Replies

Carriers have their place and will continue to have it for a long time to come, but it is not as important or sacrosanct as their backers would like to pretend it is.

Personally, I would like to see the USN moving away from big deck carriers to variants similar in size to Russia’s Kutnezsov. Maybe with the ski-jump, maybe without. It would be interesting to see how a “wolf pack” strategy of three such vessels (hosting a single combined airwing) and including a MAU would work out.

And, of course, there would be room for drones as well.

Former US SecNav and Naval Aviator John Lehman bemoaned the end of the swashbuckling Tom Cruise fighter jock in a recent article of USNA Proceedings, and he even complained that there has not been a Naval Aviator CNO in close to 30 years, but he can’t deny that the USN is STILL addicted to the big deck carriers.

This, despite the obvious fact that we can never have sufficient numbers of them to cover all our hotspots and that taking out the limited numbers that exist would basically defang our Navy.

Not good. We need other options.

This is why, despite the price tag, I remain hopeful that the F-35B will be produced. There are other potential customers.

Nicely put. The real difficulty with carriers is that the sort of force projection they offer is not simply a function of U.S. foreign policy. Their current numbers are also a function of U.S. commitments to various collective security arrangements that have not undergone a significant reassessment since the end of the Cold War. They're top solutions to a problem that is rapidly receding.

Could we get by with fewer? Yes, certainly, so long as it is clear that the strategic role they are to play is dictating their numbers and not the other way around. The country that maintains the strategic initiative is the one that designs capability around strategy; stating that we can afford, say, eight carriers and here's what we can do with them is dangerous because it inevitably leads to over-extension of forces in the name of economy. That is, however, the solution that inaction in strategic planning will force upon us. IMHO, of course.

Ronin: "Carriers have their place and will continue to have it for a long time to come, but it is not as important or sacrosanct as their backers would like to pretend it is."

I'd say that Big-Deck carriers have been essential for maintaining world peace these past 65+ years.
How many do we need, how many have to be on station at any given time, how many can we afford, what design should they be?? -- All that is subject to on-going review, calculations and thoughtful considerations.

But for keeping the peace, and fighting relatively small wars, nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- beats a US Big Deck aircraft carrier.

But what about another World War Two??
Well, can we be serious?
If hundreds or thousands of nuclear warheads start flying around, and nations are destroying each other's cities and populations, with tens and hundreds of millions dead, tens and tens of trillions of dollars in destruction -- in what sense is the survival of some aircraft carriers a matter of utmost concern?

Would the Big Deckers survive determined attacks?
Probably not, but then neither would anything else.
If at the end of such a war most of our carriers are sunk, then all of our enemies' navies will also be gone.

So, I'll repeat: Big Deck carriers are great for keeping the peace, and isn't that a wonderful idea?