Aircraft Carrier is obsolete as a modern Weapon

[jason_420]

Jason:

It would seem that way if a carrier had to fight the whole engagement by itself. But it doesn’t. It’s a very integral part of a larger whole.

Wrapped around that carrier is a whole task force that sometimes is devoted to the defense of that carrier. These support ships can be missile launching cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and yes fast attack submarines. Each of these elements lends support for each other: the aircraft from the carrier can protect the surface vessels. The missile carrying cruisers provide a layered defense to prevent, or try to prevent aircraft and missile from getting to the carrier. The destroyers and submarines protect it from threats below.

It is very doubtful that Aircraft carriers will never be obsolete. It’s like the feud that existed during the 1950s between the navy and the air force concerning the practical necessity for a navy now that we had bombers and missiles. What everyone forgets is presence or projection of force starts with being there with force. Ships of any type will never go obsolete for that reason.

Hope this helps.

I understand the Carrier Battlegroup and how important it is to all other ships to guard the Carrier but it is vunerable to Bombers, Cruise Missles, and Supercavitation Torpedo's and especially if they are all fired at once. I just don't think the Battlegroup can stop its destruction if a modern naval enemy is determined.

Now everyone can have a laugh at this but can't we come up with a cloaking device or a new generation of "Super Submarines".

The carrier only has a role against far weaker enemies now days. Most of our enemies (as far as we know) are far weaker.

I heard a saying that whenever there is an international crisis every American Presdents first question is "Where are our Carriers?"

Thanks for joining the debate guys!

http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2004-06/supercavitating-torpedo

But the supercavitating torpedo—a rocket-propelled weapon that speeds through the water enveloped in a nearly frictionless air bubble—may render obsolete the old submarine strategy of sly maneuvering and silent running to evade the enemy. The superfast torpedo could be outfitted with conventional explosive warheads, nuclear tips or nothing at all—a 5,000-pound, 230-mph missile could do enough damage on its own. The Russians invented the concept during the Cold War, and their version of this underwater killer—dubbed the Shkval (“Squall”)—has recently been made available on the international weapons market; the United States, of course, wants a new, improved version of the original.

 

[Partisan]

I am not going to go as far as calling them obsolete, but the A/C's time maybe closing. And before you get all outraged remember that all weapons eventually become obsolete, why do you think we don't issue swords anymore or have horse cavalry? Both of those are far older than the aircraft carrier.

Consider the following:

1. A Carrier a basically a floating ammo and fuel dump. It doesn't take much to destroy one. The Taiho was sunk by a single WWII Torpedo which did very minimal damage. It was one simple mistake by the crew (ventilating the ship) and she blew up like a 4th of July Firework.

2. An enemy doesn't need to be close in order to sink her. Most Modern nations have cruise missiles than can be fired from land sea or air a hundred miles away. Nor do these missiles need a sophisticated launcher, a semi-trailer is sufficient.

3. Anti-ship weapons are becoming incredibly sophisticated. The Russian SunBurn (Moskit) is supersonic, there is no AAD capable of tracking it its simply too fast. And remember these missiles are fired on mass its simply a mathamatical certainty that one will penetrate the Air defense. This is true with conventional missiles as well. A AS missile is cheap expendable weapon an enemy can fire them all day into a hit is achieved.

If you look back at the Falklands war, the British lost 5 ships in 2 months. Two of them were to Exocets the others were from simple Iron bombs. All the Argentinians did was fly low, release their rather crude weapon and escape. The RN had no chance to react.

Thats how quicky it can be over.

MM, you make a powerful case but we need to investigate the suppositions more:

1. It is a large disaster waiting to happen, which is why so much money is spent on safety, damage control and fire fighting systems, lessons learned!
2. That is why all ships have a missile defence capability, which is linked to the rest of their fleet - creating a shield, for the aircraft carrier.
3. The Moskit has an approx range of 120km, inside the air defence umberella, not to say that it can't get through the "shield", but the launch vehicle, ship or aeroplane is going to be detected a long way out.
4. The Royal Navy changed to construction of its fleet, when we found out that aluminium burns at high temperatures, this was a significant factor in the loss of some of these ships, once damaged, HMS Argent, RFA Sir Galahad. Also add to the fact that the bulk of the ships sunk were actually on picket duty.

