The U.S. Navy's Biggest Fear: The Aircraft Carrier Age Might Be Over

[rangerrebew]

The U.S. Navy's Biggest Fear: The Aircraft Carrier Age Might Be Over
Story by Harrison Kass • 2h •


Summary and Key Points: Some analysts argue that the era of the aircraft carrier is over, claiming these vessels are now multi-billion-dollar vulnerabilities.
 
-Modern threats such as submarines, surface vessels, and hypersonic missiles can easily target aircraft carriers, challenging their relevance in contemporary warfare.

-Despite their historical significance and capability to project power globally, the viability of aircraft carriers, especially in potential conflicts with advanced adversaries like China, is increasingly questioned.
 
-While aircraft carriers remain central to U.S. strategy in certain regions, the rapid evolution of defense systems and geopolitical dynamics necessitate a reevaluation of their role and investment.

 https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/the-u-s-navy-s-biggest-fear-the-aircraft-carrier-age-might-be-over/ar-BB1okKkm?ocid=widgetonlockscreen&cvid=5d9d05147dad4f15a767b7ec56e597e8&ei=20

[rangerrebew]

I'm scarcely a qualified analyst, but I've been saying they were passee since the 1970s.

[PeteS in CA]

Yawwwwwwwn. This claim predates USS Nimitz's commissioning, and it will be decommissioned soon after a decades long career. Missiles such as the mid 1970s Exocet were supposed to be its nemesis, but no American fleet carrier has been sunk since WW2. I wonder how that fact happened ... well, no I don't. The USN developed and deployed defenses against anti-ship missiles, and likely will for the much-hyped hypersonic missiles. Similarly, defenses against submarines have advanced greatly since WW2, and "surface vessels", seriously?

[DefiantMassRINO]

Admirals will need to find new bathtub toys.

Missiles, drones, cyber, asymetrical warfare (including terrorism), economic investment, and humanitarian outreach are the modern means of projecting power.

We live in an age where an enemy does not need to phyically occupy or posses a space in order to control it.

Occupation and possession are only necessary for economic exploitation, for forward operating bases for asymetrical warfare, and imposing peace upon civil strife.  Think the Pacific island-hopping campaigns of World War II and the many deployments of US military to quell civil unrest in Haiti, Iraq, Syria, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, etc.

[Smokin Joe]

There will always be a place for air power in naval operations, but I foresee a return to the 'jeep carrier' concept, with smaller, more potent air assets, and a compliment of UAVs, ideally able to be linked to and coordinated with targeting aircraft, and able to operate under AI once the targets have been designated. This would enable similar attack/air defense while making for more platforms over a wider area. Either way, screening vessels to protect from submarine and air attack will be important in the future. With the LCS FAIL and the questionable frigate program, those will be perhaps in short supply.

The next POTUS needs to take a serious look at the JCS and other brass, and see what their real mission is (career enhancement with arms manufacturers or defense).

[MeganC]

We live in an age where an enemy does not need to physically occupy or posses a space in order to control it.

The Ukrainians are proving you right by controlling various battlefields with drones or stand-off weaponry like HIMARS and advanced artillery rounds.

They don't need to occupy the ground to control it and to deny it to the Russians.

[Bigun]

I'm scarcely a qualified analyst, but I've been saying they were passee since the 1970s.

I'm not going to say that because I have no idea what the lexicon of carrier defense mechanisms developed over the last fifty years is.