Why Aircraft Carriers Still Rule the Oceans

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why Aircraft Carriers Still Rule the Oceans

Posted by Soulskill on Tuesday September 18, 2012 @08:22AM from the dolphins-are-slow-to-innovate dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Despite being created during World War I, the modern carrier has evolved to be the pinnacle of modern warfare's best and most visible symbols of power. Nothing says 'show the flag' more than a carrier off an enemy's coast. Some, though, have called the carrier a 21st-century version of a battleship — high on looks and weapons but vulnerable to modern weapons. Critics note air-power killed the battleship; people now suggest super-sonic 'carrier-killer' missiles will make the carrier a relic of the past. With their cost in the billions of dollars, some point to killing off carriers as an obvious cost saving measure. Carriers though still have a lot of uses. Many navies, like India and China, are adding them to their arsenal, and they are still feared by many. While carriers might be old, they are a symbol of power that no missile or submarine below the surface can match yet."

18 of 718 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Behold, our huge, mighty penises!! by crazyjj · 2012-09-18 08:22 · Score: 5, Funny

Our penises are #1! All others are #2 or lower! Tremble before them, everyone else!

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
1. Re:Behold, our huge, mighty penises!! by cpu6502 · 2012-09-18 08:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yes. Aircraft carriers == countries grandstanding about how big & strong they are. Politicians like Romney brag about "showing strength to discourage attack" and the voters eat it up.
  Of course a better projection of power instead of obsolete battleships or airplane carriers would be the Arsenal Ship I worked on in the 90s. It was filled with nothing but self-guided missiles & required very minimal staffing. Just enough to watch the radar and load targeting solutions. Nothing says "power" like a ship that can launch 500 nuclear-tipped tomahawks in less than ten minutes. Or a barrage of ship-to-air missiles to shoot aircraft carrier attacks from the sky.
  