Now I agree that weapon do naturally become obsolete through technology, but I think that this is a long way off for the aircraft carrier.

Instead I think that the shape and size will change, as UAV's become more complex & task proficient, the carrier will shrink, and thus potentially more numerous.

 

[-- Dusty]

I think it would be better if we had 30-40 pocket carriers with 5-7 place each than an entire airwing on one. Multiple targets may make a hunter happy, but when those targets are looking for the hunter as well....

 

[Chukpike]

I think it would be better if we had 30-40 pocket carriers with 5-7 place each than an entire airwing on one. Multiple targets may make a hunter happy, but when those targets are looking for the hunter as well....

The factors dictating the area needed to simultaneously launch and recover aircraft. (Size of the flight deck) Would probably mean that the room available for aircraft would still be in the 20 or 30 range.

With the addition of jet aircraft after WWII the biggest carriers were to small to handle jets effectively, and thus the angle deck was born and carriers grew larger.

Having only 5-7 aircraft would mean operating offensively or defensively, but not at the same time.

 

[rattler]

Having only 5-7 aircraft would mean operating offensively or defensively, but not at the same time.

Indeed (from my uneducated layman POV), and that is not what you want in any war scen where you are looking (strategically) for the initiative...

Rattler

 

[mmarsh]

Rattler

Are you so sure the lessons have been learned? That's a mighty big assumption.

Consider this: the Modern Navies are still operating under the assumption that big expensive warships packed with the latest weaponry will dominate the ocean, and yet USS Cole was nearly blown out of the water by a suicide speedboat packed with explosives and a simple timer, not to mention RN ships that were sunk by low-flying aircraft armed with simple Iron Bombs -these are WWII tactics and weapons and they still work.

Personally, I don't think the lessons have been learned at all. We are still designing these juggernauts based on a outdated idea of naval warfare.

Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it. No Army has won by using the philosophies of the previous war, they win by creating a new philosophy.

Personally I think future Navies will consist of small, expendable ships that can be easily replaced.

 

[Chukpike]

Rattler

Are you so sure the lessons have been learned? That's a mighty big assumption.

Consider this: the Modern Navies are still operating under the assumption that big expensive warships packed with the latest weaponry will dominate the ocean, and yet USS Cole was nearly blown out of the water by a suicide speedboat packed with explosives and a simple timer, not to mention RN ships that were sunk by low-flying aircraft armed with simple Iron Bombs -these are WWII tactics and weapons and they still work.

Not sure the Cole attack is relevant to the subject. Although the USS Cole might be one of small, expendable ships you foresee in the future. Not sure what RN ships you are referring to unless you are talking about WWII?

Personally, I don't think the lessons have been learned at all. We are still designing these juggernauts based on a outdated idea of naval warfare.

Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it. No Army has won by using the philosophies of the previous war, they win by creating a new philosophy.

Personally I think future Navies will consist of small, expendable ships that can be easily replaced.

Almost seems like you are looking at it from the point of view, that future Navies will go out and duke it out on the High Seas. Which is outdated and has been for a very long time. Maybe you could supply sources for your assertion that the World's navies are using "outdated ideas". For purposes of commerce between countries, navies are still going to be needed even if it is only against piracy.
Currently the world does not seem to be able to deal with piracy easily. But in the future, if the politicians decide naval force is warranted. The end of piracy will be almost immediate.

I don't think you really understand how much of this world is water. Maybe you see Air forces just being based in their home country and flying anywhere in the world to engage an enemy?
The quickest way to supply real time close in support to ground operations are still aircraft carriers. They can get to an areas quickly and can offer sustained tactical support.

As I all ready said in previous posts aircraft carriers probably will become obsolete in the future, it is not going to be in the near future, after that who knows?

No offense but unless you have spent extened time at sea on the world's oceans you have no concept of how big they are.

