# How antiquated are aircraft carriers? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [January 27, 2013, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-antiquated-are-aircraft-carriers/648535 "2013-01-27T16:32:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-antiquated-are-aircraft-carriers/648535/101 "2013-01-29T07:45:55Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > Aircraft carriers are rather large, rather quick sea vessels. They have these nifty little things on them called aircraft, thus the term aircraft carrier. Those aircraft have weaponry that North Korea can only dream of having. North Korea’s ruler may be just a little boy with absolutely no experience; however, the North Korea military is not unaware that the US carriers can launch a devastating retaliatory strike more immediately than a jet based in the continental United States could. So could a missile cruiser, a submarine, or planes launched from local bases in the area. It’s very expensive to drive a runway around. It takes all kinds of support ships, submarines, anti-submarine aircraft… And I’m not sure what you mean by quick. there’s nothing quick about a 30 knot ship that has to travel thousands of miles of ocean. I would posit that carriers are slow moving ships that require redundancy to effectively cover the globe. Again, I’ll say it. Carriers are not for the defense of the United States. Their purpose is the projection of power against 3rd world countries we choose to police against. To say they’re antiquated suggests they serve no purpose. That is their purpose. They’re floating runways that allow jets with limited range to be closer to a conflict. ---
**Author:** ![Oliveritaly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oliveritaly/32/15233_2.png) [@Oliveritaly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oliveritaly)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 8:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-antiquated-are-aircraft-carriers/648535/102 "2013-01-29T08:25:04Z")
> [@flyboy](#): > > Tell me you’ve worked on a component command’s Plans shop and hold a clearance, and maybe I’ll consider what you’re saying. I, ftr, have on both accounts. Based on my experience, again, you have no idea what you’re talking about. I do work for a component command and do hold a clearance and wanted to chime in to say that Flyboy and XT (and others) are exactly correct. Carriers may one day be obsolete but that’s decades away. I really don’t think Carriers are as venerable as people make them out to be here. If you think we’re designing out naval capabilities without considering the threat modern weaponry poses I don’t think you’re really thinking through the question. As someone else pointed out, if anti-ship missiles were really such a threat to our carriers why would China (and any nation really) both with fielding them? Rogerbox, I see you’re very passionate about your point but I think it is very simplistic and not well thought out. North Korea is just one example. There are many more examples but I somehow don’t think you’d be any more interested in a serious discussion of those examples than you were in the North Korean one. ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-antiquated-are-aircraft-carriers/648535/103 "2013-01-29T08:53:06Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > I’ll ignore your rude comment and answer the question anyway. Aircraft carriers are rather large, rather quick sea vessels. They have these nifty little things on them called aircraft, thus the term aircraft carrier. Those aircraft have weaponry that North Korea can only dream of having. North Korea’s ruler may be just a little boy with absolutely no experience; however, the North Korea military is not unaware that the US carriers can launch a devastating retaliatory strike more immediately than a jet based in the continental United States could. > > Okay, I’ve decided not to ignore your rude comment. Here’s my response to that: Instead of making foolish comments, try to learn a bit about the subject at hand so you can avoid posting nonsense on the issue. How about **YOU** learn a thing about the subject? There are these things called “submarines” that can launch a devastating retaliatory strike more immediately than a jet based in the continental United States could. Have you ever heard of a place called “Japan”? You guys are all batting a big fat zero on how aircraft carriers are defending us from the DPRK. So what if they have nukes, if they blow them up in the USA they will be turned to glass anyways, carriers or not, that is why all they do is rattle their sabers to impress their own citizens of how badass they are against the imperialist dogs, they are aware no one else is impressed. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-antiquated-are-aircraft-carriers/648535/104 "2013-01-29T08:56:19Z")
> [@Oliveritaly](#): > > I do work for a component command and do hold a clearance and wanted to chime in to say that Flyboy and XT (and others) are exactly correct. Carriers may one day be obsolete but that’s decades away. > > I really don’t think Carriers are as venerable as people make them out to be here. If you think we’re designing out naval capabilities without considering the threat modern weaponry poses I don’t think you’re really thinking through the question. As someone else pointed out, if anti-ship missiles were really such a threat to our carriers why would China (and any nation really) both with fielding them? China is fielding them for the same reason we field them. To park next to 3rd world countries and wage war. they’re not going to wage war on Russia, or the US, or the UK with an aircraft carrier. It’s simply not going to happen. ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-antiquated-are-aircraft-carriers/648535/105 "2013-01-29T08:57:07Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Again, I’ll say it. Carriers are not for the defense of the United States. No you don’t understand, if some multinational corporation including the very munitions makers who are supplying the military to DO the int’l patrols make any profits, it is thus defending our"interests" which is completely the same as defending American lives. Because corporations are people, friend. ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-antiquated-are-aircraft-carriers/648535/106 "2013-01-29T09:18:02Z")