  --
  My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
2. Re:Behold, our huge, mighty penises!! by wdef · 2012-09-18 09:16 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You're right that would be a better show of strength, but then you have the type of foolishness perpetuated by the Obama administration where we essentially go around appologizing to our enemies inviting them to attack us. They know well that Obama would die at the hands of the enemy before he goes to war over anything. Our enemies know that too. See our foriegn embassies for evidence. So all of the posturing in the world isn't going to help when you've already shown your hand.
  Really? You know, to us in the rest of the world, there is no noticeable difference between Obama and Bush. None. The Obama government's foreign policy is much the same as Bush's. Same offshore oil wars went on. Same idiotic sabre-rattling about invading Iran, which would be a total disaster and another oil war. It's republicans and democrat voters that differ. Your politicians are all the same underneath, pandering to the low common denominator in the US for votes, and you end up with the same policies regardless. It's a pseudo democracy, and the UK and Australia are not much better. And patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel (that's a quote). Hence I expect no genuine changes no matter who is elected, just a different tone to the rhetoric.
3. Re:Behold, our huge, mighty penises!! by MightyMartian · 2012-09-18 09:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I wonder how Ghaddafi feels about Obama's use of projected power.
  I do love partisans though. If Obama doesn't thump some Arab leader with a big stick, he's an apologist pussy. If he does thump some Arab leader with a big stick, why he's a warmongering Congress defier. One gets the sense that it is irrelevant what a sitting President does. If he's wearing your team's colors, he's 100% great, if he's wearing the other team's colors, he's 100% bad.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
4. Re:Behold, our huge, mighty penises!! by Sir_Sri · 2012-09-18 09:48 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And once you run out of non nuclear missiles how are you going to bomb ground targets?
  Carriers don't rule the oceans. Submarines and missile cruisers rule the oceans. Carriers rule the land near oceans, they are portable airpower, which makes them more cost effective than missile boats for air support and air superiority roles.
  Big ships are just platforms. If you put large very heavy guns in them they become of significantly lower versatility - you need to completely rebuild the ship to have something without the guns. Aircraft carriers are as versatile as the aircraft you put on them. Need helicopters to support a naval invasion? Use a carrier. Need airborne surveilance and control? use a carrier. Need some combination of air superiority and ground attack? Use a carrier. In this sense a carrier is just a specific variant of big ship, that happens to be more versatile than the previous two iterations ('pre-dreadnought' battleships that were a mish mash of guns, post dreadnought 'big gun' battleships).
  Granted, it depends very much on the type of war you have to fight. But that's the problem. Your 500 nuclear tipped tomahawks is a job for war no one is fighting at the moment. You're not going to nuke Damascus or Tehran to get Assad or the Ayatollahs out of power (in fact using nuclear weapons in this case would be almost diametrically opposed to that goal).
  Also, it's not like navies are composed entirely of aircraft carriers. The US has about 50 in total, of nearly 300, and carriers (especially the big ones) are hard to make in a hurry, so you tend to be top heavy and have a disproportionately large inventory of large assets - if it turns out you need 50 destroyers by the end of next year 50 shipyards could probably pull that off, if you need 5 aircraft carriers by the end of next year it isn't going to happen. The Royal navy has 80 ish ships, of which two are supposed to be full blown aircraft carriers, a heli carrier and then some 'landing ships' which are like half heli carriers. With that diverse collection of assets some can be carriers, some can be 'arsenal' ships, some can be all sorts of different things, until you know what war you're fighting it's a matter of being reasonably prepared for whatever.
  Carrier operations off pakistan for example, related to Afghanistan, are because Diego Gracia (which doesn't actually belong to the yanks) is the nearest US allied base, and it's in the middle of nowhere. Ok for staging disaster relief and nuclear weapons, not so good for ground support in north western afghanistan. And as we just saw the hard way, aircraft based on the ground in theatre can get blown up.
  One of the lessons sept 11 should have taught americans is that their notions of 'power' are outdated and whimsically useless, you could have nuked Kabul or Riyadh into the ground in retaliation but what would that have gotten you? Capabilities matter, but being capable of doing something useless doesn't translate into power, and sure, a boat with 500 missiles can hit 500 targets - if you're lucky - but those missiles take a long time to go from off shore to wherever you need them, even if they land in the right place the thing you want destroyed might not be there, or might be too well fortified against the size of missile you can launch. They aren't useless by any means, but they aren't a panacea, nor are carrier based assets.
  Anyone who you could seriously want to nuke can nuke back (russia, china, north korea, pakistan), and if they can't nuke you they can at least kill millions of your allies. MAD sort of implies *mutually* after all. And anyone else you don't really want to nuke because you're more likely to get something out of conventional overthrow of the government.
5. Re:Behold, our huge, mighty penises!! by sdguero · 2012-09-18 09:52 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  According to this article, while foreign opinions of Obama has slipped a bit, overall it is still far better than when Bush was in office...
  http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/06/13/12184262-survey-worlds-opinion-of-us-obama-slips?lite
  
