How antiquated are aircraft carriers?

In My Humble Opinion
121

you’ve made vague statements about the role of the carrier and cannot come up with a country for which they are used as a defensive weapon. I think it’s pretty clear it’s mission has changed (from WW-II) from one of a primary defensive weapon to that of police enforcement tool. It CANNOT be used against a major power. If a plane was launched against any major power it would be eliminated with a nuclear device or shut down with a deck destroying missile.

It’s disappointing enough that a moderator would refer to someone as a troll that I’m calling you on it. I think an apology is in order.

122

I don’t say things I don’t mean to be provocative. I really do believe he USA spends too much on the military and that Aircraft Carrier groups aren’t protecting us in any way from DPRK. Craaaaaaazy.

123

No it isn’t. Lives>Money

124

[QUOTE=Magiver]
you’ve made vague statements about the role of the carrier and cannot come up with a country for which they are used as a defensive weapon. I think it’s pretty clear it’s mission has changed (from WW-II) from one of a primary defensive weapon to that of police enforcement tool. It CANNOT be used against a major power. If a plane was launched against any major power it would be eliminated with a nuclear device or shut down with a deck destroying missile.
[/QUOTE]

Again, you keep saying this (over and over again) as if it’s meaningful…it’s not. Full stop. The role of the carrier hasn’t changed in that time…it’s always been a tool of power projection and it remains so. It CAN, absolutely, be used against a ‘major power’…any of the ‘major powers’ that are likely to become enemies of the US in the next 50 years, including China (who is highly improbable to become a direct military enemy in that time). The reason it can be is because in just about any conceivable ACTUAL military encounter nukes are pretty much off the table…and in any conventional fight, carriers are just as viable today as they have ever been.

Considering some of the posts rogerbox has made in this thread, including the latest one, I’d say he’s right on the edge. However, you are right…we shouldn’t be expressly saying that sort of thing unless we are in the Pit. You could take that to ATMB though if you really want to call out a Mod on this one.

125

You have no idea how much you undermine your argument by continually asserting this nonsense.

Also, by continually maintaining that just because we aren’t generating a handy dandy list of countries for you that we thus enable your argument, you are discounting the entirety of our foreign policy and our strategy to protect our national interests. By doing this, you’re not only showing your ignorance, but you make it impossible to argue with. For instance, I’m not going to argue politics with a 10-year old. It wouldn’t make any sense.

126

Yes, I’m saying just that. We cannot attack a major power with a carrier group and expect it to survive. Period. End of argument. The role of carrier has changed.

127

Let’s try this a different way. Can you explain WHY you keep making this assertion? Why can’t we attack a ‘major power’ with a carrier group? What, specifically prevents this? Nukes? Well, nukes prevent everything, so that’s not a valid reason. Why couldn’t we use a carrier group again, say, a Chinese invasion of Taiwan…which, while far fetched, is probably the only ACTUAL probable time the US would go head to head with a ‘major power’.

128

Monty is a Moderator who knows better and I called him on it. He crossed the edge.

129

Not every country has nukes and nukes are not the only weapon useful against a carrier. Carriers are used against countries that do not have the capacity to counter them. They are a tool used against 3rd world nations. What is so difficult to understanding about this?

China has publicly demonstrated how easy it is to penetrate a carrier group. This wasn’t some top secret revelation that modern diesels are extremely quiet. I posted a cite that showed the problem was already significant enough that the US rented a foreign vessel and crew for 2 years to work on the problem. Diesel subs are extremely quiet and it’s a problem.

If they can get inside a carrier group that means they can certainly shadow a carrier group. If they can shadow a carrier group that means they can stagger a group of subs and sit on the bottom waiting for a group to float by. You can’t hide a carrier group from satellites and drones.

130

[QUOTE=Magiver]
Not every country has nukes and nukes are not the only weapon useful against a carrier. Carriers are used against countries that do not have the capacity to counter them. They are a tool used against 3rd world nations. What is so difficult to understanding about this?
[/QUOTE]

What’s so difficult for you to understand that your argument here is ridiculous? If anyone uses nukes then all bets are off…NO weapons system is going to work, every one will be vulnerable and we are all fucked? But a nuclear exchange is a low probability event, and you don’t determine whether a weapons system is or isn’t antiquated or obsolete based on a worst case and low probability event…you base it on it’s probable use. Why is that seemingly simple thing so hard for you to grasp? I really don’t understand why you are having such trouble with this, or why you keep harping on it, as it really does nothing to shore up your position in this discussion.

And diesel subs have been around for decades…the Soviets had the things. Yeah, they COULD be potential threats to a carrier group. Then again, we have hunter killer subs of our own, so it’s not nearly as cut and dried as you are trying to make it. The Chinese pulled off a stunt…a stunt that the Soviets also pulled off in their time. Neither renders a carrier obsolete or antiquated. Just vulnerable…which is pretty much well known. However, this doesn’t demonstrate your assertion that they are useless against a ‘major power’, ‘Period. End of argument’. Nor does it show that the ‘role of carrier has changed’.

