Hyper carriers vs Fleet carriers.

[RogerRanger]

I am just wanting to compare the Ford class to the QE class and the difference between hyper-carriers and fleet carriers in strategic terms.

Obviously a one to one comparison the Ford class is much better, much more powerful, more advanced. However if I look at the crew requirements it is 3-1 in favour of the QE class, if you look at cost per unit its 4-1 in favour of the QE class. So in strategic build and crew terms you can get three times as many QE class carriers for 1 Ford class. If you lose a QE class it is much easier to replace, if you lose a Ford class its almost impossible to replace.

It is my view that the age of the hyper carrier has come to end, and now nations should focus on building fleet carriers able to operate 40-50 aircraft. Having more units of fleet carrier and move aircraft over all. The US hyper-carrier problem is a neglect of money, if they don't have the best AAW crusiers/ASW destroyers and attack submarines to protect the carrier. Which they can't afford because of the waste on the LCS and Zumwalt, as well as the stupid price of the Colombia class. Hyper carriers in unaffordable now and they can't have the strategic effect they once had because of the hyper-sonic missiles, SSN's.

Much better to have smaller carriers which can offer great strategic effect because you can build them in greater numbers, as well as crew more ships, and over more aircraft operational over all. Its like the end of the battleship era, where the BB's were getting big and big, more complex. I am amused the Chinese plan to build hyper carriers, but its a totally not need for them and they will get sunk just as easy as the US carriers will.

 

[Lordimperator]

fleet carriers able to operate 40-50 aircraft

Chinese type 1/2 or indian vikrant and russian kuznetsov carrier with STOBAR capability in my opinion is one of the best alternative which could sustain many kinds of aircrafts and the absent of catapult could minimize the power consumptions. Unlike QE class or Italian Cavour which only support VTOL aircraft.

totally not need for them and they will get sunk just as easy as the US carriers will.

Both of nations had enourmous number of escort ships. They put layered defense in their CSG. So the assumptions carriers are "easy" to sunk cannot be true, unless the iranian cardboard "carrier".

 

[RogerRanger]

Chinese type 1/2 or indian vikrant and russian kuznetsov carrier with STOBAR capability in my opinion is one of the best alternative which could sustain many kinds of aircrafts and the absent of catapult could minimize the power consumptions. Unlike QE class or Italian Cavour which only support VTOL aircraft.

Both of nations had enourmous number of escort ships. They put layered defense in their CSG. So the assumptions carriers are "easy" to sunk cannot be true, unless the iranian cardboard "carrier".

The QE class is STOVL, not VTOL. Apart from that I agree, however I like the cost, engines and twin island survivability of the QE class, as well as it being the second carrier to operate the F-35.

The American and Chinese escort ships are that good, and they don't have enough of them. The Chinese don't have enough SSN's, the Americans don't have any modern cruisers. Carrier group escorts can be bypassed by hyper-sonic missiles and quiet subs. Carriers will be sunk like battle ships were in WW2 at this point.

Most powerful things are now SSN's and long range ASuW ships, rather than carriers with shorter-range aircraft than the missiles.