Is the Aircraft Carrier as a Capital Ship already obsolete?

Sampan, you're still ignoring my points. I'll reiterate some key ones.

1. If no friendly states are available for/willing to provide bases for land-based air attacks on an enemy nation, do you invade a third-party to get those bases? Yes or no.

2. What is your proposed solution to the Royal Navy's requirement for carriers if the Queen Elizabeth class is "too big".

3. If the QE-class is an "evolutionary dead end", does that mean the Chinese are going the wrong direction in trying to complete Varyag? When they build their own aircraft carriers, what should their specifications be?

SampanViking said:

people pointing out the blatently obvious.

Click to expand...

That's a two edged sword. Works both ways. Problem is, most of us feel that it is just as blatantly obvious that naval aviation, projected via modern aircraft carriers, are the best and most viable method of projecting conventional power and that the advantages far outweigh the risks.

Naval planners around the world, for countries that both do not have such a cpability, and for those who have had it for many decades, agree. For those capable, they are all scrambling to get this capanbility as fast as they viably can. They are not making their decisions in a vaccuum, or influenced purely by politics and industry. They know the threat environment much better and in much greater detail than what has been discussed on this thread or others...and yet the capability is still developed.

If it were so patently obvious that the carrier was completely defunct, such decisions would not be made, such treasure would not be spent, and such risk to life and to the prestige and reputation of these nations would not be taken.

The point is, while there is risk, and while there well may be losses (just look at the horrific losses in World War II), the advantages to this date far outweigh the risks. My guess is, that in a major shooting war like World War II, the nations operating them would lose more now too...but the nations operating them would also benefit much more from having used them and loss some, than not having them at all. That is the real issue.

When it became blatantly obvious that the battleship was obsolete, everybody stopped building them. When the large multi engined high level bomber became obsolete, everybody stopped building them. there are numerous examples I could quote, but suffice to say, the carrier is still very much alive and well with a number of nations and the only reason more aren't being built and by more countries is cost. Those nations navies will remain 'second division' or even 'third division' as a result. Having a carrier force puts your navy in the first division beyond any doubt.

Any weapon system you suggest that makes a carrier vulnerable will make any warship vulnerable, so why you single out carriers for obsolescence is a mystery. Are DDGs or Figates less vulnerable than a carrier? Even the Soviets appreciated haw difficult a carrier was to disable, and despite developing large supersonic cruise missiles they knew they would only be effective in a saturation attack. Hundreds of missiles would be needed to ensure even a few getting through, and even Russia would be hard pressed to mount such an attack today (remember the USSR went fifteen different ways in 1991) and most 'rogue' nations don't possess even a fraction of the numbers of missiles needed to successfully atttack a CVSG. Today, probably only China has such resources, and even then they would not be able to take out the whole US fleet. Far from exposing the vulnerabilities of the carrier, such an attack would arouse public opinion in the US as it did after Pearl Harbor and the attacking nation would find itself 'Reaping the whirlwind' in very short order. The only weapon a CVSG is vulnerable to in reality is a Nuclear ballitic missile, but no nation would be willing to cross that line without going all the way, despite what many armchair generals and admirals might think.

Can't shake the feeling that some people think this thread is claiming that the Aircraft Carrier is obsolete. That obviously would be a ludicrous claim. No the claim here is very precise, that the Carrier as a Flag Ship for a Strike Group engaged in stand alone attacks against other nations is now to vulnerable to counter strike from the proliferation of modern ASM's and that the number of totally defenseless countries ie Somalia, is falling so rapidly, that this major role for a Carrier is now obsolete and that it should instead be regarded as an Escort or even Axillary vessel providing Air Cover to Convoys and Task Forces, to include Amphibious Landings.

That said:

Sampan, you're still ignoring my points. I'll reiterate some key ones.

Click to expand...

Well you cherry pick my points so why try to deprive me of the same privilege? anyhow out of courtesy I will answer your selection.

