Is the aircraft carrier obsolete?

[grumbler]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the strenght of a carrier lies in its capacity at forcep projection, right?  The US sends a carrier group (carrier alone is a bad idea, IIRC?), and the planes fly ahead to intercept any ennemy before they even make it to be a dange to the carrier group.

Drones are good at bombing shit on the ground, not so good for air to air.

Can some sort of hybrid carrier, smaller, with a decent air-to-air force and drones for bombing ground be envisionned at a reduced cost compared to the super carriers currently built?  Could you have many of these hybrid, small carriers, rather than one big super carrier and still be efficient at what they do?

Smaller carriers are much less cost-effective than larger ones.  That's been shown time and again.  I don't think that there are any new technologies that have changed that conclusion.

[grumbler]

UCAVs, actual capable ones, aren't cheap, and they aren't all that light either when they're weighed down with gas and weapons.  That Global Hawk costs IIRC about as much as two Super Hornets (not including the cost of training a pilot, of course, which isn't cheap, although UCAVs will require those too.  They just aren't in immediate danger, which is a good thing.), and it doesn't shoot at anything.  We're talking F-35 price range for this thing.  Autonomous or semi-autonomous stealth UCAVs with a respectable payload?  Yeah, pony up some cash.

Drones are expensive when they are bought in programs of a few dozen experimental aircraft.  Something like Global Hawk is expected to cost in the $40-50 million range when produced in volume; that's about a third the cost of an F-35.  Operating costs are probably less than a tenth the cost of an F-35, so it's a signifcant savings for a significant drop in any capability bar loiter time and sensor reach.  I'd expect the drones wouldn't carry any of the heavy ordinance; plenty of Tomahawks for that role.

The size IS a factor when you start putting them on destroyers or destroyer sized ships.  Predators are cheap and light (and their 50 foot wingspan would prevent them from being kept assembled in a DDG hangar without some interesting modifications), but they also suck when you're talking about replacing the strike capabilities of a carrier air wing with a bunch of them.  You can't strap a 2,000lb bomb to something that weighs 5,000lbs and expect it to go anywhere except straight into the ocean after you roll it off the flight deck, let alone the kind of payload current planes like the Super Hornet can fly around with.

They also need a place to land.  A DDG flight deck isn't big enough to trap a UCAV coming back.  It would have to be amphibious, a VTOL, or disposable.

You are focusing your arguments here on current systems.  I don't think current systems make CVNs obsolete (in fact, that was precisely my point).  None of your arguments apply to future systems designed for the role.

Also, are we just going to be getting rid of the helos that are currently on DDGs and CGs?  Because there wouldn't be any place to put those anymore, and those are pretty damn useful. 

Why would we?  Presumably, if we are not building CVNs but replacing them with DDGs and CGs, we are building additional DDGs and CGs, not just maintaining current force levels.

Cruise missiles don't work like strike aircraft.

Nor does artillery.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Drones are expensive when they are bought in programs of a few dozen experimental aircraft.  Something like Global Hawk is expected to cost in the $40-50 million range when produced in volume; that's about a third the cost of an F-35.  Operating costs are probably less than a tenth the cost of an F-35, so it's a signifcant savings for a significant drop in any capability bar loiter time and sensor reach.  I'd expect the drones wouldn't carry any of the heavy ordinance; plenty of Tomahawks for that role.

That's not much less expensive than a Super Hornet, and it's a surveillance UAV.  So now tack on stealth, payload capabilities, and everything they need to run something that isn't just loitering and looking at things.  And again, Tomahawks aren't replacements for strike aircraft.  We already use Tomahawks where we can, and there's not exactly a shortage of need for regular airplanes with heavy ordinance, even with the bullshit COIN type crap going on now.

You are focusing your arguments here on current systems.  I don't think current systems make CVNs obsolete (in fact, that was precisely my point).  None of your arguments apply to future systems designed for the role.

Of course they do.  UCAVs that are capable replacements for strike aircraft are going to need to be able to take off with a real payload and are going to need to land when they come back and are going to need to be put somewhere when they aren't flying.  Explain how that doesn't apply to "future systems."  Massive operating range would be great and would work to avoid those problems, but having one that can do that with a payload that makes it worthwhile....that would be a bigass, ultra expensive drone, so you can't exactly consider those all that expendable.  You also wouldn't need ships in the first place with something like that, so why bother talking about carriers and USN hangar facilities?

Why would we?  Presumably, if we are not building CVNs but replacing them with DDGs and CGs, we are building additional DDGs and CGs, not just maintaining current force levels.

Where would we put the drones on them if we aren't taking the helos off?  You're wanting to build a whole new class of drone carriers to be escorted by DDGs and CGs then?  The drone helos are cool, but I wouldn't get in one of those for SAR, so I guess we'd just go back to using the RHIBs full time?  Sub hunting and VERTREP could probably be automated at least.

Nor does artillery.

Okay?  You cannot just say "cruise missiles!" when talking about replacing a carrier air group.  Cruise missiles (and.....artillery?) can't do what a carrier wing can do.  Cruise missiles and drones also can't do what a carrier wing does.

