Comments on: The Future of Carriers Threatened?

By: Craig Simons

Craig Simons — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:24:36 +0000

Ten Nimitz size carriers should be enough to cope with a military campaign that would undoubtedly be localized to one continent. Its hard to imagine a scenario now where the entire world would be at war, whereby all corners of the globe would need to be covered. Any talk of running down large carrier capability though would be dangerous. They are still needed in an uncertain world. The UK and France are building three or four large carriers , and whilst the latter cannot be trusted or counted upon in a crisis, these assets would ease the burden on US Navy forces. Better to have them and not need them, than to need them and not have them.

By: Chris

Chris — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 15:52:49 +0000

Aircraft carriers are certainly not obsolete, especially considering that the number of our Air Force bases are shrinking or consolidating around the world. Carriers are a valuable national resource, especially when considering their ability to protect the sea lanes by being able to cover vast distaces of ocean with a large, effective air group.
The problem lies in the fact the the U.S Navy is currently incapable of building warships, any type of warship, cheaper with the types of capability desired. Our economy, especially now, will not be able to sustain large deck nuclear carriers that cost ten plus billions of dollars. The true advantage of the carrier is both the number and capabilities of the aircraft in the airwing. It would seem that we could still build large deck carriers that have fairly big airwings for a lot cheaper than we currenlty have, and I’d like to know why the cost of these ships continue to sky rocket when basically we have the same systemic design we’ve had for three decades. Even the vaunted new capabilities of the Ford do not seem, on the surface at least, to add any true all out war fighting capability to the carrier vis a vis costs. A carriers primary job is to launch and recover aircraft, allowing our navy to bring the fight from the sea to our potential aggressor. Does the navy believe that the price of having electromagnetic catapults, new arresting gear system, new radar system(which Aegis escorts already provide), really provide a qualitative advantage to the point where we will not be able to afford the number of carriers needed to cover all sorts of regional contingencies?
Something is going to have to give; either the navy is going to have to strong arm shipbuilders into producing lower costs ships across the board, or the navy will have to scale back certain advances in design, or the Navy is going to have to get used to the idea of not having enough ships to do its basic job. In any event, it seems that the nay itself is dooming the aircraft carrier.

By: Home

Home — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 08:40:04 +0000

Just think, one year of Iraq funding could give us an even dozen Ford class carriers, replacing the entire Nimitz class fleet.

By: marcel meza

marcel meza — Sun, 04 Nov 2007 09:19:22 +0000

When is the military going to bring out all of the new cool future toys.The kind of toys, man kind should not have,but does.For example a space fleet of carriers a.k.a star ships guarding this planet,and moon.I am just a sci.fi geek that browse through this web site and read some of this article.I will join the service soon,and hopeing to see fantastic things like that in my life time.

By: 22lr

22lr — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:47:39 +0000

Roy Smith
Yo right on there, my view on it to the letter. The UN will not let the United States defend her self, and they sure wont.
Carriers still play a vital role deterance role. What nation would play against a single carrier of F-35s, how about 12 carriers of F-35s. Deterance is a big reason we never fought the Cold War, and if the cards are played right, we wont have to nuke Iran. Its like the F-22. “Lets not ask what nation we will fly the F-22 against, but what nation will fly against the F-22.” Wars should be avoided, and if we still have to fight em, carriers offer a huge punch. Bombers still rule though when ever you need lots of firepower.

By: Captain Rudy

Captain Rudy — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 04:16:19 +0000

The time of Carriers is comming to an end. With the range of the strategic bombers the only mission left for carriers is close in support. This is more appropriately performed by LHAs or other amphibious platforms with vstol and helo capability. Large deck expensive carrier numbers should be reduced by at least 40%.

By: 22lr

22lr — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 03:38:16 +0000

I wouldn’t mind a FDR, but theres many names I would put before his. That said, when lead starts flying theres many things you cant have to many of. Bullets, bombs, airplanes, and ships just to name a few. Id say 12 is a min id like to see at least 14+.

By: Moose

Moose — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:24:06 +0000

Ships are Named after republican presidents because until recently the GOP controlled Congress and thus the Navy’s budget. Its the same reason 5 million government buildings and airports are named abter bush Mk1 and Reagan. With the Dems in charge, look to see more Democrats. Personally, I think FDR deserves a Carrier considering he not only won WW2 but was basically the Navy’s Patron saint during his tenure.

By: BT

BT — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:22:05 +0000

I love these big ticket program debates. Ten is still too many, especially if one looks decades out. 6–8 carriers by 2030 is a reality. That should get the Cold Warriors’ blood boiling. I am not in favor of small carrier Euro trash styles to take their places either.
The USN needs to quit whining about not having a 600 ship navy anymore. Each ship costs billions of dollars, and I don’t care what it does, it is too much to buy in large numbers. If they need more, design something cheaper, and smaller and more relevent.

By: Ace_NoOne

Ace_NoOne — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:43:57 +0000

@demophilus: Thanks for the info, I’ll look into that.