"Aircraft Carriers: Still Indispensable" Topic

The joint and combined force is a latticework of capabilities, but nothing compares with the mobility, mass, and fires capacity of a U.S. Navy aircraft carrier.

Proceedings Magazine: link

I wonder if they will have piloted aircraft in the future or drone swarms?

Amen to this. Dragon, I think that is likely, though way down the road from our point of view.

For now the carrier is the symbol and the reality of force projection at sea.

CVNs are still very useful. Whether they are just flying drones or manned or a mix of both.

And the USN still has about 11 CVNs, IIRC.. More than anyone else on the planet …

I'd go manned/un-manned teaming… If you are still a maritime trading power and want to project power anywhere in the world I'd say a carrier group is still where its at.

China is building a fleet of CVs from scratch, so you can't deny they must have some utility. In fact, the lest 3 decades show that this class of ships plays a prominent role in foreign policy. This meme IMO captures the fact

No US or western intervention could have happened without carriers, even in landlocked countries such as Afghanistan. The carrier provides a powerful, fast and easily deployable response to any crisis.My own country, France, seems to be of that opinion, as the CVN Charles de Gaulle played an essential role in the 2011 Libyan intervention. There seem to be limits, given the current apparent failure of CVN Eisenhower to put an end to Houti depredations in the Red Sea, but this is, IMO, more a result of an improvised, and poorly designed strategy, than an unadequation of the ship to the task at hand.

But this supposes, IMO, that it operates under naval supremacy conditions. Can these be assured in every case ? Nelson once said something like « A ship is a fool to fight a fort », underscoring the vulnerability of naval assets as they come within range of coastal defenses. For decades, the range of the carrier air wing, extended by stand-off ammunition, assured that it can stay well beyond the range of land defenses response. The question is, is this still the case ?
China claims its DF 21 (1800 km range) and DF 26 (5 000 km range) can accurately hit naval targets, and these claims need to be considered.

This is where I think I'm reaching me personal limits (I'm just an old guy interested in military history, geopolitics & naval warfare after all), but from what I read, range isn't everything : you not only need to be able to reach a naval target, you also have to know is precise location , to acquire it and to hit it. WW2 carrier battles, as well as Argentina's experience in the Falklands war, show that this is no simple matter. Finding its location may be possible : radar satellites, and tracking a task force's emission can give a rough approximation of its location, sufficient to direct bombers of self-guided missiles (possibly assisted by AI) to it. In Red Storm Rising, Clancy imagined a Soviet Backfire raid at US carriers in the Atlantic relying on triangulation of the position of the TF's E2C Hawkeyes. No TF can stay forever under EmCon condition…
Acquisition will be even trickier. You cannot rely on a maritime patrol plane, as i twill be an easy prey for the TF fighter planes… I'm going on a limb here, perhaps AI can solve this problem and let the missiles themselves do the job ?
Lastly, hitting. Ballistic missiles are not, whatever Russia & China may claim, highly maneuverable, they are easily detected and can be shot down by AAA defenses. Furthermore, DF have an accuracy radius of 100m, enough to give even a big carrier a good chance to escape. China however can launch hypersonic sea-skimmers from itsH6 bombers, which are a modernized version of 1950 vintage Soviet Tu16 Badgers.

Their capacity to inflict damage depends on their capability to survive penetration. This leaves Chinese SSNs… even if they get within missile range of a CAG, they still need to acquire it, which is not IMO an ascertained matter.

But let us suppose the worst, that indeed DF missiles have the capability claimed by China. This still leaves some usefulness to CVs. Which ios good for Western powers, because they have relied on them to achieve naval supremacy. This will be simply limited to those areas out of the range of these missiles, and these areas will be effectively interdicted to Chinese shipping, and open to their western opponents. Under the Carrier Air Wing's protection, maritime patrol planes will be able to hunt safely enemy submarines, while the opponent's ones will be prevented. Western subs will be able to operate safely and hunt and kill any enemy SSN getting close to the carrier.
In conclusion, CVs are still, IMO, a very important component of a balanced navy. It's no longer the Swiss knife it used to be – a tool for naval supremacy, land operation support and ASW. But They're still difficult to find, track and hit, and the vast expanses of the world oceans are still, for the most part, out of range of coastal defenses. We would probably not see, should the worst happen, a big decisive mahanian showdown. But like in WW1, & WW2 in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, notwithstanding the trouble caused by a fleet in being, the side that achieves naval supremacy should enjoy a good degree of freedom at sea.