> [@Oliveritaly](#): > > Rogerbox, I see you’re very passionate about your point but I think it is very simplistic and not well thought out. North Korea is just one example. There are many more examples but I somehow don’t think you’d be any more interested in a serious discussion of those examples than you were in the North Korean one. I can’t be being simplistic since no one can give me an example of how somehow I am being defended against the DPRK by carrier groups when a) The DPRK has no actual will to attack the USA, therefore there is nothing to defend me from, b) should the carrier groups vanish out of existence, still no harm will come to me or any other American from DPRK. Therefore, there is no honest way to claim that carrier groups defend Americans from the big bad DPRK. There is no point in “further discussion” if such an obvious point cannot get through to you. Slightly off topic but I laugh everytime some right winger on the boards claims the SDMB is so radically left wing, considering you get laughed at and called “simplistic” and “not well thought out” if you think the USA should not worry about utterly militarily defeating the entire world at once, 10x over when no one else is even in the same race. If this board was actually left wing then it would be taken for a given that education, healthcare and infrastructure at home would take precidence over paying Trillions yearly to be global perpetual warfare police. This idea isn’t “left wing” anywhere else in the civilized world or any of the third world countries I’ve been to. ---
**Author:** ![TSBG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/77aa72/32.png) [@TSBG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TSBG)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 9:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-antiquated-are-aircraft-carriers/648535/107 "2013-01-29T09:19:42Z")
Dnftt. ---
**Author:** ![the\_diego](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/7bcc69/32.png) [@the\_diego](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/the_diego)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-antiquated-are-aircraft-carriers/648535/108 "2013-01-29T09:59:13Z")
A carrier is just another useful (but expensive) weapon in the arsenal. Yes, it’s usefulness is no longer the same as it was in WW2. It’s pointless to claim that it occupies a unique niche. What I don’t agree is people challenging me to prove that a carrier can win a war. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-antiquated-are-aircraft-carriers/648535/109 "2013-01-29T12:01:54Z")
> [@rogerbox](#): > > How about **YOU** learn a thing about the subject? I, along with evidently a large number of others, seem to know a great deal more than you do about the issue. > [@](#): > > There are these things called “submarines” that can launch a devastating retaliatory strike more immediately than a jet based in the continental United States could. Have you ever heard of a place called “Japan”? Yep. Have you ever heard of anti-submarine warfare, positioning, and deterrence? > [@TSBG](#): > > Dnftt. Agreed. ---
**Author:** ![Oliveritaly](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oliveritaly/32/15233_2.png) [@Oliveritaly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oliveritaly)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-antiquated-are-aircraft-carriers/648535/110 "2013-01-29T12:40:01Z")
> [@TSBG](#): > > Dnftt. Good advice. I wish I’d followed it … ---
**Author:** ![Sailboat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sailboat/32/461_2.png) [@Sailboat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sailboat)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-antiquated-are-aircraft-carriers/648535/111 "2013-01-29T13:03:23Z")
> [@rogerbox](#): > > I didn’t say starving and/or poor countries are disinclined to attack the U.S. I’m not sure how you parsed that I even made that claim from what I said. What I said was, how a bunch of poor starving people are not staved off from attacking the U.S. because of aircraft carriers. Well, since your statement, you’ve tried to make the case that submarines and nuclear missiles are what are defend us from North Korea’s potential aggression, which is an excellent debatable point. > [@rogerbox](#): > > How about **YOU** learn a thing about the subject? There are these things called “submarines” that can launch a devastating retaliatory strike more immediately than a jet based in the continental United States could. Have you ever heard of a place called “Japan”? > > You guys are all batting a big fat zero on how aircraft carriers are defending us from the DPRK. So what if they have nukes, if they blow them up in the USA they will be turned to glass anyways, carriers or not, that is why all they do is rattle their sabers to impress their own citizens of how badass they are against the imperialist dogs, they are aware no one else is impressed. Yet you’ve also maintained that also that anyone _talking about_ (not _supporting_, since I have not said I _support_, yet you include me in this group) expensive weapons systems is a tool of the military-industrial complex and a right-winger. I’m trying to parse both those claims in any way that doesn’t make YOU a tool of the military-industrial complex and a right-winger. After all, you did _talk about_ expensive weapons systems defending us. Help me out here: 1. _You were wrong_ when you asserted my talking about carriers makes me a tool of the military-industrial complex and a right-winger. 