Ya, I think that’s the answer.
And yet, the Chinese are spending huge amounts of money building it’s own carrier fleet. Is they stupid?? 
The answer, of course, is that while it’s theoretically possible for these Chinese super weapons to kill a carrier, it’s far from proven technology. And, of course, a carrier task group has plenty of countermeasures. And, ultimately, it pre-supposes that the US and China are going to go head to head, and that China is going to be able to get it’s carrier killers off and it’s all going to work perfectly. That’s a lot of ifs and supposes, however.
To answer the OP:
They aren’t antiquated at all. In fact, they are arguably the most powerful and flexible weapons SYSTEMS in the world. The reasons why every country doesn’t have them is simple…they cost a huge amount of money and, frankly, the US has such a dominant lead in the things that countries don’t usually bother. If you are our friend then why spend the huge amount of money needed to build and maintain the things (note: several of our allies DO actually have carriers, though not supercarriers). Most of our enemies or countries neutral to us either know they can’t compete or basically can’t afford them. China is, as noted, building it’s carrier fleet right now (they have one retread ex-Soviet carrier that is completed and working up, and several home grown carriers being built)…despite the supposed technological superiority of their sooper dooper carrier killer missile. India also has at least one carrier in commission from memory (maybe 2?) and, I think is also either building new carriers or has commissioned carriers to be built (maybe from the UK?).
It always amazes me when this subject comes up for the 500th time on this board how people are so willing to dismiss the carrier as supposedly obsolete, yet they ignore the fact that other countries ARE developing and using the things, and obviously THEY think it’s still viable. Otherwise why spend so much on something that’s obsolete?
So is every other weapon or weapons system out there. By that reasoning, a tank division or artillery battery is equally antiquated. So is an Air Force air field or a military base. So, since everything is vulnerable to nuclear weapons, that means everything is obsolete and antiquated at this point? Funny, how much use all of those things have gotten since nuclear weapons were invented, isn’t it?
No, they see the value of beating up 3rd world countries. The only weapon for emerging nuclear nations would be anti-missile technology and I wouldn’t bet the farm on those.
yes, all those weapons are for use against 3rd world countries. they serve no other purpose.
Oh…is THAT all? 
Well, considering how important it is I guess you answered the OPs question. Air craft carriers (and tank divisions, and air bases, and every other conventional piece of military hardware and systems we have) aren’t antiquated at all, nor are they obsolete. At a minimum they are necessary to beat up on ‘3rd world countries’, something that has frequently been necessary since the invention of the atomic bomb and will continue to be important in the foreseeable future.
Flying aircraft carriers are old school.
They’re antiquated in the sense that are not designed to protect the United States. they’re designed to conquer 3rd world nations. they’re never going into another World War.
The real frontier in state protection is in the area of information. We now have the capacity to hover over an area the size of a small city for over a day and track every single moving object continuously. If you look at the Air Force’s current works it’s in deploy-able “satellite planes” that can be launched and redirected to anywhere in the world for extended lengths of time. They’re also working on a high altitude plane that can stay aloft for a year at a time.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
They’re antiquated in the sense that are not designed to protect the United States. they’re designed to conquer 3rd world nations. they’re never going into another World War.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sorry, but that’s ridiculous. They ARE used to protect the US…they are used to protect our (and the rest of the western worlds) interests, which are vital to the survival of our country.
I’m sure they are doing all of those things. So what? They are all vapor ware TODAY. TODAY, the air craft carrier is the most powerful and sophisticated weapons system in our arsenal and is vital to protecting our foreign interests on a global scale. We have NO other weapons system that can do a similar job today. Thus, it’s pretty much the definition of NOT being either antiquated or obsolete.
Which is the real reason other countries either have or are building them…they are the only thing that allows a large nation state to project real military force and power on a global scale.
I think that aircraft carriers are where battleships were in 1941-useful, but too expensive relative to their effectiveness. They are also increasingly vulnerable. Manned fighter planes will be replaced soon with drones, so carriers will shrink in importance.
What are you basing this on? Our weapon systems are designed for various things. The carrier battle group is designed to project power. We need around 10 of them in order to effectively do that–one of the best capabilities of the battle group is to be at any hot spot within a matter of a day or two. We can’t do that effectively with only a handful of them.
