And the Wasp. All in for mapping and paint.

I always wished they would have made the CVLs based on a modified Wasp class CV. She really was too small to operate as a true fleet carrier but the design was solid and with some tinkering the class would have had a bright future as a CVL. The Independence and Siapan classes were fine but they never really could do the job as assistants to fleet carriers as well as a half a dozen Wasp class carriers could have. I know the Wasp had some serious drawbacks but the positives would have outweighed the negatives.

The problem with Wasp was that she was too slow to operate as a true fleet carrier. Size didn't help either. The war built light carriers were at least speed capable.

WWII gave no time for Wasp design tinkering.

.......... and given Wasp was a truncated Yorktown, she was too tall for her length, which led to stability problems.

She didn't have the engineering space for updated horsepower to get her to 32 knots.

In essence, a poor Treaty design.

I suppose that is true but how often did these carriers operate at their 32knot speed limit? The Wasp was rated at anywhere from 28-29KTs from what I have read. This was comperable with the rest of the BBs in US service up intil the Iowa class. The carrier TFs were slowed down by the North Carolinas and South Dakotas as it was.

Personally, the limitations of the Wasps were much less than the limitations of the Independence Class carriers. The Wasp could operate aircraft much easier than the Indy's, had a larger air wing and did not have the issues with the small narrow deck that the Independence class did. The Wasps were overall much more capable but I suspect more expensive than the Independence class.

As for stability problems, again these problems could have been corrected with the redesign of the ships. The Baltimore class was based highly on the Wichita with a lot of corrections. A carrier based on the Wasp but improved would have increased the capability of the Navy but Cleveland class hulls were easier to convert I suppose.

The problem was, Wasp was too slow to adequately launch aircraft.

"During the live bombing practice held 29 March (1939) it was necessary to use a long take-off run, because the surface wind was about 4 knots, and the maximum speed through the water attainable was 24.2 knots. With a long-run take-off it is not possible to spot the usual number of planes on deck which results in a considerable increase in time of take-off and consequent serious reduction in military effectiveness.......
Another disadvantage.... is the long time required to work up maximum speed. This is a serious handicap when expeditious take-off is required."

Admiral King, then Commander of Aircraft, Battle Force, writing to CNO on 7 April, 1939.

I don't think any of you guys have made high speed runs of greater that 25knots on a Aircraft Carrier for extended periods of time. I did once for 4 days from the Philippines to the Gulf of Aden, it's one of the most nerve wracking things you can do. you do have to slow down for UnRep, your shafts has to be perfectly tuned, none of the shafts can be warped or it will vibrate the ship to pieces, and if they are then you're dragging a screw in the water. High speed rudder drills are a blast though, but that only lasts for a couple of hours.......

There is nothing worse than someone who knows what he is talking about. : )