Is the Aircraft Carrier as a Capital Ship already obsolete?

I

IDonT

Senior Member
VIP Professional
The question best ask whether the carrier is obsolete is "what can it do that no other weapon system can do?" and "is that purpose obsolete?"

You don't ask if its vulnerable beacuse all weapon systems are. An aircraft carrier is made of steel, and steel in its natural form sinks.

1.) What can the carrier do that no other weapon system can do?
SUSTAINED Power Projection, Sea Denial, Sea Control, Flexibility, Reach, and Fire Power. No other warship can boast this.

Examples:

The INS Viraat has more firepower than the entire Indian Navy.
The USS Kitty Hawk had its airwing replaced by US Army Special Forces helicopter and served as based for Spec. Ops. in Operation Enduring Freedom.
The USS Abraham Lincoln provided more aid and the ability to deliver aid in the Tsunami hit areas than any other facilities.

2.) Is this Purpose Obsolete?
No. Unlike the battleship a carrier's usage is for its use as a power projection tool. The battleship was built on the Mahanian doctrine of the decisive sea battle. They were not used until such time as a battle could be fought. That is why during WWI, the heyday of the Battleship, only 1 fleet action was fought.

The carrier, on the other hand, is a mobile airfield, providing air defence and air support for friendly forces in ship and ashore.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
SampanViking said:
Therein we see your Blind spot Fu, from Visual range to BVR from Manual systems to Automated, can you be so sure that technology has not arrived at the same balance of risk, simply at a new and higher level?
Click to expand...

I think you're the only person that has the blind-spot. I'll say it again. WWII-era ships could only attack the planes, not the weapons they launched. Modern ships can target the planes and the munitions with much better accuracy - if they're using non-missile weapons then any decent SAM will destroy the plane before it can use them.

There's also passive defences which weren't in use during WWII.

Not to sure where you are trying to go with the questions about new Carriers.
Click to expand...

Well you have implied they're too big for what we need. So if they're "too big" say what you would have built instead and how much you think it would have cost.

You've once again ignored the rest of what I had to say. Does that mean you agree with me on all those points?
 
R

Ryz05

Junior Member
The aircraft carrier is more a symbol of national power than anything else in my opinion. It's a good thing to have, but not necessary if all a country wants to protect is its periphery. For sustained oversease operations, like what the United States needs, aircraft carriers are crucial. However, in a naval combat scenario, I believe wolfpack submarine warfare is more effective and lethal, because the carrier is too much of a sitting duck. Unless it can protect against ballistic and cruise missile threats, the carrier proves a too expensive asset for combat use.
 
F

flyzies

Junior Member
Ryz05 said:
The aircraft carrier is more a symbol of national power than anything else in my opinion. It's a good thing to have, but not necessary if all a country wants to protect is its periphery. For sustained oversease operations, like what the United States needs, aircraft carriers are crucial. However, in a naval combat scenario, I believe wolfpack submarine warfare is more effective and lethal, because the carrier is too much of a sitting duck. Unless it can protect against ballistic and cruise missile threats, the carrier proves a too expensive asset for combat use.
Click to expand...

Good point.

But the real question is I think, will the carrier survive if it was pitched against a modern navy using tactics such as wolfpack submarine warfare and aircraft launching ASMs??

If the carrier cant survive against this, then the purpose of the carrier, which is sustained power projection, sea denial etc etc etc, is lost...and that in turn, would make it obsolete as the capital ship (in military sense anyways).
 
Z

zraver

Junior Member
VIP Professional
The big fleet carriers are about as obsolete today as they ever have been. Super sonic cruise missiles, advanced SAM's that threaten the entire air group, rocket torpedoes, enemy spy satalites and other ELINT platforms etc. But rather than sounding the deathknell of the CVN, they herald the next generation.

A generation where 70 stealthed aircraft slip past an enemies defenses from hundreds of miles off shore. Where the unlimited power of the nucelar reactor power DEW capable of burning missiles and aircraft down from hundreds of miles away. Light speed DEW will make mach 8 as slow as the wright flyer. Where real time intel from multiple sources streams in 24/7 and in return directional and non RF emissions leave the CBG as an electronics emissions black hole

In terms of power projection only the long range bomber and the carrier air wing have the ability to be in the enemies back yard, any enemies back yard within hours of being tasked with a mission. Figher bombers cant do it, tans cant do it, destroyers can't do it, subs can't do it, and heavy bombers can't protect the marines.

