Are aircraft carriers obsolete?

[a_majoor]

Aircraft carriers are the single highest value asset in the American arsenal, and as conditions and technology change, perhaps the need or usage of these ships needs to be adjusted as well. I recall one speculation that aircraft carriers in the mid 21rst century would be far smaller and service a fleet of UAV's, who's primary purpose was to scout targets for DD-X type ships to prosecute with their electromagnetic railgun weapons. (Scouting targets for an arsenal ship loaded with 500+ missiles and cruise missiles would be another means to the same end).

We certainly know our enemies are hard at work trying to make carriers and carrier battle groups irrelevant, so alternatives should be examined.

http://biggovernment.com/uknowledge/2010/04/07/are-aircraft-carriers-obsolete/

Are Aircraft Carriers Obsolete?
by Uncommon Knowledge

Is it time to eliminate America’s large naval fleet?

Did Donald Rumsfeld get it right with an emphasis on small, fast, and flexible?

Naval Postgraduate School professor John Arquilla joins Victor Davis Hanson to discuss these questions and more in the latest episode of Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson.

They explore the importance of networks in war-making and how they make enemies elusive, the prolonged failures in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Pentagon’s refusal to continue Rumsfeld’s military strategy and finally the current military landscape and what it means for policy regarding Iran.

Here is the full episode:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao1rZkylLfI&feature=player_embedded

Or if you’re in a hurry, check out this segment on Iran.

 

[tomahawk6]

I do not believe that carriers are obsolete. As floating airbases they can provide immediate force projection almost anywhere in the world. As Haiti demonstrated in a humanitarian role it is unmatched. Haiti's infrastructure was devestated by the quake and the carrier was used a base for helicopters and troops - not for the first time either. The carrier is definitely a target of a potential enemy and has been since WW2. Every carrier has at least one attack sub as part of its task force which is an admission that it is vulnerable to attack by submarine. China for example envisions targeting a carrier with a ballistic missile - certainly possible. Nothing is immune from attack all you can do is take the necessary precautions.

 

[GAP]

As the predominate military power in the world, Carriers for the US are essential, as T6 noted. Others like Britan, France, Russia, etc, while not a world power, the projection of force in specific situations works well.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Railguns will appear on ships in the near future, likely their role will be similar to Monitors of old. I also expect that a mix of rapid fire gun, missile and high energy laser systems will be brought forward to increase protection of the carrier. I suspect the real threat will armed AUV's that sit in a thermal-clime awaiting the acoustic signature of the carrier, it will wait to the last minute to fire a torpedo to damage or sink the carrier, as the AUV is expendable, it does not have to come back. the suddenness of the attack and proximity will make it hard to counter. If done right the first time the Fleet will be aware of the attack is the sound of the torpedo propellers. I would not be surprised if it used passive and active detective systems to home in on the carrier and attempt to bypass various defenses. If the AUV can release 2 torpedo's then it get more complicated.
Even if the AUV is detectable the threat of them will force the fleet to proceed with extra caution.

 

[Greymatters]

As the predominate military power in the world, Carriers for the US are essential, as T6 noted. Others like Britan, France, Russia, etc, while not a world power, the projection of force in specific situations works well.

Carriers offer not only a source of power projection, but also a piece of 'soveriegn territory' - its like sending a piece of your country anywhere you want in the world.  This has more than just military application... 

 

[Kirkhill]

I think I find myself in the same place as Greymatters on this one.  The Aircraft Carrier is still a vital piece of kit, perhaps more now than ever.

But...

In the past it was, IMHO, an artillery platform - designed to project precision fire power over long ranges.  Now there are many other means of delivering HE on target with greater precision and over much longer ranges than was possible with Hellcats or even Hornets.  (Tomahawk launching OHIOs come to mind as one alternative - PG-ICBM hybrids another).

The real value of the Carrier is, as GM says, it is sovereign territory.  It is both a launching pad and a refuge.  As a launching pad it is most useful in launching personnel that can advance to contact......once in contact, having closed with, then they are liberty to destroy, arrest, talk, shake  hands, trade or whatever: always secure in the knowledge they have a home to get back to if things go pearshaped.

