USAF realises F-35 is not what they set out to make

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

and both can get murked on the ground by long-range Chinese missiles lol

this is the current problem with advancing armaments like fighter jets, tanks, cruisers, etc. The development cycles can be so long and harrowing that by the time its out, theres already cheap countermeasures against them. Like right now the US is having problems figuring out what to do with their navy because a hard counter to their ships is to just have a bunch of speed boats loaded with a single torpedo each and zerg rush the damn things as Iran figured out. In terms of cost efficiency, theres no contest.

Jeune Ecole is a disastrous meme in the face of the helicopter and the Sea Skua.

So was Pierre Sprey ultimately proven right if the F-35 is discontinued or slowed down, as it appears to be the case soon if not now?

And Pierre Sprey is an overrated idiot.

[Violent Mike]

Really, you cannot expect a single aircraft, albeit in three different variants, to cover the whole range of operational tasks of F-16, F/A-18, Harrier, Tornado, A-10, A-6, F-14, EF-4, EA-18, F-111, F-117, AMX.

Half of those planes are obsolete and out of service.

I find it funny whenever people say the F-35 is a failure because it takes on too many roles, then fellate over the F-15 which was designed expressly as an air superiority fighter... Before they made it a multi-role fighter with great success.

[Chia Dal]

Really, you cannot expect a single aircraft, albeit in three different variants, to cover the whole range of operational tasks of F-16, F/A-18, Harrier, Tornado, A-10, A-6, F-14, EF-4, EA-18, F-111, F-117, AMX.

Half of those planes are obsolete and out of service.

I find it funny whenever people say the F-35 is a failure because it takes on too many roles, then fellate over the F-15 which was designed expressly as an air superiority fighter... Before they made it a multi-role fighter with great success.

The F-15E Strike Eagle is considered a Fighter-Bomber. The F-35 might be a bit expensive but its certainly cheaper than the F-22.

[The Nihilistic view]

The UK actually has two aircraft carriers floating, although the HMS Prince of Wales won't be ready for full operations until 2023 at the earliest.

Australia has none. We have two of the Canberra class, which look like small carriers because the Spanish demanded money to take the ski-jump out of the design. Or maybe the Australian government doesn't want these landing-ships appearing on the West Pacific theatre as Aircraft Carriers, until there's a reason to do so ... it would signal the start of a Naval Arms Race.

Does anyone know why the US persists with flat decks on carriers, when so many other countries opt for the ski-jump?

Because a ski jump carrier can be smaller, less complex and cheaper but it has various tradeoffs that don't generally make them as capable as the larger catapult equipped carriers the US has. The US basically just has the budget not to skimp.

[Philjia]

Really, you cannot expect a single aircraft, albeit in three different variants, to cover the whole range of operational tasks of F-16, F/A-18, Harrier, Tornado, A-10, A-6, F-14, EF-4, EA-18, F-111, F-117, AMX.

Half of those planes are obsolete and out of service.

I find it funny whenever people say the F-35 is a failure because it takes on too many roles, then fellate over the F-15 which was designed expressly as an air superiority fighter... Before they made it a multi-role fighter with great success.

The failure of the F-35 project is less to do with the capability of the plane itself and more to do with it's applicability to the task it was created for.
Is the F-35 a better multirole fighter than the F-16 and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet? Yes.
Can the air force and navy actually afford to implement it as a replacement to those planes? No.
This is a problem because that's explicitly what the project was for, and they don't have anything else that can fill the role because they assumed that's what the F-35 would do.

[Herador]

Half of those planes are obsolete and out of service.

I find it funny whenever people say the F-35 is a failure because it takes on too many roles, then fellate over the F-15 which was designed expressly as an air superiority fighter... Before they made it a multi-role fighter with great success.

The failure of the F-35 project is less to do with the capability of the plane itself and more to do with it's applicability to the task it was created for.
Is the F-35 a better multirole fighter than the F-16 and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet? Yes.
Can the air force and navy actually afford to implement it as a replacement to those planes? No.
This is a problem because that's explicitly what the project was for, and they don't have anything else that can fill the role because they assumed that's what the F-35 would.

