The Aircraft Carrier has become the dominant visible symbol of power for the last 60 years (The nuke of course is the real symbol of power in the modern world). My question though is whether or not the Aircraft Carrier, like the Super Dreadnaught before it, is an empty symbol and long since rendered obsolete my technology as the next major conflict will probably prove.
Nations need powerful National symbols and large ships have always been a preferred mechanism to achieve this. At the beginning of WW2 this symbol was the Battleship, but by the end their weaknesses had been all to easily exposed and their nemesis; The Aircraft Carrier, claimed the crown.
Like Battleships, Carriers look great in Peacetime as they majestically plough the Oceans of the world and are useful for dealing with the odd “uppity fuzzywuzzy”: Gunship diplomacy with a longer range and better accuracy.
WW2 however saw the last Carrier on Carrier conflict and this was over 60 years ago. Since then , no Carrier has been seriously challenged.
Carriers were used extensively in the 2 Persian Gulf Wars against Iraq, but these were assaults of overwhelming magnitude and augmented by many Locally Land based aircraft and long distance Heavy Bombers. In terms of how a Carrier would cope in an evenly matched conflict, it told us very little.
The closest to a real test has been the Falklands in 1982. Even this is now 25 years ago, which is an entire Military Generation.
Although the British Carriers were small, they carried an excellent Aircraft in the Harrier and a superb missile in the Sidewinder, whilst the enemy they faced was a slightly better off developing country in South America.
The task of the Carriers beyond the Flag Ship role was to provide Air Cover to the Task Force Ships and to generally enforce the Aerial Exclusion component of the Total Exclusion Zone and this is what they did to the best of their ability.
They were however stretched and Air Security was routinely breached and the Task Force lost a significant number of ships to Argentine Bombs and Missiles.
Lets quickly look at what the Power Projecting Carrier base aircraft did not do when acting stand alone under not wholly unequal circumstances.
They did not launch Air Strikes against the Argentine Mainland.
They did not launch many Bombing Missions against Argentine Positions on the Falklands
They provided no meaningful Ground Support Role to the Infantry and Marines retaking the Islands.
Part of this was undoubtedly due to the limits of numbers and type of Aircraft available from these small Carriers, but had they instead been Full Sized Fixed Wing Carriers, would there have been much difference?
Well, I think not, except the Air Defence Role would have been carried out more effectively, with heavier Argentine Losses and less Ships damaged or sunk. In terms of long range raids, local raids and ground support, I doubt that there would have been anything more than a token increase.
This then is the rub. I contend that just as with the Battleships, when a real war starts the Carriers will quickly have their weaknesses exposed and after some humiliating losses, will spend much of their time in Port, classed as to vulnerable and too valuable to be let out to sea.
I also think that the Carrier is soon to share the fate of the Battleships; as Demonstrated by the Missouri class, demoted to almost auxiliary status within a Task or Invasion Fleet. The Battleships simply became floating support Artillery Batteries, whilst Carriers will simply be there to provide Air Protection to the ships and Landing Operations. True Offensive Air Power to come from a distance or to be installed in newly captured territory.
That said, once the true nature and value of Carriers is understood I think we will see some rapid evolution of the class, away from the Pompous and overblown Giants of today and towards some lighter, faster, leaner and meaner ships that better undertake the vital job, that they will still be tasked to do.
I suspect some Countries already understand this, and whilst an admission of this would be too politically embarrassing to the US, as a nation that publicly defines its power through its Carriers. Other nations not already committed, such as China, seem in no great hurry to build ships of this type, or to give Carriers much priority in their Naval strategies.
Nations need powerful National symbols and large ships have always been a preferred mechanism to achieve this. At the beginning of WW2 this symbol was the Battleship, but by the end their weaknesses had been all to easily exposed and their nemesis; The Aircraft Carrier, claimed the crown.
Like Battleships, Carriers look great in Peacetime as they majestically plough the Oceans of the world and are useful for dealing with the odd “uppity fuzzywuzzy”: Gunship diplomacy with a longer range and better accuracy.
WW2 however saw the last Carrier on Carrier conflict and this was over 60 years ago. Since then , no Carrier has been seriously challenged.
Carriers were used extensively in the 2 Persian Gulf Wars against Iraq, but these were assaults of overwhelming magnitude and augmented by many Locally Land based aircraft and long distance Heavy Bombers. In terms of how a Carrier would cope in an evenly matched conflict, it told us very little.
The closest to a real test has been the Falklands in 1982. Even this is now 25 years ago, which is an entire Military Generation.
Although the British Carriers were small, they carried an excellent Aircraft in the Harrier and a superb missile in the Sidewinder, whilst the enemy they faced was a slightly better off developing country in South America.
The task of the Carriers beyond the Flag Ship role was to provide Air Cover to the Task Force Ships and to generally enforce the Aerial Exclusion component of the Total Exclusion Zone and this is what they did to the best of their ability.
They were however stretched and Air Security was routinely breached and the Task Force lost a significant number of ships to Argentine Bombs and Missiles.
Lets quickly look at what the Power Projecting Carrier base aircraft did not do when acting stand alone under not wholly unequal circumstances.
They did not launch Air Strikes against the Argentine Mainland.
They did not launch many Bombing Missions against Argentine Positions on the Falklands
They provided no meaningful Ground Support Role to the Infantry and Marines retaking the Islands.
Part of this was undoubtedly due to the limits of numbers and type of Aircraft available from these small Carriers, but had they instead been Full Sized Fixed Wing Carriers, would there have been much difference?
Well, I think not, except the Air Defence Role would have been carried out more effectively, with heavier Argentine Losses and less Ships damaged or sunk. In terms of long range raids, local raids and ground support, I doubt that there would have been anything more than a token increase.
This then is the rub. I contend that just as with the Battleships, when a real war starts the Carriers will quickly have their weaknesses exposed and after some humiliating losses, will spend much of their time in Port, classed as to vulnerable and too valuable to be let out to sea.
I also think that the Carrier is soon to share the fate of the Battleships; as Demonstrated by the Missouri class, demoted to almost auxiliary status within a Task or Invasion Fleet. The Battleships simply became floating support Artillery Batteries, whilst Carriers will simply be there to provide Air Protection to the ships and Landing Operations. True Offensive Air Power to come from a distance or to be installed in newly captured territory.
That said, once the true nature and value of Carriers is understood I think we will see some rapid evolution of the class, away from the Pompous and overblown Giants of today and towards some lighter, faster, leaner and meaner ships that better undertake the vital job, that they will still be tasked to do.
I suspect some Countries already understand this, and whilst an admission of this would be too politically embarrassing to the US, as a nation that publicly defines its power through its Carriers. Other nations not already committed, such as China, seem in no great hurry to build ships of this type, or to give Carriers much priority in their Naval strategies.