  Not that I care. "Merica!
6. Re:Behold, our huge, mighty penises!! by wdef · 2012-09-18 10:47 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You misunderstand me and re-reading my post, which in retrospect was a bit over the top, I can see why. Please allow me to qualify that. I'm no US-hater. Quite the opposite. Yours is a great country. I know and have worked with many US citizens and have high regard for them. US technology, culture, entrepreneurship and sheer energy are second to none and I will argue with anyone who says otherwise. The US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are inspiring, great works. It's fair to say that I love your country.
  That is why it saddens me to see what the workings of your political system seems to have become. And I don't want to single out the US alone as I said. Democracy is imperfect, and unfortunately vulnerable, but it's far better than the alternatives. I'll take imperfect democracy anytime over any other system. And it requires vigilance to maintain, as Jefferson stressed. That is why, whatever the political persuasion, Americans (or others) really have a duty to speak up when it's obvious that, for example, something's broken eg when foreign policy isn't really much different when the party in power changes. How many presidential campaign promises are ever fulfilled, I wonder? I tend to think John Ralston Saul is right when he says that the old left/right divides of two dominant party systems, like Republican versus Democracy, are really just theatre now, and that all we really get is more of the same.
7. Re:Behold, our huge, mighty penises!! by SplashMyBandit · 2012-09-18 12:01 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  You forget, 90% of the fleet's firepower comes from carriers (in the USN at least). The four squadrons of SuperHornets plus helos and EA-6 (or Hornet G) on each carrier can perform all sorts of missions (land/naval strike, interdiction, recon, CAS, BARCAP, sweep, SEAD/DEAD. elint, ew, SAR, anti-sub, etc etc) and they can do it thousands of kilometers from the fleet.
  As far back as the 60s the US thought that perhaps carriers were obsolete and too expensive and should be gotten rid of. However, the various wars and skirmishes (eg El Dorado Canyon/Libya) have shown the US time and again that the carrier strike group is still unparalleled in mission range, variety, striking power and capability. Hence, the US has 12/13 (depending on the rate of building) and lots of other countries want them too. The UK also though of getting rid of its carriers but fortunately they were around when the Argentinians occupied the Falkland Islands. Without a carrier the UK would have had zero chance of restoring sovereignty to the Falkland Islanders (who govern themselves but cannot defend themselves).
  However, on Slashdot the uninformed start with purile "penis" comparisons as if US defense policy was based on this (prestige follies happen in banana republics like Chavez's Venezuala or Qadaffi's Libya - but not in the US; the US follies are based on the economic benefits of the military-industrial complex in each State, but not braggadoccio as the posters suggest).
  Aircraft carriers are an important part of global power projection. Without a carrier you simply cannot enforce your will around the World (unopposed aircraft can defeat all ships and submarines; if you don't have a carrier to counter this then your Navy is useless - which is why the Russian and Chinese Navies have carriers mostly tasked with protecting their fleets).
  nb: with regard to carrier killing missiles. The US purchased advanced hypersonic Russian missiles and tested/developed defenses against them. Work is ongoing on improved versions of the Standard Missile against ballistic missiles like the DongFeng 'carrier killers' and lasers are being tested against Brahmos and other hypersonic sea skimming missiles. As a result the greatest threat to carriers is not missiles, it is submarines (especially those with Air-Independent-Propulsion, that are very difficult to detect). A torpedo from a submarine also contains a far greater payload than missiles (this includes nuclear tipped torpedoes, Soviet attack subs were issued with two nuke as carriers are so valuable [because they are so powerful] that bagging one was worth the risk of escalation).
  So, the manhood insults about navies may be cheap lurlz but show considerable ignorance about modern military affairs and why there is so much activity around developing both naval aviation and counter-carrier capabilities.
Not sure about the thesis of the article, but... by sconeu · 2012-09-18 08:28 · Score: 5, Insightful

Part of the reason that carriers remain relevant is that, while they do have their own weapons, their MAIN weaponry is the planes that they carry. And it's easier to upgrade those planes (subject to limitations such as the elevators, etc...) than it would have been to upgrade a BB's weaponry.

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Force projection, not a symbol of power by AntiBasic · 2012-09-18 08:30 · Score: 5, Insightful

Aircraft carriers are force projection, not a symbol of power. It's incredibly useful to have a bouyant, nuclear city able to go where it's told to.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection
Sunk? by Spazmania · 2012-09-18 08:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

Which carrier has been sunk by a super-sonic 'carrier-killer' missile? Let's wait until a carrier is actually killed before declaring the end of its day.
A carrier lets you park a military city 10 miles off just about anyone's border just about any time you want to. Until something either replaces that function or ends its utility the carrier will persist.

