(04-04-2024, 08:16 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(04-04-2024, 08:08 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: Aircraft carriers have always been prime targets, which is why methods for their protection are continually evolving. Carriers do not sail on their own. When deployed, they are surrounded by a battle group which serve as picket ships/submarines with a primary mission of carrier protection. While advents in military technology provide advantages for tactical strikes, they cannot provide the strategic global projection of power like carriers.

I’m sure one day they will be rendered obsolete by weapons advancements. But as they stand now, drones (which are utilized onboard carriers), AI and robotics have limited local roles.

Those are good points.  My question would be, if they will one day be rendered obsolete, do we really want to start building another one?  The cost of an aircraft carrier, $16 billion just for the ship, along with the thousands of sailors and aircraft on board, and the protective ships sailing with them, is incredible.  If we build another one, we will have 12 of them.  

I'm always for a strong national defense, but historically, Generals and Admirals usually wind up fighting the last war, and not the next one.  (Schwartzkopf was the exception.)

It’s a question of when that obsolescence is so absolute that carriers are useless. While newer weapons, and their countermeasures, are always being developed, there is nothing which can provide that concentration of mobile sustained power in the near future (decadal). 

Carriers can’t be mothballed simply because another power claims to have a weapon to sink it. More importantly, the mission of the carrier battle group simply can’t be replaced by technology assets held in reserve for response. In order to keep sea lanes open and free for the benefit of the world, we have to be there, on station, actively patrolling.

---