 

[mmarsh]

No, I was talking about HMS Antelope, HMS Conventry and HMS Sir Galahad. They were sunk by Argentinean A-4Q Skyhawks using 1000lb bombs in 1982.

No, on the contrary, I am talking the opposite point of view that they days of big Naval Fleets are over. That's just the point, why build 90T Nimitz/Truman/Ford Class Aircraft Carriers when they cannot be used in the traditional capacity of Power Projection? Thanks to in-flight refueling, aircraft do not need to be close to a carrier. When the US bombed Libya, the bombers were F-111 that took off in the UK, took the long way around France hit their target in Tripoli and flew back (that's at least 2600nm round-trip). If Aircraft have that type of range (and remember this is 25 years ago) why do we need a $1 Billion carrier?

You have been at sea much longer than I, I'll grant you that. However since you were at sea in the Navy there has been a incredible revolution in Technology, especially computer technology and that is something I know a great deal about (my profession for the past almost 10 years). Ships simply can no longer disappear in the vastness of the ocean for long periods of time, there are civilian satellites that can zoom as close in as a city block, and the tech is getting even better are more precise.

A few weeks ago I found a website that you might find interesting. It tracked and updated the movements of cargo ships around the world updated by GPS satellite -I'll post the link when I find it so you can see how easy it is to find a ship at sea thesedays.

All weapons become obsolete eventually. The CV replaced the BB, the BB replaced the Dreadnaught, the Dreadnaught replaced the Ironclad, the Ironclad replaced the Ship of the Line, so on and so forth. Is it so hard for people to imagine that the days of the CV days are numbered? I think the fact that most Navies are building smaller, less expensive carriers is due to the realiation that the large CVs days are over.

The point I am trying to make is that in the past 20 years the world, including the sea, has become a very small place and its only going to get smaller.


Partisan

1. When people start thinking ships are unsinkable (L'ORIENT, TITANIC, YAMATO, HOOD, BISMARK) that's usually when they are sunk. The rule is always: If it floats it can sink.
2. Missile Defense helps but is not a 100% Guarantee. We saw that during the 1st Gulf War, SCUDS did break through our Patriot missile defense systems. And Missile Defense offers no protection from torpedoes or mines
3. The Launch vehicle for the Moskit can include something ve innoculous like a Tractor-Trailer. And again such an attack would be fired en-mass, aircrews like the TU-22 Backfire crews were taught to do this throughout the cold war with AS-4 Kitchens. Remember all they need is one hit, they cost per missile means that a country can keep firing them until the defender exhausts himself.

 

[A Can of Man]

I think the one thing that truly puts the carrier into question is the advancement of UAVs and guided missiles.

As for the Cole attack it had more to do with poor security awareness and discipline.

The inflight refuelling isn't that strong of an argument because how close you can get your airplanes to the theater of operations without burning precious fuel is actually important. It's different when your response or attack is fifteen minutes from the target area as opposed to half way around the world. For many applications it's alright but that's not always the case.
A scenario where you'll need an amphibious force to secure a beach head will need a carrier group to support it unless of course missile technology can pretty much replace what pilots are doing currently. Basically meaning that SAM coverage alone can win air superiority, guided missiles take out enemy strong points, UCAVs provide close air support etc.

I can see the aircraft carrier (at least the large ones) getting obsolete in about twenty years but probably too early for missiles and UAVs to take over right this instant.

 

[rattler]

A few weeks ago I found a website that you might find interesting. It tracked and updated the movements of cargo ships around the world updated by GPS satellite -I'll post the link when I find it so you can see how easy it is to find a ship at sea thesedays.

This is the best site I found in this respect: http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/ , zoom in a bit to see the simple and effective layout: Squares with ship counts, when you zoom in further and mouseover (summary) or click on a ship (detailed report with picture) you get name, status, speed and heading.

Re the carriers, China is going for one http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-03/05/content_7540399.htm and there is a nice ongoing discussion about what the US Navy really needs to re-invent itself in todays threat scenarios here: http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/2009/04/influence-squadrons-next-evolution.html

NOTE that those influence squadrons still will depend on a carrier near somehwere.

