Are aircraft carriers obsolete?

[SeanNewman]

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

I can guarantee you that people inside the militaries of all those countries you listed know there are more effective ways on the horizon.

 

[Monsoon]

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.

And you need to get out of the mindset that carrier battle groups exist to support forces on the ground. You're right that once you have a battle group on land that controls an airfield, a carrier is entirely superfluous. But when it comes to quickly deploying a force capable of projecting air power to any location in the world, and then redeploying it a few days later, you can't beat a CBG.

As for the scare quotes around "requires", I won't go there. Suffice it to say that this argument is just an old rehash of the point better folks than I have tried to make on this forum many times: while the army, navy and air force can support one another tactically, they can also serve entirely different functions operationally.

 

[a_majoor]

Without trying to fan flames, I think Petamocto has identified the point of the opening piece; are the capabilities of a carrier battle group unique, or are there other ways to get these effects at lower cost, better protection, greater effectiveness etc?

It is hard to say what could provide all the various capabilities identified without an aircraft carrier, but then again, an Admiral in 1920 would be hard pressed to identify what could replace a Dreadnaught battleship. I certainly have no magic mirror to show me, and ideas for potential replacements like micro carriers with a UAV wing, railgun armed DDX support ships or missile armed Arsenal ships are all part of the PowerPoint navy today, so we don't even have any clear baseline of experience to work with.

 

[SeanNewman]

Without trying to fan flames, I think Petamocto has identified the point of the opening piece; are the capabilities of a carrier battle group unique, or are there other ways to get these effects at lower cost, better protection, greater effectiveness etc?

Bingo.

It's a completely abstract discussion but it's still entertaining to watch people's responses.  Of course the USN is not going to just park every ship they have and start working on something new.  They are already built and do offer capabilities, so of course they are still going to be used.

It's not stupid to use what is already bought and paid for.  What would be stupid though is to keep rolling full-size carrier groups off the assembly line for the next century.

The problem though is the institutionalization in the Navy of what a fleet must look like (If I am X rank I command this ship, if I am Y rank I command this ship, etc).  It will take generations to phase that out and personalities will slow it down to their detriment to hold on to their fixed tradition.

Dinosaurs were defending battlships 70 years ago the people are defending carriers now, but gradually it was proven that things change and new technologies allow for effects to be delivered in other ways.  70 years ago was a battleship still able to fire shells 50km inside a shoreline or destroying other ships?  Of course, and it was still capable of having an effect, but it was no longer the best way to do it so they stopped making them.

 

[Monsoon]

The problem though is the institutionalization in the Navy of what a fleet must look like (If I am X rank I command this ship, if I am Y rank I command this ship, etc).  It will take generations to phase that out and personalities will slow it down to their detriment to hold on to their fixed tradition.

Now that you've changed the nature of the question under debate from "are aircraft carriers obsolete?" (see thread title) to "how can we change aircraft carriers to take advantage of new technology?" you'll get no opposition from me. The existing model dates from the Second World War and could obviously be improved-upon. But the mere fact of being an old idea doesn't make it inherently obsolescent: how old is the concept of an infantry battalion?

Dinosaurs were defending battleships 70 years ago the people are defending carriers now, but gradually it was proven that things change and new technologies allow for effects to be delivered in other ways.  70 years ago was a battleship still able to fire shells 50km inside a shoreline or destroying other ships?  Of course, and it was still capable of having an effect, but it was no longer the best way to do it so they stopped making them.

Replace the largest guns on a Dreadnought with some Tomahawks and the AA battery with some Sea Sparrows and the heaviest ships afloat today are essentially incrementally upgraded battleships. Upgrades in weaponry (and associated changes to the platform to support the upgrade) and tactics don't mean the fundamental model has been discarded. So it will be with aircraft carriers.

Oh, and I didn't miss the "dinosaur" crack; I'm just not going to take the bait.

