[nathanbedford]

It has been my view for some time that the heroic age of the aircraft carrier as the 20th century's Dreadnought of the seas is drawing to a close.

Super carriers, even those marvelous new but hugely expensive Ford class carriers, are less and less useful against a world-class power such as China as they are increasingly forced farther offshore as missile technology advances. It is becoming increasingly questionable whether our planes have adequate range against a superpower like China, even if refueled, because they are necessarily launched from so far offshore. Recent sudden and unwelcome appearances of submarines within striking distance have, according to reports, suggested a greater vulnerability that had been believed.

Of course, defensive antimissile systems have been advanced as well but the threat is not always precisely known. It is the unknown which must give a president pause before he sends this emblem of American power in harms way. The diplomatic, strategic, and psychological impact of losing a super carrier cannot be dismissed. If a president cannot be perfectly certain that his carrier will survive incursions into the South China Sea, dare he venture?

If the super carrier is not a safe tool to use against China, what value is it?

A carrier retains its wonderful ability to project power against third world countries who cannot mount a serious missile or submarine threat. But do we need a super carrier to perform what is essentially an 19th century British gunboat mission? Can we afford it 11 times?

Will we be waging war, or better deterring war, with new weapons in space and in cyberspace, with drones and lasers and satellites? Where will the super carrier with its enormous expense and vulnerabilities fit in?

[Teflonic]

I believe the much increased power production gives a hint as to how it will remain viable into the future...drone swarms.

[sargon]

If a president cannot be perfectly certain that his carrier will survive incursions into the South China Sea, dare he venture?

Military craft are constructed so as to routinely venture into harm's way. What kind of leader would someone be if they allowed the mere possibility of an attack to dissuade them from completing a mission?

While it's obviously unwise to be needlessly provocative, it's also the case that the liberty to "sail the ocean blue" is a critical adjunct of free civilization. If China threatens to create Tyranny on the high seas, they should be challenged by any nation with the wherewithal to do so...

[cpdiii]

A carrier retains its wonderful ability to project power against third world countries who cannot mount a serious missile or submarine threat. But do we need a super carrier to perform what is essentially an 19th century British gunboat mission? Can we afford it 11 times?

Absolutely correct. A carrier is a formidable weapon for projecting power against a non sophisticated enemy. Against a sophisticated enemy it is very simple, if they see it, it dies. Yes we do need carriers but they are of little use against a nation such as China. They may launch their aircraft but it is a one way mission. The carrier will be sunk quickly.

[papertyger]

Agreed.

The only argument I can think of for scaled up SuperCarriers is that in reality, they are not so much “gunboats” for “diplomacy” as they are mobile island airbases, and the size increase reflects that theory.

My big question is do we have the reach in aviation and maritime stealth technology to use them in that such a legitimizing role?

[JohnBrowdie]

hmmm. if the chinese don’t believe in the effectiveness of the super carrier, why are they building them?

[Jimmy Valentine]

We will always need to project power at sea. Having said that the cruiser was traditionally the bringer of gunboat diplomacy. My suggestion would be to start with the design of the old Desmoines class of cruiser, replace one turret with missles
, make the power plant nuclear etc. Cheaper,faster too.

[Jumper]

Each component of the armed forces are in their own ways easy targets, but taken together, given the combinations of targets the enemy has to take into account makes this something dangerous. We have been working on Space Planes that will one day orbit in 8-12 hour shifts with a look down, shoot down, communications array that can even look below the surface of the earth’s crust; these craft can function as fighter bombers, or communications drones, manned and unmanned. Quite dangerous in their own right.

[central_va]

I’d stick to land warfare your naval knowledge strategy are lacking.

[darth]

I think that carriers will still have an important role in this century.

However, the new “top hammer” will be weapons launched space-to-ground/sea/air.

Not only will the battle in space decide who communicates, recons, has GPS, etc., but the ability to strike at 7 km/sec or more anywhere at any time is overwhelming.

Space power will become much more important than air or sea power.

And treaties? They only restrain those not willing to break them or discard them when advantageous.