Rattler

 

[Easy-8]

Submarines have been around since BEFORE the time of aircraft carriers and were around during WWII when the carrier was born. Notice that the war in the pacific was won at Midway by the US because the USN took out all IJN's carriers nether side lost a submarine. aircraft carriers are the powerhouses of naval might.

subs are a nasty weapon when used correctly but the carrier is the most important vessel.

 

[Chukpike]

No, I was talking about HMS Antelope, HMS Conventry and HMS Sir Galahad. They were sunk by Argentinean A-4Q Skyhawks using 1000lb bombs in 1982.

The British task force traveled 7,500 miles to engage Argentinean forces. The Falklands are 300 miles off the coast of Argentina.
(The Sir Galahad was RFA Sir Galahad a landing ship Logistical)
HMS Sheffield and HMS Coventry were DDGs
HMS Antelope HMS Ardant were FFs
Those four ships were lost doing what the were supposed to do, protecting the main fleet.
The bottom line is a fleet consisting of two Carriers defeated the air and naval forces of a country 300 miles away.

No, on the contrary, I am talking the opposite point of view that they days of big Naval Fleets are over. That's just the point, why build 90T Nimitz/Truman/Ford Class Aircraft Carriers when they cannot be used in the traditional capacity of Power Projection? Thanks to in-flight refueling, aircraft do not need to be close to a carrier. When the US bombed Libya, the bombers were F-111 that took off in the UK, took the long way around France hit their target in Tripoli and flew back (that's at least 2600nm round-trip). If Aircraft have that type of range (and remember this is 25 years ago) why do we need a $1 Billion carrier?

2600nm round trip does not amount to any distance at all. During Vietnam B52 were flying from Guam to Vietnam.
Desert storm they were flying from Diego Garcia in the Indian ocean and back. But those were bombing missions, and the close air support was from Carriers and planes in Saudi Arabia.

The Tripoli attack took the long way around France because the did not have permission to over fly. The in flight refueling tankers were flown from Spain and it is questionable whether they had permission from Spain.(The actual refueling was not done in Spanish airspace.)
This was also not a sustained support of any ground forces. (No matter if a bomber could fly from the US to Iraq and back (which they B1s did during the early stages of Iraqi Freedom) the refueling planes were based considerably closer.) In any future actions you cannot guarantee what countries will be friendly to your cause.
A Navies carrier can be relied upon to operate without concern to foreign governments.

You have been at sea much longer than I, I'll grant you that. However since you were at sea in the Navy there has been a incredible revolution in Technology, especially computer technology and that is something I know a great deal about (my profession for the past almost 10 years). Ships simply can no longer disappear in the vastness of the ocean for long periods of time, there are civilian satellites that can zoom as close in as a city block, and the tech is getting even better are more precise.

Apparently you are under the impression I stopped learning and do not keep up with new fang-led gadgets.
1. My first computer was a MK111 Analog/Digital Fire ASW Fire Control system. 1970
2. After I left the Navy I worked in field service repairing and maintaining microprocessor manufacturing equipment. 1977 on
3. I helped a friend going to Cal Poly San Luis Obispo build a computer he used while majoring in computers. ( He sold it before students found ot that the first 286 PCs were coming out). 1976
4. My first PC was a 286. 1980
5. I currently have a 4 year old dual core Pentium home PC running XPS Media Addition. I also have a almost 2 year old Dell Vostro Laptop running Vista.
6. I am not impressed with your ten years experience.
7. I do understand programming but most of my experience is in hardware.

As far as being at sea longer than you, I have drank more salt water than you have sailed over.:lol:
I do take offense to your implied insult of being way out of touch with today's technology.
Plus the fact that you are probably nothing more than a polliwog, and are not a loyal Shellback in King Neptune's Kingdom as I am. (For information this means you have never sailed across the Equator and are thus lower than whale pooh.):lol:

A few weeks ago I found a website that you might find interesting. It tracked and updated the movements of cargo ships around the world updated by GPS satellite -I'll post the link when I find it so you can see how easy it is to find a ship at sea thesedays.

