Why Aircraft Carriers Sail On

[arp2041]

Have aircraft carriers become obsolete? Since 1949, analysts have argued that some combination of strategic bombers and cheap anti-shipping weapons have rendered the aircraft carrier a relic. The latest round in the conversation over the continued viability of aircraft carriers was spurred by Robert Haddick’s Foreign Policy column suggesting that improvements in long range strategic airpower and ballistic missile technology could render the carrier irrelevant.

There’s no single answer as to why the carrier persists, but the experience of the last sixty-five years has helped give us a handle on the persistent utility of the flat deck aviation warship. While individual anti-access platforms are inexpensive, developing an anti-access system of systems requires immense investments of time, treasure, and human capital. The PLA has undoubtedly created a formidable set of weapons to defeat U.S. carriers, but it has done so at the expense of other capabilities. Haddick notes “For the price of a single major warship, China can buy hundreds or even thousands of anti-ship missiles.” Indeed, China (and the USSR before it) has foregone the development of offensive, power projection platforms in no small part because of the need to invest heavily in systems to counter U.S. carriers.

Moreover, governments find a way to use aircraft carriers that doesn’t involve high intensity combat against peer opponents. However expensive they may be, U.S. carriers have proven infinitely more fungible than the array of missile boats, short range submarines, and advanced missiles that the PLA has deployed to counter them. A U.S. carrier can show the flag outside the Strait of Hormuz, support relief operations in Haiti, or kinetic military operations in Libya, while an armada of DF-21D ASBMs can do little but sit and wait.

This is why states continue to build (and buy) aircraft carriers even at great trouble and expense. A carrier may never run the risk of an anti-ship missile during its long lifespan, but it will likely contribute to the national interest in some fashion. The prestige offered by a major, modern capital ship may seem an ephemeral goal to spend the national treasury on, but prestige also constitutes influence; the arrival of an aircraft carrier at a regional port of call carries more diplomatic weight than an attack submarine or destroyer (witness the concern over the deployment of Admiral Kuznetsov to the Mediterranean). This is particularly true in a crisis, whether natural or manmade; aircraft carriers have the capacity to influence events ashore that neither strategic bombers nor surface ships possess. We should think of the procurement priorities of China, India, and Japan in these terms.

Given that future missions will force flexible demands on aircraft carriers, we may continue to see a shift away from expensive super-carriers and towards multi-purpose warships such as the USN’s amphibious assault vessels. The enormous expense of the largest, most capable aircraft carriers will prove a greater danger to their continued relevance than the anti-access systems designed to destroy them. However, this development is likely only to change the priorities of designers, rather than to eliminate the type altogether.


Why Aircraft Carriers Sail On | Flashpoints

 

[Oldman1]

True carriers will always trump amphibious assault vessels no matter what. Smaller size means fewer aircraft.

 

[ANPP]

In decade od 50s the future of SUBMARINES also in dark, but now none of country can think about its navy without submarines.

 

[arp2041]

Carriers have proved time & again that they cannot be replaced by any other ship & when they are at sea, they are really the king of the ocean. Some of the instances of great achievements on part of ACs are as follows:

1. Before WW II, the major surface ships were destroyers, but the attack of pearl harbor & destruction of the large no. of American surface fleet in the attack (except ACs which were out of the harbor), made the use of ACs in the war inevitable, US made major gains by utilizing there Carriers in counter attacking the Japanese, so much so that in to the climax to the war, Japanese pilots were on suicide missions (called Kamikaze) to damage/destroy the American Carriers. This made America as the most powerful naval power since WW II.

2. US instrument of domination of the world since WW II has been the carriers & they have extensively made use of them since than in wars, either directly or indirectly, in 1967 Israel - Arab war, in 1991 1st Gulf War, in Afghanistan, in 2nd Gulf war, etc. even today America is using it's carrier against Iran to make a statement that it can attack Iran whenever it wants.

3. After WW 2, Britain acknowledged the power of the ACs in the Falkland war of 1982, no way could they have won back the Falklands (islands nearly 8000 miles away from the British mainland) from the Argentina if they din't had the 2 carriers HMS Invincible & HMS Hermes.

4. India also got to know the value of an AC in 1971 war when INS Vikrant help impose a blockade of the Chittagong port & help bombing missions there. Thus entire maritime doctrine of IN is focused around a CBG.

5. France has also got a nuclear powered AC & it extensively utilized it in the war in Libya to oust col. Gadaffi.

+ As high as 15 countries currently operates carrier ( a no. which only can rise) with US operating the major chunk with 11 ACs.

+ Nearly each countries currently operating the AC has plans to either maintain the status quo or increase the no. of AC they operate (India, China are the biggest gainers in the nos.).

+ AC of a nation give that nation international status & prestige that no other warship can ever give, An American Super carrier operating 70+ F-18s + early warning aircrafts as well as helos is enough to make there enemies shock/afraid & come to the negotiating table.

+ Using an AC, a nation can attack another nation with whom it doesn't share a border, so depending upon how far from the mainland, a country's national interests lies, it will construct that many AC & try to continue dominate the oceans. Thus as US is the world superpower, it has the max no. of AC & as China & India grow, they will slowly but steadily challenge the might of USN in the oceans with there own ACs.

 

[Abingdonboy]

In a sense it can be argued their actual war-fighting credentials are in doubt wrt return on investment however for power projection purposes ACCs are unmatched.

 

[arp2041]

In a sense it can be argued their actual war-fighting credentials are in doubt wrt return on investment however for power projection purposes ACCs are unmatched.

But long range fighters on board an AC help them to strike enemy territory from very long distances (somewhat safe from enemy missiles) + there battle group acts as a shield for the AC.