What will make carriers obsolete?

[rh71]

Dropship drones will make mail carriers obsolete, yes.

 

[Ventanni]

Carriers will become obsolete when their cost/benefit ratio drops in favor of something better. As of now, carriers are, by far, the most expensive warship in the US Navy. In fact, you can operate four Iowa class battleships for less than it cost to operate one Nimitz class carrier. On top of that, they operate in battle groups, so the true operating cost must incorporate the Aegis cruisers, submarines, destroyers, and resupply ships that go with it. With that said, they pack an enormous amount of firepower and have a tremendous amount of versatility, both in war, preventing war, and peacetime operations for what they can do. The US Navy's amphibious warfare fleet, all 10 in total, do a fantastic job of fulfilling the role of humanitarian missions, but true supercarriers are much superior with the level of air dominance they can achieve.

I don't see supercarriers being replaced, but only evolving into more drone oriented ships, and with a lot more drone craft. Think something like a swarm ship, but it will be difficult to replace true pilots. Additionally, I think we will see long range, high power rail gun technology begin to supplement the strike capabilities of aircraft. Still, there will always be a need to have eyes closer to the ground that aircraft will provide over long range run guns. Due to the incredible destructive power of today's weaponry, we probably will never see the likes of true, ultra heavy armored battleships. Instead, this heavy firepower will be spread out across more ships, with more emphasis on active defense systems and stealth technology. This is really no different than it is today.

The only real limiting factor to this so far is the power generation systems within today's naval warships. Rail guns will supplant standard artillery at some point; it's only a matter of time (~10+ years). Only the Zumwalts and the carriers have the power generation capabilities to power rail guns though, but that will change over time. We'll probably see the Arleigh Burke class have electric drives added, and as new warships come online, they will be built to incorporate the power hungry weapon systems of today's Navy.

As for bringing back battleships, it's never going to happen. The battleships are unsurpassed in their role at delivering large quantities of heavy ordinance to within 20 miles of the coastline. No warships can do it more cheaply than a battleship for poundage of ordinance. But this is all they're good at, and despite the drastically higher operating cost, carriers can fulfill many, many more roles for the dollar, and do the job like that of a battleship. The only role for the battleship nowadays is to refurbish them into high power, long range surface combatants, but it's too late for that now. The Zumwalts are already built, and require a lot less manpower to operate.

 

[NoTine42]

Military Airplanes aren’t huge because of people. It’s more of the physics that require size need to carry enough fuel and munitions to fly really fast with a long range (distance of travel) that makes planes large.

Drones to give options that the military would not otherwise have, they would never want to send a human up in a small, but slow plane that only carries 1 missile, but drones are OK for such a use.

Drones on the same number of large “carriers” wouldn’t work, they would need to have 9+ smaller drone ships per carrier to make up for combat range.

 

[Ns1]

anti carrier ballistic missiles

why don't they already have this?

 

[dave_the_nerd]

why don't they already have this?

China does. Iran probably does, but I don't know.

 

[urvile]

China does. Iran probably does, but I don't know.

This. If a country is advanced enough they have the capacity to design and build weapons that counters other country's weapons. It's just common sense and not a tom clancy novel. Although I did really enjoy those novels when I was a teenager.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_race
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile

Speaking of advanced weaponry. This one is a personal favourite:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pigeon

I will just add that the US is seriously advancing their anti ship ballistic missile capabilities in response:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System

And on and on it goes. The amount of money involved in defence R&D globally is staggering. We are talking about metric fucktons here.

 

[lxskllr]

Tranes. (Not trains.) They're hard to stop.

 

[IronWing]

Carriers will never become obsolete.

 

[ElFenix]

Uh oil tankers are slow as molasses while a modern aircraft carrier is pretty quick... Plus a tanker is just flat out designed wrong to be a carrier type of craft even with a deck on it...

But what is already making carriers obsolete is their size period (also just what you said drones and missiles I would think)... I think we should invest in many more destroyers and cruisers and also consider building 20-25 plane aircraft carriers which would be much smaller and many and I mean many more nuclear subs...

you mean like the America or the Wasp?

