Loading 4 Votes - +

Supercarrier Obsolescence

There is a saying in the Navy that there are only two types of ships: submarines; and, targets.

The US Civil war marked the sudden obsolescence of the wooden sailing warship, and so they were replaced – against the will of most senior naval staff. The arrival of the aircraft carrier marked the end of the iron clad battleship. They too were replaced – against the will of most senior naval staff. Inevitably, the time will come when the carriers also become obsolete due to technological change making them too vulnerable.

In the absence of naval war on a scale large enough to involve these capital ships and demonstrate their vulnerability, we may not notice when their time has come, and it is unlikely that the senior naval staff will tell us. These ships look so magnificent and invulnerable, and they are a great place for the Admiral commanding to give a dinner party. So were the battleships, and the wooden ships of the line!

For some years now there have been leaks from various naval exercises that cheap but very quiet diesel submarines from friendly countries have been able regularly to “sink” our largest supercarriers. It is not uncommon for them to be able to get so close as to take a trophy under-water photograph of the carrier’s propellers through the periscope. This happens in spite of all the sonar technology these battle groups can deploy.

Submaries may not be the greatest threat. Increasingly missiles and UAVs can guide themselves, or be directed remotely, over long distances to home in on a small target. It would be optimistic to assume that our naval enemies will not have that capability. Missiles can often be knocked down, especially if they come in one by one and don’t over tax the radars, but will the enemy cooperate like that?

Mines are getting more sophisticated. There are torpedoes now that can lie dormant on the sea floor for months, waiting to hear the sonar signature of a particular ship. When they hear it they will activate, and home in on it at very high speed.

When so much is invested in human lives, money and national security, we need to ask these questions. If this country ever came to a conflict in which these mega ships were deployed, the effect on morale of them being quickly sunk would be devastating. We might have been better prepared, and the oportunity cost could lose us the war.

The cost. Modern super carriers generally price at about $6 billion each, but this is only the beginning. There is also an equally costly air wing to consider (about 90 planes at $50 million each for the US ships), plus 3-5 escorts ships and at least 1 attack submarine at $2 billion each for protection, plus 6000 crewmen, and $300 million per year on upkeep. And they wonder why our fleet has sunk from 600 ships to less than half since the last decade.

Here are five reasons why the aircraft carrier was obsolete (in 2007).

Similarly tagged OmniNerd content:

Information This article was edited after publication by the author on 24 Aug 2009. View changes.
Thread parent sort order:
Thread verbosity:
1 Vote  - +
Who cares? by Occams

I can’t see the first comment. Can you?

Thanks for the votes, but how about some reaction. This is a public policy issue that might seem specialized, but really requires no great expertise.

Some of those references claim that these ultimate symbols of American power could be sent to the bottom very easily, and by the kind to enemies we have now (Iran and Nth Korea). I would bet my house that they are practicing such missions now. If one or two are sent to the bottom, they will carry with them a great deal of American pride, morale, treasure and many thousands of our best people. This would be a huge triumph for our enemies and a great shame on us. It would be worse than 911 because this would be a fair military strike on our greatest weapons of war. It would probably signal the end of the American age.

If they really are so vulnerable then they should be taken out of service before that can happen. These are the issues. Is their vulnerability true? If so, what is the appropriate action. We will need to ignore rhetoric about force projection capabilities etc. because if it is true we are giving our enemies a means of gaining a massive strike on us. In truth, we are mooning an enemy who can shoot our asses off.

The Navy will never own up to this. The service has too much tradition, culture and careers tied up in these amazing ships to ever concede. Change can only come if the worst happens, or us ordinary folks ring the bell for the end of an era.

I am sure that Naval experts will tell us that there are still many valid reasons for retaining this capability – missions that would be difficult to perform in any other way. I could well believe that, but I would remain of the opinion that, if these ships will be sunk, then other ways must be found. Their loss would be too significant to justify the risk.

Think about the opportunity cost of the two new carriers under construction in terms of health, education and road infrastructure: hell, even Defense. Who is benefiting from denying us those things? Do they have improper influence over executive government.

There is a saying in the Navy that there are only two types of ships: submarines; and, targets.

I’d venture a guess that the saying is confined mainly to the submariner community, and is not the consensus of the Navy at large. There is a similar saying in the Army: “There are only two branches [of the Army], Infantry and infantry support.” Similarly, it’s mainly confined to the Infantry branch. And it’s just as myopic and inaccurate as the Navy saying.

The US Civil war marked the sudden obsolescence of the wooden sailing warship, and so they were replaced – against the will of most senior naval staff. The arrival of the aircraft carrier marked the end of the iron clad battleship. They too were replaced…

The wooden warship and the “iron clad battleship” were rendered obsolete by the advent of superior technology that replaced the capability that those ships represented, not by the threat of their own vulnerability. That may seem like semantics, but is really the key difference in why the super carrier is not yet obsolete and will not be for some time.

Inevitably, the time will come when the carriers also become obsolete due to technological change making them too vulnerable.

Did you read the article you linked to at the end of this sentence? The title is “Is the Super Carrier Going to be Obsolete?”, but the author’s conclusion is “no”! He spells out the reasons why more thoroughly and eloquently than I could, but the essence is this: Perceived vulnerabilities aside, the capability delivered by the super carrier is the air wing itself. Until manned fixed-wing aircraft are themselves rendered obsolete by some superior technology that is capable of delivering the same or better capabilities and effects without the large platform of a super carrier, the carriers will remain relevant.

If this country ever came to a conflict in which these mega ships were deployed, the effect on morale of them being quickly sunk would be devastating.

While underestimating the enemy’s capabilities can be disastrous, overestimating them while selling yourself short can be paralyzing. I think you underestimate the ability of the USN to protect its most vital assets. Further, your imagined surprise attack scenario seems far fetched at best—in any conflict scenario where a future adversary had both the capability and willingness to sink a carrier, that capability would be targeted and likely eliminated very early on, with the carriers kept under extremely heavy guard (i.e., subs and aircraft) and at “arm’s length” of such an adversary until maritime dominance was firmly established. A surprise attack on a completely unprepared (i.e., operating under normal peacetime conditions) carrier seems unlikely from a self-preservation perspective—any nation-state that ordered such an attack could expect to be dismantled by the full weight of the U.S. military (and political, and economic, and diplomatic) machine in very short order. Think MAD on a smaller scale.

I’m not even going to address the “5 Reasons…” blog, as the much more comprehensive article from the Singapore Armed Forces journal refutes all of its flawed arguments in detail.

-1 Vote  - +
New RN carriers by Occams

If you think we are having problems with out aircraft carriers, check out the poor Brits

Share & Socialize

What is OmniNerd?

Omninerd_icon Welcome! OmniNerd's content is generated by nerds like you. Learn more.

Voting Booth

Dzhokar Tsarnaev deserves due process?

35 votes, 4 comments