There it is, I think. The A-10s role can be replaced/heavily supplemented with Apaches easily, and to a degree have in modern Low Intensity Conflicts, but it's just not feasible to replace the A-10, F-18, F-16, and portions of the F-15 fleet with the F-35.

[Violent Mike]

Half of those planes are obsolete and out of service.

I find it funny whenever people say the F-35 is a failure because it takes on too many roles, then fellate over the F-15 which was designed expressly as an air superiority fighter... Before they made it a multi-role fighter with great success.

The F-15E Strike Eagle is considered a Fighter-Bomber.

Yes, a multirole fighter.

Half of those planes are obsolete and out of service.

I find it funny whenever people say the F-35 is a failure because it takes on too many roles, then fellate over the F-15 which was designed expressly as an air superiority fighter... Before they made it a multi-role fighter with great success.

The failure of the F-35 project is less to do with the capability of the plane itself and more to do with it's applicability to the task it was created for.
Is the F-35 a better multirole fighter than the F-16 and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet? Yes.
Can the air force and navy actually afford to implement it as a replacement to those planes? No.
This is a problem because that's explicitly what the project was for, and they don't have anything else that can fill the role because they assumed that's what the F-35 would do.

It takes time to replace older equipment, news at 11.

[Philjia]

The failure of the F-35 project is less to do with the capability of the plane itself and more to do with it's applicability to the task it was created for.
Is the F-35 a better multirole fighter than the F-16 and F/A-18E/F Super Hornet? Yes.
Can the air force and navy actually afford to implement it as a replacement to those planes? No.
This is a problem because that's explicitly what the project was for, and they don't have anything else that can fill the role because they assumed that's what the F-35 would do.

It takes time to replace older equipment, news at 11.

Except that the USAF wants those F-16 replacements rather quicker than the F-35's costs allow. Same with the Navy. The Fighting Falcon and the Hornet are cold war era tech. Most of the Falcons are about 28 years old. They want them gone, and fast. Also the F-35s are not cheap to run, what with the engine wear. That's why the air force is considering ordering some cheaper jets to bulk out their numbers. Obviously, you could make the case that they dont actually need that many fighters, but that just transfers the cock up from the F-35 program to the air force and navy who didn't prepare for a future where they had far fewer jets.

[Risottia]

Really, you cannot expect a single aircraft, albeit in three different variants, to cover the whole range of operational tasks of F-16, F/A-18, Harrier, Tornado, A-10, A-6, F-14, EF-4, EA-18, F-111, F-117, AMX.

Half of those planes are obsolete and out of service.

Those planes might be obsolete, but afaik F-16 is still operational, so is the F/A-18, the A-10, the EA-18, the Harrier, the AMX the Tornado too. The point, though, is not about the planes, it's about their roles.

I find it funny whenever people say the F-35 is a failure because it takes on too many roles, then fellate over the F-15 which was designed expressly as an air superiority fighter... Before they made it a multi-role fighter with great success.

Er, no. No F-15 is a multirole. There are two dedicated variants: the "not a pound for air-to-ground" one and the "Strike Eagle" which is dedicated to interdiction and deep strike.
And that makes TWO roles: heavy interceptor and strike bomber.
The F-35 is expected to be a light interceptor, a strike bomber, a CATOBAR multirole, a STOVL multirole, a close-support fighterbomber, an EADS, a tactical fighter... too many roles, calling for a lot of compromises when you slam them all on a single airframe.

[Violent Mike]

Half of those planes are obsolete and out of service.

Those planes might be obsolete, but afaik F-16 is still operational, so is the F/A-18, the A-10, the EA-18, the Harrier, the AMX the Tornado too. The point, though, is not about the planes, it's about their roles.

Their roles with huge amounts of overlap?

Er, no. No F-15 is a multirole. There are two dedicated variants: the "not a pound for air-to-ground" one and the "Strike Eagle" which is dedicated to interdiction and deep strike.

