Eh, B1, B52, B2 can already do that. The current wars have hidden the fact that the primary function of a Navy is to be bake to keep Sea Lines of Communication open and to dominate the Ocean to the exclusion of an enemy. Carriers do that very well. Long range bombers…not so much.
And by current wars I mean since Korea. The US has never fought an opponent in the post war era who has a Navy capable of disputing even local dominance, actually they have nit fought an opponent with a Navy period.
Actual fighting is only part of the story. It (US) fought an arms race with the USSR for more than 30 years and the Soviets were no pushovers. The carrier TF can dominate a part of the ocean --until bombers or subs take it out.
name one country an aircraft carrier is protecting us from.
Vaporware? What the hell are you talking about? The Air force is currently testing/using the X-37B which is a launch-to-orbit vehicle capable of staying in orbit for well over a year at a time. It can basically be anywhere in an hour. As far as drones are concerned they are developing them to replace manned aircraft. They’re testing a version that will land on a carrier and the goal will be both autonomous craft (no GPS) and planes capable of acting in a swarm along with a manned jet. We are already to the point that the Air Force is training more drone pilots then combined bomber and fighter pilots. There’s nothing “vapor” about it. Drones are EVERYTHING to the future of warfare because they’re cheaper to build and operate as well as being scalable down to handheld person to person weapons.
They’re only a projection of power against 3rd world countries. Carriers are simply too vulnerable to be used against real world powers.
They’re testing drones to land on carriers NOW. And drones don’t care if it’s day or night. we’ve been landing commercial airlines on full auto-pilot for years. It’s old technology that needs to be fully vetted on a rolling deck but computers will always outfly a pilot on landing. All that it really needs is a spotter to wave it off electronically and that person already exists to visually wave off pilots. The X47B is a full sized aircraft in the testing stage.
the hot spots are all 3rd world countries. We could not use a carrier group against a country like Russia or China or the UK. The first shot fired by the US would see a return shot sending the carrier to the bottom.
Or possibly … other countries have their own military-industrial complex, which lobbies their government for such military spending.
Like Monty says, old school.
Here and here are photos of examples from 1928. From the USS Akron & USS Macon, showing 5 aircraft ready for launch.
(Oddly enough, the ships were about the same size as the Esses class fleet carriers of WWII.)
I am soooo building one of these if I hit the mega-lotto. I think there’s a market for this as a wealthy tourist attraction. Imagine being shuttled up to a functional zeppelin in a biplane.
the X-47B is intended for demonstration but the X-47C is slated to carry a 10,000 lb payload. The test version was so successful during land tests that they cut them short for sea trials.
There does seem to be a curious fundamental assumption, both in the OP’s question and the resulting commentary. There is the idea that some military technology, strategy or tactic that worked in the last war is obsolete in the “next war”. Which is fine. What hasn’t been defined is the “next war.” Or indeed, what is the “last war” from which this obsolete item comes?
Sadly, the world has been at war pretty much continuously for the last 100 plus years. There have been a couple of rather big upswings in war, but often the conversation tend to focus on just the two world wars. Given they were the last to involve most of the the superpowers of the time perhaps this is understandable. Then a curious assumption seems implicit: The “next war” isn’t like any of the wars wracking the world for the last 70 years, but must by some sort of special definition be a war that involves at least two superpowers going at it mano a mano. One could be forgiven for thinking that perhaps imagining that the foreseeable world conflicts are not going to be repeats of WWII, or Soviet tanks rolling across Germany, and maybe worrying about such conflicts is actually falling foul of exactly the failing in the OP, fighting a war already fought.
Indeed, one might argue that focussing on potential superpower conflicts in the cold war, and taking focus away from the regional implications of those cold war policies is what got the world into the current state of play. Then again, the cold war was a war that avoided escalating into real conflict, and thus is perhaps one of the greatest military successes the world has ever seen.
But from the point of view of the US at least. There isn’t really a “next war” There is however the world right now, and it isn’t conflict free, and US soldiers die in action every day. The US is projecting force worldwide this moment. Possibly the flaw in the entire argument is the notion of fighting the “next war”. You may already be fighting it.
[QUOTE=Magiver]
name one country an aircraft carrier is protecting us from.
