Aircraft Carrier is obsolete as a modern Weapon

jason_420

Active member
Other then a humanitarian mission or fighting piss ant countries the Modern Aircraft Carrier is a waste of money. If the US or any country fighting a modern Navy can expect to lose a carrier (and the poor soles on board) within the first 30minutes of war. Its a huge target. Sure there is anti missile and torpedo technology but if a enemy fires enough Cruise Missiles, torpedo's (Supercavitation or not) the Carrier is doomed. Am on wrong on this? I hope the US doesn't waste the money on another one of these. I love the carrier and all its capabilities but its one big floating liability with no role against a Modern Navy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Without its carrier force, the British could never have retaken the Falklands, pure and simple.

The Falklands War was a wake up call to the British Government (who intended to sell its carrier force) just how important carriers are. So important that two new carriers are being built, HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.

Keep taking the tablets.
 
Jason:

It would seem that way if a carrier had to fight the whole engagement by itself. But it doesn’t. It’s a very integral part of a larger whole.

Wrapped around that carrier is a whole task force that sometimes is devoted to the defense of that carrier. These support ships can be missile launching cruisers, destroyers, frigates, and yes fast attack submarines. Each of these elements lends support for each other: the aircraft from the carrier can protect the surface vessels. The missile carrying cruisers provide a layered defense to prevent, or try to prevent aircraft and missile from getting to the carrier. The destroyers and submarines protect it from threats below.

It is very doubtful that Aircraft carriers will never be obsolete. It’s like the feud that existed during the 1950s between the navy and the air force concerning the practical necessity for a navy now that we had bombers and missiles. What everyone forgets is presence or projection of force starts with being there with force. Ships of any type will never go obsolete for that reason.

Hope this helps.
 
Those beasts are extremely hard to take out, even with sh*tloads of missiles directed at them, their anti-missile screens can take out a lot.

We once in a wargame simulation took out one (there is a ENN video of the attack at http://enn.electronicnewsnetwork.com/globalthunder/ENN-GT-9.php , to read the story click on the carrier, to see the vid click to the right of it), but it took the whole Northern Fleet of the Russians bound into a combined arms effort and many other factors had to be favorable (e.g. we attacked in a heavy storm where the carrier could only muster limited fighter support, etc). I recall that we needed enormous amounts of misslie waves to just get through...

I still have the sitrep of that event somewhere (but cannot find it currently, though it is also on the first of those pages, just read through all the sitreps of JAN 2, scroll down to sitreps section) where you can read the details and numbers to see how difficult such an endeavor is:

http://www.tacopshq.com/MBX/Globalthunder/Restricted/NorthernTheaterCommand/NorthernTheaterHQ.html

Here the according maps (partially)

http://www.tacopshq.com/MBX/Globalt...thernTheaterCommand/RedTheater/redtheater.htm

http://www.tacopshq.com/MBX/Globalt...rnTheaterCommand/Maps/Atlantic/plot-red-8.GIF

Rattler
 
Last edited:
Other then a humanitrian misson or fighting piss ant courtries the Modern Aircraft Carrier is a waste of money. If the US or any country fighting a modern Navy can expect to lose a carrier (and the poor soles on board) within the first 30minutes of war. Its a huge target. Sure there is anti missle and torpedo technology but if a emeny fires enough Crusie Missles, torpedos (Supercavitation or not) the Carrier is doomed. Am on wrong on this? I hope the US dosen't waste the money on another one of these. I love the carrier and all its capabilites but its one big floating liablity with no role against a Modern Navy.

See that's why we have twelve, lose one, you've got 11 more. :p

I'm no Navy man, and other than having a basic knowledge of what Navy craft do, I say you are wrong. It's like saying that the tank is a waste of money and is a huge target, but then comes the question is it really worth getting rid of all that awesome fire power that can be called in. I am sure an Army or Marine unit would disagree with you. If you don't have arty that's in range, and there are no combat aircraft on the ground, then the carrier is your best friend. Besides, the world is in uncertain times, the next large scale war could be around the corner, and it may not be against terrorists or insurgents, it might be against a competent, well armed, well taught enemy who himself has carriers. The Navy keeps things in inventory for a reason. Just like the Army an all those old M60's, you just never know.