 

[SeanNewman]

Now that you've changed the nature of the question under debate from "are aircraft carriers obsolete?" (see thread title) to "how can we change aircraft carriers to take advantage of new technology?"

Oh, and I didn't miss the "dinosaur" crack; I'm just not going to take the bait.

1.  Sort of.  I am not by any means an opponent of floating platforms to launch things from, but I am an opponent of massive carriers to launch current fighters that "require" destroyer escorts that "require" billion dollar anti-submarine helos.

2.  The term "dinosaur" is not a personal attack/bait but makes reference to the book I brought up a couple pages ago that talks about this topic in detail (from a UK perspective but similar concepts).

 

[Monsoon]

Sort of.  I am not by any means an opponent of floating platforms to launch things from, but I am an opponent of massive carriers to launch current fighters that "require" destroyer escorts that "require" billion dollar anti-submarine helos.

It sounds to me like you only object to the scale of aircraft carriers (the measures taken to defend them being a function of their status as a high-value asset). Can an aircraft carrier with a wing of piloted fighter/bombers be replaced with a swarm of frigate-sized vessels that can launch and recover unmanned bombers (or guided missiles), each capable of providing their own AW/UW defence? Probably. But recognize that to achieve the scale of effect of a current aircraft carrier, this model is probably going to cost more, not less.

So the question becomes: "Is the scale of an aircraft carrier wasted?" I would suggest that it probably isn't. Sure, carriers spend a lot of time tooling around doing nothing (or next to it), but when they're needed something of exactly that scale (or more) is required. And are there realistic roles for individual or small groups of "micro-carriers"? Unless you can re-role them in the off-season to act as normal surface combatants, I'm not sure. Even then, they'd have to re-role back to micro-carriers pretty damn fast to be able to respond to changing world events as quickly as a traditional carrier.

 

[Jungle]

Now that you've changed the nature of the question under debate from "are aircraft carriers obsolete?" (see thread title) to "how can we change aircraft carriers to take advantage of new technology?" you'll get no opposition from me.

Frankly, I'm in no position to oppose anything regarding aircraft carriers... but I can recognize when someone is playing a game of "Bait and Switch" and that is exactly what Petamocto is doing. There is a difference between "are carriers obsolete?" and "can carriers be improved for future ops?"

 

[tomahawk6]

The day that combat UAV's come into the Fleet they will operate from the decks of a carrier.

 

[SeanNewman]

..."Bait and Switch" and that is exactly what Petamocto is doing...

Thank you for the smile, but there is no switching of anything.

What is not obsolete is a floating platform to be able to bring dominance to the ground and air away from your own shores./

What is obsolete is the way it is done now.  It's not a matter of carriers being improved (which is what you are implying I am saying).  Future carriers will be as different from current carriers as much as bows and arrows are different from rifles.

Smaller only fixes the issue of scale and cost, and is only one option. 

 

[Monsoon]

Smaller only fixes the issue of scale and cost, and is only one option.

What other problems do you identify?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

  Having witnessed both large (USN, France) and small (UK, Italy, Spain, and Russia) carrier ops numerous times in my naval career I totally disagree with those that feel large aircraft carriers are obsolete. The capabilities a large carrier can bring to the table is mind boogling. One Nimitz class air wing has more capabilities then most air forces today. A small carrier while may offer some of those capabilities but one small carrier will not maintain the ops tempo a super carrier can. I watched 3 USN air wings and 1 French go constantly into Afghanistan back when I was on Roto 0 on the Charlottetown and the sheer destructive power these packets was pure shock and awe.
  There is a place for small carriers in the navies of the world, but you're out to friggin lunch if you think they will replace large carriers anytime soon. Maybe in another 50 years but a large carrier is still the most powerful warship out there.

 

[Jungle]

I can guarantee you that people inside the militaries of all those countries you listed know there are more effective ways on the horizon.