 

[BurnItDwn]

it sounds like you are talking about aircraft carriers, but, im gonna pretend you said carrier pigeons.
The answer is the Telegraph!

 

[Ventanni]

Amphibious Warfare ships can be operate as small aircraft carriers (~20-24 F-35B's or Harrier II's), and have done so successfully in the past, but they don't have access to the C-2 Greyhound cargo planes, which require a catapult to operate. Surprisingly, one of the simple, but big advantages that the US Navy has over other world navies is its ability to transport big item parts to their carriers while out at sea. Obviously, other navies can transport people and mail just fine, but they have to wait to get back to port to gain access to special parts.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Force fields.

 

[tynopik]

Amphibious Warfare ships can be operate as small aircraft carriers (~20-24 F-35B's or Harrier II's), and have done so successfully in the past, but they don't have access to the C-2 Greyhound cargo planes, which require a catapult to operate.

The USN is replacing the C-2 with Ospreys

 

[tynopik]

why don't they already have this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile

 

[Starbuck1975]

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

a long range, extremely fast and accurate missile will make carriers obsolete. One such missile cost around like what? $500k USD to make? a carrier costs billions and further millions to maintain each year.
All major powers who are building carrier fleets like USA and China should focus their military R&D on these missiles instead.

 

[JEDI]

a long range, extremely fast and accurate missile will make carriers obsolete. One such missile cost around like what? $500k USD to make? a carrier costs billions and further millions to maintain each year.
All major powers who are building carrier fleets like USA and China should focus their military R&D on these missiles instead.

the exocet anti-ship missile has been around since the 1970s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet

over the years, it's range has been improved.
in 40yrs, no one has figured out a way to stop it.
ie: the US strategy is to move the carrier further and further away from shore.

which is very puzzling why the US chose the F35 Joint Strike Fighter as the carrier plane replacement.
it has shorter range than the Hornets and Falcons it's replacing.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

the exocet anti-ship missile has been around since the 1970s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet

over the years, it's range has been improved.
in 40yrs, no one has figured out a way to stop it.
ie: the US strategy is to move the carrier further and further away from shore.

Which is why the carrier is already border-line obsolete. They're fine as a show of force in peacetime and to give the righties a good "America! Fuck Yeah!!" hard-on. If you need to threaten Iraq or some other 3rd world tank army, sure, park a carrier off the coast and rain down destruction. But if the shit ever hit the fan for real and we wound up in a real shooting war with a more modern power that had a buttload of antiship missiles the carriers would be really vulnerable and kept far out of harms way. Too easy to hit if you overwhelm the layered defenses with a lot of missiles, too big a black eye and loss of morale if they get sunk. Carriers are now what battleships were at the start of WW2. They look good, but their weaknesses would be exposed very quickly in a big war against an enemy with modern weapons.

 

[tynopik]

which is very puzzling why the US chose the F35 Joint Strike Fighter as the carrier plane replacement.
it has shorter range than the Hornets and Falcons it's replacing.

F-18 Hornet combat range (air-air mission): 400 nmi
F-35C combat radius: 640 nmi

 

[Bartman39]

"you mean like the America or the Wasp?"

Yes that is what I mean ElFenix...

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

the exocet anti-ship missile has been around since the 1970s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet

over the years, it's range has been improved.
in 40yrs, no one has figured out a way to stop it.
ie: the US strategy is to move the carrier further and further away from shore.

which is very puzzling why the US chose the F35 Joint Strike Fighter as the carrier plane replacement.
it has shorter range than the Hornets and Falcons it's replacing.

That’s the point. Imagine a carrier killer missile that actually has the range of an intercontinental ballistic missile that flys into space and falls down half way across the globe in under 10 minutes to strike their target.

Such missle does not even require warheads, it’s kinetic energy upon entering the atmpshere is good enough to blow a hole in any super carrier.

That alone will make carrier obsolete just as those short range anti ship missile had once make battleship obsolete.

