puttster wrote:

snip

With an excellent V/STOL capability in the F-35B, why does the Navy
still demand those giant carriers? Seems like something can be done
there to make the whole system more efficient. Why design a plane
(the F-35C) to fit their ships?

Whether the navy goes all VSTOL or keeps the F-35C and its other catapult-launched, arrested
recovery a/c and their associated catapults/arresting gear, on a per a/c embarked basis a larger
carrier is always cheaper than a smaller one, as the overhead in radars and support a/c is the same
in either case. These requirements are set by the threat, and can't be reduced.

For most missions the CV/CVNs provide more capability than is needed, and in such cases a smaller
carrier is sufficient. The USN has the LHA/LHDs to provide the numbers for these missions. But
when it comes to the power projection mission, size _does_ matter, both for numbers of a/c you can
operate and how long you can sustain them. The Brits ran into this problem first with their small
carriers in the '50s, where, by the time they'd provided the CAP, AEW, and ASW a/c to protect the
task group, there was little room left for strike a/c or their escorts, and the carriers lacked the
size for fuel, ordnance etc. for sustainment. They attempted to get around this by first replacing
fixed-wing ASW a/c with helos, and then moving the ASW helos off the carriers entirely, to CAHs
(Tigers) or CVSs (the Invincible class).

The U.S. had gone the CVS route from the start, first with CVEs, then with unmodified Essexes, but
had to bring the ASW a/c back to the CVs when the Essexes were retired and not replaced. The
CV/CVNs are large enough that the ASW a/c make up a relatively small percentage of the air wing,
and take up relatively little space. In addition, the current lack of a serious blue water sub
threat has allowed us to phase out the fixed-wing carrier ASW a/c, and only use helos. That could
change, of course.

Guy