But that's just my opinion. I'm also an ardent believer that the battleship still has a place on the battlefield. Sure, bombs and missiles are great, but being able to call in the sheer might and power of 18in. gun salvo, that is an epic and terrifying thing and is a nice deterrent to keep your enemy at bay with.;-)
 
I am not going to go as far as calling them obsolete, but the A/C's time maybe closing. And before you get all outraged remember that all weapons eventually become obsolete, why do you think we don't issue swords anymore or have horse cavalry? Both of those are far older than the aircraft carrier.

Consider the following:

1. A Carrier a basically a floating ammo and fuel dump. It doesn't take much to destroy one. The Taiho was sunk by a single WWII Torpedo which did very minimal damage. It was one simple mistake by the crew (ventilating the ship) and she blew up like a 4th of July Firework.

2. An enemy doesn't need to be close in order to sink her. Most Modern nations have cruise missiles than can be fired from land sea or air a hundred miles away. Nor do these missiles need a sophisticated launcher, a semi-trailer is sufficient.

3. Anti-ship weapons are becoming incredibly sophisticated. The Russian SunBurn (Moskit) is supersonic, there is no AAD capable of tracking it its simply too fast. And remember these missiles are fired on mass its simply a mathamatical certainty that one will penetrate the Air defense. This is true with conventional missiles as well. A AS missile is cheap expendable weapon an enemy can fire them all day into a hit is achieved.

If you look back at the Falklands war, the British lost 5 ships in 2 months. Two of them were to Exocets the others were from simple Iron bombs. All the Argentinians did was fly low, release their rather crude weapon and escape. The RN had no chance to react.

Thats how quicky it can be over.
 
-snip-
Consider the following:

1. -snip- It doesn't take much to destroy one. The Taiho was sunk by a single WWII Torpedo which did very minimal damage. It was one simple mistake by the crew (ventilating the ship) and she blew up like a 4th of July Firework.

While you are right that two torpedos (one would probably cripple but not sink) would be enough, I bet there is only *very* minimal chance (under 0.1%) that one could even be fired (I am not a Navy guy, but here is what I understand, feel free to correct me):

- actively approaching a CARGRU from distance either over water or under water is out of the question, no way you would not be detected and interecepted before you get to torpedo distance

- nuclear subs are out of the question, as they cannot go stealthy enough

- one way would be to lay waiting in a diesel sub and somehow bait the carrier (he has to turn into wind to launch a/c) to pass by close enough, but then there is still the risk of magnetic detection

2. An enemy doesn't need to be close in order to sink her. Most Modern nations have cruise missiles than can be fired from land sea or air a hundred miles away. Nor do these missiles need a sophisticated launcher, a semi-trailer is sufficient.

Indeed, but in their way there are some really sophisticated detection and intercept systems that would make the chance of one even getting close fairly small.

You only have two sensible attack profiles: Either top down or sea skimmer. Only the top down go supersonic (with the exception of the Moskit as already mentioned), and they should be no prob for the Ticonderogas 122 anti missile missiles, the others wont even get close or taken out by the last ditch defenses like the Phalanx (and I am talking the security cordon phalanx, not the carriers) or the more smodern and sophisticated rolling airframe missile (RAM) that would have the last word (specifically developed to take on Moskit type of threats: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/ram.htm).

3. Anti-ship weapons are becoming incredibly sophisticated. The Russian SunBurn (Moskit) is supersonic, there is no AAD capable of tracking it its simply too fast. And remember these missiles are fired on mass its simply a mathamatical certainty that one will penetrate the Air defense. This is true with conventional missiles as well. A AS missile is cheap expendable weapon an enemy can fire them all day into a hit is achieved.

This is not fully correct.

While during the attack in the Falklands or the Stark the AEGIS (in the latter case) did not detect the inbound Exocets, this was 1987. We now have far more sophisticated detection and tracking capabilities, the close defense installed additionally being one of the LLs from those incidents.

