3 ms·

It's not just to save money - it also increases the number you can crank out in a big hurry. In WWII, escort carriers were small, slow, lightly armored and yet

It's not just to save money - it also increases the number you can crank out in a big hurry. In WWII, escort carriers were small, slow, lightly armored and yet came in absolutely clutch because some slow air cover that needs extensive destroyer/cruiser babysitting >>> no air cover at all once all the fleet carriers of both sides were done mutually annihilating each other (iirc at one point the US was down to one operational fleet carrier in the Pacific; the Saratoga in late 42/early 43) due to how most leaders hadn't fully grasped just how lethal massed air power was, some figures like Halsey aside. In that breach, and even later on e.g. Battle off Samar, escort carriers were indispensable. Of the 151 aircraft carriers built in the U.S. during World War II, 122 were escort carriers. I don't think it's totally implausible that massed cruise/hypersonic missile attacks won't play out similarly in a future conflict, leading to a scenario where both sides need to rebuild asap. Being able to crank out limited-purpose ships is important if you want to maintain any capability at all, even if that capability is less flexible than the gucci option.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ianburrell 3y ago
If want cheap warships, then putting containerized missiles on cargo ship might be the cheapest option. The standard VLS cells should fit in standard container. It should be possible to create data link to other ships, and use the cargo ship as magazine. It would be much harder to make a containerized warship with radar, combat system, and all that. The cargo ships would be super vulnerable without any defenses, and be destroyed by any hit. The other problem is that the stocks of missiles are small. The US should probably focus on making more, cheaper missiles than building ships.
- nradov 3y ago
  There have been a number of proposals along those lines to install containerized missiles on cargo ships. It's technically possible, but cargo ships are so slow and vulnerable that they would only be useful to supplement the magazines of surface warships conducting convoy escort missions. That's a pretty niche mission now and it would be difficult to justify the expense.
nradov 3y ago
I mean we kind of have "escort carriers" already in the form of amphibious ships that can operate helicopters and V/STOL fighters. Those work well enough for limited missions like close air support. But without high speed and catapults they can't operate the heavy aircraft necessary to defend a fleet or engage an adversary at long ranges. What worked in WW2 is no longer relevant.
- livueta 3y ago
  The point isn't that it specifically needs to be escort carriers, but something analogous in role, where you get a valuable capability at a low cost and production time. Slow/cheap missile platforms might be that modern analogue.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ianburrell 3y ago

If want cheap warships, then putting containerized missiles on cargo ship might be the cheapest option. The standard VLS cells should fit in standard container. It should be possible to create data link to other ships, and use the cargo ship as magazine. It would be much harder to make a containerized warship with radar, combat system, and all that. The cargo ships would be super vulnerable without any defenses, and be destroyed by any hit. The other problem is that the stocks of missiles are small. The US should probably focus on making more, cheaper missiles than building ships.

nradov 3y ago
There have been a number of proposals along those lines to install containerized missiles on cargo ships. It's technically possible, but cargo ships are so slow and vulnerable that they would only be useful to supplement the magazines of surface warships conducting convoy escort missions. That's a pretty niche mission now and it would be difficult to justify the expense.

nradov 3y ago

I mean we kind of have "escort carriers" already in the form of amphibious ships that can operate helicopters and V/STOL fighters. Those work well enough for limited missions like close air support. But without high speed and catapults they can't operate the heavy aircraft necessary to defend a fleet or engage an adversary at long ranges. What worked in WW2 is no longer relevant.

livueta 3y ago
The point isn't that it specifically needs to be escort carriers, but something analogous in role, where you get a valuable capability at a low cost and production time. Slow/cheap missile platforms might be that modern analogue.