Is the Aircraft Carrier as a Capital Ship already obsolete?

There are still seven more years until QE is due to be commissioned, and while I am hopeful, a lot of things can happen in seven years' time. Personally, I think that if 2 CVF are going to be built, the Exchequer might as well take the pain of building 3 (this, of course will not happen) as I have doubts about claims that the maintenance cycle for the 2 CVF will in fact eliminate the need for periodic long-term overhauls. Until QE and PoW are actually cruising the seven seas, I won't rule out the possibility of real snags suddenly stalling the program.

The aircraft carrier as a capital ship is NOT obsolete, but, as I said in an earlier post, supersonic cruise missiles, wake-homing torpedos and other "carrier-killer" weapons do in fact exist NOW, and there is some doubt about the ability of the existing defensive systems of carrier strike groups to reliably deflect those weapons. Nothing is certain one way or the other, as no major sustained naval campaign involving modern carrier strike groups facing "carrier-killer" weapons has occurred.

At present, most views regarding the survivability of carriers and their escorts are educated guesses, and some are better than others. AEGIS-type systems and RAM-type close-in defenses offer real possibilities against cruise missiles, but with Russian supersonic cruise missiles purpose-designed and built to break through such defenses and destroy carriers (and their escorts), we have a situation in which, in the absence of real, major, sustained wartime experience, there are few or no clear indicators as to whether or not carrier strike groups will still operate more or less effectively in wartime, or whether a decisive technoligical change has occurred that, for the time being at least, will render carrier strike groups operations practically untenable.

The question that needs to be answered, and only a real war can provide that answer, is whether or not "carrier-killers" are so effective and so efficient that carrier-strike group operations, at least as we presently know them, are not possible without prohibitively heavy losses, or such weapons turn out to be much less than what they are touted to be and are simply just one out of many manageable threats that carrier strike groups could take in stride.

However, even if the worst turned out to be true in a real shooting war, and "carrier-killers" proved able to despatch aircraft carriers and their escorts with real ease and efficiency, people could still be led to a false conclusion that carriers are obsolete. After all, if you don't have available land bases for airpower, you must have aircraft carriers whether you are landing troops on a coast, escorting convoys across oceans, or bombing targets deep inland. Carrier-killers, even if they prove able to sweep carrier from the seas may prove to be only a temporary techological advantage. Directed energy weapons, if they turn out to work over the next few decades, conceivably could knock carrier-killer missiles out of the sky and effectively negate them, if they work. As for wake-homing torpedos and the like, new decoys and new active anti-torpedo defenses may prove effective in the future. BUT, no-one knows, and will not know unless a long hard naval campaign is waged.

As things stand at the moment, I have to side with those who see the aircraft carrier as being unusually vulnerable for the foreseeable future against "carrier-killer" weapons, especially since there are no carriers that carry effective, long-range fixed-wing ASW aircraft that can hunt cruise-missile subs hundreds of miles away from a carrier strike group, right where they need to be to get the subs before the subs can (theoretically at least) launch their missiles. This capability alone could reduce many carrier-killer weapons to almost pedestrian status. But, no other ship can replace the carrier at the moment, and perhaps DEW can, in the future, at least provide a reliable defense against supersonic cruise missiles. But we're going to have to wait a while for that.

In the meantime, I fear that carriers may be sufficiently vulnerable to existing weapons to render their use in high-intensity naval warfare exceptionally risky in comparison to the past, and sufficiently so such that carriers should be used much more sparingly and with much greater attention to the potential for loss of life and risk to major military operations than has been case to date. Being afraid to use the queen is almost certainly a strategy for failure in chess, but I am not certain that the aircraft carrier is the queen on the naval chessboard anymore, or if she still is, she needs to be a good deal more reliant upon the other pieces.

Thank you Norfolk for an excellent and balanced post. I think you square my position very fairly, certainly on the key issues of substance.

SampanViking said:

Thank you Norfolk for an excellent and balanced post. I think you square my position very fairly, certainly on the key issues of substance.

