U.S. Navy’s carriers costly relics of the past?

[AsahinaKimi]

Ghost ship?: The USS Enterprise sails in the Strait of Gibraltar in October 2012. The Enterprise, the world's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, was decommissioned on Dec. 1. | AFP-JIJI

WASHINGTON – Budget pressures at the Pentagon have renewed a debate about the value of the U.S. 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 supercarriers 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 Capt. Henry Hendrix in a report published in March by the Center for a New American Security.

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.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/04/02/world/u-s-navys-carriers-costly-relics-of-the-past/#.UVmoHzeDo5h

[TreasonousBastard]

1. And they lost their battleships years ago. What are the poor admirals...

going to do without their huge flagships?

[AsahinaKimi]

2. Probably use these..

USS Independence.

[talkingmime]

3. Those are meant for close-to-shore action and the Navy just called them "underpowered".

Specifically, they meant that they don't have enough firepower to be effective in the arena they are intended for. I can't imagine why they would want to do away with aircraft carriers, and keep in mind that an aircraft carrier comes with a flotila of battleships, scouts, and other ships. It's never alone. We've only got ten in service now, but that's nearly half of all of the 22 such ships in the world. I don't see them going away.

[Brother Buzz]

4. An aircraft carrier comes with a flotila of battleships?

All battleships have now been retired from service with the U.S. Navy.

[octothorpe]

5. He probably meant warships. I always find it amusing when people get the two terms mixed

(yeah, I'm easily amused)

[backscatter712]

7. A modern carrier battle group comes with:

Several destroyers, several cruisers, some frigates, an attack submarine...

It's also accompanied by tankers and freighters equipped to do underway replenishment - the warplanes burn a lot of jet fuel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_battle_group

Enough money turned into warships, aircraft and weapons to feed the third world for a century.

[premium]

8. A Carrier Task Force usually consists of

a mixture of Aegis equipped Cruisers, Destroyers, Frigates, supply ships, and usually 1 or 2 Fast Attack Subs.



It's a pretty potent force.

[backscatter712]

11. Very expensive, which is why I predict we'll be cutting back on them.

We have what... 11 carrier battle groups, while the most well-armed nations of the world aside from the U.S., including Britain, France, Russia, China, usually have only one.

That's billions of dollars worth of hardware requiring more billions in constant upkeep.

It's going to get harder and harder to justify the expense of Nimitz-class or Ford-class carriers in the next couple decades

[premium]

14. I think it's down to 10.

They just retired the U.S.S. Enterprise in Dec. of 2012.
And you are right I believe, we just can't afford them anymore.

[backscatter712]

9. The expense is a big one.

In the next couple of decades, the age of the carrier will be replaced with the age of the drone. Light aircraft, that don't even have pilots, that have enough range to fly around the world, or are small enough to land on improvised front-line airstrips, will be able to do most of what we do today with the carrier's air group, but for a fraction of the cost.

Also, carriers can be quite vulnerable if the enemy has the right weapons. Lately we've been picking on 3rd world countries who rarely have a military worth speaking of at all, which is no match for the firepower of a carrier battle group. But if we went up against an enemy with more refined drone technology, or with supersonic anti-ship missiles, the carriers are going to be in big trouble.

[The Second Stone]

10. The navy has about a dozen helocopter carriers also

so let's not forget those.

[HereSince1628]

6. I thought the trimeran lose the design competition

Are they building more of these?

[AsahinaKimi]

12. no idea

[Javaman]

13. Battleships became passe' when carriers became the weapon to defeat them...

now cruse missiles defeat carriers. Now we launch strike aircraft from the US.

So when long range missiles become a regular thing and can hit the US?

Then what? Oh right...STAR WARS

[zipplewrath]

16. Name the last full size carrier "defeated" by a cruise missile

You'll be hard pressed. The closest would be the harrier jump carrier of the British in the Falklands. A modern US carrier has a very large defense perimeter around it and isn't particularly threatened by cruise missile. Very few have the capability, much less the necessary range.

An aircraft carrier is a floating base and is probably less vunerable than the bases we build. It is the platform for a wide variety of offensive capabilities.

That said, 9 is probably more than we need. 7 is probably closer to the "correct" number. It just depends a bit on what you want your maintainance schedules to be.

The larger question is: "Why do we need to be able to project power around the world simultaneously and continuously?"

Regardless of your answer, the solution to the question lies within the answer.

[Javaman]

17. We haven't had a "carrier" war since WWII.

So it's a non-question.

When we goto war with another carrier based state, get back to me.

[zipplewrath]

18. Name another "carrier based state"

The reason that carriers are not yet obsolete, is because we don't fight carrier wars anymore. There is no other country, currently, that could fight that kind of war with us, much less each other. Carriers are not about confronting each other anymore, they are about being mobile military bases. As such, they aren't particularly vulnerable to cruise missile or other kind of attack.

That said, it is also why we don't need 9+ carriers anymore. We don't really project that much power simultaneously. And especially with our long range bomber capacity, combined with our satellite and drone functions, we only need their power projection for a discrete set of missions.

[Javaman]

19. There are none, so what's the point in arguing?

the reality is, if "total war" ever, god forbid broke out, carriers won't be as bullet proof as we would like to think... and the only navy currently starting to field carriers (that could be a potential adversary) is China.

We hold the dominate card regarding a blue water navy, but I'm not so foolish to think that just because we do, that new tech in the way of operations cruse missile software is ever evolving.

Nothing is bullet proof.

[zipplewrath]

20. The discussion was carrier obsolesence

All I'm saying is that they are not obsolete, especially because of some perceived vulnerability. They are still very useful for what the US uses them for. There is no threat on the near horizon that would yield them obsolete, cruise missiles have been around for decades. Truth is, unless you are a country that is intent on projecting power, there is limited use for them. Which his why so many countries have so few of them, even places like Australia. England is about to be carrierless for some period of time. China has 1 they bought used. They aren't indicating any desire to project power beyond their immediate sphere of influence. (Which is pretty big and populated, so why would they want to).

[Gravitycollapse]

21. If we want a blue water navy, we need carriers.

Unless the argument is being made that missiles can practically replace the advantages of being able to move your war planes nearer to a target.

[AsahinaKimi]

22. HEH