[viper37]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the strenght of a carrier lies in its capacity at forcep projection, right?  The US sends a carrier group (carrier alone is a bad idea, IIRC?), and the planes fly ahead to intercept any ennemy before they even make it to be a dange to the carrier group.

Drones are good at bombing shit on the ground, not so good for air to air.

Can some sort of hybrid carrier, smaller, with a decent air-to-air force and drones for bombing ground be envisionned at a reduced cost compared to the super carriers currently built?  Could you have many of these hybrid, small carriers, rather than one big super carrier and still be efficient at what they do?

Smaller carriers are much less cost-effective than larger ones.  That's been shown time and again.  I don't think that there are any new technologies that have changed that conclusion.

all right then

[CountDeMoney]

All those drones are going to look pretty silly over the battlespace when their links to their PlayStations are disrupted from cyberwarfare.  Can't replace a pilot's independence of action in that respect.

[Josquius]

All those drones are going to look pretty silly over the battlespace when their links to their PlayStations are disrupted from cyberwarfare.  Can't replace a pilot's independence of action in that respect.

Surely this cyberwarfare would also make the super high tech manned fighters fall from the sky too?

[MadBurgerMaker]

Surely this cyberwarfare would also make the super high tech manned fighters fall from the sky too?

He's talking about the control signal getting screwed up.  In a manned plane, there's a guy onboard flying it vs. someone in a room some number of miles away doing the "flying."  UAVs and such won't, or shouldn't, fall out of the sky if the signal is lost, but they also wouldn't be able to receive instructions.  I want to say the newer ones have a failsafe type deal where they return to a designated base after a certain amount of time, but I don't know that for sure.

[Razgovory]

Is it possible for an enemy to send signals to the drone to make it crash or something?

[Josquius]

Surely this cyberwarfare would also make the super high tech manned fighters fall from the sky too?

He's talking about the control signal getting screwed up.  In a manned plane, there's a guy onboard flying it vs. someone in a room some number of miles away doing the "flying."  UAVs and such won't, or shouldn't, fall out of the sky if the signal is lost, but they also wouldn't be able to receive instructions.  I want to say the newer ones have a failsafe type deal where they return to a designated base after a certain amount of time, but I don't know that for sure.

Yeah, but with modern fighters there are a lot of computer systems needed to keep the thing in the air, the actual control of the plane is ever more abstracted from the pilot

[MadBurgerMaker]

Is it possible for an enemy to send signals to the drone to make it crash or something?

Dunno.  I would imagine link security, or whatever you want to call it, is a pretty big deal for everyone involved.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Yeah, but with modern fighters there are a lot of computer systems needed to keep the thing in the air, the actual control of the plane is ever more abstracted from the pilot

Right, but all that stuff is actually on board.  If communications or whatever are jammed, the plane can still continue on because there is a person able to tell it what to do.  But yeah, if the computer systems all shut down somehow, a lot of these fly by wire unstable designs are going to have some...issues.

I think the...Rafale?  I think that one has a way where if there's a catastrophic computer error or something that causes it to not be able to fly, the canards will adjust to make it aerodynamically stable and generally controllable.  Maybe it's the Eurofighter.  One of those Euro-canard planes.

[viper37]

Is it possible for an enemy to send signals to the drone to make it crash or something?

yes


I suppose it is a possibility that someone, somewhere, with enough resources could manage to crack the encryption and decypher the commands needed to control the drone.  Though I would imagine you need access to US defense satellites too for that.

So, impossible, no.  Unlikely, yes.  I'd say about the same probability that a terrorist group would disguise themselves as musicians to hijack a destroyer.

[grumbler]

That's not much less expensive than a Super Hornet, and it's a surveillance UAV.  So now tack on stealth, payload capabilities, and everything they need to run something that isn't just loitering and looking at things.  And again, Tomahawks aren't replacements for strike aircraft.  We already use Tomahawks where we can, and there's not exactly a shortage of need for regular airplanes with heavy ordinance, even with the bullshit COIN type crap going on now.

Future drones are estimated at about half the price of semi-obsolescent current aircraft, correct.  And about a third the price of contemporary combat aircraft (what ones are left).  Drones will have a much lower operating cost, but also likely a lower lifespan.  Still, they will be a quarter to a fifth of the cost of a strike fighter from the same generation when all is said and done, I'd bet.

Of course they do.  UCAVs that are capable replacements for strike aircraft are going to need to be able to take off with a real payload and are going to need to land when they come back and are going to need to be put somewhere when they aren't flying.  Explain how that doesn't apply to "future systems."  Massive operating range would be great and would work to avoid those problems, but having one that can do that with a payload that makes it worthwhile....that would be a bigass, ultra expensive drone, so you can't exactly consider those all that expendable.  You also wouldn't need ships in the first place with something like that, so why bother talking about carriers and USN hangar facilities?

I have no idea what most of this means.  A drone-based strike system doesn't have to have vastly capable individual elements.  And, yes, any aerial vehicle is going to have to be able to take off and land, no matter how it is based. 