--
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
1. Re:Sunk? by thebigmacd · 2012-09-18 09:20 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  I don't think you realize how inaccurate an ICBM is. There is a reason they only make nuclear ones.
Re:Not sure about the thesis of the article, but.. by SQLGuru · 2012-09-18 08:34 · Score: 5, Informative

This.
A carrier can hit you hard with missles/guns. Or a carrier can hit you fast by launching jets. A carrier is a portable full array of armed forces (land, sea, and air).
That's why they aren't battleships.
Author obviously knows nothing about the Navy by Sparticus789 · 2012-09-18 08:35 · Score: 5, Informative

It's not just about the Carrier. Having a Carrier says "Our nation/military is so strong, we can put 6,000 people on a boat and blow up your country from 300 miles away."
The Carriers of today are not the Battleships of WWI. Carriers have multiple defense systems like CIWS (shoots 3,000+ RPM) and Sea Sparrow missiles. A Carrier Group will have some sort of Aegis defense mechanism on board a few ships as well. Not to mention the aircraft complement of 50+. Throw in an E-2C and not much will get within 100 miles of that Carrier.

--
sudo make me a sandwich
Re:Not sure about the thesis of the article, but.. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-09-18 08:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Part of the reason that carriers remain relevant is that, while they do have their own weapons, their MAIN weaponry is the planes that they carry. And it's easier to upgrade those planes (subject to limitations such as the elevators, etc...) than it would have been to upgrade a BB's weaponry.
It probably also helps them remain relevant that nobody has let a single one get any closer to something dangerous than they absolutely had to since the second world war... The concern is not so much that aircraft carriers are not powerful; but that they are so questionably survivable in the face of today's more sophisticated missiles that there may or may not be an aircraft carrier to come back to within the time it takes for the aircraft to go out and back.
They are better than battleships for beating up on hilariously outmatched little countries, since their range is longer; but that, along with saber rattling, is all they've been used for for quite some time.
Re:That's simple... by gl4ss · 2012-09-18 09:05 · Score: 5, Insightful

when was the last time a carrier was used against an enemy which had battleships? since ww2 pacific campaign when was the last time aircraft carriers were even used in battle against anyone with comparable fleet? . falklands war is the exception and even there the carrier groups didn't go head to head.
the modern aircraft carriers aren't meant for fleet vs. fleet warfare, that's not their purpose. they're floating islands not meant to be even anywhere near where they could be shot. for now most important thing why they rule the oceans is that they come with a big ass fleet with them and they're useful for launch bases on adversaries who can't project their firepower thousand kilometers away(where it sits).

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Useful for the same reason we have troops in SK by trout007 · 2012-09-18 10:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

Everyone is missing the point. The real strategic purpose of a carrier is that they are so big, expensive, and have so many sailors on board that to actually sink one is basically asking for all out war. It's the same reason we have 30k troops in SK. It's not like they could stop a North Korean invasion. It has been calculated that 30k troops being killed would be enought to convice Americans to start a nuclear war.
It's basically like going all in playing poker. Parking a carrier no matter how vulnerable is going all in and asking your opponent how bad they want to win.

--
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Re:US should have fewer carriers by confused+one · 2012-09-18 10:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Alot of those ships are getting old. Enterprise is 51 years old. Nimitz is 45 years old. If you stop building them, the number of carriers will naturally drop through attrition as the older ships are retired. There's a problem though: There is one and only one shipyard capable of building nuclear supercarriers. It's not a cargo ship. It's not a cruise liner. It's not even a normal naval vessel. It's a floating, nuclear powered, military city with a hanger and an airstrip on the upper decks. If you don't keep that yard busy building a ship every 5 or 6 years, you lose the ability to build them entirely. Why? Because all the people with the knowledge necessary will be looking for new jobs. When you do decide to build one, you'll be restarting from ground zero; and, it will cost significantly more to build that one than to have just kept the system running at a slow but steady pace. That's the argument anyway.