Carrier Groups - Necessary or Obsolete?

[Sukerkin]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18237029

This magazine article on the BBC is I think a nice launch platform {Yay! Naval operations pun attack! } for a discussion about the role that carriers played and still play in the projection of a nations authority around the globe.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18237029

This magazine article on the BBC is I think a nice launch platform {Yay! Naval operations pun attack! } for a discussion about the role that carriers played and still play in the projection of a nations authority around the globe.

I'm not an expert on the issue, but I hear a lot of things from people who claim to be.

Personally, I see that we (the US) use the heck out of them in our current wars. And the BBC article misses a couple of points, I believe.

In addition to being a mobile launching platform for attack, the AC is also a good platform for high-quality realtime local aerial recon, both fixed wing and helicopter type. In addition to putting bombs on the ground via fighter/bombers, Naval air can put boots on the ground, as well as being a vital link in supply lines and medical evacuations. This applies also to peacetime missions, including supplying humanitarian aid or evacuations of civilians. And, unlike a stationary air base, an enemy attack has to find it as well as hit it. The Six Day War comes to mind as a good reason not to have all one's flying assets on land-based airfields.

I don't know how many we need, but I do think they still serve a very useful role.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I don’t know but the Chinese obviously do not think they are obsolete...maybe

New Carrier

Chinese Carrier Buster Missles

 

[cdunn]

I'm not an expert on the issue, but I hear a lot of things from people who claim to be.

Personally, I see that we (the US) use the heck out of them in our current wars. And the BBC article misses a couple of points, I believe.

In addition to being a mobile launching platform for attack, the AC is also a good platform for high-quality realtime local aerial recon, both fixed wing and helicopter type. In addition to putting bombs on the ground via fighter/bombers, Naval air can put boots on the ground, as well as being a vital link in supply lines and medical evacuations. This applies also to peacetime missions, including supplying humanitarian aid or evacuations of civilians. And, unlike a stationary air base, an enemy attack has to find it as well as hit it. The Six Day War comes to mind as a good reason not to have all one's flying assets on land-based airfields.

I don't know how many we need, but I do think they still serve a very useful role.

The number that we have is about projecting power with rapid response. A carrier has to get there, and it takes a long time to steam from the Gulf of Mexico to the Persian Gulf... If you take the idea that you need them to project power world wide, I can justify about quite a number of full groups in my mind. 8 - 10 on the open waters at all times, 2-3 in dock. Some are more difficult to justify than others, due to domestic land facilities.

 

[arnisador]

They're still useful for projecting power and for operations off the coasts of less-developed nations--but in a WWIII scenario, I don't see them making the same sort of difference.