Most people are betting against the sort of conflict that sets USN CVN against anything remotely similar.
As to Nimitz ripping anything for CVF...please fellows, last I heard you were allies...and like that its been that way since 1941.
CVF. If you check the lastest serious defence related journals, websites and so on you will see that the only thing that is (sadly) getting smaller
about them are thier supporting forces and escorts.
The VSTOL F-35 version is running into trouble (usual do too much in one airframe issue) and could be dropped, and orders for F-35 have already been
scaled back. Equals serious concerns about cost and viability. UK MoD is not being too plain about it but that means unless they want an oversized
Harrier parking lot they have to fund large CVF.
As far as I have heard, and based on common lines of thought in several reports, they are keeping them big to allow for catapult or ski ramp launched
STOL or CTOL F-35s. The USN have proven the possibility with land based Ski Ramp trials with the F-18A-D series early in thier development, and
Russian Fulcrums and Flankers.
Small carriers are still effective for countries with Regional needs and other requirements (ie. heliborne lift and humanitarian evacuations and
The latest Italian and Spanish new building for instance allows for operations of a small number of F-35s, within thier needs and requirements. I
don't think anybody is aqquirring them with the view of replaying the 1941-45 flattop campaign. More supporting thier own, especially where US
interests and attention might lie elsewhere.
They also allow some states not to allow unnecessary tensions to arise if allied to US they can reduce the risk or need of a USN Battle or Amphib
group deploying into a region and escalating the issue.
Likewise they can more economically support some operations than by deploying a USN Carrier or Amphib group.
They would have been handy off Somalia for Australia for instance or in providing on call support during the 1999 East Timor UN op.
Finally DYK that the JapaneseMSDF had a proposal before the Diet (Parliament) recently to fund a new class of DDH?....The description of this
"Destroyer" was a 16,000t vessel, with an offset Island superstructure with weapons systems fore and aft of it, with an all through flight and
hangar deck to handle...get this...three Seahawks!...The submission admited it could "in an emergency" handle up to a dozen or so heavy lift of Mine
clearance helecopters (JSDF use Chinooks and Sea Dragons in those roles don't they?) Why didnt they just call it a "thru deck cruiser" like the RN!
It follows on from the construction of a 10,000t class of 4 "LST"s for the JMSDF in the 1990s, which have a half length flight deck over a full
length cargo deck, with again an offset island. It was noted the forward half of the ship, which is set up for cargo reportedly showed in blueprints
the ability to be fitted for not with a full length flight deck with ski ramp.
Reports on this have appeared in copies of both the UK based "Navy International" and the Australian "The Navy" in the last four five years.
Anybody seen anything else about the Japanese carrier rumors. Good on them I think.