Click to expand...

I'm no expert, but I try.

I wish we had some more navy types here. bdpopeye has a lot of experience on carriers, even though he seems rather more optimistic about them than I do, and we have a few naval architects and engineers, but it would sure help this thread if a few more serving or former naval types would join in and speak up (to the extent that they can, mind you) and give those of us landlubbers (I am so hardcore leg-infantry that even though I think most infantry operations are pointless failures without heavy armour and IFVs, I still hate the idea of riding in them) a real sense of the realities involved in naval warfare so that we can base our views and arguments on something much more substantive than picking through technical publications and published naval doctrines and learn from the people who are the professional practitioners. Hey, I was in the army years ago, and the reality didn't necessarily bear a lot of resemblance to either the doctrine we had or the technical specs of the kit we used. You need real practicioners to make sense of it all.

My toughts exactly. Altough we have nice punch of Vip-members, we always could have more in all sectors. By the way, why not givin PM to Webmaster and you can have your colours as well.

Here's yet one landbuggers point of view...
I'm also in similar roads in the actual topic. In the old days, prior WWII battleships were still considered as the main capitalships altough aircraft carriers did already existed. Only the events in the war led to the point where the latter was prooven out to be more viavle and effective and eventually making the previous obsolence. To determine wheter carriers have now reached their end also would require huge naval conflict where all possiple factors would take place in actual life.

But you cannot point out someone being obsolence if you don't have some system that could replace it in the "capital ship" role and thats IMO the main weakness in those arguments that are trying to scrab current carriers. With only brief and superficical survey in this thread have given me much alternatives. Mostly those are based around "carrier-killer" weapons which are not the factors that could replace carriers (declearing something obsolence means you have to have alternative which is more modern and gives you better results). Only real alternatives given are various cruise missiles and land based long-range aircrafts.
Are cruise missiles enough to replace the firepower and reach of aircraft carriers? Hardly. Altough there are quite arrange of various cruise missiles from antiship, ASW to land attack missions, none of them can give the same performance, versatility and firepower that aircrafts can. Same goes to airdefence. Ships can be fitted with impressive aidefence suites with radars and long reaching missiles, But still no SAM in the current pipeline can reach the radius that carrierbrone interceptors can.
Land based aircrafts are even worser alternative as they basicly limits your fleet operational area inside the combat radious to that land based aircraft which have the smallest radius (chain & weakest link ect.). Its suites fine with "normal" countries with no oversea intentions and obligations but with superpowers its hardly enough. Also the fact is that the current oil-based fuels are running out in the next 50 years so very soon we reach the point where it is forced to cut down the consumption. First its done by those areas which consumes it most. Long range aircrafts are one on the top of the list. So only possiple method to get your "message" trough is to use carrier based lesser-range aircrafts taking-off from nuclear powered carriers.

Lets go few steps back and return to the "carrier killers". No single weapon has yet managed to make so huge fraction of naval warfare obsolence like carriers sofar. Previous capital ships, battleships weren't invincible, they could be sinked aside from other battleships gunfire via mines and torbedoes and those threats were well know prior WWII. Even aircrafts potential was known. That didn't alone make the battleships obsolence, but the fact that there was a new shipclass that could do similar ammount of damage and reaching that fire power even further to completely new dimensions with far smaller cost in the actual ships hull.
Precence of current weapons that can kill carriers are nothing news, in fact mines and torbedoes have not ceased to exits as the main threat to all large surface combatants. Personally I feel that the current supercarriers are being sold as invincible to better explain their ever rising costs. The weapons that can sink them have existed and more improved ones will emerge, thats just natural but those weapons alone wont make carriers go anywhere...Only realistic replacement will change the tide. In WWI, most of battleships weaknesses were adressed and quite few of them sunked (when they finally got the change to shoot each others ) but yet their role as main capital vessels didn't changed untill WWII.

All fair points Gollie, one however I think should be added. What are the chances of surviving the mission? Even under the most desperate circumstances I cannot believe any nation would willingly risk its Carriers if they did not believe that they stood a reasonable chance of survival.