They have been using transponders in trucks (FedEx, UPS, large trucking lines for years). I am sure shipping companies have been doing the same. Now go back to your site and see how many warships of the worlds navies you can find on the website you mention. GPS does not locate items on the ground GPS signals from satelites let the ground unit know where it is. If there is a return signal from the ground giving it's postion then you will know where it is at. Might want to go back and study how GPS works.

Also, who controls most of the satellites you are talking about. Who has the proven ability of eliminate satellite communications in time of war. Don't have to shoot them down.

All weapons become obsolete eventually. The CV replaced the BB, the BB replaced the Dreadnaught, the Dreadnaught replaced the Ironclad, the Ironclad replaced the Ship of the Line, so on and so forth. Is it so hard for people to imagine that the days of the CV days are numbered? I think the fact that most Navies are building smaller, less expensive carriers is due to the realiation that the large CVs days are over.

I don't think carriers will last forever and someday they will become obsolete but it is not anytime soon. As far as why most countries build smaller carriers is they don't have the money or they knowledge to operate them. One problem both India and China have is a continuing base of personnel to operate a carrier. Even after they build one they are going to have to learn how to operate it. They will be starting from scratch.

The point I am trying to make is that in the past 20 years the world, including the sea, has become a very small place and its only going to get smaller.

Pretty sure if you check various world maps you fill find that the surface area of the oceans has not changed significantly in the last thousand years. ( Also with Global Warming you can expect them to increase.:smile But that is a different topic.

BTW Scuds did break through the Patriot missle defense.

 

[Wallabies]

Consider this: the Modern Navies are still operating under the assumption that big expensive warships packed with the latest weaponry will dominate the ocean

These 'big expensive warships' are there to protect the carriers so they can conduct land operations with their aircraft, while others are there to use their weaponry on land. In the end you get down to the simple grunt on the ground, because the rest of the military is moulded around him.

 

[mmarsh]

I do take offense to your implied insult of being way out of touch with today's technology.

First of all, you should not have taken offense because I said nothing that was insulting. If I wanted to insult you, there would be no mistake. Nor was I trying to impress you, your opinion of me doesnt mean anything to me either way. Second of all, you are really not in any position to whine about being offended as you made have said some very offensive statements in the past which many other people here have taken offense to. Furthermore you have made it very clear that you simply don't care about how rude, snide and arrogant your posts are. So If you are *so* offended over a statement that was not at all meant as an insult, then I think you need to check your own behavior when you talk to people who merely disagree with you.

Plus the fact that you are probably nothing more than a polliwog, and are not a loyal Shellback in King Neptune's Kingdom as I am. (For information this means you have never sailed across the Equator and are thus lower than whale pooh.):lol:

You're wrong, Im a landlubber, I have drank much more salt water than either of us have ever floated on...lol. And yes I am also a Polliwog (my uncle was a seaman as well), I am familiar with the term.

They have been using transponders in trucks (FedEx, UPS, large trucking lines for years). I am sure shipping companies have been doing the same. Now go back to your site and see how many warships of the worlds navies you can find on the website you mention. GPS does not locate items on the ground GPS signals from satelites let the ground unit know where it is. If there is a return signal from the ground giving it's postion then you will know where it is at. Might want to go back and study how GPS works.

I know how a GPS works, thank you. The point I was making was not about the technology itself, but simply that ships can be tracked. How can military ships be tracked? Since much of this is classified I can only generally speculate. One method would be Thermal technology (tracking a ship through its heat signature). The Chinese are said to have spy satilities capable of tracking US warships.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/china/1999/e19991006spy.htm

Also, who controls most of the satellites you are talking about. Who has the proven ability of eliminate satellite communications in time of war. Don't have to shoot them down.

Actually I think the Europeans will surpass us on this soon. They are much better than us in everything communication related, Asia too. As for knocking satillities down, many countries like China either have it, or will have it soon.

I don't think carriers will last forever and someday they will become obsolete but it is not anytime soon. As far as why most countries build smaller carriers is they don't have the money or they knowledge to operate them. One problem both India and China have is a continuing base of personnel to operate a carrier. Even after they build one they are going to have to learn how to operate it. They will be starting from scratch.

