Aircraft Carriers: Obsolete?

[EdEarl]

At the beginning of WWII, countries counted battleships to assess the power of navies. However, aircraft sunk most of the battleships at the beginning of the war, and most of the remaining ones early in the war, which led to aircraft carriers becoming the most powerful ships. Since that time, the power of the US Navy has been assessed by the number of aircraft carrier battle groups it has, which is 12 aircraft carrier battle groups. Perhaps some other countries count the number of nuclear submarines or nuclear missiles they have, because Russia and China have only one aircraft carrier each, and they are smaller than US aircraft carriers.

 

One can argue that Russia has limited access to the sea, but China has a long accessible coastline. Why, then do Russia and China not try to match the US Navy with aircraft carrier battle groups? Is it a matter of economics, or have they decided that carrier battle groups are easily destroyed by stealth drones and nuclear missiles, and therefore as useless as battleships at the beginning of WWII.

 

 

[fiveworlds]

that carrier battle groups are easily destroyed by stealth drones and nuclear missiles​

 

 

You have to know where the carrier is that isn't necessarily an easy task. Don't forget that carriers can also be submarines, jammers can stop drones and high tech lasers can disable incoming nuclear missiles. Don't forget that in order for a nuke to be effective it needs the pressure to cause fission if you can stop that pressure building up then the nuke isn't nuclear anymore.

Edited January 14, 2017 by fiveworlds

[EdEarl]

 

 

You have to know where the carrier is that isn't necessarily an easy task. Don't forget that carriers can also be submarines, jammers can stop drones and high tech lasers can disable incoming nuclear missiles. Don't forget that in order for a nuke to be effective it needs the pressure to cause fission if you can stop that pressure building up then the nuke isn't nuclear anymore.

Spy satellites are supposed to be able to read license plates, what makes you think all governments don't know where every military ship is, all the time.

 

Please supply references for submarine carrier, jammers stopping drones, and lasers disabling nuclear missiles. I doubt these things.

[fiveworlds]

Spy satellites are supposed to be able to read license plates, what makes you think all governments don't know where every military ship is, all the time.​

 

 

Spy satellites can also be destroyed in wartime.

 

submarine carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine

jammers stopping drones http://makezine.com/2015/10/16/research-company-takes-aim-uavs-portable-anti-drone-rifle/

 

lasers disabling nuclear missiles​

​Darpa actively develops ways of tracking missiles. The USA has been researching laser weapons http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Laser+Attack+Weapon&&view=detail&mid=63B78C580093F2533A2C63B78C580093F2533A2C&rvsmid=3B481D8E02D5005B6AC13B481D8E02D5005B6AC1&fsscr=0&FORM=VDFSRV

 

and lasers can obviously take out nukes. Nukes are basically just ordinary bombs if they can't attain the pressure required for fission so all you need to do is cut a hole through the nuke.

[EdEarl]

 

 

Spy satellites can also be destroyed in wartime.

 

submarine carrier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine

jammers stopping drones http://makezine.com/2015/10/16/research-company-takes-aim-uavs-portable-anti-drone-rifle/

 

lasers disabling nuclear missiles​

​Darpa actively develops ways of tracking missiles. The USA has been researching laser weapons http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Laser+Attack+Weapon&&view=detail&mid=63B78C580093F2533A2C63B78C580093F2533A2C&rvsmid=3B481D8E02D5005B6AC13B481D8E02D5005B6AC1&fsscr=0&FORM=VDFSRV

 

and lasers can obviously take out nukes. Nukes are basically just ordinary bombs if they can't attain the pressure required for fission so all you need to do is cut a hole through the nuke.

Those submarines carried two or three small airplanes, and no longer exist. None of the US carrier fleet can submerge.

 

Yes, satellites can be destroyed, about the same time as carrier fleets.

 

Laser weapons are still in research, there is no guarantee they will ever become operational, even so, if you can't detect a stealth drone, you can't destroy it. If laser weapons do become operational, then both sides will have them and perhaps make stealth drones obsolete. In which case, the laser weapons can take out the carriers or all the aircraft sitting atop it. In the arms race, most technologies become outdated as newer weapons and defenses are developed. All technologies have pros, cons, and limitations.

[fiveworlds]

Yes, satellites can be destroyed, about the same time as carrier fleets.

 

 

No they won't expect it and without their satellites their icbms can't target anything.

[EdEarl]

GPS is accurate, but not the only way to target ICBMs, inertial, astro-inertial and terrestrial guidance don't use GPS.