That's what I said. They made it a multi-role fighter with great success.

And that makes TWO roles: heavy interceptor and strike bomber.
The F-35 is expected to be a light interceptor, a strike bomber, a CATOBAR multirole, a STOVL multirole, a close-support fighterbomber, an EADS, a tactical fighter... too many roles, calling for a lot of compromises when you slam them all on a single airframe.

You do know like half of those roles already overlap a lot, right?

As for CATOBAR and STOVL, there's a reason they made three variants and not one.

[The Lone Alliance]

The F-15E Strike Eagle is considered a Fighter-Bomber. The F-35 might be a bit expensive but its certainly cheaper than the F-22.

It's too bad the Silent Eagle will never see the light of day.

There it is, I think. The A-10s role can be replaced/heavily supplemented with Apaches easily, and to a degree have in modern Low Intensity Conflicts, but it's just not feasible to replace the A-10, F-18, F-16, and portions of the F-15 fleet with the F-35.

It's far more likely that the A-10's role will be replaced with Drones, Turkey has shown in Syria, Libya, and Armenia how well Drone swarms can work in making things hell for the troops on the ground even if they do have air defense capabilities. ke t

If it costs about the same to build one than it does to build the missile system that shoots them down it's even cost effective.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Australia has none. We have two of the Canberra class, which look like small carriers because the Spanish demanded money to take the ski-jump out of the design. Or maybe the Australian government doesn't want these landing-ships appearing on the West Pacific theatre as Aircraft Carriers, until there's a reason to do so ... it would signal the start of a Naval Arms Race.

Does anyone know why the US persists with flat decks on carriers, when so many other countries opt for the ski-jump?

Because a ski jump carrier can be smaller, less complex and cheaper but it has various tradeoffs that don't generally make them as capable as the larger catapult equipped carriers the US has. The US basically just has the budget not to skimp.

Look, that mostly makes sense. I still think converting some of the plane's forward momentum into upward momentum, is worth giving up some catapult length or traditional runway. Because a plane not yet airborne would have longer (5 seconds longer maybe) to get that magic combination of altitude and forward speed which is flying.

How could the US be wrong? Well as you say, by just paying for more. Saying there's anything wrong with US carriers would be foolish of me, since they are undefeated in battle since WW2. But they all tend to maximizing deck length and width, but with Yorktown (CV-10) there began a lasting tradition of having two runways: a short one from the stern, for fighters which could stand up to a catapult, and also from the stern, the longest possible runway for more stately aircraft. Of course fighters could use the longer strip too, with less weapon load and more grunt out the back. It's not wrong: getting fighters up as fast as they can be brought to deck, is absolutely essential. And two strips, because when planes fuck up and clutter a strip, at least you have another strip.

No pilot wants to nearly take off, then trip over some dumbass ramp which was put there for lesser pilots (or lesser aircraft). And I imagine they don't like the idea of less than maximum throttle to take off, so they can ride the ramp. What pilots want, is the whole history of US carriers. Getting used to odd characteristics of the carrier, is not something they welcome.

Carriers should have a short fight deck (because F-35 etc don't need a long one) with elevators at both ends so planes can take off both ways. No castle: that's a radar target and the carrier's own radar and visual range can be ensured by lesser craft (without crew even). The whole carrier should be able to lower into the water, at least so far as prevailing seas allow aircraft on and off. The whole carrier should be able to submerge to avoid detection or attacks. None of this is hard, it only requires putting pilots second after the carrier they fly off, and building more and smaller carriers.

But what do I know. My nation's last carrier was the HMS Melbourne, which holds the Commonwealth record for sinking friendly naval vessels. Two, if you care.

[Vassenor]

Because a ski jump carrier can be smaller, less complex and cheaper but it has various tradeoffs that don't generally make them as capable as the larger catapult equipped carriers the US has. The US basically just has the budget not to skimp.

Look, that mostly makes sense. I still think converting some of the plane's forward momentum into upward momentum, is worth giving up some catapult length or traditional runway. Because a plane not yet airborne would have longer (5 seconds longer maybe) to get that magic combination of altitude and forward speed which is flying.

