RIP U.S. Navy? The Age of the Aircraft Carrier Has Finally Reached Its End

[rangerrebew]

August 6, 2019

RIP U.S. Navy? The Age of the Aircraft Carrier Has Finally Reached Its End

It's more than long-range missiles.
by Matthew Reisener

Not only are America’s aircraft carriers increasingly susceptible to long-range attacks, but the continued development of hypervelocity missile technology carries what Hammes called “one-shot, one-kill” implications for America’s ships. The U.S. Navy’s large, vulnerable, and extremely expensive supercarriers are likely to become immediate casualties should this technology be deployed against them in future conflicts.​

Former President Bill Clinton remarked in 1993 that, “when word of a crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident that the first question that comes to everyone's lips is: ‘where's the nearest carrier?’” President Clinton’s sentiment still rings true today. Not only did the United States recently dispatch the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier group near the Persian Gulf in an attempt to deter perceived Iranian aggression, but this spring President Donald Trump overruled the U.S. Department of Defense’s cost-saving proposal to forgo refueling the nuclear reactor of the USS Harry S. Truman. Washington has long viewed aircraft carriers are the crown jewel of American naval power and has shown little willingness to deviate from this position in recent years.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/rip-us-navy-age-aircraft-carrier-has-finally-reached-its-end-71591

[Fishrrman]

This is something akin to the prediction by that idiot some years ago of "the end of history".

History ain't over yet, nor is the relevancy of the aircraft carrier.

And if several carriers can be taken out quickly by cruise missiles, the only remaining option if the conflict is "that large", is... to go nuclear.

[PeteS in CA]

I've been hearing this prediction for over 40 years. Every time the formulation is basically, "Because of type of weapon carriers are doomed." And every time a counter to type of weapon is invented. Assuming that an offensive weapon cannot be countered has been proven wrong multiple times.

[Absalom]

Great Britain produced the first Carrier at the end of WW1.
Our first was the Saratoga in 1925, so the weapon is a century old.
Some are under the illusion that it will be around forever. Why???
We no longer use front loaded Muskets???

[PeteS in CA]

USS Saratoga was hull number CV-3. USS Lexington was CV-2, but was commissioned after Saratoga (both in 1927, though Sara was launched in 1925). However, as the hull numbers suggest, there was a CV-1, USS Langley, recommissioned as a carrier in 1922.

Langley was a converted collier. By WW2 she had been deemed unsuitable for fleet carrier operation and converted to a seaplane tender. Like Langley, Lex and Sara were also conversions, done during construction. Both were designed to be battle cruisers, but the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty forbade building battleships and battle cruisers. The first purpose-built USN carrier was USS Ranger, CV-4. Ranger's limitations led to her not being used in PTO combat operations in WW2. The Yorktown and Essex class CVs were quite successful, as were the Independence class CVLs (converted from cruisers during construction).

I'm not suggesting carriers will forever be viable, just that the last 40+ years justify skepticism of, "Carriers are doomed!" claims.

[Absalom]

USS Saratoga was hull number CV-3. USS Lexington was CV-2, but was commissioned after Saratoga (both in 1927, though Sara was launched in 1925). However, as the hull numbers suggest, there was a CV-1, USS Langley, recommissioned as a carrier in 1922.

Langley was a converted collier. By WW2 she had been deemed unsuitable for fleet carrier operation and converted to a seaplane tender. Like Langley, Lex and Sara were also conversions, done during construction. Both were designed to be battle cruisers, but the 1922 Washington Naval Treaty forbade building battleships and battle cruisers. The first purpose-built USN carrier was USS Ranger, CV-4. Ranger's limitations led to her not being used in PTO combat operations in WW2. The Yorktown and Essex class CVs were quite successful, as were the Independence class CVLs (converted from cruisers during construction).

I'm not suggesting carriers will forever be viable, just that the last 40+ years justify skepticism of, "Carriers are doomed!" claims.

--------------------
Fair point!

[240B]

This is true. We are on the verge of orbital aircraft which can attack anywhere on Earth in minutes.
In video game terms we have 'Leveled Up'. Carriers are great. I love them.
But there is no need to ship hundreds of aircraft across the ocean, when we can get there in 5 minutes from an underground base somewhere in America. It is scary. It is scary what we could do if we wanted to. If America put full forces into action in an attack, we could blow up half the planet. Little finger puppet States like Iran, would be no challenge.

[Bigun]

This is true. We are on the verge of orbital aircraft which can attack anywhere on Earth in minutes.
In video game terms we have 'Leveled Up'. Carriers are great. I love them.
But there is no need to ship hundreds of aircraft across the ocean, when we can get there in 5 minutes from an underground base somewhere in America. It is scary. It is scary what we could do if we wanted to. If America put full forces into action in an attack, we could blow up half the planet. Little finger puppet States like Iran, would be no challenge.

What's scary is that people tend to think that the capabilities they know about are all we have.

[thackney]

I can imagine Battleships replacing Carriers again, with railguns and kinetic energy weapons.  Tough to stop by any means.

https://taskandpurpose.com/kinetic-bombardment-kep-weaponry

Then again drones may evolve the Carrier to another level.