Modern Aircraft Carriers: Scaling for Strategic Heavy Bombers like the B-1 Lancer

An Analysis of the Necessity and Feasibility

When considering the integration of heavy bombers like the B-1 Lancer onto modern aircraft carriers, significant challenges arise, primarily related to the size and specialized engineering requirements of these bombers. Joe Beck has rightly pointed out that the scale of such a transformation would be substantial, though perhaps not quite as immense as suggested. The primary question, however, is whether this is a viable or advantageous strategy, given the current operational context.

Rationale for Heavy Bombers on Carrier-borne Operations

The primary function of heavy bombers is long-range strategic attacks. With the advent of long-range capabilities, bombers like the B-1 Lancer can now reach virtually any target on the planet from overseas airbases. For instance, during the 2003 Iraq War, U.S. bombers launched from bases in America were able to reach their targets successfully. Therefore, it is unclear what strategic advantage a carrier could provide beyond what is already achievable through conventional basing methods. The sheer complexity and the necessity for specialized infrastructure on the carrier make it highly unfeasible and less advantageous compared to existing basing strategies.

Engineering Requirements for Carrier-borne Operation

Navy aircraft require specialized equipment and engineering to operate successfully on carriers due to the unique challenges of takeoff and landing. Almost all other aircraft lack this engineering, making a direct fit impossible for modern strategic bombers. The B-1 Lancer, for example, was not designed for carrier catapults or arresting wire landings. As such, a new carrier capable of supporting B-1 operations would need extensive modifications to mimic the existing airbases from which it operates. Two such bases, for instance, have runways 13,500 feet in length. Consequently, a new carrier designed for B-1 operations would need a similar runway length, translating to a carrier that is about 12 times longer than the current Gerald Ford Class carriers. This new carrier, at approximately 13,500 feet in length (2.56 miles), would also need to be over 4 times wider, around 568 feet, to accommodate the B-1 Lancer's dimensions.

Comparative Analysis

The current-generation Ford Class carriers are the largest carriers being produced, measuring 1,106 feet in length. Thus, a carrier designed to carry the B-1 Lancer would be more than 12 times longer. The beam (width) issue is equally significant, with a rule of thumb formula suggesting a beam of 568 feet, not including any overhang. This is in stark contrast to the Ford Class, which is 134 feet at the waterline. Such a massive increase in dimensions poses logistical and operational challenges that are currently beyond practicality. Moreover, the search for a dry dock capable of accommodating such a vessel would be equivalent to a technological race, with few industrial capabilities up to the task.

Conclusion: The Case Against Strategic Integration

The engineering marvel required to support the integration of strategic bombers like the B-1 Lancer onto modern aircraft carriers is impractical and unnecessary. The current operational context already provides sufficient long-range capabilities through overseas basing methods. Building a carrier of such scale would not only be immensely expensive but also logistically challenging. It might be more sensible to focus on developing specialized bases and support structures that can meet the operational requirements of heavy bombers without the need for such a grand scale of naval engineering. Maybe, just maybe, our enemies would see the wisdom in such a project, but for now, the focus should remain on efficient and effective basing strategies.