And if they can get a missile in through the carriers screen, that also means that they could hurt or kill a carrier. But here’s the thing…they would have to do it during war time conditions, and it’s not the easy thing you are attempting to make it out to be. You could pull off a stunt of getting your diesel boat into the inner ring of a carrier group in peace time…but in war time you are just as likely to have a US attack sub sink your ass if you tried it. You could pop off a sooper dooper carrier killer missile into a carrier group and kill the carrier in one shot in theory, but in war time we’d be pounding the crap out of those facilities, and you’d need to get it through all the layers of defense and hit the carrier, and not one of the escort ships, even assuming you got it through the defenses.

Again, none of this backs up your assertions that carriers are antiquated, obsolete OR that their role has changed…nor that they are useless against a ‘major power’.

131

The question I’ve asked is related to the thread. The roll of carrier is no longer one of primary defense. You’re restating my position about their use as a policing tool. “Defense of it’s interests” (read financial interests) is not the same as defense of country. I think it’s obvious the roll of the carrier has changed. It’s a geo-political police tool by your own admission and not a defensive weapon. In this respect it’s antiquated from it’s original use. It may not actually be antiquated from It’s original intended purpose since the idea of gunboat diplomacy predates it by default. The Wright Brothers were just getting off the ground when Panama was carved out of Columbia. I’m not a Naval history buff but I think the carrier was intended as the pre-eminent weapon of it’s day.

I know about the A-12. If they needed it on a carrier 30 years ago it would BE on a carrier now. I own an airplane and understand corrosion. I think you’re referring to RAM (Radar Absorbing Material) which was reported to be a problem with the introduction of the B-2 bomber. That was more of a tape issue which was corrected early on and not a corrosion problem. AFAIK all stealth aircraft that use RAM require touching up as part of their regular maintenance regiment. That has nothing to do with corrosion.

If it’s not in the air it’s not a useful payload. For the purchase price of one F-16 you can buy 4 drones and cover 4 times the area. If you consider the aloft time the coverage of those 4 drones is that of 72 F-16s. If you consider the operating cost then that number goes up. Using a fighter as a hanging bomb rack is pointless.

You are underestimating the use of drones. Again, the Air force is training more drone pilots than fighter and bomber pilots combined. And you seem to think that Iraq and Afghanistan are the only countries where drones are used. You ignore Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen where drones are used extensively. You also seem to think that air strikes are either a function of jets or drones. As has already been stated, anything from kiowa helicopters to 130 gunships are used for ground support. Drones are by far the cheapest and most useful platform for larger standoff weapons. For ¼ of the purchase cost of an F-16 they can stay in the air far longer and at a fraction of the operating cost.

132

I’m not a moderator and never have been.

133

Are you serious? Are you next going to say that the reason we didn’t have an iPhone in 1996 is that we didn’t need an iPhone in 1996? You cannot know anything about the A-12 if you don’t understand that the program was a failure and deserved to be cancelled – not because it wasn’t needed, but because there was no way to complete the program in an affordable cost.

The maintenance of exotic coatings is a major issue for corrosion. What environment do you think B-2s are maintained in: outdoors, in jet exhaust and seawater; or in carefully climate controlled buildings?

Perhaps you can explain why a recognized defense expert doesn’t agree with you at all.

I’m not saying drones aren’t being extensively used for intelligence collection. You and the other poster – I forget his name – were saying that drones are the premier aerial strike platform, or similar such allegations. The fact is that drones are still a niche platform that do a couple missions quite well, but they are not all that flexible. They can’t get anywhere in a hurry. They have significant payload limitations. They have no chance whatsoever in any contested airspace. They are affordable, but not cheap. It’s just pure and simple fanboyism to claim that drones have fully arrived: the truth is that they are a very good capability today, but they need to mature much, much more before they are as flexible and as capable as you want to claim.

134

yes, a carrier is vulnerable against a country with nukes and state-of-the-art anti-ship weapons. what part of “carriers are only used against 3rd world countries in police actions” are you contradicting?

the use of nuclear weapons is a guaranteed deterrent against the use of carriers in a war with nations that have them. diesel subs demonstrate that carriers are vulnerable beyond that capacity.

I stated a single tactic that would take out a carrier and that’s sitting on the bottom waiting for them to approach. There are an infinite number of tactics that would place a squadron of submarines in a position to attack a carrier group. When a sub launches a 200+ mph torpedo at short range it’s over before it started.

so? British fighter pilots had a 25% survival rate. If a sub is ordered to destroy a carrier then that order will be carried out regardless of the odds.

I never said obsolete nor even suggested it. How many times have I stated their purpose is for policing 3rd world countries?

135

You represent the board as a science advisor. You know better than to call someone a troll AND you knew this would be my response which makes it all the worse for making a semantic argument.

136

Who here unequivocally thinks the US should mothball its carriers for the simple reason it doesn’t need them?