Wrong. The Royal Navy and the French Navy have operated carriers as long as the USA has. It was the British the first lauched an aircraft from a ship. And both of them are combining to build Medium size carriers (Queen Elisabeth/PA2 class).

Pretty sure if you check various world maps you fill find that the surface area of the oceans has not changed significantly in the last thousand years. ( Also with Global Warming you can expect them to increase.:smile But that is a different topic.

BTW Scuds did break through the Patriot missle defense.

Hearing.-"Oversight Hearing on the Performance of the Patriot Missile- in the Gulf War," April 7, 1992.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/congress/1992_r/patriot.htm

This hearing determined that the success ratio reported by Government and Raytheon officials was false. That in fact very few successful intercepts were achieved of the 158 Patriots fired.

158 launches and only a few hits? I call that a breakthru. I will submit however that the Patriots software was improved since then, and is now more reliable.

 

[bren122]

The Soviet naval doctrine was based around denial of the use of the seas to anyone; hence the reliance on submarines in a negative force projection mode. the problem with a submarine, especially given the range of assets ranged against it, is that it can not be visible. the surface vessel has the advantage in being able to be seen on station for weeks at a time. it is what is termed a positive force projection. in essence it is telling the other guy; "We are here and we are watching YOU!" the carrier sends the adjunct message; "and we don't need to know where you are right now; we have all these planes to find you when we decide to kill you." this is of course a little simplistic- but it was how it was described to me and the impression stuck. submarines are simply too one dimensional in projection of force to be effective in this role. similarly there is no linger time for aeroplanes- even with optimum refuelling the pilot's performance becomes degraded and they have to be replaced. the smaller the plane the more deliterious the effects of being stuffed in the cockpit for hours on end. current theory suggests eight hours in the cockpit is about right- hence the move by airliners to include an extra pilot to the cabin crew on long haul flights.
the second thing about this thread is that smart munitions and UAVs have been over represented in the media as being almost perfect. According to research republished by the magazine Aviation Autralia the average miss by smart munitions without the aid of a designator in the Gulf War was something like 40feet; with a designator, depending on the munition, it was out to ten feet. the report noted that operational experience had been able to reduce this in subsequent munitions but had not eliminated it. since the most common designator is another aircraft, carriers are going to be around for a long time yet. a report in Defence Today (the journal of the Australian Defence Force) notes that the initial hopes for the current and next generations of UAV to replace piloted aircraft in some roles were 'very optimistic'. it would seem that because the tactical screens of the UAVs are in two dimensions things get missed. until a light weight 3d screen becomes operationally available then development of the UAV concept will be slower than initially anticipated.
and at the end of the day, as history tells us in buckets of blood, you don't get to say you have won unless your guy is standing on the piece of ground you want.

 

[Chukpike]

I do take offense to your implied insult of being way out of touch with today's technology.

First of all, you should not have taken offense because I said nothing that was insulting. If I wanted to insult you, there would be no mistake. Nor was I trying to impress you, your opinion of me doesnt mean anything to me either way. Second of all, you are really not in any position to whine about being offended as you made have said some very offensive statements in the past which many other people here have taken offense to. Furthermore you have made it very clear that you simply don't care about how rude, snide and arrogant your posts are. So If you are *so* offended over a statement that was not at all meant as an insult, then I think you need to check your own behavior when you talk to people who merely disagree with you.

Whatever. I wasn't offended enough to go wild and post my response in bold.

Plus the fact that you are probably nothing more than a polliwog, and are not a loyal Shellback in King Neptune's Kingdom as I am. (For information this means you have never sailed across the Equator and are thus lower than whale pooh.):lol:

You're wrong, Im a landlubber, I have drank much more salt water than either of us have ever floated on...lol. And yes I am also a Polliwog (my uncle was a seaman as well), I am familiar with the term.

Again, whatever.

They have been using transponders in trucks (FedEx, UPS, large trucking lines for years). I am sure shipping companies have been doing the same. Now go back to your site and see how many warships of the worlds navies you can find on the website you mention. GPS does not locate items on the ground GPS signals from satellites let the ground unit know where it is. If there is a return signal from the ground giving it's position then you will know where it is at. Might want to go back and study how GPS works.