(If you talking nuclear warhead for the Moskit, then you are in 3rd WW anyway, I dont think in a punctual scenario anybody would dare to fire a nuclear missile against the US if he is not ready to take out the whole nation, only few states would be capable of even trying.)

The conventional 750kg Moskit is deployed 8 each on the "Sovremennyy" class destroyers and 4 each on the "Tarantul III" patrol boats, they would have to close in to 100 miles to launch, an impossibility in a war scenario where 350 miles is the radius a CARGRU (or at least its CVBG) is defended and any threat entering this circle engaged (E2-Hawkeyes in combo with the Hornets/AAMRAAMs would take care of a single threat).

Not saying you cannot do it, at sea almost everything is possible if you use "mashkirova" and can make the enemy feel safe where he isnt, but it will need a very refined and deeply planned combined arms mission to get even one of those loose against a carrier.

Lets say you get it airborne (there is a SU27 variant also), the reaction time is around 25-30 seconds, enough for today sophisticated RAMs.

Last: You do not believe they would let you fire missile after missile, once you are detected (and the missile taken out) you will find your bases under fire much faster than you would imagine.

Again, see the links in my post above where we (the Russian Northern Fleet) tried and succeeded in a simulation sinking a carrier, if you read the sitrep carefully you will see that we managed something about impossible at a 1995 tech level (a total of 1000+ missiles employed in a various angle saturation attack from all kind of platforms, 2 made it in the end).

Now, that states like China are trying to find other ways to get rid of the carriers (http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/03/us-navy-carrier.html), this is on another sheet and would require different *strategical* answers (as launching an ICBM might mean you get a swarm coming your way from the US as they have not much time to find out that you are just aiming conventionally at a CARGRU and will probably react to an assumed nuclear first strike against US main land)

As I said, I am not a Navy guy, so pls feel free to correct me if I am following a misconception here.

Rattler

EDIT: P.S.: Interesting discussion also over here in 2004: (http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-34005.html)
 
Last edited:
rattler
nuclear subs are out of the question, as they cannot go stealthy enough
I'm not strong in naval warfare at all but I think American or UK nuke boats can get closer enough to launch torpedo and have a chance to evade after. Most navies don't have the high number of picket ships really needed to screen out such a pressed attacked.

Subs are just plain nasty and basically nothing stops a torpedo once launch and in the water headed toward a target. I think more is known about F-22s then modern subs in general. There is very little public information released on what USN subs really do. Hope it stays that way.
icon14.gif
 
I'm not strong in naval warfare at all but I think American or UK nuke boats can get closer enough to launch torpedo and have a chance to evade after. Most navies don't have the high number of picket ships really needed to screen out such a pressed attacked.

Subs are just plain nasty and basically nothing stops a torpedo once launch and in the water headed toward a target. I think more is known about F-22s then modern subs in general. There is very little public information released on what USN subs really do. Hope it stays that way.
icon14.gif

I am not doubting the qualities of the tripulation, it is just that Nuclear Subs need pumps for water cooling the reactor, those pumps produce - fairly loud in comparison to a simple diesel and a cacaphony in comparison to the newest hydrogen fuel cell powered (check this one which is top of the stealth curve: German 212A class: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TfjYZUiOkUw) - noise.

Nuclear subs are EITHER missile launch platforms OR sub hunters, but never carrier attackers (if not by the mentioned 0.1% chance), they´d be caught by the oldest sonobuoys way out of attack range (and these get dropped plenty, even the advanced versions) by *helos* off the frigates. Curtains as dense as the door to your house aginst intruding noisy stuff underwater.

You then have picket ships (like the SURTASS) or even (on the NATO side) the GUIK covering SOSUS and the Russian equivalents to give you the general loc of threats. Also, all those attack subs (especially the missile launch platforms) always have the enemy tracking, even in peace time, more so in a war scenario. No chance, really, IMHO.

