Is the Aircraft Carrier Obsolete?
The United States has 11 aircraft carriers. The new Ford class cost around $9 billion per. The Nimitz class cost $4.5 billion each. Those are construction costs, not operation costs.
I think the carrier is obsolete. Consider: What is the point of an aircraft carrier?
To be able to project airpower from a mobile platform, right? The mobility allowing an airbase pretty much anywhere in the world.
A B-52 can fly out of Missouri and hit any spot on the globe. That is technology that is half a century old. There are many newer modern craft with the same capability.
But the thing that makes it really obsolete is the hypersonic carrier killer missile. If there were to be a serious shooting war with another nation, if you’re talking about defending Taiwan, we would lose a carrier and probably thousands of sailors.
So, you have really expensive target that's highly vulnerable with much cheaper alternatives available.
I get that the point is force projection, but cannot that be done much more cheaply with B-52s based in Missouri?
I get that it’s “4.5 acres of Sovereign U.S. Territory,” but is it worth the expense?
I get that they can provide humanitarian assistance, but (assuming that’s the proper role of the US military), cannot that be done much more cost effectively with hospital ships?
Yes, they are very convenient. But is this a convenience we can continue to afford?
And do we really need 11 of them?
- Comment (93)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (8)
Comments :
Jul '11
Re: Is the Aircraft Carrier Obsolete?
You raise an interesting point, but I must ask what alternative you would suggest? The aircraft carrier can provide in-theater tactical nuclear weapons without having to land them in hostile territory (granted, an unlikely use thereof). They are the flagships of the various fleets and will undoubtedly annihilate other fleets in open combat. They are multi-purpose vessels as they are also used as transport ships.
I would like to see us move to a smaller more tactically minded model, but in the interim, what is the alternative to the Aircraft Carrier?
May '10
Re: Is the Aircraft Carrier Obsolete?
I agree with J.Voss. They still seem advantageous for multiple war functions, but I don't mind seeing at least some of them phased out for other ships.
They can transport immense loads, albeit as awfully big targets. I assume they can also provide a quicker aerial response to distant threats than a bomber having to fly halfway around the world. And we shouldn't become too reliant on satellite-dependent guidance systems. But they are terribly expensive to fuel, man and maintain.
That's a lamen's view, for what it's worth.
Aug '10
Re: Is the Aircraft Carrier Obsolete?
What better way to remind a wayward country to toe the line by showing up on their coastline with this:
7500 highly trained individuals.
1 supercarrier,
1 carrier air wing (CVW) typically consisting of up to nine squadrons. (70 fighter jets)
1-2 Aegis guided missile cruisers (CG), of the Ticonderoga class—a multi-mission surface combatant, equipped with BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles
1 destroyer squadron two to three guided missile destroyers (DDG), of theArleigh Burke class—a multi-mission surface combatant,
Up to two attack submarines, usually of the Los Angeles-class
A combined ammunition, oiler and supply ship (AOE/AOR),
Projection of power is the concept. Our radar is better than theirs and there is always an AWACS overhead. How many marines on board ??
We are authorized to have 12 carrier groups, twenty would be nice. Britain and France share one. Imagine if the wrong guy gets assigned to cook dinner ?!?
Feb '11
Re: Is the Aircraft Carrier Obsolete?
A B-52 can fly out of Missouri and hit any spot on the globe. That is technology that is half a century old. There are many newer modern craft with the same capability.
Bosh. The B-52 cannot survive in a contested air space. It is now purely a stand off platform in the absence of overwhelming allied air superiority. It turned in sterling service over Iraq and Afghanistan because neither country had anything that could reach it. Even in the 70's when I was a buff navigator, it was patently obvious that any attempt to penetrate an undegraded air space was little more than a suicide mission. It is a marvelous airplane but in 2011 it's uses are sharply constrained.
The B-2 is the bomber based in Missouri. The total inventory is 20 airframes. 20. Not a very impressive deterrent. And no, it is not invulnerable.
[Added]
Of the 20 B-2s, some are usually in depot or extended maintenance and some are allocated to training. The actual combat availability at any given time is a fluctuating number less than 20.
Edited on Dec 2, 2011 at 10:23amApr '11
Re: Is the Aircraft Carrier Obsolete?
Snow Bird
A B-52 can fly out of Missouri and hit any spot on the globe. That is technology that is half a century old. There are many newer modern craft with the same capability.
