Robert Farley, National Interest: Why the Age of the Aircraft Carrier Isn't Over (Yet)
The biggest threat to the future of the aircraft carrier lies not in missiles or torpedoes, but in the enormous combined cost of the ships, their escorts, and their air wings. This is a problem that has not improved over the past century; carriers have grown ever more expensive, increasing the strain on defense budgets and national governments.
HMS Furious, the first real aircraft carrier, entered service in early 1918. A converted cruiser, she displaced about 20,000 tons, and flew about half a dozen Sopwith Camels, an aircraft with a range of about 150 miles and a weapons payload just short of 100 pounds. Twenty-five years later, Furious could carry 36 aircraft, ranging at least twice as far with weapon loads of around 2,000 pounds. Her larger, purpose built cousins could carry double the number of aircraft. Armored flight decks, improved anti-aircraft armament, and better damage control procedures protected many of these later carriers from attacks that would sink their older brethren.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: It may not be over yet .... but the high cost that is involved in running them will limit their numbers in the future.
5 comments:
The idea of having a mobile, floatable Base from which to launch aircrafts (manned and unmanned) is not even close from over. The aircraft carrier model just needs to be reinvented regarding costs, defendability etc. There's absolutely no need to make the idea of a mobile floatable Base from which you launch systems into a huge chunk of metal and put 5000 or more people on it. It's idiotic even. That's what today's aircraft carrier model is. And that will change. Future carriers will likely become more submerged, with launch and land openings...perhaps even fully submerged and only surfacing when launching/retrieving. Crew will be severely reduced with ultimate goal of full Automasation. Common it's 2018 already, hurry up
Carriers are threatened by spy satellites and long range fires. Take the satellites away and carriers are viable and dangerous while at sea.
The US ought to be putting great resources into disabling China's and Russia's satellite networks primarily via non-kinetic means,but kinetic has to be possible as well. Then the US ought to be racing to take advantage of small and cheap optical/radar satellites, launched by the dozens or more from Falcon 9 and FH. Launched from austere launch sites far from the coasts.
Anon,
Good points. The era of the current model for the aircraft carrier is soon to be over but, as you point out, the benefits of these things mean that these things will be updated as you suggest.
Some are probably already working on this. A couple of days ago the editor wrote about an encounter the US military had at sea with something far more advanced than it. It was postulated that these craft could operate from the sea. The possible theories put forth for what this was/is are 1.)a technology that some country has that we do not, 2.)extra-terrestrial craft from another planet, 3.)top secret US military experiments and deflection of "UFO" is used to throw people off, or 4.)an unexplained meterological phenomenon.
I think we can rule out 4 immediately. 2 would require extraordinatyr proof which is lacking. 3 is possible but unlikely due to the inability of US officials to keep secrets. Someone would "leak" it. As such, 1 seems to be the most likely explanation. This sounds similar to what you are suggesting.
It appears that someone has military technology that the US does not have anything even close to being able to match. Who is it? Can it be produced in sufficient numbers to make a difference? Has it been perfected? This happened in 2004. As such, I would say the answers to the last two questions have to be assumed to be yes.
As to your "hurry up" assertion, it appears someone already has. Meanwhile we have been wasting money and resources on the F-35. We've fallen way behind someone and probably multiple someone's. This explodes the American superpower myth in a big way.
As it always seems to work in military history the "carrier era" will be over when most are on the bottom.
Aircraft carriers are big because of all the maintenance people they have to carry.
When military aviation started, you needed airframe, engine, fuel and weapons mechanics. Sometimes, the same guy would do all three on a single bird.
Today, you need airframe, engine, ejection seat, fuel, guns, bomb rack, radar, electronic warfare, defensive electronic countermeasure, radio/comms, missile and smart bomb mechanics. And for the F-35, stealth specialists too. All of these maintenance points are so far advanced, that you at least have to have a specialists for each, to a full team of people.
Even worse, every time you break up a squadron into smaller groups, you have to have a full team of mechanics for each sub-squadron.
That's where the real money is and recruitment headaches are. And why carriers aren't getting smaller. You cannot split a modern squadron and expect it to keep flying, or not double in maintenance costs.
The British heavily studied what it took to carry the minimum amount of each aircraft type to fight independently without a coalition navy and came up with a 60,000 ton ship.
At 40,000 tons, the Charles de Gaulle is too small to carry a full EW squadron with a full strike and air defense squadrons. She can only do two out of three jobs at time. She cannot fight against a true peer/near peer foe without help.
The idea of building a submersible carrier is nuts from both an economic and combat useful perspective.
One of the main advantages of a carrier is that it responds quicker to the local combat opportunities for a winning strike faster than land based aircraft can, while remaining unfixed themselves. This is why carriers beat the tar out of air bases.
How the hell do you keep that advantage while running silent and deep? Stupid!
I won't bother getting into the costs involved in making cats, traps and a hanger water tight.
Post a Comment