What's new

Aircraft carriers gain clout in naval power

arp2041

BANNED
Joined
Apr 4, 2012
Messages
10,406
Reaction score
-9
Country
India
Location
India
Despite growing controversy about the cost and relevance of aircraft carriers, navies around the world are adding new ones to their inventories at a pace unseen since World War II.
The U.S. — with more carriers than all other nations combined — and established naval powers such as Britain, France and Russia are doing it. So are Brazil, India and China — which with Russia form the BRIC grouping of emerging economic giants.
"The whole idea is about being able to project power," said Rear Adm. Philippe Coindreau, commander of the French navy task force that has led the air strikes on Libya since March 22.
"An aircraft carrier is perfectly suited to these kinds of conflicts, and this ship demonstrates it every day," he said in an interview aboard the French carrier Charles de Gaulle, which has been launching daily raids against Moammar Gadhafi's forces since the international intervention in the Libyan conflict began March 22.
The 42,000-ton nuclear-powered carrier has been joined in this task by another smaller ship, Italy's 14,000-ton Giuseppe Garibaldi. None of the U.S. Navy's supercarriers have been involved, despite American participation in the war's initial phase.
The U.S. Navy still operates 11 nuclear-powered carriers, mostly Nimitz-class vessels displacing up to 100,000 tons.
The floating fortresses became the backbone of U.S. sea power after WWII, projecting military might around the world in crises and in conflicts such as Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan.
Lee Willett, head of the maritime studies program at the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based military think tank, said the war in Libya illustrated the usefulness of carriers to other navies with more regional interests.
France and Italy, the NATO nations closest to the North African coast, chose to deploy their ships on operations although they have air force bases within easy reach, he noted.
"All around the world there are major and not-so-major navies now looking into getting into some form of sea-based airpower," Willett said. "They may not want to be global powers but they certainly want to have some regional power-projection capability."
The exact number of aircraft carriers in service worldwide is difficult to establish because of the proliferation of vessels that are classified as amphibious warfare ships, helicopter carriers or even cruisers or destroyers — but that fit the classic definition of a carrier as a mobile air base with a flat deck from which aircraft take off and land.
These include the United States' eight 41,000-ton Wasp-class amphibious warfare ships, whose standard complement includes Harrier jets and SuperCobra helicopter gunships, in addition to transport choppers.
The French Mistral Class, Britain's HMS Ocean, and Spain's Juan Carlos I share the same concept of multipurpose ships that can carry strike jets, helicopters and hundreds of marines for amphibious landing operations.
Even Japan's two Hyuga class "destroyers" have the characteristic flat deck, effectively making them carriers despite their official designation.
"At the end of the day, the popularity of carriers is due to the fact that these are very flexible platforms that can be used for a wide variety of tasks and not just warfare," said Nate Hughes, director of military analysis at the U.S.-based think tank Stratfor.
The U.S. Navy is scheduled to induct the Gerald R. Ford, the lead ship of a new class three-ship class of supercarriers, in 2015. Each is expected to cost about $9 billion.
Other NATO nations adding flattops to their fleets include Britain, already building two ships, and France, which is considering procuring a second nuclear-powered vessel. Spain and Italy have just inducted two new flattops.
China and India are both in the process of acquiring revamped Soviet-built carriers, and India is also building its first homegrown flattop. Russia will modernize its Admiral Kuznetsov carrier next year to extend its life until after 2030, and plans to acquire French Mistral-class ships.
Brazil has completed an extensive refit of the recently acquired French carrier Foch — now renamed the Sao Paolo — which has become its navy's flagship.
"The BRIC navies in particular are all getting into ... major aircraft carriers," said Willett.
Military experts have long debated the relevance of aircraft carriers, which some have dismissed as relics of the Cold War.
"What many countries don't realize is that sustaining operations at sea is a very complex task," Hughes said. "The magnitude of the expense necessary to get to that sort of fixed wing capability that the U.S. and French navy have is difficult to overstate."
Some critics say the entire concept of the seagoing air base is now antiquated. They contend that advances in anti-ship weapons have turned the carriers into white elephants that are just too expensive to risk losing in a war.
While the mammoth floating airports bristling with jets and missiles appear invincible, the reality is that since World War II they have mostly been used in conflicts with far weaker opponents. They have yet to face off against modern navies with their array of carrier-killing ballistic missiles, super-torpedos, and supersonic cruise missiles.
"These new technologies make it easier to target carriers from much greater distances," said Benjamin Friedman, a research fellow with the Washington-based CATO Institute.
"Those technologies are set to advance faster than the ability to defend against them, meaning that in a couple of decades the carrier business may not be viable anymore."