Submarines have been and will remain the biggest threat to the carrier, but a threat does not make it obsolete. A threat just mandates proper precuations. What is obsolete is the USN's idea that it is okay to skimp on ASW assets. The rest of the world seems to agree. UK, France, Russia, China, India all but 2 of the worlds nuclear powers have or plan carrier fleets. Indeed Russia wants 6 in 20 years
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Besides the nuclear powers Italy, Spain, Thailand, Brazil, Japan, and Chile all operate some form of aircraft carrier from helo to VSTOL, and Austraila just chose the Spanish Buque de Proyección Estratégica as the basis for its new Canberra class.

World wide a huge chunck of the global military budget is invested in or beign invested in naval aviation.
 
Roger604

Roger604

Senior Member
Today's carriers are at a historical low point in usefulness.

In terms of air superiority missions, carrier-based aircraft have such a short combat radius (less than 300 km for Superhornet) that carriers become almost redundant for air superiority if you have several Ticos and Burkes with Aegis.

For ground attack, carrier based aircraft can unload more ordnance than Ticos with Tomahawks, but fewer missions today call for such large scale bombing. Usually, Ticos with Tomahawks can do the same job just as well.

The only things a carrier can do that the Ticos and Burkes can't do nearly as well is anti-surface warfare with harpoons.
 
SampanViking

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
It seems that the main opposition to the theme of the thread boils down too -" Our Carriers are Invulnerable and Unsinkable and our Defences are Impenetrable". If that is the case, such a view is a recipe for disaster, as we in Britain have learned to our cost over centuries from at least the time of Henry VIII and the "Lord Harry" and "Mary Rose".

Bottom line, if somebody shoots at you, there is a chance you will be hit, the more shots that are fired at you the greater that risk. If you do not want to be shot at, either stay out of range or under cover. For a Carrier to launch Power Projection Strike Missions against the territory of another country, is now becoming the equivalent of standing in Full View at Point Blank Range.

From Idont
2.) Is this Purpose Obsolete?
No. Unlike the battleship a carrier's usage is for its use as a power projection tool. The battleship was built on the Mahanian doctrine of the decisive sea battle. They were not used until such time as a battle could be fought. That is why during WWI, the heyday of the Battleship, only 1 fleet action was fought.
Click to expand...

You think theya re so different? The early Steel Battleships of the Pre Dreadnaught era in the late 19th Century carried an array of different sized guns, in the anticipation that they would start shooting at maximum range and then close in for the kill, just like the old Wooden Ships of the Line. The Dreadnaught calss was the product of the realisation that Modern Ships simply used their biggest guns to shoot at maximum range. Thus range and Firepower became the main concideration and Battleships developed in that Direction.

By WW2 The Carrier represented the same principle, The High Explosive Gun Shell was replaced by the Airbourne Bomb and Torpedo. In the Pacific, Carrier Groups sent waves of aircraft agianst each other form maximum range.

If a major war between Carrier capable forces erupted today, then I am sure that Carrier Group would still hunt Carrier Group and that the Aerial Bomb will have been replaced with the Supersonic ASM.

More later as guests have arrived ;)
 
Obi Wan Russell

Obi Wan Russell

Jedi Master
VIP Professional
Quote:"It seems that the main opposition to the theme of the thread boils down too -" Our Carriers are Invulnerable and Unsinkable and our Defences are Impenetrable". If that is the case, such a view is a recipe for disaster, as we in Britain have learned to our cost over centuries from at least the time of Henry VIII and the "Lord Harry" and "Mary Rose".

On the contrary. Your assertion seems to be that because the carrier ISN'T invulnerable and can be attacked then that makes it obsolete. Well soldiers have been vulnerable to gunfire for centuries, but we still have armies full of them. No weapon system on the planet in invulnerable, so it's deployment in wartime will always be a calculated risk. That is why Nations stack the odds in their favour by providing the best defences they can and try to anticipate all contingecies. There will always be a chink in the armour somewhere, and both sides will always be looking for it either to plug the gap or exploit it to advantage depending on there relative position. A carrier's defences should not be considered in isolation from it's strike group, because it will never deploy alone, and a CVSG will include subs as well as surface ships. The SSN is still the best ASW platform available and is backed up by surface ships and helos to assist in hunting an enemy SSN or SSK that may threaten the carrier. Not an impervious shield, but the best possible. Also, there will be other task groups in theatre to assist in nuetralising any threats, so the CVSG should not be considered in isolation either.