2. _You were wrong_ to bring up nuclear missiles and submarines. Those are your only two options. > [@rogerbox](#): > > Also, if our assets were not in poor ass NK’s neck of the woods, we wouldn’t have anyone there for them to attack, this is fairly common sense. Maybe. But that’s something of a different discussion, isn’t it? We’re there now. The justice and righteousness of foreign policy is an important topic – one of many that bear on this issue in varying degrees. > [@rogerbox](#): > > You are by definition a hawk if you approve of America spending over 3x it’s military spending than it’s next competitor, while having piss poor infrastructure and healthcare for it’s citizens. By definition. But, I did not – _anywhere_ – say I did approve of those things. YOU are by definition a Martian if you have antennas. By definition. See how that works? > [@rogerbox](#): > > The DPRK has no actual will to attack the USA Now you’re just calling the North Koreans liars. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-antiquated-are-aircraft-carriers/648535/112 "2013-01-29T13:23:33Z")
We’ve left the OP behind days ago. Now we’re into IMHO territory. Moved from General Questions to IMHO. **samclem** , moderator ---
**Author:** ![Idle\_Thoughts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/838e76/32.png) [@Idle\_Thoughts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Idle_Thoughts)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-antiquated-are-aircraft-carriers/648535/113 "2013-01-29T14:10:52Z")
> [@TSBG](#): > > Dnftt. It’s against the rules to call other posters trolls in this forum. Don’t do it again. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-antiquated-are-aircraft-carriers/648535/114 "2013-01-29T14:46:20Z")
> [@rogerbox](#): > > I can’t be being simplistic since no one can give me an example of how somehow I am being defended against the DPRK by carrier groups when a) The DPRK has no actual will to attack the USA, therefore there is nothing to defend me from, b) should the carrier groups vanish out of existence, still no harm will come to me or any other American from DPRK. You are being simplistic because you are acting as if the Seventh Fleet is meant to act as a wall against a flotilla of North Korean gunboats ready to cross the Pacific and attack mainland USA. You are conveniently ignoring 70 years of history going back to WW II. The purpose of the Seventh Fleet is to provide a stabalizing force in the region. Remember that China, Korea, Russia and Japan have historically not gotten along with each other. And since WWII, it was decided that the military of our main ally in the region, Japan, had lost their away game privileges. Mostly our interest in North Korea is that it not invade the South and start a war dragging China, Japan, the US and who knows who else into it. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-antiquated-are-aircraft-carriers/648535/115 "2013-01-29T14:48:56Z")
[QUOTE=Magiver] how is that an example of a threat to the United states? [/QUOTE] It’s an example of a threat to our interests. A major portion of the worlds, including the US’s trade flows through those straights. In addition, we have a major ally there. One of the things that have prevented the Chinese from a forced entry assault on Taiwan (a major US ally and trading partner) is that every time things heat up we move a carrier task force to the straights. > [@](#): > > Because drones are much cheaper to operate and are the perfect weapon to deliver ordinance on demand. The days of flying long hours and strafing trains are over. They do…but only in rather limited ways. A drone is great, again, for observing or even attacking insurgents or terrorists, especially in rough terrain, but you need a forward operating base to use the things. You can’t fly them from the US, loiter on the battlefield for days, then fly them back to refit and rearm. We have drones that CAN do that, but they are for surveillance, not combat. To paraphrase from Star Wars, these are not the drones you are looking for. > [@](#): > > Again, I’ll say it. Carriers are not for the defense of the United States. Their purpose is the projection of power against 3rd world countries we choose to police against. To say they’re antiquated suggests they serve no purpose. That is their purpose. They’re floating runways that allow jets with limited range to be closer to a conflict. And again I’ll say that you have a very narrow definition of what the ‘defense of the United States’ is, and fail to understand that ALL of our potential future enemies are basically 3rd world powers from a military perspective. You are simply wrong that they are antiquated for any reason, especially when you acknowledge here they serve a purpose…a purpose you freaking admit too. Your logic in this thread is confusing. