With the rise of drones and increased coordination, I'd like to see the US at least explore the idea of distributing their naval aviation wing across several dozen much smaller carriers. It would make naval aviation much less vulnerable to hypersonic ASBMs whether those are still a paper tiger at the moment or not.
Smaller carriers are inefficient. They are economical, if that's all you can afford, but they are, per ton of displacement, less capable than larger ones, because machinery and electronics take up roughly the same amount of displacement on a small carrier compared to a larger one.
I'm not saying they're more efficient, or even as efficient. I'm saying they allow you to avoid having a single-digit number of lynch pins in theater over three quarters of your naval doctrine is built around, and that with modern technologies it's worth considering if the same limitations that lead to their development in the first place still hold true.
You could, theoretically, build dedicated drone carriers. Sort of like that turk one, but without amphibious assault capabilities, so you can fit 50+ drones and not need to play musical chairs with the infantry equipment. But such a drone carrier would only be a force multiplier, sailing alongside a classic fleet carrier, not the center of a surface group. You can't run CAP with drones, and, even if you could, I don't think the military wants the associated liabilities.
Because SM-3s can't into hypersonic missiles, probably. How long can we stay ahead of the missile vs missile defense race so we can reliably shoot down AShMs?
The basic idea is that at some point it's simply too much risk to have a handful of $15 billion dollar carriers that if sunk would massively hurt us naval power for a decade
The problem is that it requires a massive expansion of personnel needed to field an equivalent amount of naval aviation and a massive expansion of infrastructure and logistics to account for them. In turn you'd also need more ships of other classes to protect and supply them.
Too controversial a name; Trump will never be put on a ship in fear of crew morale. Maybe 50 years from now when future zoomers barely know who Trump is.
There's never going to be another ship named after a newer president because logically soon USS Bill Clinton will be up for debate and the House/Senate will utterly shit itself, leading to further debacles if anyone suggests the USS George W Bush or USS Obongo
I think if the Bush is still in Service when Dubya keels over there is a chance they'll pull what they did with the USS McCain when Senator McCain died. They pulled "This ship is now named for the first all 3 John McCains instead of only the 2 Admirals) and with the carrier they'll state "We're dropping the H. W. from the ship's name so It's now named for both President Bushs" but beyond that I agree that the days of Presidents for ship names is over.
A cursory glance shows Presidents Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush had ships named after them during their lifetimes
Some would argue that there's no point because a carrier strike group could theoretically be impossible to protect from a large enough volley of anti ship missiles. Although a carrier strike group is designed specifically for that scenario so we don't yet know if the defenses are good enough to intercept and destroy a swarm on anti ship missiles.
If it is possible then everyone needs them and whoever has the most is the most powerful country on earth. If it's not possible to protect them from countermeasures then the question then becomes, what's more expensive? The incredible missile swarm or the carrier strike group? Would depend on how many could be stopped, if it's a silly number necessary to make it through and actually sink it- then a carrier strike group could still make a lot of sense.
There is also the question of range, obviously with enough nuclear ICBMs you will sink a carrier strike group. Maybe a stealth nuke drone? I'm not sure. Modern warfare is advancing at a rapid pace yet again. The truth is that nobody knows and nobody will know unless we're all dumb enough to start WW3. Assuming we survive long enough to see the results.
But anyway, carriers would still serve a purpose depending on what exactly is necessary to sink them. If one hypersonic wunderwaffe kamikaze stealth nuke drone is all that's necessary then they are completely obsolete. If you need a tremendous amount of effort and volume of fire to sink them then they might still be a powerful tool on the battlefield.
If your anti ship weapons have to be dangerously close to have a chance then a sortie might stop you. A preemptive strike might stop you.
Anti ship weapons have to be
A.) Undetectable
or
B.) Ridiculously fast (hypersonics)
or
C.) Intercontinental capable
and
D.) Practically produced in great numbers
Very difficult technological capabilities to accomplish. You may need just one or all of the above to have a chance at making the carrier fundamentally obsolete.
This is what the F14 was for... intercepting saturation attacks with a mass of phoenix missiles to make it manageable for AEGIS to clean up.
F/A XX better fricking be the Mach 2.8 heavy payload defender of the fleet we all want.