Aircraft carriers gain clout in naval power | Fox News
 
how did it in history ( not so so long ago) , some can say UK will never be more than a very strong island and a regional player or nation not cared about in europe other than slaving people and then creating a commenwealth where those stupid countries are still init

I don't think Turkey really needs such a platform. It is never really going to be anything other than a regional player.
 
I don't think Turkey really needs such a platform. It is never really going to be anything other than a regional player.

Turkey doesnt need to be a global power to acquire such platform..Spain, Thailand, Italy are not global powers but they have ACs..Its about needs..If the need arises, Turkey will have it..Right now, as you said, its not needed
 
Captain-obvious-5-nobrain1.jpg
 
There hasn't been any major naval conflict since WWII, so whether Carrier's are still as effective or not is an open question. If we look into military history, many such weapon system which were considered invincible or vital in battlefield turned out to be duds as technology outpaced them. A case in point is Battleships. They were prominent part of navies before WWII, or even during the initial period. Navy strength was calculated on the no.s of battleships commissioned. But when Japan showed their great vulnerability to air attacks during Pearl Harbour and Force Z, they quickly got outmoded and eventually extinct. Now there has not been any conflict between major navies employing similar class and quality of warship. Carriers are very vulnerable to air attacks. It would be interesting to see what happens when any aircraft pierces the air defence of a CBG. With the improvement of PGMs I presume Carriers would not have the earlier dominance of Sea Battle it enjoyed during WWII.
 
There hasn't been any major naval conflict since WWII, so whether Carrier's are still as effective or not is an open question. If we look into military history, many such weapon system which were considered invincible or vital in battlefield turned out to be duds as technology outpaced them. A case in point is Battleships. They were prominent part of navies before WWII, or even during the initial period. Navy strength was calculated on the no.s of battleships commissioned. But when Japan showed their great vulnerability to air attacks during Pearl Harbour and Force Z, they quickly got outmoded and eventually extinct. Now there has not been any conflict between major navies employing similar class and quality of warship.
Your analysis is flawed. The battleship was rendered obsolete by the aircraft carrier. But for as long as the aircraft carrier existed, there has yet to be anything equivalent as far as sustained power projection and presence goes. Not the submarine, which is a far too narrowly defined weapon. What make the aircraft carrier unique is the ability to project air power or the ability to attack an enemy position from the third dimension. The submarine can do the same except to mostly surface ships whereas the aircraft can attack sea and ground surface targets. The Imperial Japanese Navy's carrier force was defeated by air power, or more specifically naval deployment of air power.

Carriers are very vulnerable to air attacks.
Same argument can be made for any surface ship. WW 2 was the first and so far the only major global war where fleets were able to attack each other without being within line-of-sight. Until a better alternative to global projection and presence of military power comes along, the aircraft carrier will be around for a very long time.

It would be interesting to see what happens when any aircraft pierces the air defence of a CBG. With the improvement of PGMs I presume Carriers would not have the earlier dominance of Sea Battle it enjoyed during WWII.
A nuclear warhead can definitely pierce said defenses. But as far as unmanned but precision guided weapons goes, even when the attack mode was manned, it proved difficult to hit and disable a ship to render it out of battle worthy status. I suggest you do this keyword search 'oriskany sinking' and see how difficult it is to sink a post WW 2 aircraft carrier. And please do not bring up the DF-21. That has been debated and claims challenged, if not outright debunked, a long time ago.
 