Guarantee ?? Check these out:

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/

The new UK CVF Royal Navy aircraft carriers, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, are expected to enter service in 2016 and 2018.

CVF will displace 65,000t, a size between the USA's 100,000t Nimitz Class and the French 43,000t Charles de Gaulle Class aircraft carriers, and three times larger than the 20,000t UK Invincible class carriers.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvx.htm

The NRAC Panel concluded that CVX must be designed to support a large (80 aircraft) airwing and conduct flight operations in heavy sea states in order to execute the most demanding power projection missions.

I guess your international friends are not naval planners... everybody in the business seems to disagree with your opinion. Bigger seems to mean better in the current "future".

So what is that "horizon" you are talking about ? Is it on this planet ??

 

[SeanNewman]

...everybody in the business seems to disagree with your opinion. Bigger seems to mean better in the current "future".

Other than the guy who wrote the original article that started this whole thread, the countless other articles written on the topic, I suppose, and the other 200 countries in the world that do not have aircraft carriers.

Other than them, yes I will admit to standing by myself on this one.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Other than the guy who wrote the original article that started this whole thread, the countless other articles written on the topic, I suppose, and the other 200 countries in the world that do not have aircraft carriers.

Other than them, yes I will admit to standing by myself on this one.

And are you saying that those 200 or so nations that do not have carriers agree with your opinion? Let us not forget some of those are landlocked and do not even have a navy, so the need of a carrier let alone any sort of warship is rather redundant.

 

[Jungle]

Other than the guy who wrote the original article that started this whole thread, the countless other articles written on the topic, I suppose, and the other 200 countries in the world that do not have aircraft carriers.

Other than them, yes I will admit to standing by myself on this one.

People can write all the articles they want, and you can take those as gospel if you want; the fact is: countries that build aircraft carriers are renewing their fleets with bigger ships, and those will serve for the next 4 or 5 decades.

The 200 other countries either do not want/need carriers, or do not have the means to acquire/maintain them.

So you can keep arguing by referencing opinion pieces or you can admit that facts are proving you wrong.

 

[SeanNewman]

So you can keep arguing by referencing opinion pieces or you can admit that facts are proving you wrong.

But what is it that you are telling me I am wrong about?  Just because a country buys/builds something, does that mean it was the best way to spend that money? 

If someone sold a case for an extremely capable 4x4 truck, does that mean that they are proven wrong because the CF bought the LSVW?

If the M16 family is the standard for small arms and (for argument's sake) the "best", does that mean that they are proven wrong because the UK uses the SA80 family?

I have never challenged your facts that aircraft carriers are massive and people are still buying them.  What I and others are stating is that they are not the best way to spend your money.

However, there are all sorts of people in all the major militaries who have the job to identify the best way to fill capability deficiencies and have shown that there are better ways.

I am granting your part about lots of countries having them; of course they do.  But all your side of the argument states is that countries buy carriers, the "facts" you speak of do not substantiate carrier groups being the most efficient way to get those effects.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I have never challenged your facts that aircraft carriers are massive and people are still buying them.  What I and others are stating is that they are not the best way to spend your money.

So sell me on your view...what is around today that can provide as much value and bring as much to the table as a CVN?

 

[Jungle]

But all your side of the argument states is that countries buy carriers, the "facts" you speak of do not substantiate carrier groups being the most efficient way to get those effects.

Dude, I'm an Infantry Soldier; I don't have a "side" in this argument. I am simply stating facts... you, as an Infantry junior officer, do not become a naval expert just by reading every swinging dick's opinion about aircraft carriers on the net. Remember using the word "guarantee" ??

Get off your soapbox.

 

[SeanNewman]

Sorry guys.  This is an abstract discussion to begin with and that is how I was viewing it.

Certainly didn't mean to offend any of you.

You think carrier groups are the answer, I don't.  At the end of the day there really isn't much more to the debate than that.

No need to make it personal or attack each other.