How could the US be wrong? Well as you say, by just paying for more. Saying there's anything wrong with US carriers would be foolish of me, since they are undefeated in battle since WW2. But they all tend to maximizing deck length and width, but with Yorktown (CV-10) there began a lasting tradition of having two runways: a short one from the stern, for fighters which could stand up to a catapult, and also from the stern, the longest possible runway for more stately aircraft. Of course fighters could use the longer strip too, with less weapon load and more grunt out the back. It's not wrong: getting fighters up as fast as they can be brought to deck, is absolutely essential. And two strips, because when planes fuck up and clutter a strip, at least you have another strip.

No pilot wants to nearly take off, then trip over some dumbass ramp which was put there for lesser pilots (or lesser aircraft). And I imagine they don't like the idea of less than maximum throttle to take off, so they can ride the ramp. What pilots want, is the whole history of US carriers. Getting used to odd characteristics of the carrier, is not something they welcome.

Carriers should have a short fight deck (because F-35 etc don't need a long one) with elevators at both ends so planes can take off both ways. No castle: that's a radar target and the carrier's own radar and visual range can be ensured by lesser craft (without crew even). The whole carrier should be able to lower into the water, at least so far as prevailing seas allow aircraft on and off. The whole carrier should be able to submerge to avoid detection or attacks. None of this is hard, it only requires putting pilots second after the carrier they fly off, and building more and smaller carriers.

But what do I know. My nation's last carrier was the HMS Melbourne, which holds the Commonwealth record for sinking friendly naval vessels. Two, if you care.

I mean we already tried submarine aircraft carriers and flush-deck aircraft carriers during WW2. Given that we do neither of these things almost a century later suggests they don't work.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Look, that mostly makes sense. I still think converting some of the plane's forward momentum into upward momentum, is worth giving up some catapult length or traditional runway. Because a plane not yet airborne would have longer (5 seconds longer maybe) to get that magic combination of altitude and forward speed which is flying.

How could the US be wrong? Well as you say, by just paying for more. Saying there's anything wrong with US carriers would be foolish of me, since they are undefeated in battle since WW2. But they all tend to maximizing deck length and width, but with Yorktown (CV-10) there began a lasting tradition of having two runways: a short one from the stern, for fighters which could stand up to a catapult, and also from the stern, the longest possible runway for more stately aircraft. Of course fighters could use the longer strip too, with less weapon load and more grunt out the back. It's not wrong: getting fighters up as fast as they can be brought to deck, is absolutely essential. And two strips, because when planes fuck up and clutter a strip, at least you have another strip.

No pilot wants to nearly take off, then trip over some dumbass ramp which was put there for lesser pilots (or lesser aircraft). And I imagine they don't like the idea of less than maximum throttle to take off, so they can ride the ramp. What pilots want, is the whole history of US carriers. Getting used to odd characteristics of the carrier, is not something they welcome.

Carriers should have a short fight deck (because F-35 etc don't need a long one) with elevators at both ends so planes can take off both ways. No castle: that's a radar target and the carrier's own radar and visual range can be ensured by lesser craft (without crew even). The whole carrier should be able to lower into the water, at least so far as prevailing seas allow aircraft on and off. The whole carrier should be able to submerge to avoid detection or attacks. None of this is hard, it only requires putting pilots second after the carrier they fly off, and building more and smaller carriers.

But what do I know. My nation's last carrier was the HMS Melbourne, which holds the Commonwealth record for sinking friendly naval vessels. Two, if you care.

I mean we already tried submarine aircraft carriers and flush-deck aircraft carriers during WW2. Given that we do neither of these things almost a century later suggests they don't work.

It does suggest that. On the other hand, maybe "what pilots want, pilots get" and a thousand Navy sailors shouldn't be risked to make it so.