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-antiquated-are-aircraft-carriers/648535/116 "2013-01-29T15:17:47Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > how is that an example of a threat to the United states? The vast majority of foreign policy and national security policy decisions the US makes are not related to the defense of the United States itself, but the defense of its interests. That’s an equally valid national interest. The question you’re asking is basically leading the witness to the answer you want, counselor. > [@](#): > > What’s technologically difficult about it? Seriously. If there was a need for a stealth fighter on a carrier 30 years ago it would have been developed. Why don’t you google the A-12? The Navy tried to develop a stealth fighter/attack aircraft. It was a disaster and got cancelled, and so the money that would have been spent on the A-12 was redirected into the F/A-18E/F program as the bridge fighter to the JSF. And if you don’t know why the shipboard environment isn’t ideal for stealth, just talk to anyone who has shipboard experience about corrosion. Corrosion is an omnipresent problem in any ship operations, and you can google articles about how maintenance intensive the F-117, B-2, and F-22 have been. > [@](#): > > The Predator is better suited for close support than a traditional fighter. Totally untrue. See statistics below. > [@](#): > > A drone can stay up 36 hours. Name one drone that can stay aloft for anywhere close to that amount of time _with a useful weapons payload._ > [@phreesh](#): > > I’m not talking about some sort of hypothetical dogfight or ground assault, I’m talking about the hundreds of attacks that have actually occured in the region. Drones have done that and done it well. And in ways that fighter jets could not (i.e. unobserved, after hours of recon, with several people able to analyze the real-time intelligence and make attack decisions. And with no risk to US lives). According to alternet, a source I would be very skeptical of, [less than 10%](http://www.alternet.org/world/bomber-chief-20000-airstrikes-presidents-first-term-cause-death-and-destruction-iraq-somalia) of airstrikes in Afghanistan since 2009 have been by drone. You, **Magiver** , and others are drastically overstating the current role and capabilities of UAVs in carrying out attacks. ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-antiquated-are-aircraft-carriers/648535/117 "2013-01-29T15:36:44Z")
The longer term future of the carrier / fleet may be to launch drones. We can talk about launching drones from submarines or frigates, but if you want them back they have to land somewhere. If you launch or recover from half-way around the world, then time over target will be that much shorter - kind of a waste if 3/4 of the flight time is getting to and from the target. (The Predator, for example, is a prop plane.) So you need to be nearby - in most cases, that means a friendly country or water. For economy, a drone except in extreme cases needs to be recoverable. parachuting into salt water at the end of each flight is probably not the best way to maintain a fragile aircraft. So in future, the carrier fleet will simply be a lot further offshore, easier to defend but still within practical drone range. As for the whole back-and-forth about PDRK etc. - the thing _every_ lesser country and some “peers” need to remember is the totality of US military might. That means that a full air field can sit just over the horizon at almost any angle, and take out any installation with relative impunit. It’s a “Don’t Mess With Me” message. Iran, for example, may or may not have been playing chicken with its passenger aircraft in the Gulf a decade ago, or it may have been simple miscommunication, incompetence or arrogance - but it learned that the USA does not tolerate playing games and so they has not tried anyting similar since. Ditto with speedboats. The NK probably absorbed that message quickly. ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-antiquated-are-aircraft-carriers/648535/118 "2013-01-29T18:05:36Z")
> [@Gagundathar](#): > > 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. You also need one or two to fill gaps in the rotation that unexpectantly crop up. Funny stuff happens to carriers all the time. They collide with other ships, they run aground, they have major fires in the engineering spaces, or on flight deck. They also need to get their reactors refueled (a year long process, at least) every ten to fifteen years. So while that ship (or ships) is/are in the yards, you still have to fill those deployment commitments. (Also sometimes they get called on for humanitarian/disaster relief stuff. Like in Haiti after the earthquake.) ---
**Author:** ![mlees](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba8739/32.png) [@mlees](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mlees)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-antiquated-are-aircraft-carriers/648535/119 "2013-01-29T18:35:11Z")
Back towards the OP: Carriers have always been vulnerable. To aircraft! Carriers have never been invulnerable. Throwing in a new weapon (the Chinese missile) doesn’t really change that. What historically helps to reduce that vulnerability is proper tactical doctrine. Radar coverage. Air defense, both air- and sea-based. Stealth/emission control. (Yes, a carrier group out in the vast ocean can be hard to find.) I doubt the new missle is a fundamental change in terms of fleet defense. ---
**Author:** ![rogerbox](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/76d3ee/32.png) [@rogerbox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rogerbox)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2013, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-antiquated-are-aircraft-carriers/648535/120 "2013-01-29T18:56:57Z")
> [@Sailboat](#): > > Now you’re just calling the North Koreans liars. Well, yeah. Are you being serious? Did you think [Baghdad Bob’s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfAeMtcURg0) threats were credible too? DPRK’s propoganda they spout isn’t for YOU to shake in your American boots, it’s for their own people to hear how the small but noble and strong DPRK stands up to imperialist dog America. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-antiquated-are-aircraft-carriers/648535.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-antiquated-are-aircraft-carriers/648535.md?page=7)