Rattler

EDIT: P.S.: And if you have really one of the superquiet stuff getting close, openig the torpedo hatches will be enough to get all counter measures going... R.
 
Last edited:
Subs

Hi rattler
Thank you for posting that link very interesting learn a lot. Watch that ex-Seal on the military channel all the time.

it is just that Nuclear Subs need pumps for water cooling the reactor, those pumps produce - fairly loud in comparison to a simple diesel
You may be 100% right but that doesn't mean a nuke Boat can't get close enough to take a shot without being tracked.

I honestly don't know enough about anti--sub warfare I was hoping some Navy guys would join but always thought surface personnel dreaded subs. American nuke Boats are very effective and I don't think surface asset using sonobuoy's and sonar can't hear through every level there are limits to what they can hear and subs know this. It's like fighter pilots staying out of each other strengths in air to air combat subs and surface ships fight these battles. I'm not saying subs can't be beat just that I think American nuke Boat are better or more effective then you make them out to be.

I've heard stories of American subs following Russian and Chinese subs right out of there bases without knowing there being followed so I can't see how surface ships couldn't be attacked. If sub killers types don't know there being tracked and I assume near there bases there also surface ships pinging away as well, I just think there are places to hide and shoot.

Thanks again for the sub link
icon14.gif
 
Last edited:
A carrier is merely a mobile airport & city, in it's own regards. Long term sorties from the states or an allied nation don't have the same recovery as that from a carrier.

Sure the carriers are essentially "sitting ducks", but that's IF they can find the carrier group, and then IF they have the resources left to HIT the same group. And unless they have a nuclear weapon on board the weapon fired, it's literally a shot in the dark to hit the carrier.

Though I have no idea what the carrier can take when fired upon. I suspect that once a weapon is fired against the carrier, the likelihood of the attacking "whatever" surviving the next hour is exceptionally slim.
 
Other then a humanitrian misson or fighting piss ant courtries the Modern Aircraft Carrier is a waste of money. If the US or any country fighting a modern Navy can expect to lose a carrier (and the poor soles on board) within the first 30minutes of war. Its a huge target. Sure there is anti missle and torpedo technology but if a emeny fires enough Crusie Missles, torpedos (Supercavitation or not) the Carrier is doomed. Am on wrong on this? I hope the US dosen't waste the money on another one of these. I love the carrier and all its capabilites but its one big floating liablity with no role against a Modern Navy.

I would say, yes you are wrong.
You need to understand what a carrier groups purpose is.
1. Very few countries have a "Modern Navy" capable of taking out a carrier group "in the first 30 minutes".
Is the carrier obsolete? Maybe in 30 years, but who knows?
A carrier acts as a forward airbase. Which is easier to find, a moving carrier or a land base?
As far as being a huge target. Might look at a map and determine how large the oceans of the world are.
Apparently India and China don't agree they are obsolete, as both are in the beginning stages of building them.
I was a sonar technician while serving in the US Navy and know how hard it is to locate a submarine.
I will give a little insight which is readily available if you look.
Conventional powered subs when running on batteries are quiet.
They also have very limited speed and submerged duration. They do not have the ability to replenish their air supply as nukes do.
On diesel power they are the noisiest submarines bar none.
It would probably be a nuke sub that had the speed, range, and stamina to maneuver to attack a carrier group.
Might also be aware that during WWII there were plenty of subs, but the number of carriers sunk by them was small. As compared to aircraft.
The bottom line is that aircraft carriers give a country a quick way of getting an airbase close to a belligerent to fight a conventional war. Also carriers are just like any warship they expect to fight.
If it is not a conventional war then none of this will matter much.
 
Chupike

I don't agree.

1. They don't need a modern Navy to sink a Carrier. A Land based Missile system is quite sufficient. And there of plenty of backwaters with surface to surface missiles capable of taking out a Carrier. Land based Exocets took a heavy toll on the RN during the Falklands.

2. An Airfield might be easier to find. but an Airfield is far more difficult to Destroy. The Germans during BOB can assert to that. Furthermore given the increased range of land based modern aircraft, it renders carriers less useful.