I know how a GPS works, thank you. The point I was making was not about the technology itself, but simply that ships can be tracked. How can military ships be tracked? Since much of this is classified I can only generally speculate. One method would be Thermal technology (tracking a ship through its heat signature). The Chinese are said to have spy satilities capable of tracking US warships.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/china/1999/e19991006spy.htm

Then why did you talk about GPS like it was a tracking device?

Also, who controls most of the satellites you are talking about. Who has the proven ability of eliminate satellite communications in time of war. Don't have to shoot them down.

Actually I think the Europeans will surpass us on this soon. They are much better than us in everything communication related, Asia too. As for knocking satillities down, many countries like China either have it, or will have it soon.

Does it matter who causes the disruption of the satellites? I think you have amplified my point, since the Europeans do not have as many as the US. If China or other countries eliminate each others spy satellites you still can't use them to track with. Talking about who might have something soon does not make carriers obsolete today.

I don't think carriers will last forever and someday they will become obsolete but it is not anytime soon. As far as why most countries build smaller carriers is they don't have the money or they knowledge to operate them. One problem both India and China have is a continuing base of personnel to operate a carrier. Even after they build one they are going to have to learn how to operate it. They will be starting from scratch.

Wrong. The Royal Navy and the French Navy have operated carriers as long as the USA has. It was the British the first lauched an aircraft from a ship. And both of them are combining to build Medium size carriers (Queen Elisabeth/PA2 class).

I specifically pointed out the problems India and China face in starting from scratch. So your discourse about Britain and France does not change what I said. In fact the building of new carriers by so many countries, suggest the whole "carrier is obsolete theory" is bogus. Or is it your contention that only US carriers are obsolete?

Also, the money, time, and effort India and China are putting in to building carriers suggests that they do not agree with carriers being obsolete.

Pretty sure if you check various world maps you fill find that the surface area of the oceans has not changed significantly in the last thousand years. ( Also with Global Warming you can expect them to increase.:smile But that is a different topic.

BTW Scuds did break through the Patriot missile defense.

Hearing.-"Oversight Hearing on the Performance of the Patriot Missile- in the Gulf War," April 7, 1992.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/congress/1992_r/patriot.htm

This hearing determined that the success ratio reported by Government and Raytheon officials was false. That in fact very few successful intercepts were achieved of the 158 Patriots fired.

158 launches and only a few hits? I call that a breakthru. I will submit however that the Patriots software was improved since then, and is now more reliable.

Looks like we agree on something. Thanks for amplifying my point

 

[mmarsh]

Chukpike

GPS is a tracking device, its just not one that cannot be used in the use of tracking an enemy. But there are other advanced technologies for that. Personally I love to know whats going on with Lasers. If they can use a Laser as audio recording device, then in theory its possible to use it as a visual recording device as well as its different simple different type of data packets being transmitted. Now imagine if they could attach such a device on to a orbiting satilite???

But back to subject...

Your suggesting that I believe the carrier is obsolete. If you check my first post I didnt say that. I said that the carrier is becoming obsolete, not that its obsolete already, on that part I agreed with you.

I'll rephrase myself: My real question to the US Navy is not why the are building carriers, but why are they building expensive supercarriers.

Basically it putting all your eggs in a basket and at $1 Billion a ship its a very expensive egg. If the enemy destroys it (and I have already mentioned its vulnerability), that means the entire Air Wing is at the bottom of the ocean. Isnt it better to split your force between two or more smaller ships therefore the loss of one isnt so great?

Furthermore many tasks aboard a warship are becoming increasingly automated, requiring less personnel, so again why are building the expensive Behemoths? If memory serves me correctly the Ford Class is supposed to serve until close to the Mid-Century, about 2030-2040. I didnt bring my Crystal Ball but I suspect that because technology is moving so rapidly any ship the size of a Nimitz, Truman, or Ford would be a greater liability to itself than to the enemy. I think 13th Redneck's vision of naval warfare the future is close to the mark, unmanned aerial vehicles and cruise missiles, but not aircraft carriers. So why are we investing in the most expensive types?