But anyway, carriers would still serve a purpose depending on what exactly is necessary to sink them. If one hypersonic wunderwaffe kamikaze stealth nuke drone is all that's necessary then they are completely obsolete. If you need a tremendous amount of effort and volume of fire to sink them then they might still be a powerful tool on the battlefield.
If your anti ship weapons have to be dangerously close to have a chance then a sortie might stop you. A preemptive strike might stop you.
Anti ship weapons have to be
A.) Undetectable
or
B.) Ridiculously fast (hypersonics)
or
C.) Intercontinental capable
and
D.) Practically produced in great numbers
Very difficult technological capabilities to accomplish. You may need just one or all of the above to have a chance at making the carrier fundamentally obsolete.
They can't see well given the annoying plasma-screen effect and will probably get clocked in boost phase what with all the paranoid ICBM/IRBM detection tech in place. SM2er block4, SM3, SM6, can pretty easily knock out an isolated hypersonic attack. If you've watched "to sink a carrier", it seems like they'd only really be useful as the coup de gras of a very opportune saturation attack. Definitely useful, but not overwhelming.
Why would we get rid of one? JFK is currently fitting out and will be ready next year. also need 9 assault carriers with 9 America Class on the way and probably more to be ordered.
We need 20 submersible aircraft carrier submarines that launch drone attack craft than piloted craft. Manned aircraft and jumbo aircraft carriers are defunct and outdated already.
The WW2 Japanese foresaw the future of naval warfare.
>50 aircraft carriers >Each one for each state >The USS California is ridden with homeless homosexuals shitting on the deck 24/7 >The USS Ohio is in full anarchy with Black folk having mostly peaceful protests across the runway. >USS Texas carries more crewed artillery howitzers than aircraft and is constantly attempting to have the US gov't acknowledge the ship as its own independent US territory.
The libertarian in me says no. Then again i'm not in the CIA and i'm not in the state department. I don't know what goes on in the world but perhaps we do need that many. I would say we don't need the coast guard or the army national guard though.
The Texas should be brought back but not as a combat ship but more of an ambassador vessel sailing around the world with crew wearing period-authentic uniforms operating everything in its restored original state. Restoring the guns might be too much, if only due to crew safety concerns, but everything else is fine.
No. Carriers are probably just fodder for hypersonic missiles.
However moronic Chinese nationalists because the US has them, want to have more so they waste money investing in them.
And so when a war happens they hilariously lose them all when it turns out that they are in the same position as tanks vs javelins and battleships vs dive bombers.
After looking at other nations' armed forces, I came to the conclusion that US is the only one with pre-determined goals and equipment to achieve them.
Example: Finland, Norway, Sweden share a goal to defend against possible Russian aggression, but they don't have enough to actually discourage an invasion. They have enough to make it costly.
US example: US has commitments to Taiwan and also Europe. They calculate how many aircraft carriers are needed with reserve and actually build them in numbers enough to make invasion very unlikely to begin with.
US example 2, historical: When Russians built something US thought was more advanced than it actually was (Mig-25 for example) during the Cold War, US actually tried to counter it and built better aircraft. No European states do something like this, not during the cold war, not in modern times.
No, we need 20
No, we need 12
This is the correct answer. The USN actually needs a minimum of 12 carriers to cover operational needs.
I fricking hate prime numbers
Depends on definition of need.
more needed
Yes, 3 for each ocean, a few in their maintenance cycle, and 1 or 2 spares.
With the rise of drones and increased coordination, I'd like to see the US at least explore the idea of distributing their naval aviation wing across several dozen much smaller carriers. It would make naval aviation much less vulnerable to hypersonic ASBMs whether those are still a paper tiger at the moment or not.
Smaller carriers are inefficient. They are economical, if that's all you can afford, but they are, per ton of displacement, less capable than larger ones, because machinery and electronics take up roughly the same amount of displacement on a small carrier compared to a larger one.
I'm not saying they're more efficient, or even as efficient. I'm saying they allow you to avoid having a single-digit number of lynch pins in theater over three quarters of your naval doctrine is built around, and that with modern technologies it's worth considering if the same limitations that lead to their development in the first place still hold true.