70 years ago it was tried. You don't think it's worth trying again, from a modern perspective that a sailor's life is worth the same as a flyer's life? Plus, y'know, technology we have now?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

The modern submarine aircraft carrier already exists. It's the SSGN. VTOL is a meme that's only alive thanks to second rate powers like Britain (who doesn't want to have a navy), and the USMC aviation branch who needs jeep carriers. Its penalties in carrying capacity are horrendous simply because we still haven't got a powerful enough air-breathing engine to lift 40 tons straight off the deck.

[Vassenor]

I mean we already tried submarine aircraft carriers and flush-deck aircraft carriers during WW2. Given that we do neither of these things almost a century later suggests they don't work.

It does suggest that. On the other hand, maybe "what pilots want, pilots get" and a thousand Navy sailors shouldn't be risked to make it so.

70 years ago it was tried. You don't think it's worth trying again, from a modern perspective that a sailor's life is worth the same as a flyer's life? Plus, y'know, technology we have now?

The flush deck configuration proved to have significant drawbacks, primary of which was management of the exhaust from the power plant. Fumes coming across the deck were a major issue in USS Langley. In addition, lack of an island meant difficulties managing the flight deck, performing air traffic control, a lack of radar housing placements and problems with navigating and controlling the ship itself.

So removing the superstructure from an aircraft carrier makes the ship more difficult to sail effectively.

[Hansdeltania]

The UK actually has two aircraft carriers floating, although the HMS Prince of Wales won't be ready for full operations until 2023 at the earliest.

Australia has none. We have two of the Canberra class, which look like small carriers because the Spanish demanded money to take the ski-jump out of the design. Or maybe the Australian government doesn't want these landing-ships appearing on the West Pacific theatre as Aircraft Carriers, until there's a reason to do so ... it would signal the start of a Naval Arms Race.

Does anyone know why the US persists with flat decks on carriers, when so many other countries opt for the ski-jump?

Because the US is the only country in the world with the budget to support large aircraft carriers that can support catapults, which are sufficiently more capable than ski-jump ramps.

With catapults, you can get a 30-ton fighter jet in the air with a full weapons and fuel load. Ski-jump ramps only have the aircraft's airspeed (affected by aircraft weight), which is why the Russian Su-33 can't do as well with weapons or fuel. If you want plenty of weapons on the Su-33, you'll have to reduce its fuel for launch. If you want it to have legs, you have to disarm most of it.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Australia has none. We have two of the Canberra class, which look like small carriers because the Spanish demanded money to take the ski-jump out of the design. Or maybe the Australian government doesn't want these landing-ships appearing on the West Pacific theatre as Aircraft Carriers, until there's a reason to do so ... it would signal the start of a Naval Arms Race.

Does anyone know why the US persists with flat decks on carriers, when so many other countries opt for the ski-jump?

Because the US is the only country in the world with the budget to support large aircraft carriers that can support catapults, which are sufficiently more capable than ski-jump ramps.

With catapults, you can get a 30-ton fighter jet in the air with a full weapons and fuel load. Ski-jump ramps only have the aircraft's airspeed (affected by aircraft weight), which is why the Russian Su-33 can't do as well with weapons or fuel. If you want plenty of weapons on the Su-33, you'll have to reduce its fuel for launch. If you want it to have legs, you have to disarm most of it.

There's actually not much technical that prevents one from both having a skijump and a catapult. But that removes on-deck parking space. However since the USN no longer sails with 96 aircraft with every other CVN (it does with 50-60 these days) lack of space is becoming less and less of a problem.
The other issue with innovation ofc is political will and money. Both of which most defence ministries lack.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Australia has none. We have two of the Canberra class, which look like small carriers because the Spanish demanded money to take the ski-jump out of the design. Or maybe the Australian government doesn't want these landing-ships appearing on the West Pacific theatre as Aircraft Carriers, until there's a reason to do so ... it would signal the start of a Naval Arms Race.

Does anyone know why the US persists with flat decks on carriers, when so many other countries opt for the ski-jump?

Because the US is the only country in the world with the budget to support large aircraft carriers that can support catapults, which are sufficiently more capable than ski-jump ramps.

