Is the aircraft carrier obsolete?

[CountDeMoney]

Prompted by this article--

As USS Ranger departs, Navy's cost dilemma takes off
One old aircraft carrier goes to scrap, but behind this symbolic moment is very real debate over whether flattops are obsolete and the cost of the future Navy
John Talton, Seattle Times

The aircraft carrier USS Ranger was scheduled to be towed from the Puget Sound Naval Shipyard today. Its destination: a shipbreaking facility in Texas where it will be scrapped. Because the Ranger won't fit through the Panama Canal, it must be towed 16,000 miles around the tip of South America. 

According to the Kitsap Sun, this leaves two carriers in mothballs at the Inactive Ship Maintenance Facility: USS Independence and USS Kitty Hawk. The latter will be held in reserve until the USS Gerald R. Ford enters service.

Ranger served from 1957 to 1993. While preservationists are downcast that they couldn't turn the big ship into a museum somewhere, this moment can also take us inside today's naval and defense industry debate over the future of carriers and the cost of ship replacement.

When Ranger was at its peak, aircraft carriers were the undisputed capital ships they had been since supplanting battleships in World War II. Into the 21st century, they were America's way of projecting power and backing down potential adversaries worldwide, as well as the naval backbone of any U.S. involvement in war.

Now many strategists are wondering if the carrier's days are done. For example, China's DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile is dubbed the "carrier killer," at least by American analysts. It has the potential to penetrate many defenses of a carrier and its escorts (the task force or strike group) and sink or grievously damage a flattop. At the least, such missiles disrupt America's close-in war fighting strategy, part of China's anti-access/area denial strategy.

Even if the carrier isn't obsolete — and this fierce debate is far from settled — the Navy faces a huge challenge in replacing its ships in an era of austerity.

The Gerald R. Ford was supposed to cost $10 billion, but it will likely end up at $13 billion (it is the first of its class, so this doesn't include R&D). USS Ranger cost about $1.6 billion in today's dollars. To be sure, the Ford is more capable — but it faces viable counter-strategies and weapons not encountered by Cold War flattops. Ten billion is a lot to lose in a moment off Taiwan, not to mention the lives.

And the Ford class will be needed to replace the 10 Nimitz-class supercarriers as they age out in coming decades.

Another problem the Navy faces is replacing the aging Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines, many of which are based at Bangor submarine base on Hood Canal. The sea service has estimated it will need as much as a third more for shipbuilding from 2020 through 2035. This may be over-optimistic.

Meanwhile, these two huge programs leave little for important other ships, such as destroyers. No wonder U.S. ship levels keep falling.

It's true that America spends more on the military than the next eight countries combined. But the Navy also protects the global commons and supply chains. Procurement needs reform. But even that won't pay the bill if austerity and tax cuts/avoidance continue.

[Jacob]

Sounds like the article asks not whether the carrier is obsolete, but whether it is too expensive.

[11B4V]

Yes

[Habbaku]

Then there's this, though I have no idea how credible it is:

http://www.news.com.au/world/us-supercarrier-sunk-by-french-submarine-in-wargames/story-fndir2ev-1227250666936

[katmai]

Shut your dirty whore mouth Seedy and ElevenB!

[grumbler]

The aircraft carrier is clearly not obsolete, but neither is it the wave of the future.  The DF-21 doesn't really offer that much capability against carriers to the Chinese arsenal, because it is still reliant on external sensors to hit anything moving, and that opens up a lot of opportunities for spoofing and jamming.  Its warhead size is the big improvement over cruise missiles.  What is going to make the CVN obsolete is distributed deployment of drones to carry out the strike missions that the CVN currently has a lock on.  Building more CVNs seems like following in the footsteps of building the last dozen or so battleships (Vanguard, the Jean Barts, and the South Dakotas and Iowas) - yeah, they had some utility, but weren't worth the cost.

Its hard to fight against the entrenched interests favoring more CVN orders, though.