[/QUOTE]
Every country that threatens our trade or interests. Any country that threatens our regional allies or our global allies interests. Name one? Sure…North Korea. But the list is pretty long and extensive. You see, the Navy is like a beat cop…the fact he’s out there, on patrol tends to have a stifling effect on crime in and of itself. Same with the Navy, and specifically our carrier task groups.
How many have been produced? How many have been deployed? Do you have a CITE that either has happened? Of course you don’t, because the thing isn’t IN production or deployment, it’s an experimental aircraft that probably never WILL be, but instead may lead to air craft that are. May. That’s what vaporware is.
There are, currently, no (that is ZERO) production fighter aircraft with similar combat capabilities as manned air superiority fighters or attack fighters. None. They are in development. They are probably years away from being a reality. Possibly, when they are a reality, assuming that happens, THEN you could come back and use the as an example of a weapons system that could supersede the carrier, though, again, that’s making an assumption right there…the assumption that carriers wouldn’t still be a good platform for launching, recovering and fighting these new drones.
What is ‘too vulnerable’? And what do you base this ridiculous assertion on? Of the potential enemies the US is likely to fight in the next 50 years, carriers are decisive weapons systems.
[QUOTE=t-bonham@scc.net]
Or possibly … other countries have their own military-industrial complex, which lobbies their government for such military spending.
[/QUOTE]
Doubtful in the case of China. Oh, they certainly have a ‘military-industrial complex’, but the PLAN has always taken a back seat to the army and airforce. China wouldn’t be dumping huge amounts of cash into something just to make the military and industrial complex happy…they see a real need for the things. So does India.
That’s the thing. If China was so convinced that their anti-ship missiles could take out a carrier with one shot…Why the fuck would they be building one of their own???
Especially since China claims to have no global ambitions and thus would realistically have no use for the kind of force projection that a carrier allows.
Not having global ambitions =/= not wanting to be the boss in your own backyard. There are an awful lot of countries to the south and east of China that a carrier would be handy in engagements with.
Aircraft carrier groups protect ME from North Korea? This is why conservative “values” are dying out.
He said aircraft carriers protect our interests from North Korea. Debatable, but hardly what you accuse him of saying.
The sea trial recently conducted in December 2012 did not include any launches or recoveries, and those tests were delayed from 2011.
The X-47C is not in production. It is one of several competitors for a Navy contract to field a small number of carrier-based UAVs in the next five years or so. That isn’t going to happen on schedule, mark my words.
The list is zero. There is no country on this planet that poses a threat to the United States which a carrier will stop. The role of the carrier changed with the advancement of rockets after WW-II and the invention of nuclear weapons. They will never be used as a primary defensive weapon again. The world has changed.
The aircraft currently doing most of the attack work today are drones. they are exponentially cheaper to operate per hour and can stay up longer by many magnitudes of time over a manned plane. The fact that carriers are the last to get combat drones further demonstrates the roll of the carrier. They have yet to receive the F-35 stealth plane even though the Air Force has been operating stealth aircraft for 30 years.
There are currently, no (that is ZERO) manned combat aircraft with the superior ability to hunt prey and destroy them than the unmanned systems in place now.
“too vulnerable” is self explanatory. Carriers cannot be used against the major powers. they’re too easy to destroy and too expensive to lose.
W/regard to launching the current crop of drones, the Nimitz Class carriers cannot launch them with their steam catapults. I believe the drones are too light and the steam catapults cannot be “adjusted” sufficiently. The new Ford Class carriers with the electro magnetic catapults will have the flexibility to launch them.
the X-47 is a purpose built drone being tested on carriers. I’d posit the idea that it would stand up to the steam catapults. I see it extending the carrier group farther into the future.
What on earth makes you think that?
No, the technological difficulty of operating aboard a carrier is the main limiting factor to shipboard operations, not the perceived lack of importance of the carrier. And, let’s face it, the Navy has its own fighter mafia culture creating a huge cultural bias against anything but manned aircraft on carriers. And the main reason that the Navy is the last to get stealth fighters is that the A-12 program was a disaster and terminated in 1990, plus the idea of maintaining RAM in the corrosive and dirty shipboard environment has, until recently, been a huge stumbling block.
You’re saying that Predators are best suited to do the Predator mission. But for close air support, the mainstays are still the fighter-bombers and assorted helicopters older than most troops.