With catapults, you can get a 30-ton fighter jet in the air with a full weapons and fuel load. Ski-jump ramps only have the aircraft's airspeed (affected by aircraft weight), which is why the Russian Su-33 can't do as well with weapons or fuel. If you want plenty of weapons on the Su-33, you'll have to reduce its fuel for launch. If you want it to have legs, you have to disarm most of it.

So bigger is better? On the surface of the ocean, where a missile has to be really dumb not to pick out the biggest target?

You are right though, the US does not bother with the ski-jump because the US does not care about price.

Still I have to wonder why the US didn't build more, and smaller, carriers with only 2 catapults. It would be half as long. That gets technical, but as I understand it a ship that only has to be half as long, will have even less than half the dead weight, and be much more maneuverable.

At least tell me you don't want to build more than one Ford class. This is the missile age, aircraft are a bad investment. Aircraft carriers are a niche, a luxury for massive militaries that can afford even one. Floating coffins yeah?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

Also the idea that USN aviators are somehow averse to running off the end of a skijump is bogus.
With a proper defensive network of cruiser-destroyers, a competent fighter complement and some cubesat SBIRS seeing yo Tu-22M3's/triple hypersonic memes when they take off even from space, missiles are not ship-killers. Submarines on the other hand.

[The Lone Alliance]

So bigger is better? On the surface of the ocean, where a missile has to be really dumb not to pick out the biggest target?

Bigger is better because bigger means you'll need a whole lot of missiles to sink said target. That's what the US discovered when they attempted to sink CV-66 America on purpose, a carrier around the size of the modern ford classes, they fired missiles at her for four weeks, and they still had to go in there and manually scuttle her in the end. That's the thing about really really large ships, it's a big target but it's also a big enough target that it can tank a lot of hits.

It's also easier to guard one single large ship than it is to guard two or three smaller ships.

You are right though, the US does not bother with the ski-jump because the US does not care about price.

Also the US has some carrier based planes that cannot use a Ski-jump. If the US switched to using Ski-jumps they would have to drop those planes, one which is the very AWACs plane they'd need to keep an eye out for incoming long range missiles.

Strategically if you want to get a lot of planes in the air the Catapult works way better than the Skijump, that and you can launch heavier stuff off a catapult instead of a skijump that means more ordinance and more fuel, which is better.

France also uses CATOBAR as well and you can't argue they're doing it because of price, they're doing it because it's better for the price.

Still I have to wonder why the US didn't build more, and smaller, carriers with only 2 catapults. It would be half as long. That gets technical, but as I understand it a ship that only has to be half as long, will have even less than half the dead weight, and be much more maneuverable.

For most of the Cold War they didn't need to because they still had enough older carriers to do that job for them. Why build a bunch of tiny carriers when you have a bunch of Essex and Midway classes that can do that?

And then when the cold war was over, again why build a bunch of light carriers that would require more manpower, more escort vessels, and more money when it's far more cost effective to build a super carrier and have that singular super carrier escorted.

That's the thing you're too busy thinking "But half the size means half the manpower" you're forgetting that now since you're guarding TWO ships you'll need to double the escort. That destroys whatever money you saved.

What's the point of building smaller carriers when you need to build twice as many frigates and cruisers to protect them, oh yeah and fine the manpower to man all those ships.... that's a lot of extra money.

At least tell me you don't want to build more than one Ford class. This is the missile age, aircraft are a bad investment. Aircraft carriers are a niche, a luxury for massive militaries that can afford even one. Floating coffins yeah?

People have been saying that since the 50s, just like people have said "The tank is on the way out" since a week after the tank was invented.

[Kubra]

At least tell me you don't want to build more than one Ford class. This is the missile age, aircraft are a bad investment. Aircraft carriers are a niche, a luxury for massive militaries that can afford even one. Floating coffins yeah?

People have been saying that since the 50s, just like people have said "The tank is on the way out" since a week after the tank was invented.

