An old adage say that generals usually begin fighting new wars using strategies from the last war. How antiquated are aircraft carriers?
What kind of war are you fighting? Alternately, how old are the aircraft carriers in question? I’ve heard that they are very vulnerable to submarine attack, but at the same time an aircraft carrier allows a very high degree of strategic flexibility, being able to effectively move an entire air base anywhere in the world the ocean touches. Thus, if a war or major crisis breaks out in some part of the world you weren’t recently invested in, you can still move a substantial amount of airpower into the region to respond.
Also, not all aircraft carriers are equal. Many involved technologies have changed over the years. An aircraft carrier designed for prop planes in WWII would be entirely antiquated and quite possibly useless in modern naval air warfare (no angled deck, possibly too short to launch and recover jet planes, which are much bigger and heavier than their ancestors were, etc.)
Next question: Assuming that carriers are obsolete, what do you use instead?
Not as outdated as the piloted aircraft they ferry and launch since they can still be used to project drones. But, yeah, there are probably cheaper and more efficient ways to do that as well.
(I was going to say, “If it’s good enough for Nick Fury and S.H.I.E.L.D., then it’s good enough for me!”, but I decided that was a little silly.)
Unless you propose a fleet that is reconfigured around submarines that can either launch aircraft, drones, cruise missiles or fly themselves, my best guess is that you are going to have aircraft carriers for the foreseeable future.
Aren’t they extremely vulnerable to missile attack?
China’s DF-21D Missile Is a One-Shot Aircraft Carrier Killer
The aircraft carrier is a floating airfield. It isn’t just a weapon, but a key piece of equipment for logistics. They are the centerpiece of any naval group and the very definition of a modern navy. A nation’s ability to project force largely hinges on its carrier fleet.
So no, they are not obsolete nor are they going away any time soon.
Soon the Piloted Aircraft will be replaced by drones. I walked past an X-47B at work a few weeks ago, and all I could think of was that it looked like a Cylon.
http://gonzoj.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/the-x-47b-advanced-unmanned-combat-air-vehicle/
I’m not sure why this question keeps coming up. The missiles are powerful, but the carrier group is not defenseless. They do carry countermeasures. Just because someone invents a new weapons system does not mean the existing equipment goes in the scrap pile. Besides this, none of the nations we are likely to fight in the near future (such as Mali) have these missiles.
My question is: Do you have a better way to move an airport?
I think we all know what the next evolution in naval airpower will be:
*Flying *Aircraft Carriers.
I’m mildly curious what makes that Chinese anti-carrier missile different from any other ballistic missile. I mean, when you have a payload measured in the hundreds of kilotons, what’s the distinction between that and lobbing a nuke?
I guess it’s the fact that the warhead homes in on the target on the way down. I’m curious how it compares to the Scuds in terms of intercept difficulty.
Drones do not currently operate off of aircraft carriers, and it will probably be quite a few years before they do. The X-47 is only intended to demonstrate that a UAV can autonomously land on a carrier. It will not go into production. The Navy does want to have a small number of drones that can operate off of carriers by 2020, but that ain’t going to happen.
All UAVs under development right now are remotely piloted vehicles: autonomous drones simply are not going to be technologically viable for decades to come.
There’s a discussion here. The Chinese ballistic missile is not a nuclear missile. It essentially launches and then disperses multiple reentry vehicles that are conventional in nature, and which are guided to their target. The reentry vehicles would probably traveling several thousand miles per hour faster than a Scud.
So long as I’m on my pedestal for a moment, the discussions about whether carriers are obsolete tends to miss the most obvious question: how do carriers compare to anything else, such as land-based airfields?
Oy. Resurrection of the just-resting thread
Is There Any Defense Against The Chinese Ant-Ship Ballistic Missile?
Hence, oh index multipliers.
When it comes to weaponry, antiquated usually means surpassed by superior technology. For its specific purpose of providing a sea based take off and landing of planes it hasn’t been surpassed. It may need upgrading for the drones it will support in the future, but I doubt there will be all that many changes needed. I’ve wondered why we don’t make gigantic floating platforms that can be towed to war zones, but in practical usage now, aircraft carriers can barely make their way through the Strait of Hormuz, so they seemed to have reached practical size limits in terms of navigability.
I don’t raise this question around my FIL, nor do you around any other plank-owner on Big E… but “how else do you move an airport” is the correct answer in a nutshell.
I think we could do with fewer than 11 of them, though. I don’t mention that at family gatherings, either.
That is a reasonable idea, in my opinion.
How many do you think we really need?
Which carriers would you retire?
Not a clue on any front; I note only that we have 10 more carrier groups than any other nation. I suspect that a non-sentimental, non-warhawk, non-military-industrial-complex analysis would show that some smaller number of groups, retaining the most advanced ships, would be more than adequate. Maybe 5 or 6 - and I wonder if that many are needed. Two for each of two engagements with two more in rotation/reserve. But that’s an XWAG.
ETA: I think carrier groups are useful only as an extension of US military infrastructure; that there may never be another significant naval battle; and that in a truly large-scale war the carriers will be taken out or rendered useless in very early stages.
I agree about the inherent vulnerability of the design and there is the entire entourage to handle as well.
However, for force-projection and peacekeeping, we may have no viable alternatives.
I posit a two ship rotation of 8 carriers to handle the 1) Mediterranean/Persian Gulf,
2) Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf, 3) Atlantic and 4) Pacific
That is, of course, based upon the current hot spots. If we get into some sable rattling over Taiwan again, then things change.
I wonder if there is wargame out there that simulates modern and near-future naval strategies. If not, there should be.
Change, as in, the Chinese rattle their jewelry to escalate the conflict?
What type of war are you fighting? The answer may be very different depending on whether you’re fighting China or a 3rd world country. Even if China did possess technology that would let them destroy carriers with ease, most nations don’t possess those types of weapons. Do you need that much tech to fight 3rd world countries, though?
If it ever comes to a full scale war between major powers, I suspect the US and the rest of the world will have far more pressing concerns than your carriers being blown up.
An aircraft carrier is a police tool for 3rd world nations. They are far too vulnerable an asset to be used for a war against countries with nuclear weapons.