I worry that our big-deck carriers are too vulnerable for the primary role of sea-control against a peer naval competitor.
The new Ford-class super carrier is supposed to be the pinnacle of carrier design based on experience since World War II. While I assume a number of problems are normal and will be solved, the replacement of the old steam catapults to launch heavy modern aircraft with the EMALS (Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System) catapult is failing at an alarming rate and no solution is in sight.
Indeed, a retired carrier might have to be brought back into service until the problem can be solved.
Not that I am in favor of small carriers. They add more problems than they solve.
The major problem in the carrier debate is that advocates and foes of super carriers as the primary capital ship of the Navy argue apples and oranges without really dealing with their own side's weak points.
Maybe first of its class Ford should be designated an amphibious warfare carrier for now in light of my suggestion to consolidate strike carriers and amphibious carriers with one platform based on the Ford hull. As long as it can't be a strike carrier, why not test it as an amphibious warfare ship to see just how large a Marine force can be carried and used?
And what about the delayed shock tests, eh?
About Me
- Brian J. Dunn
- I live and write in Ann Arbor, Michigan. University of Michigan AB and MA from Eastern Michigan University. One term in the Michigan Army National Guard. Former American history instructor and retired nonpartisan research analyst. I write on Blogger and Substack. Various military and private journals have published my occasional articles on military subjects. See "My Published Works" on the TDR web version or under the mobile version drop-down menu for citations and links.
