact costs of three carriers: the final member of the  Nimitz -clas...

The Japanese helicopter destroyer JS Hyuga (DDH-181) alongside the USS George Washington (CVN-73) There has long been a sentiment among some that the fleet carriers of the United States Navy are simply too large, too expensive, and too few in number. Instead, they feel that the Navy should switch to building significantly smaller carriers. The official Navy response to this position is that the possibility has been studied many times and that for the same amount of money smaller carriers will result in a fleet with substantially less combat power. Personally, I am of the opinion that the official Navy position is the correct one and that the current large carriers are the superior option - but there may be an argument for a new class of small carriers focused on antisubmarine warfare. Since World War II, the USN has taken a combined-arms approach to ASW, with submarines, aircraft, and surface ships working together to counter the threat. Of these, submarines are arguably the mos...

Unlike my recent post on USN Carrier Aircraft of the Korean War ,  this is not intended to be a detailed look at the individual aircraft types, but an overview of the timeline and production numbers to reveal larger trends. For simplicity's sake I will only be covering operational aircraft produced in reasonable numbers and ignoring early types such as the FH or F6U. I will also not be considering non-fighter variants such as photo-recon planes. Gold represents years in production while blue represents years in service. Note: FJ does not include the FJ-1 As is well known, as time passed fewer aircraft were developed and those that were remained in service longer. However, somewhat unexpectedly, this change does not appear to have been a gradual one. Instead, there was an explosion of new aircraft when the jet age began, but after a decade things had slowed down to something similar to the modern pace of development. From the F9F Panther to the F11F Tiger, fighters remai...

A prototype F-111B lands on USS Coral Sea (CV-43) during carrier trials in 1968 The saga of the F-111 is well known. In the late 1960’s, the United States Air Force and United States Navy were both looking for a new tactical fighter and the Department of Defense mandated that they cooperate and develop a single airframe with variants for both services. The Air Force variant, a low-level attack plane, entered service in 1967 as the F-111A Aardvark. Fast, long-ranged, and equipped with sophisticated electronics, the F-111A and its later versions served with distinction from the Vietnam War to Operation Desert Storm. It also was modified into a highly effective electronic warfare plane (the EF-111) and Strategic Air Command even operated a version (the FB-111) as a nuclear bomber. However, the Navy’s F-111B variant, a long-range interceptor, was cancelled in 1968 after only seven prototypes had been built. The stated reasons for this cancellation was that the plane was too heavy, u...