Are aircraft carriers about to become an endangered species in the United States?

[xchrom]

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/24/are-aircraft-carriers-about-to-become-an-endangered-species-in-the-united-states/



Budget pressures at the Pentagon have renewed a debate about the value of the US Navy’s giant aircraft carriers, with critics arguing the warships are fast becoming costly relics in a new era of warfare.

With the Pentagon facing $500 billion in cuts over the next decade, a Navy officer has dared to question the most treasured vessels in his service’s fleet, saying the super carriers are increasingly vulnerable to new weapons and too expensive to operate.

“After 100 years, the carrier is rapidly approaching the end of its useful strategic life,” wrote Captain Henry Hendrix in a report published this month by the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think-tank with close ties to President Barack Obama’s administration.

Changes in naval warfare mean that carriers “may not be able to move close enough to targets to operate effectively or survive in an era of satellite imagery and long-range precision strike missiles,” Hendrix wrote.

[hack89]

1. You will see fewer of them

just because there won't be enough planes for the air wings.

[Scuba]

2. I sure hope so.

[Lurks Often]

3. They said the same thing in the early 1950's

That the advent of nuclear armed jet bombers had made the carrier obsolete. They were wrong then and I think they are wrong now.

[NutmegYankee]

4. Anti-ship Missiles are why the Navy still wants submarines.

Hard to strike what you can hit with radar. And with so much commerce and resources traveling across the seas, sinking an enemies merchant marine fleet will be a major part of war for years to come. And, as it's been found time and time again, the best way to find and hunt a submarine is with another submarine. That's why so many countries operate submarines. North Korea and China each have more than the USA.