Are aircraft carriers obsolete?

[tomahawk6]

The US would not have been able to initiate OEF without the carrier as we had no bases. Once we had kicked in the door then we were able to use Afghan air bases and of course the Pak's allowed basing/flyover rights on the sly.  You stated that the battleship was dead as a platform. It is true that surface ships without aircover are extremely vulnerable. However the USN kept bringing our WW2 battleships out of mothballs to be used to bombard enemy coastal targets in Korea,Vietnam and Lebanon. As a gun platform they were unequaled and nothing afloat could match their armor.

 

[SeanNewman]

OEF and other ops like it could also be launched by loading SOF and Airborne troops up in the US and taking hostile runways by force.

Some of you are mistaking "not the best thing for the job" with "useless", though, and I think that is where some of the confusion might be coming from.

Just because there may be a better way does not mean that anyone is saying carrier groups are useless.

 

[Jungle]

OEF and other ops like it could also be launched by loading SOF and Airborne troops up in the US and taking hostile runways by force.

This could be done in low-intensity conflicts, but you still need air superiority to protect the transports... how do you achive that without fighters ??

 

[SeanNewman]

This could be done in low-intensity conflicts, but you still need air superiority to protect the transports... how do you achive that without fighters ??

This thread isn't about fighters, it's about aircraft carriers 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Still waiting for you to prove your point. You haven't addressed the fact that there is nothing out there to replace a CSG....so one must ask are you the only one marching in step in your little world?

Or let me guess are you one of those officers who feel NCMs below the rank of WO have nothing worthy to add?

 

[SeanNewman]

I fail to see how you think I am the only one saying what I am.

5 Reasons carriers are obsolete:
http://newwars.blogspot.com/2007/09/5-reasons-aircraft-carrier-is-obsolete.html

Super Carrier is Obsolete:
http://www.mindef.gov.sg/safti/pointer/back/journals/1999/Vol25_1/2.htm

Aircraft carrier is obsolete:
http://www.military-quotes.com/forum/aircraft-carrier-obsolete-modern-weapon-t73703.html

Railgun vs Carrier:
http://www.historum.com/showthread.php?t=11934

Are aircraft carriers obsolete?
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/1996/10/14/217825/index.htm

The aircraft carrier is obsolete:
http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?163964-The-aircraft-carrier-is-obsolete.

Aircraft carriers soon to be obsolete:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=559511

Current carriers obsolete:
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/8-12898.aspx

 

[medicineman]

Ever thought of reclassifying to MARS?

MM

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

1) Whats the blog authors credentials? All these threats pretty much assume a carriers escorts are not doing their jobs. For anyone to think any weapon system is invulnerable is leaving in dreamland. This blogger assumes Harriers will gain air superiority.

2) Did you even read this article? The author comes out favourable towards the carrier despite the title.

3) Opinion of a poster much like you, clearly shut down by most of the other patrons of that site.

4) Show me this railgun in service....yeah I thought so. Lets revisiting this point in maybe 10-20 years.

5) This guy talks about sending an LHD to have the same effect as a super carrier....not to mention a ship type they never even built.Not only was it was expensive it was vilified throughout USN circles.

6) Argument is well shot down by other forum members.

7) I am not sure how citing other forums lends any sort of credit to your view.

8) Authors credentials are suspect.

Of course there are others out there that will agree that carriers are obsolete. There are those that believe the tank is obsolete as well and that the Pope is the mastermind of a great evil conspiracy. this is the internet after all....

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Ever thought of reclassifying to MARS?

MM

My gawd...what the hell did I ever do to you???

 

[SeanNewman]

As per, this continues to be an academic discussion based on a hypothetical/abstract concept.

It is perhaps a bit amusing that nobody is telling you that you are wrong but you are getting quite defensive; almost like you have stock in the production of super carriers 

I see merit in all of the points you are making, but that does not change that well within our lifetime carriers will become giant easily sinkable targets at the cost of billions lost.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

No I get annoyed when you make an assumption yet repeatedly fail to back it up beyond some shot in the dark blogs. Maybe I would think your views were credible if if one of the former naval JCS (ideally a naval aviator) all of a sudden published a paper supporting your claims but I am not seeing it. Until that happens then your view is worth as much as the crap they pump out of our bilges from time to time.

 

[SeanNewman]

...Until that happens then your view is worth as much as the crap they pump out of our bilges from time to time.

That's an interesting way to put it.  I thought I was the one who wouldn't accept other people's opinions (?)

 

[Fishbone Jones]

That's an interesting way to put it.  I thought I was the one who wouldn't accept other people's opinions (?)

Is your life that barren that you spend it pushing people's internet buttons for shits and giggles? Knock it off.

And this isn't an opportunity to open a dialogue with me, so don't.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Jungle]

This thread isn't about fighters, it's about aircraft carriers 

Bait and switch, again... you're the one who brought up the air option.

