Are aircraft carriers obsolete?

[vonGarvin]

Yes Aircraft Carriers offer a deterrent but the technology is emerging which allow you to reach out and touch your enemy without ever having to leave home.  Aircraft carriers cost billions of dollars to build, is it not more cost effective to build strategic air and missile capability... not too mention the manpower issues posed by manning and staffing carriers.

I understand the message of teh non-nuclear, anywhere in the world missiles. 


BUT


If that is the threat, most people only believe what they see. 
So, option one:

Option two:

Which do you find more intimidating if you were a sabre-rattling despot of a third world nation?  And never forget, those global strike missiles are great for hitting non moving things like buildings.  Aircraft Carrier BGs can hit moving targets.

 

[SeanNewman]

Sweet!  Picture time!

 

[dapaterson]

Some aircraft carriers have been sunk by enemy action.  Therefore, no aircraft carriers are useful.

Some infantry soldiers have been killed by enemy action.  Therefore, no infantry soldiers are useful.



Or, perhaps, as part of a naval force, the abilty to project air power around a naval task group or ashore is useful.  Since maintenance of sea lines of communications is necessary to transport materiel.

"Strategic air power" is a wonderful term.  As an on-the-scene tactical commander, I'd rather have integral assets at my beck and call.  Because transit times are significant for strategic air to reach, say, a naval task group.  For example, the Falklands war.  Imagine, if you will, if the UK did not have integral air assets in its task force, but rather was reliant on occaisional sorties from Ascension Island?  A rather different result, I suspect.

 

[Danjanou]

Well I guess when Timmie starts equipping themselves with old German U- Boats, 1940's vintage Dautless SDBs, IJN Zeros and Kates for Kamikaze missions and we 'll be phuqued. Until then Starbucks boy I think you just wasted some of the site owners bandwidth.

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

The F22 identifies multiple targets simultaneously and relays this information to the B1 bomber who then launches some of its payload.  This turnas the b1 bomber into the F22 own personal bomb truck, the F22 doesn't need to carry very much payload because it can have massive planes such as the b1 do the heavy lifting.  While it targets the b1 bomber does the firing.  Its very cool and this is the future of air power.  This is why the Americans only built a limited number of F22 because they just don't need any more.

Can't a UAV do the same thing?  Why have manned aircraft at all?  What happens when the enemy jams the link frequencies?

Anything that a navy can do, strategic airpower can do at for a cheaper cost.

Interesting thought.  Can you expand on it?

To pull on this string a bit, let's compare the strategic deterrent offered by a USN SSBN against B2 bombers.  The sub can launch 24 Trident missiles with nuclear warheads or 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles (weapon load-out depending on which Ohio we're talking about) with no warning and survive the engagement.  The B2 can drop 80 x 500 lb JDAM GPS-guided bombs, or 16 x 2,400 lb B83 nuclear bombs with little to no warning and possibly survive, depending on the foe.  The total cost of the B2 bomber, which includes development, engineering and testing, averaged US$2.1 billion per aircraft (in 1997 dollars).1  The total cost of the Ohio Class SSBN, which includes development, engineering and testing, averaged US$2 billion per boat (in late 90s dollars).2  Cheaper, more survivable, and larger weapon delivery -> SSBN.

What about sea control (needed to move armies and equipment overseas plus normal global commerce)?  With sea control, a country (or alliance) can ensure that its own military and merchant ships can move around at will, while its rivals are forced either to stay in port or to try to evade it.  The global commons is a pretty big place to cover with persistent (ie 24/7) air cover.  What about the other roles of naval forces (the sea equivalent of boots of the ground)?  How do you board pirate vessels, migrant smugglers, etc with strategic airpower?

Some info taken from "Leadmark: The Navy's Strategy for 2020":

"Naval forces are endowed with the following strategic characteristics:

They are unique in their ability to deploy quickly and remain in an area for extended periods without the agreement of neighbouring states and do not need to rely upon complex shore-based in-theatre logistic support systems;

They have an inherent flexibility which allows them to change roles quickly without loss of efficiency or without having to return home to reconfigure;

They can extricate themselves relatively easily from threatening situations, but have the capability to function "in harm's way" and protect themselves and those entrusted to their care; and,

Warships have a symbolic value in that they are legal extensions of their parent state; in this, the presence of a warship is a clear signal of the interest or concern of a state (or of a group of states in the case of a multinational force) about a situation. This unique ability derives from the following attributes of maritime law:

High seas – constitute all parts of the sea which are not included in the internal waters or the territorial seas (normally, the twelve-mile limit) of states. Warships of all states have the freedom to navigate or conduct other activities, subject to certain restrictions, on the high seas.8 As such, there is no equivalent of "overflight permission" (indeed, warships may transit territorial waters in the exercise of "right of innocent passage"), and there are few impediments to sea-basing. Despite the claims of exclusive zones of varying sorts, nearly half of the earth's surface remains under no formal jurisdiction.