1. If no friendly states are available for/willing to provide bases for land-based air attacks on an enemy nation, do you invade a third-party to get those bases? Yes or no.

Click to expand...

Hardly a Yes or No question is it, but it would require meticulous planning. The questions to ask would your Carrier Air Assets be enough to support an Amphibious landing long en ought to secure suitable facilities to bring land based planes in?

2. What is your proposed solution to the Royal Navy's requirement for carriers if the Queen Elizabeth class is "too big".

Click to expand...

Has the Royal Navy actually specified its requirement? Is this likely to change during the construction period, are they likely to survive the construction period? To be honest Fu I have not even seen impressions of these Carriers, all I know is that they are two 65,000 fixed wing carriers intended to carry a navalised version of the Eurofighter. I have no idea what the intended missions for these ships are except an MOD press release that they will be able to help in the delivery of Humanitarian Aid. Not my immediate thought connected to the Eurofighter but there you go.

3. If the QE-class is an "evolutionary dead end", does that mean the Chinese are going the wrong direction in trying to complete Varyag? When they build their own aircraft carriers, what should their specifications be?

Click to expand...

Have these Carriers been officially ordered?, do we know anything about them? what the PLAN wants them for? when the work is due to start? when they are due for delivery? If China is building Carriers I hope they will be lighter, faster, feature less enclosed space within its overall area, and be tasked for Air Protection ASW and Anti Ship Warfare in Blue Water operations.

On a more general note, whilst I have largely been concerned with ASM's I read with interest the following in an Article in that well known PLA fanboy rag, the Economist.

It reports the official words of an Admiral Eric McVadon, of whom it says:

By Pentagon standards Admiral McVadon is doveish

Click to expand...

He goes on say

The Chinese are now trying to make sure that American Aircraft Carriers cannot get anywhere near (Taiwan). Admiral McVadon worries about their development of DF-21 (CSS-5) medium range ballistic missiles. With their far higher re-entry velocities than the SRBMs they would be far harder for Taiwan's missile defences to cope with. they could even be launched far beyond Taiwan into the Pacific to hit Aircraft Carriers. This would be a big technical challenge. But Admiral McVadon says America "might have to worry" about such a possibility within a couple of years.

Click to expand...

If this marks a new category of weapon soon to enter service, one must wonder as to what degree they will proliferate and the wider effect they will have on many aspects of my argument and maybe even beyond.

SampanViking said:

Hardly a Yes or No question is it

Click to expand...

It is as to whether you would do it at all. For me it would have to be pretty much a cake-walk and a state already fairly hostile. Anything else would be wrong - with is why having aircraft carriers able to make strikes against land targets is a good idea.

To be honest Fu I have not even seen impressions of these Carriers, all I know is that they are two 65,000 fixed wing carriers intended to carry a navalised version of the Eurofighter.

Click to expand...

If that's all you know then you should write to the MoD and ask then to explain the need. After all anyone who had bothered to read up on the project would at least know they're going to use the F-35B (C if necessary).

If China is building Carriers I hope they will be lighter, faster, feature less enclosed space within its overall area, and be tasked for Air Protection ASW and Anti Ship Warfare in Blue Water operations.

Click to expand...

What would you regard as "light" and "fast"?

well known PLA fanboy rag, the Economist

Click to expand...

Rag? Hehe, that's ridiculous.

Quote:"Has the Royal Navy actually specified its requirement? Is this likely to change during the construction period, are they likely to survive the construction period? To be honest Fu I have not even seen impressions of these Carriers, all I know is that they are two 65,000 fixed wing carriers intended to carry a navalised version of the Eurofighter. I have no idea what the intended missions for these ships are except an MOD press release that they will be able to help in the delivery of Humanitarian Aid. Not my immediate thought connected to the Eurofighter but there you go."

