4 x Invincible class or 1 x Nimitz class

[jokoch]

I just have a thought of the above subject. Say you're the planner
for an RN size navy, which one would you prefer, 4 x small CVBG or 1 x
BIG CVBG? Say it's all for offensive purpose and not for homeland
defence.
I think it equates well in terms of tonnage and man power, but how
about power projection and air power domination? Say I have 4 of the
below group.

1 x Invincible (~20000 tonnes, ~1200 crew, 24 aircraft)
1 x Air defence destroyer (Type 45, or 2 x type 22?, 4-5000 tonnes
range)
1 x GP destroyer/frigate (type 22)
1 x Anti Sub frigate (type 23)
1 x SSK (Colins, Kilo, 209?)
1 x Oiler, supply etc etc..

Against

1 x Nimitz (~90000 tonnes, ~5000 crew, 100 aircraft)
2 x Aegis Cruise
2 x Arleigh Burke
2 x Spruance
3 x OH Perry
1 x LA
2 x Oiler, supply etc etc...

I think it matches quite evenly, but say it's against a 3rd world
country, which config prevails?



regards,
jokoch

[ANDREW ROBERT BREEN]

In article >,
jokoch > wrote:
>I just have a thought of the above subject. Say you're the planner
>for an RN size navy, which one would you prefer, 4 x small CVBG or 1 x
>BIG CVBG? Say it's all for offensive purpose and not for homeland
>defence.

If you've only got one 'carrier in the fleet then there are going
to be a /lot/ of times when it's in refit, in work-up or just plain
not where you want it to be. If any of those conditions are met then
you end up trying to project force without any 'carrier at all. Not
good.
Conventional thinking in the RN at least has been that you need three
'carriers to be sure of having at least one available at all times
(one might be refitting, one working up after refit - and one at sea).
That's why there are three Invincibles (and before that, why we had
Ark Royal, Eagle and Hermes). The hope is that the new-generation
'carriers currently being designed will have greater availability,
allowing the RN to get away with only having two of them (hmm..).
But only having one 'carrier is a no-no. It leaves you without
any 'carrier at all for far too much of the time.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

[Tiger]

jokoch wrote:

>I just have a thought of the above subject. Say you're the planner
>for an RN size navy, which one would you prefer, 4 x small CVBG or 1 x
>BIG CVBG? Say it's all for offensive purpose and not for homeland
>defence.
>I think it equates well in terms of tonnage and man power, but how
>about power projection and air power domination? Say I have 4 of the
>below group.
>
>1 x Invincible (~20000 tonnes, ~1200 crew, 24 aircraft)
>1 x Air defence destroyer (Type 45, or 2 x type 22?, 4-5000 tonnes
>range)
>1 x GP destroyer/frigate (type 22)
>1 x Anti Sub frigate (type 23)
>1 x SSK (Colins, Kilo, 209?)
>1 x Oiler, supply etc etc..
>
>Against
>
>1 x Nimitz (~90000 tonnes, ~5000 crew, 100 aircraft)
>2 x Aegis Cruise
>2 x Arleigh Burke
>2 x Spruance
>3 x OH Perry
>1 x LA
>2 x Oiler, supply etc etc...
>
>I think it matches quite evenly, but say it's against a 3rd world
>country, which config prevails?
>
>
>
>regards,
>jokoch
>
>
More is better. Having 1 CVN vs 4 Invincibles, I would choose the later.
The real question is what it is you want the Royal Navys mission to be.
Since Britian no longer has far flung Colonies (Falklands aside) to
protect and The Warsaw Pact is dead, You don't have a need for a heavy
force. If you had only 1 ship, you would lack the ability to rotate
ships to and area like the US can.