As far as the advantages of sea-basing air power, I'd just invite you to check on any web site that talks about carriers.  Sea-basing makes sense, even if you don't have carriers.

Where would we put the drones on them if we aren't taking the helos off?  You're wanting to build a whole new class of drone carriers to be escorted by DDGs and CGs then?  The drone helos are cool, but I wouldn't get in one of those for SAR, so I guess we'd just go back to using the RHIBs full time?  Sub hunting and VERTREP could probably be automated at least.

Again, you've lost me.  What non-existent ships have helos right now, that we'd be "taking off?"

Okay?  You cannot just say "cruise missiles!" when talking about replacing a carrier air group.  Cruise missiles (and.....artillery?) can't do what a carrier wing can do.  Cruise missiles and drones also can't do what a carrier wing does.

Nor can a carrier air wing do what a distributed strike force (even one that is just Tomahawk cruise missiles) can do.  The point is that we are going to need the future unique capabilities and affordability of the distributed strike system a lot more than the future unique capabilities and affordability of the carrier air wing.  That's why I think that this generation of carriers now in service will be the last ones to live out their lifetimes as viable front line ships.  The Ford class will be recognized as white elephants long before their planned lifespan expires.

[grumbler]

yes


I suppose it is a possibility that someone, somewhere, with enough resources could manage to crack the encryption and decypher the commands needed to control the drone.  Though I would imagine you need access to US defense satellites too for that.

So, impossible, no.  Unlikely, yes.  I'd say about the same probability that a terrorist group would disguise themselves as musicians to hijack a destroyer.

If the opponent can break US comms crypto like that, drones will be the very least of your worries.  They'll be sending false orders to every US unit, and false information to every US headquarters unit.  They may not be able to force aircraft to crash, but they will easily send them into situations impossible for them to survive.

Luckily, this scenario is so close to impossible as to be indistinguishable from it.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Future drones are estimated at about half the price of semi-obsolescent current aircraft, correct.  And about a third the price of contemporary combat aircraft (what ones are left).  Drones will have a much lower operating cost, but also likely a lower lifespan.  Still, they will be a quarter to a fifth of the cost of a strike fighter from the same generation when all is said and done, I'd bet.

I wouldn't be willing to take that bet, and I question why you would willingly believe something like that knowing what you do about the defense procurement...process.  If Global Hawk is "only" going to cost $40-50 million (where are you seeing this, btw), how is an armed UCAV that can operate in non-permissive areas going to be even cheaper than that?  Why is the operating cost of a UCAV going to be significantly cheaper?  They will still require regular maintenance and repair. 

Right now, we've got the actual price of a Global Hawk reaching over $100m after something like 20 years of service.  Where are these savings on something that has WAY more capability going to come from?  Shit, where are the savings on the Global Hawk going to come from? 

I have no idea what most of this means.  A drone-based strike system doesn't have to have vastly capable individual elements.  And, yes, any aerial vehicle is going to have to be able to take off and land, no matter how it is based. 

Okay, what don't you understand?  There isn't the space for real drone operations off of a current DDG or CG.

As far as the advantages of sea-basing air power, I'd just invite you to check on any web site that talks about carriers.  Sea-basing makes sense, even if you don't have carriers.

Without a carrier, where are you sea basing aircraft? 

Again, you've lost me.  What non-existent ships have helos right now, that we'd be "taking off?"

Non-existent ships?  What?  Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga class ships tend to carry helos around if they have the hangars for them (earlier Burkes didn't have hangars).  If you're going to be putting drones on board, you're going to have to create space for them somewhere, yes?  Where do you put them other than the hangars that are right next to the flight deck? 

This is a thing you were saying could be done right there on the first page.  You can't.  Not without making space for them (no more helos) and coming up with drones that can actually operate from those flight decks like VTOLs or some sort of amphibious vehicles.  If that happens and you remove the helos in favor of these UCAVs so you can have this distributed group, what is going to perform SAR, VERTREPs, ASW, and all the other stuff helos currently take care of?  Are we just....not doing that now?  Are you going to have other drones take care of that too?  Where are they going to be put?  And, again, good luck getting a swimmer in one of those things.

Nor can a carrier air wing do what a distributed strike force (even one that is just Tomahawk cruise missiles) can do.

This is why we have, and use, both.  You can't just toss the carrier wings without a viable replacement.  Currently drones are not that replacement, and without some pretty huge technological advancements, they won't be for a while.

The point is that we are going to need the future unique capabilities and affordability of the distributed strike system a lot more than the future unique capabilities and affordability of the carrier air wing.  That's why I think that this generation of carriers now in service will be the last ones to live out their lifetimes as viable front line ships.  The Ford class will be recognized as white elephants long before their planned lifespan expires.

If we do somehow figure out a way to overcome things like communications/control lag time and such, the Navy is still going to need to have a place to launch them from. 


E:  Hm. Tyr, looking back, it may be the Gripen that can change the canard "configuration" in the event of an emergency.  I have also just named off every  modern Eurocanard fighter so I guess one of them is correct.