Your analysis is flawed. The battleship was rendered obsolete by the aircraft carrier. But for as long as the aircraft carrier existed, there has yet to be anything equivalent as far as sustained power projection and presence goes. Not the submarine, which is a far too narrowly defined weapon. What make the aircraft carrier unique is the ability to project air power or the ability to attack an enemy position from the third dimension. The submarine can do the same except to mostly surface ships whereas the aircraft can attack sea and ground surface targets. The Imperial Japanese Navy's carrier force was defeated by air power, or more specifically naval deployment of air power.


Same argument can be made for any surface ship. WW 2 was the first and so far the only major global war where fleets were able to attack each other without being within line-of-sight. Until a better alternative to global projection and presence of military power comes along, the aircraft carrier will be around for a very long time.


A nuclear warhead can definitely pierce said defenses. But as far as unmanned but precision guided weapons goes, even when the attack mode was manned, it proved difficult to hit and disable a ship to render it out of battle worthy status. I suggest you do this keyword search 'oriskany sinking' and see how difficult it is to sink a post WW 2 aircraft carrier. And please do not bring up the DF-21. That has been debated and claims challenged, if not outright debunked, a long time ago.

It was a hypothesis, the point I made about battleship was correct. You are saying this in hindsight. But during the 1930s Battleship was definitely considered the most important part of a Navy's arsenal. Aircraft Careers were thought to play only a supportive role to battleship. Only when IJN showed their dominance in Naval Warfare,the Navies changed their perception. I am not claiming that any existing warship design would replace the Carrier, but I would like to keep my option open.
If you look into military history, it is replete with such examples where the Military kept clinging to old ideas when it was already outmoded by newer weapons and tactics. The Medieval Knight versus the Longbowmen, Battleship vs the Carrier, Cavalry vs the Machine Gun, etc are some examples where conservative commanders failed to see emerging technologies which outpaced their perceptions about warfare.
As you yourself mention that their has not been any major fleet to fleet action after WWII we are yet to observe how the Carrier would cope with modern battlefield environment. I would reserve my opinion till then.
 
It was a hypothesis, the point I made about battleship was correct. You are saying this in hindsight. But during the 1930s Battleship was definitely considered the most important part of a Navy's arsenal. Aircraft Careers were thought to play only a supportive role to battleship. Only when IJN showed their dominance in Naval Warfare,the Navies changed their perception. I am not claiming that any existing warship design would replace the Carrier, but I would like to keep my option open.
If you look into military history, it is replete with such examples where the Military kept clinging to old ideas when it was already outmoded by newer weapons and tactics. The Medieval Knight versus the Longbowmen, Battleship vs the Carrier, Cavalry vs the Machine Gun, etc are some examples where conservative commanders failed to see emerging technologies which outpaced their perceptions about warfare.
As you yourself mention that their has not been any major fleet to fleet action after WWII we are yet to observe how the Carrier would cope with modern battlefield environment. I would reserve my opinion till then.
Your argument was flawed when you said this...

...so whether Carrier's are still as effective or not is an open question.
The question have been closed a long time ago. The aircraft carrier is still the best power projection and most potent weapons delivery platform in the world. That does not mean it is eternal. It is only when there is a proven alternative is when we can question its effectiveness. Even if the speculative Chinese DF-21 is working, a missile is not an equivalent alternative in the same scope and flexibility. A missile is a throwaway weapon. An aircraft carrier is not.

Your phrasing 'modern battlefield environment' is meaningless in that it is too broad. Many of today's wars, large and small, are quite 'modern'. Despite the technological disparity between US and Iraq, Desert Storm was very much a modern battlefield and we dominated that in all areas.

So until the aircraft carrier meet a successful alternative...
 
I read a good naval fiction piece by a Brit many years ago (before Falklands). In it, a US carrier was attacked by Iran, in a Brit sub. (he was a former officer, and good friends with current at the time UK Naval staff). His conclusion was that it was a good thing that the UK was retiring their carriers, and he hoped the US would follow "British wisdom" and do the same. Came the Falklands war, and my how the British back-pedaled. All the sudden, carriers were still relevant. My point being, these "analysis" are often colored by wether the author's nation can or will field carriers.
 

Back
Top Bottom