At last we see why you are so off target in your comments. You don't even know what the CVFs look like or what they will carry. The original specs came from the Navy, not government, so we can at least assume they meet the RN's needs. At no point in the project has the Eurofighter played any significant part in the design of the ships, and indeed the Typhoon has no 'sea legs' and would cost a small fortune to adapt for carrier ops. It has been talked about as a possible 'plan B' in case the F-35B fails, but plan B would actually be the F-35C ctol variant. After that plan C onwards would be either the F/A-18E/F or the Rafale, depending on who was in favour at the time and only then would Typhoon creep onto the table, so plan E if at all.

Just to clarify, THIS is what the CVFs will look like:

And not a Typhoon to be seen. Smaller and lighter carriers are less efficient, as they are able to deploy less of their main armament, ie aircraft, and have less volume internally to stow munitions and fuel for said aircraft, and indeed can carry less defensive armament because of space and weight restrictions. The only advantage to smaller decks is they are better than nothing, as we found out in 82.

No the claim here is very precise, that the Carrier as a Flag Ship for a Strike Group engaged in stand alone attacks against other nations is now to vulnerable to counter strike from the proliferation of modern ASM's and that

the number of totally defenseless countries ie Somalia, is falling so rapidly, that this major role for a Carrier is now obsolete and that it should instead be regarded as an Escort or even Axillary vessel providing Air Cover to Convoys and Task Forces, to include Amphibious Landings.

Click to expand...

1- Aegis and aegis like systems are spreading. The USN recently demonstrated 1 ship engaging a ballistic and super sonic cruise missile threatat the same time. This capability will spread as well.

Any attack on a CBG needs to be large, highly capable and as a result expensive. The number of strike craft needed to carry enough missiles to swamp a CBG defnesive screen would require almost all the modern combat aircraft of most nations outside of the very biggest player who won't go after carriers beucase they ussally belong to other big players who also have nukes.

The F-22's AESA can suppsodely scramble the circuittry of incomig missiles. Boeing is working on the ABL etc the era of DEW's is just around the corner. The American CVN with its unlimited power and ultra-high value is an obvious canidate for a speed of light defensive system. If my prediction is true then uber mach speed missiles simply won't matter in a few years unless they are stealthed. And that again implies one of the major powers and the nuclear risk.

Obi Wan Russell said:

Just to clarify, THIS is what the CVFs will look like

Click to expand...

Adding a word of caution that the design will have become more refined since then. BAE aren't spending that much time pumping out new images, whereas the French often come up with new pictures of PA2. I think you one you have is from last year.

Ironic given their project still hasn't got final approval.

FuManChu said:

Adding a word of caution that the design will have become more refined since then. BAE aren't spending that much time pumping out new images, whereas the French often come up with new pictures of PA2. I think you one you have is from last year.

Ironic given their project still hasn't got final approval.

Click to expand...

I was using the best and latest image available. I asked Richard Beedall if he had anything more recent and he said getting images out of BAe was like getting blood out of a stone! I know there wil be further changes as time passes but our friend didn't appear to have seen any of the images published at all. Just trying to be helpful, and the picture in my previous post will certainly be in the right 'ball park'.

Thanks for the image Obi, its very interesting, although as Fu says it would be premature to accept that we are seeing the final design.

Overall though, I don't think it really impacts on the argument, as it is not based on any individual ship or Carrier based Aircraft.

Any attack on a CBG needs to be large, highly capable and as a result expensive. The number of strike craft needed to carry enough missiles to swamp a CBG defnesive screen would require almost all the modern combat aircraft of most nations outside of the very biggest player who won't go after carriers beucase they ussally belong to other big players who also have nukes.

Click to expand...

Well that is what they say. given however the very scare information about actual combat attacks it is little more than supposition or even boasting. The few occasions where there have been clashes we learn that the ship borne defence systems have been turned off. Strangely enough when that Patriot shot down an RAF Tornado in GW2, we were told that ForF recog had been turned off. Given that the first casualty of war is the truth, I think we can probably reach other conclusions.

Out of interest, I am unaware of any combat action in which an unsupported Carrier group has detected, tracked and intercepted an ASM targeting it directly. If anybody does, please do share