They are very useful if you can get them close enough to the adversary to put ordnance on target. Not so hard against Iran, Iraq, Houthis, etc. That said, they are going to attract hordes of ASMs, USVs, UASs and torpedoes in peer-to-peer conflict. SSN, SSGN, CH/DDG, and good Ole USAF strategic bombers IMHO are better platforms when considering long ranged strike and crew / platform survivability against the PLAN.

A Carrier Grp has a number of support ships as Lostpict mentioned. And many of them have cruise missiles which also have pretty good longer range. But like on the ground, in the sea and air, weapons support each other. Like SEADS with air assault ops and even an aircraft strike package has aircraft to suppress radars, missile systems, etc.

Right Legion, carriers coordinate with land based aircraft as done with the Houthi, and carrier weapons and defenses are evolving. I think the Ford has mounting platforms to eventually add laser weapons. Subs are the ultimate naval weapons, but carriers are far from done yet. I don't think the Ike should get the blame for the Houthi surviving our attacks. There were likely political constraints.
And…carriers can stay at sea for extended long periods of deployment anywhere…..unless they are Chinese.

The challenge is we could build ~8-10 DDGs for every new CVN and her airwing. USS Ford $13 USDB plus $11 USDB airwing all told ~$24B. Not to mention 6000 sailors on that juicy target. DDG51 run $2.5 USD per copy plus missiles (say another $300 USDM). We carry so many SAMs to protect the carrier that we limit the DDG offensive loadouts. Nothing like sending Tomahawks Downtown when you need to send a message.

I dread the day a leaker hits a CVN.

I fear the mistake that will be made will be to only send in ONE carrier instead of 2 to 3 (or more). Massive force projection plus better/larger defensive measures. Lessons should be remembered from WW2, instead of paying for them again with blood…

Right Legion, carriers coordinate with land based aircraft as done with the Houthi, and carrier weapons and defenses are evolving

Yes both the USN, USAF and RAF were involved in strikes against the Houthis. That is the way it should be done.

I fear the mistake that will be made will be to only send in ONE carrier instead of 2 to 3 (or more). Massive force projection plus better/larger defensive measures. Lessons should be remembered from WW2, instead of paying for them again with blood…

Agreed the more the better … But I fear based on how the CinC and staff have made military decisions in the past 3+ years. I don't think they remember, know, or care about history.

Optics and votes are more important than sound military judgement, etc. E.g. the A'stan debacle, slow walking support to Ukraine, etc. If one doubts what wartime leadership looks like, WWII has a number of good examples. I don't see any of that currently, IMO …

I don't think Trump knows much history either, Legion. If he wins, hopefully we will not see the revolving door of cabinet members and advisors again and the command structure and strategic vision will be clear. This may mean at least some reliance on the intelligence agencies, among other things. And that is apparently a question mark.

I worry about the heavy emphasis on nuclear weapons and testing returning. But I don't know what it's based on. And Europe needs us and we need them, China is not the only adversary.

I don't think Trump knows much history either, Legion. If he wins, hopefully we will not see the revolving door of cabinet members and advisors again and the command structure and strategic vision will be clear. This may mean at least some reliance on the intelligence agencies, among other things. And that is apparently a question mark.

We will have to see. However, in many cases he followed the Militaries and Intel assets advice, e.g. the destruction of ISIS. And IMO he would be better at this than the current admin. Seems they currently rely on intellectual, academics, with no military experience. E.g. the A'stan withdrawal was not planned by the military. It was some in admin with no experience in this sort of thing.

And Europe needs us and we need them, China is not the only adversary.