3. Concerning India and China, both countries are building much smaller carriers specifically because the larger carriers are so vulnerable. The UK and France are doing the same. All are about 40-50K Tons. Compared to the 90T+ of US carriers.

4. Hiding in the Ocean didnt work for the giant Battleships of WWII. And they didnt have satillites that can read license plate numbers back then either.

There is a funny story about that actually: The Chinese parked one of their latest ultra-secret subs outside its shed overnight confident that they would be out of view of CIA spy Satillites. Except they forgot about the public one used by Google EARTH. So the next day their new ultra secret sub was all over the internet via Google.

4. Subs did account for alot of sunk Carriers in WWII. Wasp, Yorktown, Taiho, Shinano, Unryu, Shokaku, Corageous, Ark Royal. I grant you that aircraft sank more, but the submarine threat is not idle. There was an incident a few years ago where a Chinese Song Class Sub (Diesel-Electric) surfaced undetected next to USS Kitty Hawk, within 5 nm, easily with Torpedo range.

My feeling (and this is just a guess) is that the Carrier is on the decline, and that it will be obsolete within a few decades. I just dont see how it can survive in its present form given the rate that technology is advancing.
 
Chupike

I don't agree.

1. They don't need a modern Navy to sink a Carrier. A Land based Missile system is quite sufficient. And there of plenty of backwaters with surface to surface missiles capable of taking out a Carrier. Land based Exocets took a heavy toll on the RN during the Falklands.

2. An Airfield might be easier to find. but an Airfield is far more difficult to Destroy. The Germans during BOB can assert to that. Furthermore given the increased range of land based modern aircraft, it renders carriers less useful.

3. Concerning India and China, both countries are building much smaller carriers specifically because the larger carriers are so vulnerable. The UK and France are doing the same. All are about 40-50K Tons. Compared to the 90T+ of US carriers.

4. Hiding in the Ocean didnt work for the giant Battleships of WWII. And they didnt have satillites that can read license plate numbers back then either.

There is a funny story about that actually: The Chinese parked one of their latest ultra-secret subs outside its shed overnight confident that they would be out of view of CIA spy Satillites. Except they forgot about the public one used by Google EARTH. So the next day their new ultra secret sub was all over the internet via Google.

4. Subs did account for alot of sunk Carriers in WWII. Wasp, Yorktown, Taiho, Shinano, Unryu, Shokaku, Corageous, Ark Royal. I grant you that aircraft sank more, but the submarine threat is not idle. There was an incident a few years ago where a Chinese Song Class Sub (Diesel-Electric) surfaced undetected next to USS Kitty Hawk, within 5 nm, easily with Torpedo range.

My feeling (and this is just a guess) is that the Carrier is on the decline, and that it will be obsolete within a few decades. I just dont see how it can survive in its present form given the rate that technology is advancing.

Have you actually checked the simulation layout and results I posted?

You keep referring to long bygone wars/engagements, which I think are obsolete in this discussion as the lessons have been learned (speaking conventional war here).

Rattler
 
Chupike

I don't agree.

1. They don't need a modern Navy to sink a Carrier. A Land based Missile system is quite sufficient. And there of plenty of backwaters with surface to surface missiles capable of taking out a Carrier. Land based Exocets took a heavy toll on the RN during the Falklands.
Never said they did. I was answering jason-420's post and his reference to "modern Navy".
Please expand on "backwaters" with data and who you referring too.

"Argentine losses were heavy, but so was the Royal Navy's, and only the hit on "Glamorgan" by a land-based Exocet at the end of the war was not due to aircraft."
Source: http://www.naval-history.net/F41argaircraft.htm

2. An Airfield might be easier to find. but an Airfield is far more difficult to Destroy. The Germans during BOB can assert to that. Furthermore given the increased range of land based modern aircraft, it renders carriers less useful..
Is it given current weapons?
Also forward land bases require agreements with other countries. Do you see a lot of countries friendly to the US begging us to open strategically located airbases?
3. Concerning India and China, both countries are building much smaller carriers specifically because the larger carriers are so vulnerable. The UK and France are doing the same. All are about 40-50K Tons. Compared to the 90T+ of US carriers..
Do you even have a clue? Do you honestly believe that a 40-50K Ton ship is even remotely less vulnerable than 90k Ton ship?