 

[Michael OLeary]

World Wide Aircraft Carriers
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/carriers.htm

America has about twice as many aircraft carriers as the rest of humanity combined, and America's aircraft carriers are substantially larger than almost all the other's aircraft carriers. The Navy likes to call the big Nimitz class carriers "4.5 acres of sovereign and mobile American territory" -- all two dozen American carriers of all classes add up to about 70 acres of deck space. Deckspace is probably a good measure of combat power. The rest of the world's carriers have about 15 acres of deck space, one fifth that of America's.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I think I find myself in the same place as Greymatters on this one.  The Aircraft Carrier is still a vital piece of kit, perhaps more now than ever.

But...

In the past it was, IMHO, an artillery platform - designed to project precision fire power over long ranges.  Now there are many other means of delivering HE on target with greater precision and over much longer ranges than was possible with Hellcats or even Hornets.  (Tomahawk launching OHIOs come to mind as one alternative - PG-ICBM hybrids another).

The real value of the Carrier is, as GM says, it is sovereign territory.  It is both a launching pad and a refuge.  As a launching pad it is most useful in launching personnel that can advance to contact......once in contact, having closed with, then they are liberty to destroy, arrest, talk, shake  hands, trade or whatever: always secure in the knowledge they have a home to get back to if things go pearshaped.

Well look at it this way...you are the bad guy. You have one or two CSGs sail into international waters around your nation. What better way out there is to say "you f#cked up and its time to pay up" You can see this threat, you know what it can do. An Ohio with Tomahawks is great but I don't think it conveys the same amount of dread in seeing a Nimitz class with all of its escorts and all the raw firepower contained therein.

 

[Kirkhill]

Agreed, Ex-Dragoon,

There is definitely something to be said for physical presence, whether it be a CSG in your EEZ or somebody else's infanteer walking down your street.  Both suggest you are no longer in control of your own destiny.  But CSOR and the OHIO operating in your vicinity also tend to give pause, don't you think?

In any event I don't really see it as an either-or situation.  If you want Delta Force, or whoever, operating from a floating base then the rest of the gang is going to show up in any case, probably including the OHIO.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I think though in order for Special Operations to be feared on the same scale is for them to be in your nation taking out your infrastructure and that opens an entirely different barrel of monkeys.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

In the past it was, IMHO, an artillery platform - designed to project precision fire power over long ranges.  Now there are many other means of delivering HE on target with greater precision and over much longer ranges than was possible with Hellcats or even Hornets.  (Tomahawk launching OHIOs come to mind as one alternative - PG-ICBM hybrids another).

I think that carriers in the past were more than artillery.  It is true that they could destroy enemy fleets with their dive bombers/torpedo bombers as well as bomb ground targets.  They were also, however, a means of establishing air superiority which would have been otherwise impossible.  If you wanted to put shipping in range of enemy airplanes you needed a carrier with fighters on board.  In addition, by having lots of carriers with lots of fighters you could push that bubble of air superiority wherever you wanted.

I think that that continues today. 

Going back to the dropping bombs bit, I would rather have carrier-based air in support of me than a sub with missiles.

My two army cents.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Carriers are the arm extension of US foreign policy, Carriers are incredibly important because they provide states with the ability to exercise gunboat diplomacy.  They have taken 18th and 19th century concepts and repackaged them into a modern beast.

I will use the Falklands war as a prime example of the importance of carrier battlegroups.  The United Kingdom would have been unable to win the Falklands war had it not been for their Aircraft Carrier capability and theirs is a small one at that.

 

[SeanNewman]

Aircraft carriers as they exist now are far from efficient, but they are what they are.  With the amount of metal it takes to make something like the USS Reagan, there could be 3-4 smaller ones made that could launch more planes overall (assuming they ever get V22s and semi-vertical fighters to work).  There is something to be said for "mine is bigger than yours" deterrent, though.

The British book "Lions, Donkeys, and Dinosaurs" is really good for this subject, and he looks at the big picture in terms of the effects desired vs cost.  You have carriers to launch planes, destroyers to protect the carriers, helos to protect them against subs, etc...all of these things cost trillions of dollars and none of them are the best option to do that they do but the Brass in the Navy will never let them go.

