Future of Carriers?

It's an interesting story but I have to wonder out loud...okay, so they have a satellite that was able to track the carrier and it could feed data back to a missile system that could launch on the carrier.

Okay...two things: first, we probably know what satellite. So, if we were in a fight with China, we kill the satellite. I'm not for a second naive enough to think we don't have that capability now.

And second, if we're in a "tussle" with China where our carriers are in play...we're in a war. At that point, the gloves come off and the missile sites are taken out.
 
If we get into a shooting war with China, all of our ships and other valuable weapons systems are going to be very vulnerable....so are theirs- we haven't seen a war of that magnitude since WWII. Let's hope that never happens.

Pundits have been predicting the demise of carriers since the nuclear weapon was developed.... but they've seen plenty of use since then.
 
Carrier vulnerability and how to operate in a more connected/sensor dense world has been studied for many years. I worked a number of high level War Games at the Naval War College where we worked through a lot of scenarios with this type of issue but can't say much more about it.
 
Old Navy BGO said:
Pundits have been predicting the demise of carriers since the nuclear weapon was developed.... but they've seen plenty of use since then.
Click to expand...
In his memoir, Khrushchev Remembers, he goes on at some length about this very thing. “Why build these large lumbering vessels? Let’s just build a lot more missiles.”

I’m sure there are other factors, like Russia/USSR being a land based power with no oversea colonial empire, but it is interesting that they never had more than 3-4 in service at a time and presently have 1 in service, if you can call it that.
 
The thing about those "if we get into a shooting war with..." scenarios is that larger countries with a lot to lose go to amazing lengths to not get into shooting wars with their peers. That leaves a lot for carriers to do until the line gets crossed. So even if you just assume they'll get wiped out on Day 2 of The Big Conflict and you simply move on to the next stage of planning without them, you'll still have benefitted from them for all the years that such a conflict didn't happen.

And there's always a chance they survive, plus China has the same problem with getting an invasion on the ground to deny us access to Japan and the Philippines and all of the other places we might base aircraft in the event of The Big Conflict. And that still doesn't address the topics of anti-satellite, cyber and the world of drone and missile systems. It's not an easy problem at all, and it's further complicated by the unlikelihood that the Chinese military will turn out to be as weak as the Russians have been this spring. Here's hoping for staying on this side of that line for as long as possible.
 
doesn't matter; we will keep building them because Carrier Battle Groups are one of the main reasons the Navy exists, and because jobs depend on building warships.
 
If we aren’t able to cultivate and maintain forward air bases, carriers are our best method of fast response to any situation in the region the carrier operates. I just can’t envision our modern Navy without them.

Regardless of who is our chief executive, or what that individual does in terms of international relations, carriers secure our forward mobility and strike force. They have for decades. I vote to keep them. Just my two cents.
 
In modern times, our aircraft carriers have had a lot of utility as mobile technology to help areas hit by natural and man-made disasters.
The fact that they can provide enough power to supply a city (or even a small island nation) with electricity and clean drinking water is impressive enough on its own. They also bring with them a modern hospital with its own imaging department, a testing laboratory, emergency room, intensive care, operating rooms, and a 41-bed hospital. This all comes staffed by 5 doctors, 6 nurses, and 30 corpsmen.

And can they fix stuff !
They have machinists, plumbers, HVAC technicians, electricians, and a host of other high-trained folks who can fix almost anything.
Here's an interesting article about technicians who can rewind electric motors on board: https://www.dvidshub.net/news/371913/fords-motor-rewind-ships-repair-capability

Sure, the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) cost us over $13 billion (and 12 years from the 2009 keel-laying to being fully operational last December) to produce. That's quite a lot, but a drop in the bucket considering we just handed over $54 billion to Ukraine.

Heck, SoFi stadium (home of the Los Angeles Rams) cost $6 billion and can't do any of that. :p
 
Last edited:
THParent said:
In modern times, our aircraft carriers have had a lot of utility as mobile technology to help areas hit by natural and man-made disasters.
The fact that they can provide enough power to supply a city (or even a small island nation) with electricity and clean drinking water is impressive enough on its own. They also bring with them a modern hospital with its own imaging department, a testing laboratory, emergency room, intensive care, operating rooms, and a 41-bed hospital. This all comes staffed by 5 doctors, 6 nurses, and 30 corpsmen.

And can they fix stuff !
They have machinists, plumbers, HVAC technicians, electricians, and a host of other high-trained folks who can fix almost anything.
Here's an interesting article about technicians who can rewind electric motors on board: https://www.dvidshub.net/news/371913/fords-motor-rewind-ships-repair-capability

Sure, the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) cost us over $13 billion (and 12 years from the 2009 keel-laying to being fully operational last December) to produce. That's quite a lot, but a drop in the bucket considering we just handed over $54 billion to Ukraine.

Heck, SoFi stadium (home of the Los Angeles Rams) cost $6 billion and can't do any of that. :p
Click to expand...
And they can transport the U.S. Army, too, as they did in Haiti during the early 90’s. Look at that flight deck! Nothing but Army helicopters (check that - I see a Navy H-60). No need for arresting gear. The Air Department must have been going crazy taking the Chinooks (CH-47s) and H-60s aboard. Re-spotting (rearraigning) the flight deck might have been a challenge initially, but I know they figured it out. Some trivia here. Notice all the Army H-60 and CH-47s are “palm tree’d”, i.e. the rotors are spread. Army helos don’t have blade fold capability. This takes up valuable flight deck and hangar deck space. Navy H-60s and H-53Es all have blade fold capability. It is a Navy requirement for operating at sea. On the transit, you can bet that ship's company sailors had some good fun at the soldier’s expense, like manning the mail buoy watch and catching and showing off a sea bat for the first time.


1655386023947.png
 
July 13

Perfect timing - upcoming webinar hosted by US Naval Institute:

www.csis.org

Maritime Security Dialogue: Naval Aviation Update | CSIS Events

Join CSIS and USNI for a Maritime Security Dialogue Celebration commemorating the 100th anniversary of the U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier. This event will be held on July 13, 2022 at 3 pm ET at the U.S. Naval Institute's Jack C. Taylor Conference Center.
www.csis.org www.csis.org
 
Bragging rights to anyone who can name that CVN (in @Capt MJ post above) without cheating.
 
THParent said:
Bragging rights to anyone who can name that CVN (in @Capt MJ post above) without cheating.
Click to expand...

Capt MJ said:
Name is on the stern! Is that cheating?
Click to expand...
I’ve got my “cheaters” on now and can’t read it. I’ll say USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76), so I can work this story in. REAGAN was homeported at NAS North Island for a long time after being commissioned. At one point the Navy wanted to make a home port change, to Bremerton, WA. One Navy legend has it that former FLOTUS, Nancy Reagan, had a say in the matter. She was adamant that, as long as she was alive, the bird farm, and “Ronnie”, would remain in California (he was governor in the late 60’s and early 70’s). The Navy eventually made the port change to Bremerton a few years before Mrs. Reagan passed away. Here's an image of the "aircraft carrier" REAGAN transporting ship's company POVs to Bremerton:

220px-US_Navy_120109-N-EE987-022_The_aircraft_carrier_USS_Ronald_Reagan_(CVN_76)_transports_Sa...jpg

Today, the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN-76) is forward deployed to Yokosuka, Japan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top