You could, theoretically, build dedicated drone carriers. Sort of like that turk one, but without amphibious assault capabilities, so you can fit 50+ drones and not need to play musical chairs with the infantry equipment. But such a drone carrier would only be a force multiplier, sailing alongside a classic fleet carrier, not the center of a surface group. You can't run CAP with drones, and, even if you could, I don't think the military wants the associated liabilities.
>You can't run CAP with drones
Yet, but there is no great technical obstacle to so doing and in nation-state war everything in a kill box is fair game.
Why not spend the per-plane savings you get with the large carrier on a destroyer stacked with SM3s?
Because SM-3s can't into hypersonic missiles, probably. How long can we stay ahead of the missile vs missile defense race so we can reliably shoot down AShMs?
The basic idea is that at some point it's simply too much risk to have a handful of $15 billion dollar carriers that if sunk would massively hurt us naval power for a decade
The SM-3 was specifically designed to engage hypersonic threats. You may be thinking of the SM-6 (modernized SM-2).
The problem is that it requires a massive expansion of personnel needed to field an equivalent amount of naval aviation and a massive expansion of infrastructure and logistics to account for them. In turn you'd also need more ships of other classes to protect and supply them.
ngl, USS Donald J. Trump looks lit
Too controversial a name; Trump will never be put on a ship in fear of crew morale. Maybe 50 years from now when future zoomers barely know who Trump is.
There's never going to be another ship named after a newer president because logically soon USS Bill Clinton will be up for debate and the House/Senate will utterly shit itself, leading to further debacles if anyone suggests the USS George W Bush or USS Obongo
the next one is slated to be named after JFK, then Enterprise, then Doris Miller, then it is TBD.
I think if the Bush is still in Service when Dubya keels over there is a chance they'll pull what they did with the USS McCain when Senator McCain died. They pulled "This ship is now named for the first all 3 John McCains instead of only the 2 Admirals) and with the carrier they'll state "We're dropping the H. W. from the ship's name so It's now named for both President Bushs" but beyond that I agree that the days of Presidents for ship names is over.
I'm fine with the USS Clinton if it's shaped like a gigantic floating dick.
>Obongo
His name is reserved for an advanced strike drone.
Well he has to die first too. The military usually doesn't like to name things after living people.
A cursory glance shows Presidents Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush had ships named after them during their lifetimes
Shit i just réalised carter is still alive
Some would argue that there's no point because a carrier strike group could theoretically be impossible to protect from a large enough volley of anti ship missiles. Although a carrier strike group is designed specifically for that scenario so we don't yet know if the defenses are good enough to intercept and destroy a swarm on anti ship missiles.
If it is possible then everyone needs them and whoever has the most is the most powerful country on earth. If it's not possible to protect them from countermeasures then the question then becomes, what's more expensive? The incredible missile swarm or the carrier strike group? Would depend on how many could be stopped, if it's a silly number necessary to make it through and actually sink it- then a carrier strike group could still make a lot of sense.
There is also the question of range, obviously with enough nuclear ICBMs you will sink a carrier strike group. Maybe a stealth nuke drone? I'm not sure. Modern warfare is advancing at a rapid pace yet again. The truth is that nobody knows and nobody will know unless we're all dumb enough to start WW3. Assuming we survive long enough to see the results.
But anyway, carriers would still serve a purpose depending on what exactly is necessary to sink them. If one hypersonic wunderwaffe kamikaze stealth nuke drone is all that's necessary then they are completely obsolete. If you need a tremendous amount of effort and volume of fire to sink them then they might still be a powerful tool on the battlefield.
If your anti ship weapons have to be dangerously close to have a chance then a sortie might stop you. A preemptive strike might stop you.
Anti ship weapons have to be
A.) Undetectable
or
B.) Ridiculously fast (hypersonics)
or
C.) Intercontinental capable
and
D.) Practically produced in great numbers
Very difficult technological capabilities to accomplish. You may need just one or all of the above to have a chance at making the carrier fundamentally obsolete.
This is what the F14 was for... intercepting saturation attacks with a mass of phoenix missiles to make it manageable for AEGIS to clean up.
F/A XX better fricking be the Mach 2.8 heavy payload defender of the fleet we all want.