 

[aesop081]

all of these things cost trillions of dollars

It would be no different with a smaller class of carriers, dont kid yourself. The Royal Navy is in the middle of a huge debate on how the new QE carriers will be protected considering the dwindling number of escort ships in the fleet.

US carriers are large and that is a reflection of the strategy behind their use and that is as valid now as it was when they came about.

 

[SeanNewman]

US carriers are large and that is a reflection of the strategy behind their use and that is as valid now as it was when they came about.

Not sold on that.  Carriers now are where Battleships were when Carriers came out.  The effect they deliver is (or will be shortly) better delivered by other means.

You don't need a carrier to have kinetic reach into the rest of the world, and with all that money saved you could come up with all sorts of better ways to do it.

I will agree that the deterrent/psychological impact of having a carrier group parked outside your shore is an effect unto itself, and even if you had an unreal star wars laser system on your side that could blow things up like the White House on Independence Day nobody would know about it until you fired it (unless you had awesome PsyOps speakers from space).

 

[tomahawk6]

The carrier is still essential as a platform as I pointed out previously. With a carrier you dont need an airfield like you would if you were to project power into the thrid world. The carrier is a floating airbase. The carrier is vulnerable to a variety of weapons but there isnt a ship or land base that isnt immune to attack. The carrier complete with its 5000 sailors and air wing costs $5b or so. The carrier has been the main stay of US naval strategy since WW2. Planes need a base and one that floats is a bit harder to hit than one that doesnt.

 

[SeanNewman]

T6,

I'm not questioning the importance of the projection of air power, but the current form it takes with a giant carrier group.

If you could push a reset button and actually identify each capability/effect you wanted to have (a floating platform, combat power to launch from the platform, defence for the platform, etc) it would look a hell of a lot different than carrier groups.

You need to get out of the fixed mindset that you need a fighter to deliver ordinance, which is tied to a conventional carrier, which "requires" escorts, etc.

It could be argued that you don't need fighters to deliver bombs now anymore than you needed a battleship to deliver shells in 1945.

And before you get into the "A UAV can't do everything a fighter can", ask yourself how much they both cost and what the capabilities of each are.  And then ask yourself why you're still fixed on a UAV 

 

[George Wallace]

Aircraft deliver more than ordinance.  They provide Recce, EW, Troop lift, etc.  Now, I am positive that a cruise missle, or something larger like an ICBM, is not going to deliver troops onto the ground.  Air Power can control the air, but they can not take and hold ground.

 

[Jungle]

If you could push a reset button and actually identify each capability/effect you wanted to have (a floating platform, combat power to launch from the platform, defence for the platform, etc) it would look a hell of a lot different than carrier groups.

Well, FINALLY !!! Somebody does a proper estimate on aircraft carriers...

Petamocto, now you need to contact the naval planners in the US, UK, France, Spain, Italy, Russia, India, Brazil, Japan, Thailand and China and explain to them that carrier development has been done by amateurs for the past 6 or 7 decades, and that you know what is actually needed...  :

 

[tomahawk6]

The USN has decided that nuclear powered carriers are the most cost effective,given the cost of fuel. Likewise putting reactors in every surface ship just isnt cost effective. The current carrier design can provide the full range of attack,ASW and support aircraft that smaller carriers cannot equal. As a result the size is determined by the propulsion system and the type of aircraft that  will operate from the platform. The carrier itself is reliant on its escorts for protection. During the cold war its was SOP for the CAP to meet incoming aircraft 200 miles out because at the time that was the range of Russian anti-ship missiles. Today's air launched ASM can be launched further out which also gives the carriers escorts more reaction time. Another point is survivability. A large ship is more survivable than a smaller ship. Of course if the bad guys use a nuclear weapon then the target is dead. The Chinese are developing an anti-ship ballistic missile based on the DF-21C missile. It has a range of 1500-1750 km with a manuverable warhead and a CEP of 50m. If they can perfect this weapon it may be a game changer for the carrier or a real challenge to the Fleet's Aegis cruisers and destroyers.