Remember this strike:

http://www.ausairpower.net/Eldorado-Canyon.html

Due to various political considerations the governments of France, Spain and Italy denied permission for the US aircraft to overfly their territory thus forcing the one elevens to fly around Spain and through the straits of Gibraltar. This increased the distance covered from around 1,300nm to over 2,800nm and mission duration from 6-7 hours to 13-14 hours with major endurance implications for the mission.

The strike force refuelled twice over the Atlantic and six aircraft brought along as a backup to allow for inevitable system failures returned to the UK (exceeding the design mission duration of a weapon system increases the chance of failures cropping up). Approaching the Mediterranean the aircraft dropped to low altitude to reduce chances of detection and hit the tankers again.

While transports can change crews during flight, fighters do not have that option.

At this instant the Navy's carriers, the 80,000 tonne America and recently re-equipped 65,OOOt Coral Sea, were launching their aircraft. Grumman E-2C Airborne Early Warning aircraft launched to coordinate the strike and expected search and rescue sorties following it. MiGCAP was provided by F-14A Tomcats and F-18A Hornets, the latter launching from the Coral Sea. The Navy strike force was comprised of TRAM equipped A-6Es six of which launched from the America and 8 from the Coral Sea. EA-6B Prowler tactical jammers, equipped with the ALQ-99 jamming system similar to that in the EF-111 As supported the strike aircraft with radar and communications jamming. Defence suppression was provided by 6 A-7Es from the America and 6 F-18As from the Coral Sea. These aircraft approached the coastline as the F-111s and A-6s neared their targets but unlike the bombers at 200ft they popped up to several hundred feet of altitude a few miles from the target zones to allow the Libyan air defence radars to detect them.

Apart from the F-111s, everything else came from the carriers.

That example is a strike from the UK to Libya, which are relatively close; imagine doing the same (as you suggested) from the US to Afghanistan.

Finally, as I mentionned earlier, I don't have a "side" in this; I just bring up facts to argue against the blogs you referenced. I also believe that the people who design, approve, build and employ those expensive machines ensure that they are the very best option that all that money can buy. For now and the foreseeable future.

So answer the question: where is that horizon you were talking about ?

 

[Greymatters]

Looking back on the points being made, I would point out that an object (item/weapon/vehicle/contraption/etc) is usually made obsolete by either a) function is no longer required, b) replaced by a newer shinier object, c) unable to finance the operation or maintenance of the object, or d) political or social pressure for removal of the object.  I dont think any of these conditions have been met yet...

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to GM's last.

A ship, any ship, is simply a self-propelled island.  It allows the owner to move anywhere they feel like and live under their own laws.  With suitable weapons they can debate whose laws are going to be obeyed when they meet a similar self-propelled island with contrasting views on the applicable law.

Whether the island is equipped with swords and shields or ICBMs is, in my view, entirely immaterial.  The real defining characteristic is whether or not a Captain, with recognized authority by some government, is aboard.  Beyond that, big islands are harder to sink than small islands and big islands carry more stuff that may come in handy some day.

 

[SeanNewman]

You are missing the biggest point, and it has to do with the carrier being nothing more than a giant target.

I fully agree with you that a floating island has merit, but in the next few years it will be extremely easy to sink them.  As long as America fights small powers that have no significant striking power then there is still a lot of use for them (even if they are not the most efficient way to go about it).

But you can rest assured that several countries have enough systems to get through any defensive screen the carrier group may have, and within the opening days of a legitimate war all those carriers will be sunk.

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

You are missing the biggest point, and it has to do with the carrier being nothing more than a giant target.

I fully agree with you that a floating island has merit, but in the next few years it will be extremely easy to sink them.  As long as America fights small powers that have no significant striking power then there is still a lot of use for them (even if they are not the most efficient way to go about it).

But you can rest assured that several countries have enough systems to get through any defensive screen the carrier group may have, and within the opening days of a legitimate war all those carriers will be sunk.

The U.S. Naval Institute's Proceedings Magazine has a good article on that subject in their January 2010 edition:

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/story.asp?STORY_ID=2164

 

[aesop081]

(even if they are not the most efficient way to go about it).

That may be. They sire are, however, politicaly expedient. No host nation BS.

But you can rest assured that several countries have enough systems to get through any defensive screen the carrier group may have, and within the opening days of a legitimate war all those carriers will be sunk.

I'm well aware of what those threats are and i'm far from willing to agree with you. I've worked with enough CBG/ARGs to have my mind made up on their survivability.

 

[SeanNewman]

Lex,

I appreciate you posting that article, but I have already tried.  There are some on here who will ignore the content, do what they can to debunk the author/references, and stick to their guns that one could never be taken out.

Just like the Titanic, an aircraft carrier is unsinkable.