Bosh. The B-52 cannot survive in a contested air space. It is now purely a stand off platform in the absence of overwhelming allied air superiority. It turned in sterling service over Iraq and Afghanistan because neither country had anything that could reach it. Even in the 70's when I was a buff navigator, it was patently obvious that any attempt to penetrate an undegraded air space was little more than a suicide mission. It is a marvelous airplane but in 2011 it's uses are sharply constrained.
The B-2 is the bomber based in Missouri. The total inventory is 20 airframes. 20. Not a very impressive deterrent. An no, it is not invulnerable. · Dec 1 at 3:49pm
The B-2 also costs 2 billion dollars per.
As long as we need close air support or need to assert aerial supremacy there will be needs for aircraft carriers.
Feb '11
Re: Is the Aircraft Carrier Obsolete?
What is the point of an aircraft carrier?
The argument over aircraft carrier relevance has been going on for decades. The Naval Institute's Proceedings has run countless articles on the subject and undoubtedly will continue to do so.
The most persuasive argument for the carrier is the problem of power projection in the absence of a widespread network of overseas bases. Our basing options have been shrinking for decades and the situation will not improve. The carrier is the only effective means of filling that void.
No hypersonic antiship missile has been deployed, and the hypersonic threat is not limited to ships. Consequently, it is the subject of a great deal of research, some of it promising particularly in the areas of directed energy weaponry. If the defense budget cuts that are being bandied about come to pass and those development and deployment programs are significantly impacted, we will have a whole lot more to worry about than just carrier viabillity.
Edited on Dec 1, 2011 at 9:00pmNov '11
Re: Is the Aircraft Carrier Obsolete?
Bosh. The B-52 cannot survive in a contested air space. It is now purely a stand off platform in the absence of overwhelming allied air superiority.
Not for nothing, but when, in the last two decades have we not had overwhelming air superiority?
I chose the B-52 because it's big and it's global. Frankly, if all you want to do is blow something up, I'm sure there are much more efficient methods than a B-52.
Also, 20 B-2s is 20 more than any other country on the Earth has.
Nov '11
Re: Is the Aircraft Carrier Obsolete?
flownover:
We are authorized to have 12 carrier groups, twenty would be nice. Britain and France share one.
Twenty may be "nice," but I'd rather not pay for twenty. We are authorized to have twelve, but we simply can no longer afford them. (It should also be noted that we don't even pay for the ones we have now.)
Apr '11
Re: Is the Aircraft Carrier Obsolete?
I think this was brought up, but while our bombers have long range, they can only benefit from that by our control of the skies. To achieve air supremacy we need fighter planes, also such planes are needed for such things as attacking mobile targets (ie. tanks, artillery, troops etc.). Our fighter planes do not have the same range as our bomber fleet. We need the air craft carrier for that.
We could try to switch to relying even more on cruise missiles, but tomahawks are also expensive.
Also on the military "cuts". No one has proposed true cuts. You are conflating a lack on increase in funding with a cut in spending. A mistake liberals make about all wealfare programs, that conservatives should not make about defense spending. We can keep doing research, we just shouldn't have to pay the outrageous mark ups done my military contractors.
May '10
Re: Is the Aircraft Carrier Obsolete?
Fred Cole: The United States has 11 aircraft carriers.
I get that it’s “4.5 acres of Sovereign U.S. Territory,” but is it worth the expense?
And do we really need 11 of them? ·
Yes.
Feb '11
Re: Is the Aircraft Carrier Obsolete?
Land based combat aircraft have a limited range. That can be extended by aerial refueling, but those tankers also need bases. As bases thin out, the transit time from base to operational area increases, reducing loiter time and the effectiveness of the asset. The more time the assets waste in transit, the more assets are required to maintain the same level of effectiveness.
The carrier, by virtue of its mobility, mitigates to some extent the basing issue, at least in littoral areas. Most of the world's population lives within 300 miles of a coast. The carrier is our only means of establishing a presence in many of those areas.
Whether we should be there or not is another issue. Unfortunately, the world is an ugly place filled with ugly nasty characters, regardless of what the denizens of the New York Times and the upper east side think.With missile technology no longer limited to superpowers and a growing threat - and reality - of nuclear proliferation, the idea that no one can threaten us is invalid. The carrier is not a sole solution, but it is an essential element of a complex posture we cannot afford to discard.
Feb '11
Re: Is the Aircraft Carrier Obsolete?
Fred Cole
when, in the last two decades have we not had overwhelming air superiority?
I chose the B-52 because it's big and it's global. Frankly, if all you want to do is blow something up, I'm sure there are much more efficient methods than a B-52.