[celedhring]

The aircraft carrier is clearly not obsolete, but neither is it the wave of the future.  The DF-21 doesn't really offer that much capability against carriers to the Chinese arsenal, because it is still reliant on external sensors to hit anything moving, and that opens up a lot of opportunities for spoofing and jamming.  Its warhead size is the big improvement over cruise missiles.  What is going to make the CVN obsolete is distributed deployment of drones to carry out the strike missions that the CVN currently has a lock on.  Building more CVNs seems like following in the footsteps of building the last dozen or so battleships (Vanguard, the Jean Barts, and the South Dakotas and Iowas) - yeah, they had some utility, but weren't worth the cost.

Its hard to fight against the entrenched interests favoring more CVN orders, though.

I'm gonna certainly defer to your knowledge in this, but surely drones need to be parked somewhere near the area of conflict to maximise mission time?

[grumbler]

Then there's this, though I have no idea how credible it is:

http://www.news.com.au/world/us-supercarrier-sunk-by-french-submarine-in-wargames/story-fndir2ev-1227250666936

Submarines are the biggest threat to carriers, no question.  But the results of wargames like this are often not what the bubbleheads pretend - I never, as an umpire in three fleetexes, ever had a sub acknowledge that it had been sunk, or that it's weapons ever missed.  So, it's possible the Saphir did what it claimed, but its equally possible that it didn't, or at least didn't make quite the sweep that it claims.

[grumbler]

I'm gonna certainly defer to your knowledge in this, but surely drones need to be parked somewhere near the area of conflict to maximise mission time?

Sure.  That's what "distributed deployment" means - drones on lots of smaller ships deployed as a single force, but without a single high-value unit.

[celedhring]

I'm gonna certainly defer to your knowledge in this, but surely drones need to be parked somewhere near the area of conflict to maximise mission time?

Sure.  That's what "distributed deployment" means - drones on lots of smaller ships deployed as a single force, but without a single high-value unit.

Aha, that makes sense. The Navy doesn't have any ship capable of that yet, I presume.

[grumbler]

Aha, that makes sense. The Navy doesn't have any ship capable of that yet, I presume.

They have the ships (all the Aegis cruisers and half the Aegis destroyers) but they don't have the drones yet.  Drones capable of carrying the needed payloads are still being flight-tested, which is why existing CVNs are not obsolete and will probably serve out their lifespans as is.  It's the future ones that are going to be superseded in their own lifetimes.

[MadBurgerMaker]

Drones/UCAVs are hilariously vulnerable to anything with a meatbag controlling it.  The fix for this is to fully automate them and letting them kill people on their own.  Good luck with that!

E:  And after a certain point they're just about the same size as a "regular" airplane, especially if you want them to, you know, do things.  Burkes and Ticos aren't going to be launching a bunch of UCAVs that can compete with a Superbug off their flight decks.

E2: 

That's a Global Hawk with a couple F-22s.  These things aren't small.  Even the old ass Predator has a 50ft wingspan with two hardpoints (F-22 has a 44ft span).  Newer ones, eh, you're looking at 35ft or so.

E3:  BTW, that's a really nice photo courtesy of a guy on SA from just a couple days ago, I think. Really shows how big they are vs. the usual solo shots of various UAVs.  The point is, real UCAVs with real capabilities aren't much smaller than an airplane with a guy on board who can also think and react much more quickly.  Here's one from Wiki of an X-45B:



Superbug on the left.  These UCAVs have got to be large enough to hold the weapons, gas, and all the shit that makes them able to do their drone thing.

[The Brain]

Sweden is best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoMj1TjNTFw

[Eddie Teach]

Sweden is best.

But someone recently told me that Sweden sucks ass and is self-destructing. Who should I believe?

[The Brain]

Sweden is best.

But someone recently told me that Sweden sucks ass and is self-destructing. Who should I believe?

Listen to your heart.