All good reasons indeed, but this struck me: "Yeah, but all those 500,000 ton tankers are built in Asian shipyards. Except for a handful of yards building USN and CG vessels, some specialist yards buiding tugs and various small boats, and a few making yachts, there is no US shipbuilding industry left. Somehow, I don't think you'll see the USN ordering a 300,000 ton super-duper carrier from a Chinese, or even a Korean, yard. Now, would it make sense for the US to have the capacity to build supertankers? Of course it would, but you could never build them as cheaply here as in Asia (or Norway for that matter) and as such no one would buy them. " Does it not worry the US at all that it has essentially lost the capability to build ships? If I were American this would worry me enormously! I am all for free trade, but surely a country like the USA would want to keep at least some limited capacity in every industry (even at the cost of some inefficiency) for strategic reasons!?!?

Heh, in the future we may see a 300,000 ton Chinese supercarrier, since they are the ones with yards large enough! (semi j/k , but it is a scary thought!)

Not quite true, there exists military warship building capacity, but CIVILIAN ship building capability has highly degraded in favor of building smaller container cargo ships. Most of these supertanker size vessels are bulk carriers that are unable to carry containers in significant amounts without major overhaul and reconstruction. The largest container ship I believe is the Susan Maersk at 6600 TEU (Twenty ft Equiv Unit, a unit of measure for container units), with an avg max weight of 26-29 tons per container that leaves a max payload of 191,400 tons. The key here is it isn't in BULK per se, but is already in a container and ready to be placed on trains and trucks and ready for shipping. The trend these days is to make container vessels, especially midsize ones which are cheaper to operate and can go into shallower ports or ports with less unloading equipment. The major problem we're seeing in the merchant marine industries around the world is that insurance groups are charging higher rates for larger vessels and operating costs of these vessels eat into the profit margins. Its the major reason the US merchant marine is essentially dead (especially when combined with US regs regarding safety and standards for vessels to operate under a US registry). What should also be noted is that while Korea and Japan, and including quite possibly China, are looking at potentially making ships that can carry 8000+ containers these would be deep water vessels. A final aspect to note is, having civilian major freighter building industry does not necessarily mean you can make warships as easily. Design systems, redundancy, interfacing of equipment, etc are very difficult and requires a bit of experience to make work. If you ever want to see shipbuilding really pick up in the US theres a simple way to do it. Have the Navy announce to the world that it will only protect US flagged vessels or come to a vessels aid in dire situations only (yes I know its a disgusting move but its also very machiavellian). You can then watch everyone dive for US registries and insurance companies only underwriting US flagged vessels.

Quote: At any rate, it is likely still a priority to have something that fits through Panama." Does the word "Panamax" ring a bell? If not; it's a term describing the maximum dimensions for ships trying to squeeze into the canal. I'm not sure about lenght, draft and such but hull width cannot exceed 33m (108ft). The current CVNs are all 39,8m to 40,5m wide and therefore on this count alone are far to big for the Panama canal. No USN carrier since the WWII Essex-class has been able to go through the canal.

Quote: "Ignoring cost/capability issues of the F-35 for a moment, how do you plan to accomodate other types of aircraft other than the STOVL F-35 on a catapult-less ship?" Good question; I'll return to it in short order. Quote: "The F-35 is not intended to be the sole aircraft type of the future USN." Apart from continued use of Hawkeye and future UAVs/UCAVs you will indeed find F-35 to be the only F/W aircraft type used by the USN from its carriers. It will be some years before that is the case, but concentrating on one airframe is the way to go - and the USN will eventually have to accept that F-35 will be the last brand new model for a very, very, veeeery long time to come. Now on the issue of accommodating other F/W aircraft without catapults and arresting wires: As you will learn from reading the "Bigger US Carriers" thread, I'm a big fan of very large BUT very simple carriers. We're talking Jahre Viking lenght at 1500ft (or slightly more). Yes, I'm willing to sacrifice some speed to achieve a very large and very long flightdeck, not to mention a very large hangar. And yes, such a ship will not be as manouverable as current CVN, but that's mostly a moot point. You'd be able to launch STOVL jets from a 1500ft runway with a ski-jump even if you're not heading into the wind...and recover them too in VL, of course. Then there's the Hawkeye. We'd certainly like to keep that until something better can be thought up. A fully loaded Hawkeye can take off in 1850ft. Unfortunately we don't have a 1850ft long CV, but we DO have the opportunity to arrange for at least 25 knots wind-over-deck(ship heading into the wind) and we DO have a ski-jump on the bows of our CV and there's also the option of using RATO. All these measures will help to considerably shorten the required runway lenght, providing for a safe TO. Returning again the Hawkeye will need 1440ft to land. We actually DO have that long a flightdeck, but again we can provide 25 knots wind-over-deck just to make sure the landing can be made with reasonable safety margins. With F-35(STOVL) and Hawkeye/Greyhound safely onboard there's no urgent need for more, but I'd include one more type. A handful of Hercules A2A tankers to extend the range of the F-35s in case the USAF is unable to provide an airborne gasstation. Hercules can land and TO from even current CVNs without any modifications. A much larger(longer) CV will allow that ability to be used as a matter of routine.

"Does the word "Panamax" ring a bell? If not; it's a term describing the maximum dimensions for ships trying to squeeze into the canal. I'm not sure about lenght, draft and such but hull width cannot exceed 33m (108ft)." Indeed, you are so right. I thought they had retained the narrower beam through at least the Forrestals, but alas not even the old Midway could fit through. My bad. --Len

Hugin, fair enough... but where/how would you build such carriers? It has been pointed out that even for the largest docks in the US the Nimitz is the limit in size. The carrier you propose would have perhaps 150,000-200,000 tons or even more and apparently no US dock is capable of handling that.

Quote: "....but where/how would you build such carriers? It has been pointed out that even for the largest docks in the US the Nimitz is the limit in size" I'd rather not meddle in the completely chaotic US procurement process, but if you asked me 1on1, I'd say it's not exactly rocket science to build a new very large dry-dock. And the cost would be only a fraction of what the new generation of planned CVNs will "bleed" the taxpayers for. Alternatively, order the hull from a South Korean yard an fit out in the US. Steel is cheap and an empty hull represents only a tiny fraction of the total cost of a CVN, so why not let those with the expertise, the large drydocks and the low wages handle that little problem? Ohh, wait.....I forgot politics will screw up common sense as usual. Please ignore my last suggestion!

I think it is possible to build a super size ship without a super size dry dock. A super sized ship could be build on steel rollers supported by hugh cranes and then pulled to the water upon completion. I believe the South Koreans are building ships by using this system.

As recently as at least 1992 CNA conducted carrier studies that looked at designs up to 216,000 tons and 1,602 feet IIRC (and using the existing Nimitz plant). Looked at on a "cost-per-aircraft-at-sea basis", they do show improvements over A Nimitz type carrier. However, we still have the same sorts of operational limits that cap the Nimitz at their current size (or the RN carriers at their size). American ports, naval facilities, and even building yards simply don't have room for carriers dramatically larger than the current Nimitz CVN's. Another important factor is aircraft cost, which has also curtailed interest in larger carriers. Right now we can't fill the existing 95,000 ton carriers air wings. What in hell are we supposed to do with a 200,000 ton carrier? It becomes just a lot of wasted space. In fact, a larger carrier might not require a substantially larger plant.