Sovereign immunity (extraterritoriality) – in international law, exemption from local territorial jurisdiction, as accorded to foreign sovereigns, diplomatic representatives, etc., which is recognised as pertaining to warships as well. While neither an embassy nor a warship forms any part of the territory of the foreign state to which it belongs (as is commonly misunderstood), the rule of immunity does mean that none of the ordinary processes of law can be directed against the ship (for example, it cannot be arrested for claims arising out of collision or salvage, and no person from shore may board without the captain's permission)."3

1.  "B-2 Bomber: Cost and Operational Issues (Letter Report, 08/14/97, GAO/NSIAD-97-181." United States General Accounting Office (GAO), http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad97181.htm, (Accessed 28 April 2010).

2.  "New Sub Role Could Buoy Our Economy" Daily Press, http://articles.dailypress.com/2009-04-24/news/0904240025_1_newport-news-shipyard-northrop-ohio-class, (Accessed 28 April 2010).

3.  "Leadmark: The Navy's Strategy for 2020 " CF, http://www.navy.dnd.ca/leadmark/doc/index_e.asp, (Accessed 28 April 2010).

 

[Greymatters]

"Anything that a navy can do, strategic airpower can do at for a cheaper cost."

I would disagree with that.  Youre comparing apples and oranges here.  Strategic air is not any cheaper and it certainly cannot maintain the same presence on or over the water that a navy can.  Strategic air also has a completely different function from what you are thinking of.  Just because a few strategic air assets got used at an operational level over the last few years doesnt mean that is what they do all the time or what theyre designed to do...




 

 

[40below]

While neither an embassy nor a warship forms any part of the territory of the foreign state to which it belongs (as is commonly misunderstood), the rule of immunity does mean that none of the ordinary processes of law can be directed against the ship (for example, it cannot be arrested for claims arising out of collision or salvage, and no person from shore may board without the captain's permission)."

Well, I learned something today. Hope it didn't displace any existing knowledge, such as where I left my car keys.

 

[SeanNewman]

Some aircraft carriers have been sunk by enemy action.  Therefore, no aircraft carriers are useful.

See previous dozen posts on the difference between inefficient, obsolete, and useless.

You are arguing a point that nobody has stated (that aircraft carriers serve no purpose).

 

[dapaterson]

Reductio ad absurdum is the name of the technique I was employing.

However, I note you are attacking the straw man, but don't discuss how to react to a Falklands-esque situation without carrier air.

I look forward to wargaming a scenario where you can play the British without any integral carrier-based air assets, deploying to the South Atlantic to retake the Malvinas, and I can play the Argies.

Methinks the outcome will be markedly different from the historical record, suggesting that "obsolete" may not be quite the correct term to describe an aircraft carrier.


As a prelude, perhaps you can spend next Tuesday commemorating the twenty-eighth anniversary of the sinking of HMS Sheffield.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Generally, the answers to the first few questions involve a greater number of assets that can do more with modern and upcoming technology (JSFs that require less deck, etc).

With giant targets, you are opening yourself up to concentration-of-force attacks against you, and the always possible "super lucky shot" like the bomb that downed the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor.  You have essentially created a floating defensive castle, and throughout history pretty much every defensive strongpoint has been beaten eventually (Maginot Line, anyone?).

Also, we should get out of the mindset that it even needs to look like a conventional carrier.  Heck, they could look like floating oil rigs because for the money the US spends on their current carriers there could be enough mini carriers to blanket the world and they wouldn't need to be that fast.

No there is no invulnerable system, but I would much rather have 100 small carriers in 10 spots than 10 carriers in 10 spots.

