Isoroku295

We cannot scrap the carrier. The US Navy alone holds over 100 Billion dollars in the Carriers. That aside, they are what gives us our mobile aircraft bases.

So what is the solution? again scrapping them waists millions of hours and billions of dolalrs of work, and cost us our only mobile bases.

Jake10

I hear what you're saying, Iso, but there is a lot more to consider. Operating carriers is a huge expense. They're like little cities in the water that don't produce anything; they simply take up resources. The labor and equipment may be too much for a country in debt to maintain, at least in the numbers we have.

Furthermore, one missile can destroy it all.

I believe the answer lies in space and cyberspace. Instead of mobile bases in the water, we should look to space stations that can give us an edge. And, a way of having control over the Internet is the way to go. I think Reagan hat the right idea. Lasers of high accuracy and the ability to detect movement and targets from space, along with disrupting and/or altering communications is the future of war.

Naomasa298

If you're opening up a point of discussion, you need to provide more context.

Why do you think carriers are a problem, for starters?

arras

That is pretty simple: they are most expensive practice targets for Russian and Chinese submarines and cruise missiles ever built. Just wait till they fulfil their role.

U Sank My Carrier!

This Is How the Carriers Will Die

Belisarius

Since when do carriers operate alone? I thought all those escorting frigates and destroyers are there to defend the carrier from such missile attacks.

Son of Cathal

Did you copy my post from another thread?

Naomasa298

That's true, but look at the Falklands. HMS Hermes was considered too vulnerable to such attacks and was stationed out of the combat zone. It only takes one such missile to get through and your very expensive asset is potentially toasted, along with the sophiscated hardware on board.

Having said that, technology has moved on - on both sides.

For the UK, at least, the argument against building the two new Queen Elizabeth class carriers is that the UK has enough bases and allies to have an airbase available more or less anywhere in the world. But for sheer power projection, very little beats a decent sized carrier at present.

Belisarius

We didn't have AWACS or Aegis in the Falklands. Any attacking missile has to be pretty good to get through the defences of a carrier group; even a saturation attack would lose the overwhelming majority of attacking missiles in an attack. Deploying something akin to the old Sea Wolf anti ballistic missile system on Carriers coupled with the phalanx point defence, should be capable of dealing with any attacking missiles that get through. If one or two do hit, there's still very little chance of actually sinking a carrier.

Son of Cathal

You don't have to sink a carrier to make I useless. One good hit in the deck is enough to put that it out of commission for a while.

Qymaen

I think that, like the battleship, the aircraft carrier is becoming obsolete. When we have bases in so many different countries and develop planes that have increased range, but the same amount of fuel, you realize that these floating cities aren't cost effective.

For example the B2 stealth bomber has a range of over 11,000 kilometers! The Earth's equatorial diameter is a little over 12,700 kilometers long. You realize that these planes can go just about anywhere in Earth and that is without in-flight refueling. Also B2's are nearly 30 years old.

Basic Earth Facts - Facts About the Earth
Specifications: B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber - Air Force Technology