4. Hiding in the Ocean didnt work for the giant Battleships of WWII. And they didnt have satillites that can read license plate numbers back then either..

There is a funny story about that actually: The Chinese parked one of their latest ultra-secret subs outside its shed overnight confident that they would be out of view of CIA spy Satillites. Except they forgot about the public one used by Google EARTH. So the next day their new ultra secret sub was all over the internet via Google..

Carrier Groups do not necessarily hide they are just harder to locate than a land base. Requiring more resources to be used in neutralizing them. More to the point, unlike forward air bases they do not need approval from foreign states in International waters.


4. Subs did account for alot of sunk Carriers in WWII. Wasp, Yorktown, Taiho, Shinano, Unryu, Shokaku, Corageous, Ark Royal. I grant you that aircraft sank more, but the submarine threat is not idle. There was an incident a few years ago where a Chinese Song Class Sub (Diesel-Electric) surfaced undetected next to USS Kitty Hawk, within 5 nm, easily with Torpedo range..
Basically repeating what I said.

My feeling (and this is just a guess) is that the Carrier is on the decline, and that it will be obsolete within a few decades. I just dont see how it can survive in its present form given the rate that technology is advancing.
Also basically what I said.
"Is the carrier obsolete? Maybe in 30 years, but who knows?"chukpike
I guess we don't disagree as much as you thought.
Given the service life of a US Nuclear Attack Carrier of 50 years (Kitty Hawk 1961 is still active but not nuclear powered) there may be little need to build anymore. The Enterprise (1961) was the first nuclear and is still active and the latest George HW Bush just christened. Total 11 active + the George HW Bush.
Also, given the complexity of operating a carrier it will be at least 10 years before either the Chinese or Indians can field their carriers.
 
Also, given the complexity of operating a carrier it will be at least 10 years before either the Chinese or Indians can field their carriers.

My take also.

@ mmarsh: I am not saying a CVBG cannot be attacked and a certain carrier cannot be sunk, but it will be drawing so much power that it will be lacking in other fields (like Stalingrad did bring the Russians to a point of breaking - as you like old scenarios -) that for any not 1st world power it would be a *nationwide* effort to achiev the goal, not really a war strategy IMHO.

As we have no current WWIII scenarios based on Cold War at hand, I would guess that carriers are not obsolete yet. Any other idea on how to project power?

On another angle and as I am really not qualified to comment seriously as a non Navy guy with just peripherical knowledge of the subject (INTEL/CI chief during the mentioned simulation, aka "Rear Admiral R. Atlerov" in the sitreps) I will try and lure our naval strike planning chief "Rear Admiral B. Rad Leytowsky" - aka Brad Leyte - to comment from todays 1st world powers take on that as he is way more proficient with the details as of 1998 and probably later, should turn out interesting (but will probably take some time to raise him):

brad-leyte.jpg


Rattler

P.S.: @ MODS: Can someone please correct the spelling in the title, it is really hurting the eye... R.
Mod edit: Done
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Other then a humanitrian misson or fighting piss ant courtries the Modern Aircraft Carrier is a waste of money. If the US or any country fighting a modern Navy can expect to lose a carrier (and the poor soles on board) within the first 30minutes of war. Its a huge target. Sure there is anti missle and torpedo technology but if a emeny fires enough Crusie Missles, torpedos (Supercavitation or not) the Carrier is doomed. Am on wrong on this? I hope the US dosen't waste the money on another one of these. I love the carrier and all its capabilites but its one big floating liablity with no role against a Modern Navy.

Its 'very' hard to sink a modern carrier, its much easier to damage or destroy the flight deck also the AC is the greatest thing god invented in terms of power projection, unless US is willing to relinquish its status as worlds main empire its going to keep them.
 
Back
Top