137

That had nothing to do with corrosion and we were flying the stealth fighter for 13 years prior to 1996.

The maintenance of exotic coatings has ZERO to do with corrosion. The maintenance of RAM involves the maintenance of RAM and nothing else. You literally don’t understand what the word corrosion means or how it’s applied to aircraft. Corrosion is the deterioration of metals and is a structural concern. This has nothing to do with RAM maintenance or the A-12 program failure. All the RAM coating can come off and it doesn’t affect the corrosion protection applied to the base metal.

he doesn’t disagree with what I’ve stated entirely but by his account I’ll adjust my coverage down from a factor of 72 to 24. They still represent an ability to stay aloft longer and at a cheaper operating cost (at least the smaller drones).

drones, like piloted aircraft, have a wide and varied use. Unlike piloted aircraft their use has not been fully realized on the larger side of the scale. The global hawk is an expensive limited production system. If you look at the production version of the X-47b it’s suppose to have a payload of 10,000 lbs. A stealth drone with that kind of payload is a significant upgrade.

I don’t disagree with what you’ve said here. What makes drones a growing trend is the scalability. While they lack the capacity to think the space and systems required for pilots are no longer needed so that frees up space for other things. And when talking about scalability that brings them down to handheld weapons which unto themselves can replace the larger drones. And what was once a speculation by science magazines is now actively being looked into. Eventually we will have drones flying as a swarm with a piloted aircraft. Carriers will launch multiple aircraft controlled by a single pilot each capable of launching multiple weapons and each weapon capable of deploying multiple weapons. But right now I’d describe them as efficient gap fillers. A handheld drone fills the gap between infantry and small helicopters. Larger drones fill in the gap between helicopters and ground support fighters. I suspect the small spy drone will be used by a growing selection of hand launched weapons with greater range and power.

138

[QUOTE=Magiver]
I never said obsolete nor even suggested it. How many times have I stated their purpose is for policing 3rd world countries?
[/QUOTE]

Then they aren’t obsolete or antiquated. I believe we have been over this same ground pages ago. Even if you believe that ALL they do is ‘policing 3rd world countries’ (which I disagree with, but for the sake of argument I’ll let that pass), then clearly they still have a useful role, since policing 3rd world countries (like China, for the sake of this discussion) IS a vital strategic necessity for the US, since the very life blood of this country is in trade and bringing in resources such as oil…resources that could be cut or hampered by 3rd world nations.

They will. And they might get lucky. But then again, they might not. And China doesn’t have all that many diesel electric boats…boats that are highly vulnerable themselves when they aren’t able to run on battery and have to use their diesel engines to recharge. Or when they are at port. Or, when they are coming out of a port because it’s a choke point. Or, simply are in the sights of one of our quite numerous (relative to China’s) nuclear attack subs…or under the guns of our very sophisticated ASW systems…or…or…or…

That’s the thing. There are vulnerabilities, to be sure. But you are handwaving away all of the things we’ve done to mitigate those vulnerabilities as if China (who isn’t exactly a typical potential foe for us in the future) could just magically roll through them. They can’t. They might get lucky…or, they might get their asses handed to them if they try, and they have only a finite number of such weapons at their disposal. The odds are in our favor, but even if they were evenly balanced then carriers would still not be antiquated or obsolete even against a ‘major power’ such as China. And, the thing is, China is only a remotely potential foe in the future…the probability of the US and China going toe to toe all out is pretty remote, even over Taiwan, which is really one of the few possible friction points.

And there are myriad counters THAT WE HAVE BEEN USING FOR DECADES AND CONTINUE TO REFINE. Dude, seriously…the threats you’ve laid out here the Navy has been dealing with since before most of the people on this board were born! We were dealing with them and working on counters when the old Soviet Union was still a going concern.

As for 200+ mph torpedoes, well, when they become a reality and of proven worth then come on back and we will talk about our carriers being antiquated or obsolete. For now, it’s like drones that can do everything a manned fighter can do…they aren’t here yet, so it’s impossible to judge whether or not they would render our carrier force antiquated and obsolete, or whether we can adjust tactics and refine new technologies to counter them.

No one is denying that carriers could potentially be vulnerable to subs, diesel or otherwise. You are vastly overstating the potential danger, however, and totally handwaving away the fact that we have had counters to them for decades, and that diesel subs themselves have very serious vulnerabilities…doesn’t that mean they are antiquated and obsolete too, since they could be destroyed? :stuck_out_tongue:

The part where you continuously attempt to shut down any discussion about using them against not 3rd world nations by just waving around nuclear weapons as if that ends the discussion and wins the argument. It doesn’t.

139

I don’t think anyone does. There are 11 carrier groups, I think we should have less.

140

Magiver, put up or shut up. You keep asserting knowledge of Naval operational tactics. Do you have any kind of education, training, or trade that backs this up? Because I do, and I can say that you have no idea what you’re talking about.