When/if one of the current carriers goes under, that is now basically an entire ocean's coast line lost.  In your WW2 comparison, the difference is that until the end of the war nobody could do anything quickly.  Yes aircraft carriers did a lot of damage before they were sunk, but that would not happen today.  If war broke out with a Russia/China-type country, someone is going to press a button somewhere and hundreds of missiles and torpedoes are going to start screaming toward the super-carriers all at once and their future will be decided in a day so they won't have time to have their years worth of usefulness like they did in the past.

Yes this is still theorectically possible with 10 small carriers in place of one large one, but it would be a heck of a lot more unlikely.

Posting pictures of sinking and burning carriers during WW2 is great, but are you building to a point with them?  Was there a victorious navy without them by 1945?

What is the mini-carrier design that you speak of that the USN could get ten of in the place of one fleet carrier?  For laughs, compare the RN Invincible class with a Nimitz.  In terms of crew, tonnage and aircraft capacity it is about 1:5.  Those aircraft on the small ship, though, are not nearly as capable as the those operating off the big carriers.  Handwaving about future tech aside, you may find that there is a minimum effective size for a carrier.  I believe that the RN really regreted not having the old Ark Royal during the Falkands.  She would have really helped out with her Phantoms and AEW capability.

Would you take five Invincibles against one Nimitz group?  Bear in mind you have to escort those five little carriers, which will stretch your forces.

 

[Jammer]

Strategic airpower also doesn't have the endurance of a CV(N) group.
The F22 program is shut down so there are not enough of them to even matter. The F-23 is on the chopping block as well.

 

[aesop081]

The F-23 is on the chopping block as well.

No such beast.

The YF-23 was only a demonstrator as part of the ATF ( advanced tactical fighter) competition and ended up being the loser. That was in 1991.

 

[Jammer]

Ooops...F-35. JSF,
I had the vision though.

 

[SeanNewman]

T2B,

You're still fixed on the idea that it has to look like a concentional aircraft carrier, which is not the case.

As I brought up earlier, if you could press a reset button and start over, actually looking at what you needed to accomplish and what you needed to defend against, you might get all sorts of things it may look like.

With more platforms becoming vertical, it could almost be a floating oil rig design.  With UAVs you could almost have a a whole whack of ships with expendible aircraft shot off ramps on the side. 

Heck, I'm sure some some masters techie type somewhere can design a floating carpet platform or a blimp that may work.

It's not my job on this board to solve the worldly problems and cons of an aircraft carrier; all I can do is bring up its weaknesses.

As I mentioned above though, the original poster should have stated that only one answer to the question will be acceptable.

 

[aesop081]

the original poster should have stated that only one answer to the question will be acceptable.

Go play victim in the CASW thread, you only liked one answer there.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Generally, the answers to the first few questions involve a greater number of assets that can do more with modern and upcoming technology (JSFs that require less deck, etc).

The gist is that with less than 10 of something, a serious adversary could construct enough of X weapon systems for far less than the cost of building and running one carrier that could get through the defensive screen and sink all of them. 

With giant targets, you are opening yourself up to concentration-of-force attacks against you, and the always possible "super lucky shot" like the bomb that downed the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor.  You have essentially created a floating defensive castle, and throughout history pretty much every defensive strongpoint has been beaten eventually (Maginot Line, anyone?).

In my opinion, if one must be fixed to the seas, you can still get the effects you want by having several smaller carriers that are still providing mutual support to eachother but would now require multiple ships taking multiple hits compared to your all-eggs-in-one-basket mentality with one super carrier in that group.

Also, we should get out of the mindset that it even needs to look like a conventional carrier.  Heck, they could look like floating oil rigs because for the money the US spends on their current carriers there could be enough mini carriers to blanket the world and they wouldn't need to be that fast.

No there is no invulnerable system, but I would much rather have 100 small carriers in 10 spots than 10 carriers in 10 spots.

Having commanded an actual HELAIRDET at sea, on a actual warship, you are, frankly, full of crap.

There is a minimum size for a truly effective aircraft carrier- that is to say one that can operate in most sea states, has the full range of aircraft capabilities (strike, fighter, AEW and ASW) to both project power and protect itself, can carry enough aircraft, crews and maintainers to carry out sustained operations, and can carry a useful load of jet fuel, ammo and spare parts.  That size tends to be around where the RN is currently building the QE2 class (around 45,000 tonnes).  Slow carriers and high performance aircraft do not mix, as the carrier cannot generate enough relative wind to launch or recover modern aircraft a full loads. Obviously, nuclear power is very useful (if you can afford it) to allow you to go fast and have more room to carry jet fuel and bombs.

