I think that there are a couple of key points to note when asking for an answer to this question - Smaller Carrier?
1. One of the key reasons why they are to be so big is for the following. firstly if you look way back to the 50's and 60's and then to the 70's carrier sizes didn't grow that much but the size of the aircraft did. By mid way through the Vietnam the Essex class were operating a mix of F-4s and A-6s. At 36,550 tons full, they were just at the edge of manageable. However, second point, to achieve high sortie rates they needed two or more in the same area to achieve good target coverage. You could argu that precision weapons means that weapon effect means smaller payloads, however you still need the sortie rate.
Ark Royal and Eagle we approaching the 55,000 ton mark and operating Bucs and Phantoms. If you look a pics of her FD with aircraft on, they look very crowded.
2. It naturally follows that as aircraft grew in size then, they will now. JCA is no exception, its massive. They grow because they need longer legs, internal bomb bays for stealth. Better multifunction radar, ******* quick engine etc etc
3. Achieving sortie rates is in part about being able to launch and recover simultaneously. I can't comment on the choreography required between hangar movements up to FD, Cat launches and aircraft trapping. However the bigger the FD, surely the easier it becomes.
4. VSTOL or CV?? Next question that falls out of this. Imagine a 65,000 ship in a sea state 4,5 or 6?? The centre of gravity will be stable however the ends of the flight deck could be pitching as much 35 feet. I know from talking to USN chaps that launch and recovery is at the edge of limits in these conditions. So VSTOL then, well it offers flexibility of launch and recovery however doesn't offer flexibility of aircraft types.
5. The CVFs are to be 65,000 to ensure that they will be viable FDs until 2050. If you operate VSTOL who's to say that the replacement will be VSTOL? There is a certain amount of hedging of bets, but there may be no more manned aircraft by 2050 - removing winging WAFUs from wardrooms - bliss - no more shit dits about flying pay and needed 8 hrs kip a day!!!
6. However 65,000 tons is about the minimum actually required to ensure that we don't need to keep replacing them. Costs? The price of ship grade steel is very expensive at the moment. Although inflation according to the RPI is about 4.25% defence industry inflation is running at about 9.5% The longer we leave construction the more expensive they will become.
7. If we wanted a carrier on time, to budget and to spec really we should be looking to the Americans. They have been making CVNs since the late sixties. A chap who lives in my village works for Lockheed Martin, say that they have had a set of plans on the shelf for a 65,000 - 75,000 ton carrier since the late 80s because every year since then the DoD has the same argument with congress about a smaller carrier. LM offered to sell the UK Mod the plans, we said no - political reasons.
8. JCA - on paper is superb. Where do i start. Super cruise - high mach numbers without afterburner. Stealth technology, datalink capability to die for. All weather you can't bend it phased array radar. However it isn't in service yet. I'd pick FA-18E/F to operete for the time being, low procurement cost, no issues with servicing or upgrades and a decent payload. It would also offer AAR and ESM capabilities.
The simple way to look at the argument is that 65,000 is the minimum not the maximum. I deally 80,000 would be best. However where the f*ck do you put them!!!
enjoy