[swansont]

A phrase used in explaining the use of carriers I recall is "projection of power". A carrier group can control a region in a way that battleships (+ support ships) could not. Even in WWII, you had carrier battles where the ships never saw each other, and never fired guns on each other — just the planes against the ships. Plus, carriers (especially nuclear-powered ones) can carry supplies (e.g. fuel, if needed, and munitions) for their support ships, and operate independently for some time without resupply, so they can go to a place and stay on station for a period of time. Supporting a fleet of conventional ships halfway across the world is logistically difficult (you have to defend the supply line as well)

 

You don't need to do this if you are defending your coastline, since land-based planes can do the job.

 

As to why, it's a matter of what the mission is and how much you're willing to spend to do it.

[Endy0816]

Both China and Russia are working on building additional carriers. They are less useful though if your focus is more regional. Russia also lost its main shipyard facilities during the breakup ofthe USSR.

 

x-posted

Edited January 14, 2017 by Endy0816

[EdEarl]

It seems like we are projecting power with drones like the predator more and more. I realize that in a conventional conflict, e.g., Iraq, that power projection can be important, if it can be protected. The military is moving to eliminate people from dangerous positions using drones and robots. An aircraft carrier with 5000 people just seems like an unnecessary risk as people are removed from harm's way.

 

Fighter jet trainers have AI that can beat any pilot. It seems to me that the military are moving to eliminate pilots from cockpits in military aircraft. As batteries improve can supersonic aircraft will run on batteries and have VTOL capability. If so, a huge aircraft carrier would seem to be unnecessary, to me. Maybe aircraft carriers are not unnecessary right now, but may be soon.

Edited January 14, 2017 by EdEarl

[Ophiolite]

It is a great military tradition that, in terms of ordnance, vessels, equipment, training, tactics and strategy, command and control, one always prepares to fight the previous war, not the next one.

[MigL]

No drone will be able to project as much force as a floating city which can go anywhere in the world, strike any target and protect itself from retaliation with more aircraft than most medium sized air forces ( without need for AtA refueling like the British had to do with re-commissioned Vulcan bombers to the Falkland islands, before their carrier, equipped with Harriers, could get there ).

 

They are the 'tactical' deterrent, as opposed to the nuclear one.

The 'club' includes the US, Russia, China, England, France ,Italy, Spain, Brazil, and India ( may have missed one or two ).

[arc]

They are the 'tactical' deterrent, as opposed to the nuclear one.

 

And in certain situations, they are a sanctuary in an ever increasing hostile world. Aircraft carriers, as already alluded to, extend the nation's boarder to wherever those task force groups are located. In other words, they become mobile islands of national territory, a technological solution to the fluid and sometimes fickle difficulties involved in a world where a land based facility in a host country could be lost within a single regime change cycle, possibly leaving an entire region less accessible.

 

For this reason alone they are unlikely to become obsolete anytime in the foreseeable future. Even if they are found to be more vulnerable to developing weapon systems the retaliatory response should deter all but the most suicidal regime.

[EdEarl]

 

And in certain situations, they are a sanctuary in an ever increasing hostile world. Aircraft carriers, as already alluded to, extend the nation's boarder to wherever those task force groups are located. In other words, they become mobile islands of national territory, a technological solution to the fluid and sometimes fickle difficulties involved in a world where a land based facility in a host country could be lost within a single regime change cycle, possibly leaving an entire region less accessible.

 

For this reason alone they are unlikely to become obsolete anytime in the foreseeable future. Even if they are found to be more vulnerable to developing weapon systems the retaliatory response should deter all but the most suicidal regime.

News paints the world as being very bad, but history seems to say we are really not in such a bad time.

 

The Most Peaceful Time in Human History?

 

In his 2011 book, The Better Angels of our Nature, Harvard professor Steven Pinker makes the case that we may be living in the most peaceful time in human history, at least since the advent of agriculture and the beginnings of more densely populated cilivilizations 12,000 years ago. After a tumultuous 20th century which saw events like WWI, WWII, the Holocaust, the Sino-Japanese war, the Korean War, Mao’s Great Leap Forward, the Vietnam war, the Cambodian Genocide, the Gulf War, the Bosnian War, and the Rwandan genocide, it seems that over the last quarter century since the fall of the USSR and the beginning of the widespread use of the Internet we’ve entered a time of substantially less deadly conflict between and within nations, even including events from terrorism.