You will find that small carriers project less power for the sunk costs of steel and crew involved.  True, big carriers are a target and can be sunk (anything can be sunk or destroyed), but all things being equal, big ships can soak up more punishment than small ships and keep fighting.

Your interest in Naval warfare is noted, but I don't think big carriers have finished their run yet (although, that day may someday come- who knows?)

 

[SeanNewman]

...you are, frankly, full of crap.

Well, now that it has turned harsh, I think I'll take my leave from this thread.

I understand that I can be blunt, but I have not made this academic discussion personal or attacked any of you.

It is actually quite sad to see some people take things so personally and insist myopically that things are the way they are and will be damned if things have to change because it's impossible that things could be any better.

I have multiple times granted that aircraft carriers serve many useful functions, and are in fact still quite useful.  However, they are more than ever extremely vulnerable and will be sank in our lifetime.

I will come back to this thread when that happens, perhaps next year and perhaps from a holodeck.  I now leave you to your one-sided discussion so you can all pat yourselves on the back.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

No, you don't get away that easy.

You started this entire thing with your "I know everything, you are all luddites" attitude and your inability to learn from those who actual might know a thing or two from actual real live experience about the subject at hand- a pattern that you have established on multiple threads.  I don't expect to you agree with anything that I have posted.  I frankly don't care.  Your petulance is becoming a bore.

If the Mods want me for the above, I will skate quietly to the penalty box now.

 

[Jammer]

Well done everyone.
I have chosen not to post any comments on this thread because i really have no experience in this field, however I have followed slow spiral of this thread into the basement.
There are a some here who are very learned on this subject, others post comments that are totally pointless and just for sarcasms sake, and still others that just can't seem to STHU and read.
Everyone posting here has an opinion, and it's just that. Whether you agree with it or not is your choice. If you can offer an opposing point of view, present you argument in a thoughtful manner without resorting to personal insults or attacks.
Take it to PMs if you feel the need to vent, better yet just keep it to yourself.

Jammer
Mentor.

 

[vonGarvin]

OK, getting back on track. 

I wish to make a few points. 

Aircraft Carrier Battlegroups serve several purposes for the USA.  The biggest is projection of sustained combat power.  This means that the government of the USA can put along side more combat power than most of the rest of the world's navies combined in one CG.  This is the proverbial Big Stick.  That was the purpose of my photos a few pages (?) back, of the coastline.  One person mentioned that the USA can already reach out with conventional warheads on ICBMs.  True, but it's not a visible deterrent.  A CG on the horizon is. 

Next is vulnerability.  Nothing is unsinkable; however, barring uncanny luck or timing, a carrier is one very well protected beast. 

Next is the actual force it projects.  The force is visible as a floating collection of warships of all sorts, but its combat power is mostly what they carry: aircraft (hence "Aircraft Carrier").  Yes, strategic command (is that still a beast?) can fly anywhere, drop bombs on THAT building over there.  No, not that one, the one next to it, that's right.  Right in the window.  But the turn around time is what, a day or two?  That is surgical and good for some things (think Libya in 86), but for others, the ability to hit and keep hitting (again, it's all about logistics) is what a CG can do.  It's no secret, but ISAF have received air support from US CGs sitting off the southern coast of Pakistan.  The immediate message may be the killing of Taliban, but the secondary (and intended) effect is on Iran, right next door.  The message?  We dont' need no stinking runways!

Next is mobility.  These floating airports can move to most any place in the world, well protected and fairly quickly.  This provides the US to project its long term combat power in a sustained fashion to a land locked country (eg: Afghanistan).  Kazakhstan may be a reach; however, it's probably not out of the realm of the possibility.

Final point is this.  After my photos were posted, there were photos of a number of sinking and/or burning aircraft carriers.  Irony: I imagine most of them (if not all) were sunk by air power.  And that is the key.  Get the airpower there, and the logistics (eg: that's the combat function of a carrier, it's only logistics) will sustain it. 

So, are they obsolete?  Absolutely not.  Will they always be huge?  Maybe not.  The US has a number of ships that look like aircraft carriers, but are "amphibious assault ships", or something like that.  They are floating logistical hubs for helicopters, infantrymen, etc.  Again, it's about logistics, and that, my friends, is what wins wars.