They can't see well given the annoying plasma-screen effect and will probably get clocked in boost phase what with all the paranoid ICBM/IRBM detection tech in place. SM2er block4, SM3, SM6, can pretty easily knock out an isolated hypersonic attack. If you've watched "to sink a carrier", it seems like they'd only really be useful as the coup de gras of a very opportune saturation attack. Definitely useful, but not overwhelming.
11? We need 21 3 for each of the 7 seas.
I think we can skip the Arctic Ocean.
nice try RoboHitler
I don't care if they are carriers or destroyers or fricking ships on the line, we need some more hulls built for the arctic and in the arctic.
Frankly, 12 is not enough. 20 is not enough
Why would we get rid of one? JFK is currently fitting out and will be ready next year. also need 9 assault carriers with 9 America Class on the way and probably more to be ordered.
No, we need more. China will be operating from terrestrial airfields, no matter how good our carriers are, they'll be operating at a disadvantage.
We need more dakka, no matter what anyone says.
We need 20 submersible aircraft carrier submarines that launch drone attack craft than piloted craft. Manned aircraft and jumbo aircraft carriers are defunct and outdated already.
The WW2 Japanese foresaw the future of naval warfare.
I quite like this idea. Makes a lot of sense, but a big one would be a very costly loss.
Drones can fit inside missile launch tubes.
>1,7 times longer than a jumbo jet
fricking ridiculous how big it got just because of the 3 planes
The US needs at least 50 aircraft carriers
>50 aircraft carriers
>Each one for each state
>The USS California is ridden with homeless homosexuals shitting on the deck 24/7
>The USS Ohio is in full anarchy with Black folk having mostly peaceful protests across the runway.
>USS Texas carries more crewed artillery howitzers than aircraft and is constantly attempting to have the US gov't acknowledge the ship as its own independent US territory.
Well we can't have another USS Texas, not when the real USS Texas is getting refurbished (with VLS cells but you didn't hear that from me)
Imagine the uss texas rolling up and becoming a permanent 300 vls cell site in taiwan, that would scare china shitless.
>in taiwan
>thinking the upgraded USS Texas will stay a USS
Some of you uniongays are alright, keep away from the shoreline tomorrow
Its all Texas now
>USS Maine explode again but this time it's the nuclear reactor and it was in port at Sevastopol
The libertarian in me says no. Then again i'm not in the CIA and i'm not in the state department. I don't know what goes on in the world but perhaps we do need that many. I would say we don't need the coast guard or the army national guard though.
We already have 20 carriers
10 Nimitz
1 Ford
7 Wasp
2 America
We'll likely have 22 at least briefly next year as Kennedy and Bougainville are commissioned
yeah
The Texas should be brought back but not as a combat ship but more of an ambassador vessel sailing around the world with crew wearing period-authentic uniforms operating everything in its restored original state. Restoring the guns might be too much, if only due to crew safety concerns, but everything else is fine.
The US needs those aircraft to force primitive people to accept transgender ass sex
You literally can't stop thinking about transgender ass sex. Complete infatuation.
The alternative is social unrest in a draft situation. Depends on your goals.
How many strokes is the penalty for hitting it into the ocean?
No. Carriers are probably just fodder for hypersonic missiles.
However moronic Chinese nationalists because the US has them, want to have more so they waste money investing in them.
And so when a war happens they hilariously lose them all when it turns out that they are in the same position as tanks vs javelins and battleships vs dive bombers.
After looking at other nations' armed forces, I came to the conclusion that US is the only one with pre-determined goals and equipment to achieve them.
Example: Finland, Norway, Sweden share a goal to defend against possible Russian aggression, but they don't have enough to actually discourage an invasion. They have enough to make it costly.
US example: US has commitments to Taiwan and also Europe. They calculate how many aircraft carriers are needed with reserve and actually build them in numbers enough to make invasion very unlikely to begin with.
US example 2, historical: When Russians built something US thought was more advanced than it actually was (Mig-25 for example) during the Cold War, US actually tried to counter it and built better aircraft. No European states do something like this, not during the cold war, not in modern times.
You're right, we need at least 14.
You could fit a cozy par 4 on a carrier