Are aircraft carriers obsolete?

[aesop081]

trading in a couple of older CVNs for another half-dozen Ticonderogas and a pair of Wasps,

So trade one capability for another ? A Wasp-class ship may look like an aircraft carrier but its role is quite different.

Maybe laying up a couple of hulls (mothballing) and redistributing the man-power would make for a more useful tool for the Government. 

Reducing the CVN fleet probably isnt even an realistic option considering the number deployed, the number required for training and the necessary evil of having some in the yard so that they keep being available for the other 2 cycles. You want one carrier available for ops, you had better own at least 3. Ask the French how it was last time CDG went into refit.

 

[Michael OLeary]

The question, in my distorted and occasionally feverish brain, is how many places can 1 Nimitz be?

A single Nimitz can be in one place, but with a F/A-18E/F combat radius of 722 Km, that "spot" is 1,637,000 square kilometers in size.

Add another 240 Km for the attack range of a Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM-ER) and that spot is over 2,895,000 square kilometres.

(Edited for math.)

 

[a_majoor]

Kirkhill might be right in one regard; finding ways to automate more ships functions and reduce the manning count (given that is by far the largest cost in any organization) would make a big dent in  the affordability part of the equation.

Even if (for arguments sake) we didn't actually fire all those sailors but placed them in various escorts and defense platforms around the carrier, or in Littoral Combat Ships, then new capabilities would be available and manned without vastly increasing the budget.

BTW, in President Reagan's day the goal of the USN was to be a "600 ship" navy, which would have provided redundant coverage around the world (aprox 200 ships on patrol at any given time)

 

[Kirkhill]

A single Nimitz can be in one place, but with a F/A-18E/F combat radius of 722 Km, that "spot" is 1,637,000 square kilometers in size.

Add another 240 Km for the attack range of a Standoff Land Attack Missile (SLAM-ER) and that spot is over 2,895,000 square kilometres.

(Edited for math.)

No disrespect but how do you board a Somali whaler from an F-18?  The navy needs to be able to do what you guys are doing in Afghanistan......namely Advance to Contact.  And by that I mean make personal contact, face-to-face.  This has been brought up before but I strongly feel the parallels to the post-Napoleonic era when the need switched from first-rates capable of fleet actions to frigates and gun-boats capable of constabulary patrols.    I am not proposing getting rid of all of "first-rates" but I am suggesting a greater need for frigates.


And Thucycidides is correct.  I am suggesting that technologies be exploited where possible to reduce manning requirements in individual hullls so that more hulls can be manned.

 

[aesop081]

No disrespect but how do you board a Somali whaler from an F-18?

Thats what the escorts and other ships assigned to the CBG are for. Thats what helicopters on the CVN ( as well as the escorts) are for.......

P-3s and UAVs cant board Somali pirate ships either but they are proving damned uselful for that mission anyhow.

The navy needs to be able to do what you guys are doing in Afghanistan......namely Advance to Contact.

Naval airpower, launched from CVNs is doing its buisness in Afghanistan already. It has been a constant part of operations during OIF as well.

but I am suggesting a greater need for frigates.

There is a need for more of that type of vessel, no argument there.

I am suggesting that technologies be exploited where possible to reduce manning requirements in individual hullls so that more hulls can be manned.

I'm not sure how you can say that this argument relates to you saying some CVN hulls should be mothballed ?

 

[Michael OLeary]

No disrespect but how do you board a Somali whaler from an F-18?

That's as useful as asking how do you provide a CAP from a battleship.

Focusing on single capabilities of complex combat systems will guarantee turning a debate into a silly exchange of useless comments. If you want to propose alternatives, start by outlining each capability of a carrier battle group and show that your proposed alternative can meet each of them in some way, or that they are unnecessary given the change in force makeup.

I would suggest that the main role of a carrier battle group is power projection, and that that is achieved, in the mind of the 'enemy', by a combination what the presence of a large naval presence plus its ability to attack any point within a thousand kilometers.  What system or combinations of systems are you proposing can replace that strategic capability, that will have not just a similar technical ability, but the same psychological presence?

Carriers will be obsolete when the role they play, not just the combat power they can deliver, can be replaced by other means - and that the reach of the new capability is clear to all involved (friend and potential foe).

 

[Kirkhill]

I yield.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

No disrespect but how do you board a Somali whaler from an F-18?  The navy needs to be able to do what you guys are doing in Afghanistan......namely Advance to Contact.  And by that I mean make personal contact, face-to-face.  This has been brought up before but I strongly feel the parallels to the post-Napoleonic era when the need switched from first-rates capable of fleet actions to frigates and gun-boats capable of constabulary patrols.    I am not proposing getting rid of all of "first-rates" but I am suggesting a greater need for frigates.


And Thucycidides is correct.  I am suggesting that technologies be exploited where possible to reduce manning requirements in individual hullls so that more hulls can be manned.

If I am not mistake there is a Company (? could be less) of Marines on board and the CVN's also have helicopters.....

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

If I am not mistake there is a Company (? could be less) of Marines on board and the CVN's also have helicopters.....

Some don't even bring Marines onboard anymore but I am not sure what you are getting at as the Marines are used as a security detachment and the helicopters are used as ASW platforms and such missions as aircrew recovery.

I think some may be looking at the wrong types of ships to cutback on to gain badly needed manpower. While I am a fan of Ticonderoga class cruiser, this type of escort carries a crew of just under 400. If the US Navy developed an AEGIS frigate such as the Spanish F100 class. 2 cruisers could provide the crews for around 3.5 frigates. With the Arleigh Burke class destroyer in service the ESGs and CSGs would not lose any sort of AAD coverage.

 

[CougarKing]

Must be that time of year when the certain defense publications come out with their usual "we don't have enough carriers, panic!" fear mongering articles:

National Interest

The US Navy Is Now Facing Its Greatest Fear: Obsolete Aircraft Carriers?
Dave Majumdar

August 3, 2016


If the United States Navy is either unwilling or unable to conceptualize a carrier air wing that can fight on the first day of a high-end conflict, then the question becomes: Why should the American taxpayer shell out $13 billion for a Ford-class carrier?

That’s the potent question being raised by naval analysts in Washington—noting that there are many options that the Navy could pursue including a stealthy new long-range, carrier-based unmanned combat aircraft or a much heavier investment in submarines. However, the current short-range Boeing F/A-18 Hornet-based air wing is not likely to be sufficient in the 2030s even with the addition of the longer ranged Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter.

“If these carriers can’t do that first day lethal strike mission inside an A2/AD bubble, why are we paying $13 billion dollars for them?” asks Jerry Hendrix, director of the Defense Strategies and Assessments Program at the Center for a New American Security, during an interview with The National Interest.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[tomahawk6]

They said the samething about battleships when the airplane came on the scene.However,carriers are floating airfields and require supporting warships to keep it safe.I am not worried about carriers,they may morph into air cushion like ships or something else entirely.They are going to be with us as long as we have global wars.

 

[daftandbarmy]

They said the samething about battleships when the airplane came on the scene.However,carriers are floating airfields and require supporting warships to keep it safe.I am not worried about carriers,they may morph into air cushion like ships or something else entirely.They are going to be with us as long as we have global wars.

This timeless quote pretty much sums up the ongoing need for aircraft carriers IMHO:

"The great defense against the air menace is to attack the enemy's aircraft as near as possible to their point of departure."

Winston Churchill