One question we must always ask is if the equipment we are purchasing is needed. Is so then there are the follow up question, such as:
1) Is it the most cost effective equipment for the use intended?
2) What is the functional life span of the equipment (before it becomes obsolete)?
3) What are the annual maintenance costs of the equipment to be purchased?
4) Is there a substantial secondary investment required for the equipment which is to be purchased?
5) And finally, what will be the return on the investment?
Aircraft carriers can be basically divided into three group: super carriers, such as those operated by the Americans and soon to be English (Queen Elizabeth) & Chinese; the light carriers such as the French, Brasil and English (ex Hermes), etc.; and the small carriers (or helicopter carriers, V/STOL), such as the Italians, Spanish, English, etc.
Aircraft Carrier projects military power and operates with a main fleet, where it provides an offensive capability. The Light Carriers provide fleet defense, such as merchant ship convoy defense or protection of and amphibious assault group. The small carriers basically provide support for amphibious landings and ASW defense.
• Catapult Assisted Take-Off But Arrested Recovery
• Short Take-Off But Arrested Recovery
• Short Take-Off Vertical Landing
Using catapults and arrestor cables are necessary if you are planning to use larger aircraft incorporating heavy payloads and fuel for longer ranges. Carriers without this system reduce weight, complexity, and space needed this system. Russian and future Indian carriers include a ski-jump ramp for launching conventional aircraft. The disadvantage of the ski-jump is the penalty it exacts on aircraft size, payload, and fuel load (and thus range): large, slow planes such as the E-2 Hawkeye and heavily laden strike fighters like the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and Sukhoi Su-33 cannot successfully launch using a ski-jump because their high loaded weight requires either a longer takeoff roll than is possible on a carrier deck, or catapult assistance, although the Su-33 does launch with a light fuel and weapons load from a ski jump, However then you have to get into that whole in-flight refueling problem.
Now back to the questions at hand:
1) Is it the most cost effective equipment for the use intended? Unless you are a super power and need to perform extends offensive operations, or control and maintain open shipping lanes, the use of a super carrier is not needed. If the intent is to just to provide fleet air and ASW defense or support limited amphibious operations, then a light carrier will fill the role. This of course is keeping in mind that you are projecting military power. If military power is not being projected overseas, then the point is mute.
2) What is the functional life span of the equipment (before it becomes obsolete)? The problem with many of the second hand carriers is they are being sold for a reason. They have become functionally obsolete in the nation they currently serve and the costs to modernize the vessel to current standards (in addition to maintenance cost) are prohibitive. That is why you see many “second hand” carriers serving in 3rd world, or developing nation’s navies. Those countries could not spend the monies require to build a carrier, therefore they are left with purchasing the carriers used and performing the upgrade themselves, or in the nation that sold them the carrier.
3) What are the annual maintenance costs of the equipment to be purchased? Carriers are expensive to buy, upgrade and especially maintain. The crew of a carrier needs to constantly train to maintain an effective readiness. Use have all the maintenance operations of a large cruiser plus the complication of aircraft landing and taking off, aircraft, munitions, fuel, maintenance. It’s a well choreographed symbiotic operation and thusly expensive.
4) Is there a substantial secondary investment required for the equipment which is to be purchased? Yes, it’s not only the purchase, modernization, training, and maintenance as mentioned above, but also the cost aircraft and associated equipment.
And finally, what will be the return on the investment? This is the subjective question. Again, unless you are projecting military power overseas (i.e. foreign shores), what’s the point. If the objective is to prove that you are the biggest dog on the block, then yes mission accomplished. But at what cost? You have diverted resources that could have been used elsewhere in your Navy to one unit which requires a great deal of support and funds.