Yes, that is why NATO needs to be strong. China has numbers, but Iran, North Korea, islamic terrorists, are still a threat. Hopefully Russia will continue to take high losses. But they still have nukes …

One thing I have not seen posted in this discussion, is the peaceful advantages of a (USA) Carrier. They can desalinate water, to provide clean drinking water, along with providing electrical power for emergency services such as hospitals, for cities which have suffered failures within their infrastructures due to earthquakes, and other disasters.

The US Navy has performed this humanitarian duty more than once, within the past 20 years. I believe the USN assisted Haiti, in the recent past, with such humanitarian aid. Cheers!

+1 Sgt Slag.

Legion, you are right about the current admin. I heard somewhere that the navy was ready to go after the Houthi from day one. We don't have all the intel, but a quicker response would have been preferred by many.

I hope you are right about Trump if elected. But saying you can end the Ukraine war immediately does not sound convincing.

Legion, you are right about the current admin. I heard somewhere that the navy was ready to go after the Houthi from day one. We don't have all the intel, but a quicker response would have been preferred by many.

Well I saw a former Sailor at the VA wearing a T-shirt. It said, "The US Navy … Blowing 💩 up since 1775" … I don't think the current elected and appointed leaders get it … Some of them should go back to the classroom, where their decisions won't hurt or kill anybody.

I hope you are right about Trump if elected. But saying you can end the Ukraine war immediately does not sound convincing.

We will see … however, IMO the Ukraine-Russian War, the Gaza-IDF War and Iran running wild, would have been handled better before/after the 💩 hit the fan(s).

The guy in the article is talking rubbish.

I was a bombardier/navigator in A-6 Intruders back in the 80s and the air wing at that time could strike out to 1000 nms.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union the Navy decided to get rid of all their multi-crewed aircraft and replaced them with the F/A-18 so they could afford to keep building 13 trillion dollar CVs.

The problem they ran into was that they had no dedicated tankers and were forced to put a "buddy store" refueling pod on the F/A-18 centerline with 4 2000lb fuel tanks on the wings. That 10,000 pounds of weight put so much stress on the aircraft that it quickly drained the plane's service life, and even then they were lucky to be able to reach out 500nm. With the F-35 and Super Hornet I understand they can now strike out to 800nm. They still do not have dedicated tankers… though they have geniuses who now turning a drone stealth strike aircraft they were researching into a tanker.

So the problem for the USN is that they have fantastic CVs with crap aircraft onboard which requires them to get uncomfortably close to their target.

Meanwhile, the Aegis class cruisers have reached their end life and are simply not being replaced.

The CVs ability to project power (its primary mission) has been steadily declining over the years due to the pin heads who run the service.

xLAVAx +1

As we see another CVN TF is heading for the area. But the enemy knows the current US leadership are risk adverse and fear escalation. So, it's like putting up a "Beware of the Dog" sign … but the dog is kept in a pen. And never let out …

In 1991 the A-12 Avenger was cancelled. It's combat range was to be 800 nmi. During the subsequent Pentagon mission allocation negotiations, the Navy lost the long range conventional strike mission to the Air Force for future system development. Thus no replacement for the A6. We've been limited to Tomahawks since the A6s left the fleet for long range strike.

Some US Service members were just WIA'd at Al Assad(IIRC?) Airbase in Iraq. By rockets fired by Shia Militias supported by Iran, I believe the report said. If our enemies thought the US would really use the CVN and F-22s, etc. to good effect. They wouldn't still be attacking US assets.

But the USN did shoot down 1 Drone and 2 Missiles fired by the Houthis today.

Good shoot'n Sailors !

At this point, the USN has a CVN TF in the Med and another off the coast of Iran. And even some USN assets in the Red Sea, IIRC. Plus 1 or 2 USAF attack aircraft Squadrons are in the region as well.

The USN is seeing action shooting down enemy missiles and drones, still. But I'm betting based on the USA's top leadership's decisions in the past. No strikes of any size will hit military target in Iran, Yemen or may be even the Shia Militias in Iraq that are shooting at US troops. But all those assets in the region are good optics. As it is an election year …