Maybe then the question that should be being asked, is what exactly is an acceptable level of risk for such Assets, both at a critical point in a war of national survival and in a “Peacetime” Strike mission against a country such as Syria, Sudan or Venezula?

You're quite right Gollie, there is no substitute for aircraft carriers. We need them and there is nothing else at present that can replace them, not even in the foreseeable future.

The problem that SampanViking and I have is that we very much fear that at present at least, though not necessarily in the future (ie DEW, etc.), the deployment of aircraft carrier strike groups to areas where they may be subjected to mass "swarm" attacks by "carrier-killers" may simply be suicide missions, with few or no carriers and their escorts surviving. Obviously, if such turned out to be the case in wartime, naval power projection beyond subs tossing a few missiles at land targets would be effectively dead, at least until adequate counter-measures had been readied. And for Western countries who are so dependent upon naval power to fight and win wars, this would be catastophic.

I still maintain that much of the carrier-killer threat could be greatly mitigated if Western carriers carried fixed-wing ASW planes - and I am simply horrified that as a result of budgetary pressures the S-3 was pulled out of the ASW mission nearly a decade ago now and the CSA replacement was cancelled. Call me fixated on the sub threat, but I am so concerned about the sub threat to surface ships that if I were a carrier captain, I would eagerly, if somewhat resignedly, give up a squadron of strike aircraft to put a squadron (or even two) of ASW planes on each carrier. I just don't see any other way of giving carriers a truly effective defense against subs.

Norfolk said:

I am simply horrified that as a result of budgetary pressures the S-3 was pulled out of the ASW mission nearly a decade ago now and the CSA replacement was cancelled. Call me fixated on the sub threat, but I am so concerned about the sub threat to surface ships that if I were a carrier captain, I would eagerly, if somewhat resignedly, give up a squadron of strike aircraft to put a squadron (or even two) of ASW planes on each carrier. I just don't see any other way of giving carriers a truly effective defense against subs.

Click to expand...

Many of us share the concern about the lack of long legged ASW (read S-3) capablity on the carriers and are as convinced as you that it was not only shortsighted, but dangerous.

One potential alternative may be a Osprey variant at some point.

Having said that, the surface escorts that a CSG has are effective, particularly using their helos, in extending the ASW coverage. Even more so are the SSNs that accompany each carrier. Usually there is at least one LA class boat...in my view, there should always be two, and maybe three LA Class boats for a CSG in war time...and in war time or a high threat environment, something like that may well be the case.

I do not believe the S-3s have been destroyed either. Within the next few years, if there were a large, at sea war situation, or as the threat intensifies (particularly lets say around Taiwan) you may well see them reactivated. Hopefully, something is on the drawing board to replace them as well.

Jeff Head said:

Many of us share the concern about the lack of long legged ASW (read S-3) capablity on the carriers and are as convinced as you that it was not only shortsighted, but dangerous.

One potential alternative may be a Osprey variant at some point.

Having said that, the surface escorts that a CSG has are effective, particularly using their helos, in extending the ASW coverage. Even more so are the SSNs that accompany each carrier. Usually there is at least one LA class boat...in my view, there should always be two, and maybe three LA Class boats for a CSG in war time...and in war time or a high threat environment, something like that may well be the case.

I do not believe the S-3s have been destroyed either. Within the next few years, if there were a large, at sea war situation, or as the threat intensifies (particularly lets say around Taiwan) you may well see them reactivated. Hopefully, something is on the drawing board to replace them as well.

Click to expand...

I just hope that it doesn't take a serious loss of life or a failed operation somewhere to spur Congress on to fund a worthy replacement for the S-3. Many of us know that senior military leaders often find themselves placed in situations where budget constraints (et al.) force them to make very difficult decisions which go against their better professional judgement. The US Navy, and others, have senior leaders who thoroughly understand the realities navies may face in wartime; the problem is, the people who authorize the budgets (Congress) sometimes either do not accept, or indeed sacrifice such professional advice (or some military leaders feel compelled to tell the politicians what they think they want to hear) - and whalla! - serious military deficiencies result.