The technology isn’t quite there yet. It is impossible to strike with such precision from so far away, especially if the target is moving. But some countries had been developing prototypes of it
https://www.google.com/amp/s/scout....-Killer-Missile-Hits-2500-Miles-101455153/Amp

 

[Darwin333]

That’s the point. Imagine a carrier killer missile that actually has the range of an intercontinental ballistic missile that flys into space and falls down half way across the globe in under 10 minutes to strike their target.

Such missle does not even require warheads, it’s kinetic energy upon entering the atmpshere is good enough to blow a hole in any super carrier.

That alone will make carrier obsolete just as those short range anti ship missile had once make battleship obsolete.

The technology isn’t quite there yet. It is impossible to strike with such precision from so far away, especially if the target is moving. But some countries had been developing prototypes of it
https://www.google.com/amp/s/scout....-Killer-Missile-Hits-2500-Miles-101455153/Amp

While some other antiship missiles are showing serious promise I doubt any country would be willing to launch one on an ICBM. The fact that it could, and in a lot of cases it would be almost reckless to discount that it was, a nuclear strike which would then force a nuclear retaliation before it even hit would make it too dangerous to use. There is no way to tell if an ICBM has a nuclear, conventional or kinetic warhead on it until it hits and standing policy is to shoot while the other guys missile(s) are still in the air.

 

[Pacfanweb]

Admirals used to say that about the battleship too. Carriers will become obsolete too, it's going to happen. It's just a question of energy now. Once we work out how to harness enough of it to power rail guns to destroy ships OTH or beam weapons strong enough to shoot down planes the carrier will wind up on the scrap heap with the long bow, the dreadnaught or the mounted knight. A game changer that came and went.

The Battleship really never became obsolete. The manning requirements is what did them in. That's really it.
There is still no replacement for what they can do in any navy today. Not even close, really.

The only thing WW2 proved about Battleships is that when they sailed with little to no air cover combined with poor AA, and someone like the US Navy could throw hundreds of planes against them, they were in trouble.

But US Battleships sailed the Pacific pretty much with impunity after AA fire came of age, with or without carrier protection. Even massed overwhelming kamikaze attacks never got close to sinking one.
The only Battleship the US Navy ever lost was at Pearl Harbor, and only two of them weren't returned to service.

They weren't obsolete at all. If they were, they wouldn't have returned 4 of them to service for Korea, the New Jersey (to rave reviews from our troops) for Vietnam, and all 4 Iowas again in the 80's. And the Marines were PISSED about them being decommissioned in the early 90's.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

The Battleship really never became obsolete. The manning requirements is what did them in. That's really it.
There is still no replacement for what they can do in any navy today. Not even close, really.

The only thing WW2 proved about Battleships is that when they sailed with little to no air cover combined with poor AA, and someone like the US Navy could throw hundreds of planes against them, they were in trouble.

But US Battleships sailed the Pacific pretty much with impunity after AA fire came of age, with or without carrier protection. Even massed overwhelming kamikaze attacks never got close to sinking one.
The only Battleship the US Navy ever lost was at Pearl Harbor, and only two of them weren't returned to service.

They weren't obsolete at all. If they were, they wouldn't have returned 4 of them to service for Korea, the New Jersey (to rave reviews from our troops) for Vietnam, and all 4 Iowas again in the 80's. And the Marines were PISSED about them being decommissioned in the early 90's.

They are obsolete because their big guns, characteristic of battleship, are terrible for shooting down planes and terrible for sinking submarines, and terrible for firing at agile destroyers/cruisers that can launch missiles that easily puncture holes in the armor of all battleships, sinking them before the battleships main guns can even get into firing range.

They are useless for modern day sea warfare unless you just want bunch of artillery on floating steel bunker for shore bombardment because that is what battleships are really, a floating bunker packed with heavy artillery.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

While some other antiship missiles are showing serious promise I doubt any country would be willing to launch one on an ICBM. The fact that it could, and in a lot of cases it would be almost reckless to discount that it was, a nuclear strike which would then force a nuclear retaliation before it even hit would make it too dangerous to use. There is no way to tell if an ICBM has a nuclear, conventional or kinetic warhead on it until it hits and standing policy is to shoot while the other guys missile(s) are still in the air.

Good point. ICBMs are out of the question I guess