But the tank really has lost a lot of its early prestige and general utility.
It's better to say that wars are a set of jobs. Not all sets will contain all jobs, and different jobs will require often different tools in varying orders of importance. There are, after all, wars in which in this example tanks are a bit unsuited at best and functionally useless death traps at worst. And, of course, there are ones where tanks still are just right for many jobs.

[Vassenor]

People have been saying that since the 50s, just like people have said "The tank is on the way out" since a week after the tank was invented.

Also the guided missile is going to obsolete the manned aircraft any day now since the 1950s.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

So bigger is better? On the surface of the ocean, where a missile has to be really dumb not to pick out the biggest target?

Bigger is better because bigger means you'll need a whole lot of missiles to sink said target. That's what the US discovered when they attempted to sink CV-66 America on purpose, a carrier around the size of the modern ford classes, they fired missiles at her for four weeks, and they still had to go in there and manually scuttle her in the end.

So the Navy practiced with missiles and still couldn't get a kill after four weeks?

There's two lessons they could learn from that.

That's the thing about really really large ships, it's a big target but it's also a big enough target that it can tank a lot of hits.

It's also easier to guard one single large ship than it is to guard two or three smaller ships.

We hope.

You are right though, the US does not bother with the ski-jump because the US does not care about price.

Also the US has some carrier based planes that cannot use a Ski-jump. If the US switched to using Ski-jumps they would have to drop those planes, one which is the very AWACs plane they'd need to keep an eye out for incoming long range missiles.

AWACS is a very useful plane. Australian Air Force has 6 of them, though they may be a bit old.

At some point we should all recognize that old civilian airframes aren't the best for such a crucial role.

Strategically if you want to get a lot of planes in the air the Catapult works way better than the Skijump, that and you can launch heavier stuff off a catapult instead of a skijump that means more ordinance and more fuel, which is better.

But as you just said, planes need to be capable for catapult. Or ski-jump. Catapult looks best, when generations of your planes have been designed to cope with it.

France also uses CATOBAR as well and you can't argue they're doing it because of price, they're doing it because it's better for the price.

Yeah, sure. France's aircraft carrier look exactly like an Enterprise class, because the French have a great grasp of market economics. They fly Rafales off it, that's the fighter-bomber they insisted on producing themselves, though Eurofighter/Typhoon would have saved them money.

Still I have to wonder why the US didn't build more, and smaller, carriers with only 2 catapults. It would be half as long. That gets technical, but as I understand it a ship that only has to be half as long, will have even less than half the dead weight, and be much more maneuverable.

For most of the Cold War they didn't need to because they still had enough older carriers to do that job for them. Why build a bunch of tiny carriers when you have a bunch of Essex and Midway classes that can do that?

And then when the cold war was over, again why build a bunch of light carriers that would require more manpower, more escort vessels, and more money when it's far more cost effective to build a super carrier and have that singular super carrier escorted.

That's the thing you're too busy thinking "But half the size means half the manpower" you're forgetting that now since you're guarding TWO ships you'll need to double the escort. That destroys whatever money you saved.

What's the point of building smaller carriers when you need to build twice as many frigates and cruisers to protect them, oh yeah and fine the manpower to man all those ships.... that's a lot of extra money.

At least tell me you don't want to build more than one Ford class. This is the missile age, aircraft are a bad investment. Aircraft carriers are a niche, a luxury for massive militaries that can afford even one. Floating coffins yeah?

People have been saying that since the 50s, just like people have said "The tank is on the way out" since a week after the tank was invented.

Sure. But the (unguided) missile age began in WWII, and unguided missiles were quite formidable by Vietnam. It's all about the guidance, and counting on radar-guided guns to shoot down a mach 3 missile coming at your carrier, is quite a gamble considering missile can make decisions in essentially zero time (long before your bullets get to it) and maneuver with front and back fins.

Going for the cheapest option is not foolish at all. A thousand missiles for one carrier ... is a win.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

So the Navy practiced with missiles and still couldn't get a kill after four weeks?

There's two lessons they could learn from that.

You know Akagi herself burned for a whole day before sinking right? Making a ship actually go down is hard.