If your argument is that the Carrier's airwing cannot effectivley project power over a land power, are you trying to argue that land based aircraft can do better? Or is this about replacing manned aircraft with cruise missiles which can be fired from almost any ship or sub? Missiles are fine once the shooting war starts, but a carrier group on your doorstep can head off a war before it gets that far. In that respect, carriers justify their continued existence because they SAVE lives by acting as a deterrent, and are far superior at this than say a destroyer or frigate carrying a large (and mostly invisible)battery of missliles safely tucked away in their VLS silos, or even worse, an SSGN sitting unseen off the coast.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Obi Wan Russell said:
Quote:"It seems that the main opposition to the theme of the thread boils down too -" Our Carriers are Invulnerable and Unsinkable and our Defences are Impenetrable". If that is the case, such a view is a recipe for disaster, as we in Britain have learned to our cost over centuries from at least the time of Henry VIII and the "Lord Harry" and "Mary Rose".

On the contrary. Your assertion seems to be that because the carrier ISN'T invulnerable and can be attacked then that makes it obsolete. Well soldiers have been vulnerable to gunfire for centuries, but we still have armies full of them. No weapon system on the planet in invulnerable, so it's deployment in wartime will always be a calculated risk. That is why Nations stack the odds in their favour by providing the best defences they can and try to anticipate all contingecies. There will always be a chink in the armour somewhere, and both sides will always be looking for it either to plug the gap or exploit it to advantage depending on there relative position. A carrier's defences should not be considered in isolation from it's strike group, because it will never deploy alone, and a CVSG will include subs as well as surface ships. The SSN is still the best ASW platform available and is backed up by surface ships and helos to assist in hunting an enemy SSN or SSK that may threaten the carrier. Not an impervious shield, but the best possible. Also, there will be other task groups in theatre to assist in nuetralising any threats, so the CVSG should not be considered in isolation either.

If your argument is that the Carrier's airwing cannot effectivley project power over a land power, are you trying to argue that land based aircraft can do better? Or is this about replacing manned aircraft with cruise missiles which can be fired from almost any ship or sub? Missiles are fine once the shooting war starts, but a carrier group on your doorstep can head off a war before it gets that far. In that respect, carriers justify their continued existence because they SAVE lives by acting as a deterrent, and are far superior at this than say a destroyer or frigate carrying a large (and mostly invisible)battery of missliles safely tucked away in their VLS silos, or even worse, an SSGN sitting unseen off the coast.
Click to expand...
Very,very well said Obi Wan. ...and spot-on...hitting dead within the ring.

Naval planners all over the planet, with a lot more knowledge of history and technology than what we represent on these threads are all moving towards naval aviation as fast as they can. Knowing the inherent risks, they develop the defenses and the capability just the same because of the abject advantage that capability brings.
 
SampanViking

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Of course everything is "potentially" vulnerable. The risk however must always be quantifiable. Once risk becomes to high, then that role is no longer viable.

For a long time only a few countries had the capability to hit back at a Carrier that came to close to shore, now the number of countries that can is far greater and growing rapidly. So unless we see a rapid evolution in Carriers and Naval Aviation, their is a very real risk of todays symbol of national pride becoming tomorrows scuba dive attaction.

If your argument is that the Carrier's airwing cannot effectivley project power over a land power, are you trying to argue that land based aircraft can do better? Or is this about replacing manned aircraft with cruise missiles which can be fired from almost any ship or sub? Missiles are fine once the shooting war starts, but a carrier group on your doorstep can head off a war before it gets that far.
Click to expand...

The arguement is that if the Carrier Airwing are unable to survive their mission or come back and find the Carrier gone, then that is a disaster. Your last point is good but only works up to a point. Sooner or later (probably sooner) a country that can strike back will and once it succedes it will be open season for every other country that has the capability and a grudge.

Sadly, the lesson of history is that whilst their are often no shortage of people pointing out the blatently obvious, action is usually reserved untill after the disaster occurs!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top