And of course, it is very often those political figures who were the worst in this regard that complain the most bitterly after the fact when a disaster has occurred, and heads (often of the innocent or less culpable) are sought for the chopping block.

bdpopeye has a lot of experience on carriers, even though he seems rather more optimistic about them than I do, and we have a few naval architects and engineers, but it would sure help this thread if a few more serving or former naval types would join in and speak up (to the extent that they can, mind you) and give those of us landlubbers

Click to expand...

I've been staying out of this discussion for two reasons;
1) I'm very busy in another forum.
2) I'm very biased in favor of aircraft carriers.

Yes it is true that I have a lot of experience on CV's . In fact I served on 5 USN CV's..Kennedy, Midway, Hancock, America and Nimitz.. Nimitz is the only ships of those listed still in service.

the deployment of aircraft carrier strike groups to areas where they may be subjected to mass "swarm" attacks by "carrier-killers" may simply be suicide missions, with few or no carriers and their escorts surviving.

Click to expand...

I don't see the US risking the loss of a CSG by deploying to such areas. That being said...Sometimes I think in those of you that have not served feel if a conventional missile/bomb/weapon strikes a CVN the ship is doomed. First that weapon must penatrate USN air defense. If it does suceed in pentantating USN defenses and strikes say an aircraft carrier how much damage can it do? Will it sink the ship? Nope..mission kill the ship? Maybe. I've said it before and shall state it again do not discount the ablity of any sailor to perform damage control and firefighting proceedures to save their ship. In 1967 a serious fire started by an ordance explosion occuried on CVA-59. Massive damage was inflicted. The ship survived to serve the USN for 25 more years. Those sailors on CVA-59 did not receive the intense firefighting and damage control training sailors recieve today.



Another fire started by an ordanance miship also occuried on CVAN-65 in January 1969. She was repaired in 6 weeks time. Proceded to the Western Pacfic to resume it's duties. And is deployed in the Persian Gulf region right now.



As for CV's being obsolete I would have to disagree. How can a weapon that can deliver PGM on target around the clock for 5-7 days most anywhere in the world before replenishing be obsolete? No cruiser, SSGN, DDG CG can do that. None. Why are so many nations operating and building CV's?

Aircraft carrier don't need an "host nation" approval to operate it's aircraft.

Bottom line CV's are well protected standoff weapons whose aircraft have a range of attacking targets 100's of KM.s..

Obsolete? No..Vernable ? Yes..as is ANY naval target. However it will not be as easy as some think to "mission kill" because of the protection from its escorts that surround a CV..

bd popeye said:

.I don't see the US risking the loss of a CSG by deploying to such areas. That being said...Sometimes I think in those of you that have not served feel if a conventional missile/bomb/weapon strikes a CVN the ship is doomed. First that weapon must penatrate USN air defense. If it does suceed in pentantating USN defenses and strikes say an aircraft carrier how much damage can it do? Will it sink the ship? Nope..mission kill the ship? Maybe. I've said it before and shall state it again do not discount the ablity of any sailor to perform damage control and firefighting proceedures to save their ship. In 1967 a serious fire started by an ordance explosion occuried on CVA-59. Massive damage was inflicted. The ship survived to serve the USN for 25 more years. Those sailors on CVA-59 did not receive the intense firefighting and damage control training sailors recieve today.

Bottom line CV's are well protected standoff weapons whose aircraft have a range of attacking targets 100's of KM.s..

Obsolete? No..Vernable ? Yes..as is ANY naval target. However it will not be as easy as some think to "mission kill" because of the protection from its escorts that surround a CV..

Click to expand...

This is reassuring, as some of the things that one can read can lead one to the conclusion that carriers are just waiting to be picked off. Still, I am not completely reassured, especially given the absence of fixed-wing ASW planes to hopefuly hold subs off at a great distance. I am rather more confident about the ability of carrier groups to hold bombers off at safer distances.