Wallibies

The problem with that theory is that those big expensive warships can be disabled or Destroyed by weapons that cost a fraction of the price. A Nimitz class costs around $1 Billion not including the aircraft. A tomahawk Cruise Missile costs $900,000. I don't think any defense system is 100%. Sooner or later an enemy WILL break through the defense and score a hit. I would rather that hit be scored on a ship that can be replaced vs one that cannot be.

 

[Chukpike]

Chukpike

Your suggesting that I believe the carrier is obsolete. If you check my first post I didnt say that. I said that the carrier is becoming obsolete, not that its obsolete already, on that part I agreed with you.

Cars may become obsolete too. We just don't know when.

I'll rephrase myself: My real question to the US Navy is not why the are building carriers, but why are they building expensive supercarriers.

Only building carriers to replace the ones that are getting close to their 50 year service life.
Looked up a little of what the Russians and China are planning and if they ever build their carriers they will be in the 80,000 ton range. Not the smaller carriers England and France have planned.

Basically it putting all your eggs in a basket and at $1 Billion a ship its a very expensive egg. If the enemy destroys it (and I have already mentioned its vulnerability), that means the entire Air Wing is at the bottom of the ocean. Isnt it better to split your force between two or more smaller ships therefore the loss of one isnt so great?

Since the US has at least 3 to 1 advantage over any other nation in carriers. Losing one would not cause a serious problem.
Having 11 carrier groups capable of being anywhere in the world makes for a big basket.

Furthermore many tasks aboard a warship are becoming increasingly automated, requiring less personnel, so again why are building the expensive Behemoths? If memory serves me correctly the Ford Class is supposed to serve until close to the Mid-Century, about 2030-2040. I didnt bring my Crystal Ball but I suspect that because technology is moving so rapidly any ship the size of a Nimitz, Truman, or Ford would be a greater liability to itself than to the enemy. I think 13th Redneck's vision of naval warfare the future is close to the mark, unmanned aerial vehicles and cruise missiles, but not aircraft carriers. So why are we investing in the most expensive types?

Not sure how increased automation requiring less personnel translates into what size carrier to build. That is more a function of a ships mission.

Apparently your memory may be failing. The first Ford class carrier is not due until 2015. Given that carriers have a 50 year service life that means it would not need to be replaced until 2065. By then hopeful we can all get along where replacement would not be needed. Maybe by 2020 or 2030 things will have changed enough to reduce further need for carriers.

The Navy like all the services must be prepared to fight today. The also must try and plan for the future. UAVs do little or nothing to effect manning levels. As the maintenance of all these systems is still required. The push button war of cruise missiles and UAVs still require ground forces in the end. Those ground forces require real live support.

The problem with that theory is that those big expensive warships can be disabled or Destroyed by weapons that cost a fraction of the price. A Nimitz class costs around $1 Billion not including the aircraft. A tomahawk Cruise Missile costs $900,000. I don't think any defense system is 100%. Sooner or later an enemy WILL break through the defense and score a hit. I would rather that hit be scored on a ship that can be replaced vs one that cannot be.

Probably not aware that the US has a Fleet reserve. Currently 5 aircraft carriers are available to replace lost units considerably faster than ships can be built from the keel up.

 

[-- Dusty]

I think those that discount the value of an aircraft carrier are those that havn't seen in person exactly what a carrier can do.

Sure, we can wage a war with one, ut like the Indonesian tsunami (name), we had a carrier there giving THE BEST medical, better than the best medical facilities within a 1,000 mile radius.

It's more than just in war that a carrier can save lives. It's in peace time as well.

 

[A Can of Man]

Like I said, the carrier will be obsolete when missiles and UAVs can do what fleet aircraft can do, and even then, it will probably be more of an evolution of the aircraft carrier than a complete phase out. Probably something smaller, faster and stealthier and possibly not the center of the fleet anymore, rather simply, a ship that serves as a flight deck for UAVs and helicopters.