[StringJunky]

If ACCs were obsolete nearing obsolescence I don't think the UK would be spending billions on two new ones which are due to come into service in the next couple of years or so and operative probably to 2050.

[EdEarl]

If ACCs were obsolete nearing obsolescence I don't think the UK would be spending billions on two new ones which are due to come into service in the next couple of years or so and operative probably to 2050.

The US built the battleship Missouri and commissioned it in 1944, about 3 years after the Pearl Harbor attack.

[zapatos]

The US built the battleship Missouri and commissioned it in 1944, about 3 years after the Pearl Harbor attack.

 

...and it participated in Operation Desert Storm in 1991.

[swansont]

The US built the battleship Missouri and commissioned it in 1944, about 3 years after the Pearl Harbor attack.

 

 

And last decommissioned in 1992

[zapatos]

It seems like we are projecting power with drones like the predator more and more. I realize that in a conventional conflict, e.g., Iraq, that power projection can be important, if it can be protected. The military is moving to eliminate people from dangerous positions using drones and robots. An aircraft carrier with 5000 people just seems like an unnecessary risk as people are removed from harm's way.

 

Power projection is important whether we are in a conflict or not. I would guess power projection is used more often when there is not a conventional conflict.

 

Carriers and their battle groups will never be obsolete due to the weapons of other countries, if we choose to ensure their survivability. Military innovation is very similar to evolution. If you develop a way to kill me, then I'll develop a way to survive. That is the way it has always been. If there is a way for a foreign military to take out an aircraft carrier at this time, then you can rest assured there is someone working hard to eliminate that threat.

 

The use of carriers or their equivalent are needed whether you use drones or not. From where are you going to arm, launch, and maintain your drones if not from a carrier?

[StringJunky]

 

 

And last decommissioned in 1992

They are a very intensive and expensive project. Looking at the timeline for the new Queen Elizabeth class ACC for the UK navy, the design started in 1998 and the first of the two carriers will be operational next year with planes on it; that's 20 years from conception to combat ready. They are going to want the best part of 50 years to justify that investment, aren't they? If the UK and US are still building them and they are key players in any wargame it's hard to see how the OP's assumption is justified. China and Russia, the former in particular, probably haven't got the boffins to design to an equivalent level....it doesn't have the track record that NATO countries have with them to refer to and learn from. In short, it has no history to learn from. These things are mini towns and the combined military and civilian logistics necessary are mind-blowing... to me anyway

Edited January 14, 2017 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

We should also keep in mind that an aircraft carrier should not be considered 'obsolete' simply because it can be defeated by a superior weapon. If that were the case, then the Kalashnikov assault weapon would be considered obsolete because it can be defeated by a fighter jet.

 

Great Britain is much more likely to use its aircraft carrier against a foe like Argentina than it is to use it against China or Russia. Similarly, the current crop of Russian fighter jets may be obsolete compared to the US built f-22, but the Russian jets are doing well against Syrian rebels. I'm sure Russia is glad they did not mothball the su-24 simply because the United States could defeat it with superior weapons.

 

While battleships in WWII may have been obsolete in naval battles, they certainly performed well when shelling Japanese held islands in the Pacific.

[MigL]

Keep in mind that if a country should choose NOT to negotiate a peaceful settlement to a disagreement with the US ( or England, as Argentina did ), the arrival of a carrier battle group 200 mi from shore, is a powerful incentive.

[EdEarl]

Keep in mind that if a country should choose NOT to negotiate a peaceful settlement to a disagreement with the US ( or England, as Argentina did ), the arrival of a carrier battle group 200 mi from shore, is a powerful incentive.

Sounds similar to a gang of criminals who want a business to pay for protection, who park in front of the business and intimidate everyone visiting.

[Danijel Gorupec]

As most people here, I also think that aircraft carriers are not obsolete - they are still useful (for bullying too).

 

I don't think they can have any role in the first and the most important phase of a full-scale nuclear strike. Only rocket will be used (for offense and defense) - aircraft carriers are too slow. However, aircraft carriers might see some action during the second phase of nuclear war: the first country that 'regains consciousness after the mutual KO' will use them, as well as everything else available, to butcher the opponent while still on the ground during this phase of uncontrolled genocidal rage.

[swansont]

Sounds similar to a gang of criminals who want a business to pay for protection, who park in front of the business and intimidate everyone visiting.

Agree or not with foeign policy, but I'd like some examples of the US shaking down countries for protection money.