The airpower inherent to the battle group is designed to kill enemy air power, defend the group, and attack enemy assets within reach–especially neutralizing their ability to attack our air power. This is how we start down the road of air superiority (letting the AF finish the job once they’re able to reach the fight).
Other systems, like tanks, are designed to take territory and hold it. There is no other way to occupy, defeat, and control another regime/country/whatever.
As to your point about carriers not being in a large-scale conflict–do you really believe our carriers will vacate the arabian sea if we come to blows with Iran? I don’t think anyone in our government is saying they definitely don’t have a nuke or two, despite their lack of maturity in their ability to produce them in-house. The bottom line is that unless you’ve actually seen particular Operational Plans for potential conflicts which delineate our withdrawal, then your comments are based on nothing more than uninformed supposition.
To those that maintain drones will “soon” replace manned aircraft, again, what are you basing this on? Drones may one day do this, but it will take decades to happen, if it happens at all.
Well, since this is GD and all, what is your evidence for such an assertion? In 1941 there was already a weapons system that was deployed that could and would supersede the battleship. What weapons system that’s been deployed today will supersede the carrier in a similar way? Simply saying that fighter drones will replace manned fighters really means nothing (as, for one that system ISN’T fully deployed or even fully fleshed out yet), since carriers could carry drones just the same. Even assume we develop drones with similar or better characteristics (a big assumption for various reasons…and, again, this is vaporware today, as we don’t have drones that are anywhere close to similar performance characteristics ready for production, let alone that are being produced today) than the current manned fighters I fail to see how this renders carriers antiquated, obsolete or how you assert that they ‘will shrink in importance’.
I’m also amazed. History has shown the effects of sea control (or lack thereof). Recent history has shown something about the politics of nuclear arms. There is a reason why countries with nukes aren’t lobbing them around. They are not the ultimate extension of warfare, and believing that other weapons systems are obsolete because of nuclear weapons is silly. The road to super-power-dom has plenty of mile markers, a couple of which are sea control and the ability to project power. A large navy only gets you part of the way past those two. Carrier battle groups, with the logistical ability to sustain them at far reaches for months at a time, can get you all the way past. There simply is no substitute for them.
Perhaps we should do as the Chinese do. We too will rattle mustalids, and by using mink we will save more money.
Aircraft Carriers will no longer be needed only when Aircraft (manned or unmanned) have the speed and range that they no longer need remote airfields. Once you can take off from Edwards, hit anywhere on the planet with a couple of hours, loiter for an hour or more for ground support then return home. And do it cheaper than Carrier Operations. Only then will Aircraft Carriers be obsolete.
I couldn’t have said it better and I spent 24 years in the US Air Force. There are things a carrier can do that a fixed base can’t.
If the future is drones:
Why the huge deck nd its enormous costs?
Could a segmented, floating “runway” (think pontoon bridge, but some kind of foam sheet) be deployed and retrieved by a ship the size of a destroyer? Add a crane to transfer drones between the deck and the runway, and now every ship could bes a mini-carrier.
Drones could be transported with gear up, wings off or folded - how many drones could fit in the space currently used by a single piloted plane?
Maybe those WWII flattops might be the shape of the next gen?
The drone question has already been answered by Ravenman, above.
Given that enemy nations have demonstrated the ability to hack our drones and capture them, I submit that drones are NOT the wave of the future… at least, not for the short term.
I don’t get this question. Configuring boat dimensions to fit drones isn’t going to happen in the foreseeable future.
No. That could never work in high sea states or at night. Aside from that, the carrier serves to not only provide enough ramp space to land, but also serves to move and create wind over the flight deck, thus reducing the approach speed for landing aircraft, which is a very important aspect to carrier aviation.
Again, no. You need a catapult to launch. We will not be putting cats on any non-carrier ships.
The current drone being tested by the Navy takes the same amount of space (with wings folded) as the F-18E/F (with wings folded). The drone is shorter length-wise, so conceivably you could fit more on the flight deck, but no a lot more.
I’ve never really understood the idea that carriers would be too vulnerable to be used in a nuclear exchange.
The earth is too vulnerable to be used in a nuclear exchange.
Nobody should plan their military on “what’s useful if we end human life on earth?”