Also, 20 B-2s is 20 more than any other country on the Earth has.
First, air superiority is a very transitory thing, particularly if you are not willing to maintain it, which appears to be increasingly true in our case. The Chinese and Russian are both developing fifth generation air superiority fighters and, unlike us, they are not going to limit their buy to 188 aircraft.
Second. it depends on what you are trying to blow up and why.
Third, the Chinese are developing a naval aviation arm of their own and fully intend to develop the means to dominate their corner of the world. Russian leadership is bitterly resentful of the humiliation their country suffered with the collapse of the USSR and the reduction in its sphere of influence and territory. It is not wise to underestimate them or their geopolitical ambitions.
Nov '11
Re: Is the Aircraft Carrier Obsolete?
Do you mean to suggest someone is going to be hurling ballistic missiles at the United States? If so, I'm curious who.
Feb '11
Re: Is the Aircraft Carrier Obsolete?
Fred Cole
Do you mean to suggest someone is going to be hurling ballistic missiles at the United States? If so, I'm curious who. · Dec 1 at 5:27pm
We made it through the entire cold war without anyone 'hurling ballistic missiles' at the US. We didn't achieve that result by slashing our defense budget 40% over 10 years. The Russians still have ICBMs sitting in silos (as do we) as well as SLBMs and nuclear capable intercontinental bombers. The Chinese have ICBMs as well. The Iranians, despite the recent 'accidents', are working hard to upgrade their missile capabilities. Pakistan and India have mid-range nuclear capable missiles. There are a host of wannabes.
The US is not the only potential target in the world. Europe would be an uncomfortable place to be if the middle east launched a nuclear arms race, which could well happen if Iran is successful in developing operational systems. There are enough rogues willing to help them develop the technology, for a price. I doubt the world will stand still while we gaze at our navels, fiddle with our iPads, and smugly wallow in our multicultural utopian fantasy world.
Edited on Dec 1, 2011 at 6:55pmMar '11
Re: Is the Aircraft Carrier Obsolete?
Snow Bird
What is the point of an aircraft carrier?
The argument over aircraft carrier relevance has been going on for decades. The Naval Institute's Proceedings has run countless articles on the subject and undoubtedly will continue to do so.
The most persuasive argument for the carrier is the problem of power projection in the absence of a widespread network of overseas bases. Our basing options have been shrinking for decades and the situation will not improve. The carrier the only effective means of filling that void.
The argument about the relevance of naval airpower probably started 15 minutes after Eugene Ely landed on the U.S.S. Pennsylvania in 1911.
You go to war with the forces you have, plus (maybe) whatever you have in the pipeline at the start.
What do you call it when you have a military larger than you needed at the end of a war?
Victory.
Edited on Dec 1, 2011 at 6:29pmSep '10
Re: Is the Aircraft Carrier Obsolete?
If you do not think a Navy is necessary than air craft carriers are not necessary. The primary function of carriers is to provide air cover for naval vessels and engage other air crafts. While planes flying off carriers have bombing capabilities, that is not their primary function.
Apr '11
Re: Is the Aircraft Carrier Obsolete?
No. We need 16.
Feb '11
Re: Is the Aircraft Carrier Obsolete?
Read Mahan. Still valid 121 years later. The tools have changed. The lessons have not.
Apr '11
Re: Is the Aircraft Carrier Obsolete?
As Adm. Gallery commented, "No naval vessel ever built has put money back into the US Treasury, and nuclear-powered carriers can do the job better than oil-fired ones."
Apocryphally, a Pentagon analyst who suggested returning to sails would be more cost-efficient than oil was reassigned.
Apr '11
Re: Is the Aircraft Carrier Obsolete?
Fred Cole
Do you mean to suggest someone is going to be hurling ballistic missiles at the United States? If so, I'm curious who.
Since Snow Bird already capably answered this, I will add only that ballistic missiles are not the sole threat to the US.
As long ago as 1953 it was recognized that the cargo hold of a freighter could be configured as gigantic hydrogen bomb. If the Chinese (or choose your actor) sank such a ship off the west coast of US and remotely detonated the weapon, the physical damage alone from the tsunami it created would be enormous. The accompanying radioactive spray would be devastating.
Aircraft carriers alone won't obviate that threat. But they improve the chances of preventing it by both interception and deterrence.
The Flying Fortress got its name not from its self-defensive prowess, but from the idea that it would extend the range of coastal defense batteries from 20 miles to several hundred. The aircraft carrier is the ultimate flying fortress.