Carrier Roles in the Future

helimachoptor

An interesting article i think.

When will the US rivals advance to a stage that will negate the power projected by the carriers?
and who will be the first nation to lose a carrier in a military action?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_aircraft_carrier_boom

Aircraft carriers gain clout in naval power

• • Email
  • Print
  
  
  

AP – FILE -- In this Tuesday, April 12, 2011 file photo, France's flagship Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, …



By SLOBODAN LEKIC, AP Aviation Writer – Sun May 8, 5:57 am ET
ABOARD THE CHARLES DE GAULLE – Despite growing controversy about the cost and relevance of aircraft carriers, navies around the world are adding new ones to their inventories at a pace unseen since World War II.
The U.S. — with more carriers than all other nations combined — and established naval powers such as Britain, France and Russia are doing it. So are Brazil, India and China — which with Russia form the BRIC grouping of emerging economic giants.
"The whole idea is about being able to project power," said Rear Adm. Philippe Coindreau, commander of the French navy task force that has led the air strikes on Libya since March 22.
"An aircraft carrier is perfectly suited to these kinds of conflicts, and this ship demonstrates it every day," he said in an interview aboard the French carrier Charles de Gaulle, which has been launching daily raids against Moammar Gadhafi's forces since the international intervention in the Libyan conflict began March 22.
The 42,000-ton nuclear-powered carrier has been joined in this task by another smaller ship, Italy's 14,000-ton Giuseppe Garibaldi. None of the U.S. Navy's supercarriers have been involved, despite American participation in the war's initial phase.
The U.S. Navy still operates 11 nuclear-powered carriers, mostly Nimitz-class vessels displacing up to 100,000 tons.
The floating fortresses became the backbone of U.S. sea power after WWII, projecting military might around the world in crises and in conflicts such as Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan.
Lee Willett, head of the maritime studies program at the Royal United Services Institute, a London-based military think tank, said the war in Libya illustrated the usefulness of carriers to other navies with more regional interests.
France and Italy, the NATO nations closest to the North African coast, chose to deploy their ships on operations although they have air force bases within easy reach, he noted.
"All around the world there are major and not-so-major navies now looking into getting into some form of sea-based airpower," Willett said. "They may not want to be global powers but they certainly want to have some regional power-projection capability."
The exact number of aircraft carriers in service worldwide is difficult to establish because of the proliferation of vessels that are classified as amphibious warfare ships, helicopter carriers or even cruisers or destroyers — but that fit the classic definition of a carrier as a mobile air base with a flat deck from which aircraft take off and land.
These include the United States' eight 41,000-ton Wasp-class amphibious warfare ships, whose standard complement includes Harrier jets and SuperCobra helicopter gunships, in addition to transport choppers.
The French Mistral Class, Britain's HMS Ocean, and Spain's Juan Carlos I share the same concept of multipurpose ships that can carry strike jets, helicopters and hundreds of marines for amphibious landing operations.
Even Japan's two Hyuga class "destroyers" have the characteristic flat deck, effectively making them carriers despite their official designation.
"At the end of the day, the popularity of carriers is due to the fact that these are very flexible platforms that can be used for a wide variety of tasks and not just warfare," said Nate Hughes, director of military analysis at the U.S.-based think tank Stratfor.
The U.S. Navy is scheduled to induct the Gerald R. Ford, the lead ship of a new class three-ship class of supercarriers, in 2015. Each is expected to cost about $9 billion.
Other NATO nations adding flattops to their fleets include Britain, already building two ships, and France, which is considering procuring a second nuclear-powered vessel. Spain and Italy have just inducted two new flattops.
China and India are both in the process of acquiring revamped Soviet-built carriers, and India is also building its first homegrown flattop. Russia will modernize its Admiral Kuznetsov carrier next year to extend its life until after 2030, and plans to acquire French Mistral-class ships.
Brazil has completed an extensive refit of the recently acquired French carrier Foch — now renamed the Sao Paolo — which has become its navy's flagship.
"The BRIC navies in particular are all getting into ... major aircraft carriers," said Willett.
Military experts have long debated the relevance of aircraft carriers, which some have dismissed as relics of the Cold War.
"What many countries don't realize is that sustaining operations at sea is a very complex task," Hughes said. "The magnitude of the expense necessary to get to that sort of fixed wing capability that the U.S. and French navy have is difficult to overstate."
Some critics say the entire concept of the seagoing air base is now antiquated. They contend that advances in anti-ship weapons have turned the carriers into white elephants that are just too expensive to risk losing in a war.
While the mammoth floating airports bristling with jets and missiles appear invincible, the reality is that since World War II they have mostly been used in conflicts with far weaker opponents. They have yet to face off against modern navies with their array of carrier-killing ballistic missiles, super-torpedos, and supersonic cruise missiles.
"These new technologies make it easier to target carriers from much greater distances," said Benjamin Friedman, a research fellow with the Washington-based CATO Institute.
"Those technologies are set to advance faster than the ability to defend against them, meaning that in a couple of decades the carrier business may not be viable anymore."

constantg

quite interesting really. thing is how does it reflect modern thought when Britain has cancelled such essential platforms for a decade only to rebuild one?

Guess the falklands are gonna get a hammering sometime soon then

OS119

constantg wrote: »

quite interesting really. thing is how does it reflect modern thought when Britain has cancelled such essential platforms for a decade only to rebuild one?

the UK has got rid of the Invincible class not for doctrinal reasons, but because it was felt that there just weren't enough Harrier GR9 airframes left to maintain a viable shipboard asset until CVF/JSF comes into service. there was also a veiw, not that i share it, that GR9 was fine for 'the war' - Afghanistan - but not neccesarily good enough for 'a war' where it might face a SA-300/SU-27/30 threat.

to fight a 'Falklands mkII' campaign you'd need two carriers each with 16 or so Harrier GR9's - the Joint Harrier Force could never provide 32 GR9's and the current, carrier-trained pilots to fly them, so it was felt 'why bother?'.

there were potential options - particularly scrounging Harrier AV-8B+ airframes from the other Harrier operators to build up the force to a viable level, but as either the Harrier GR9 or Tornado GR4 fleet had to go to save money, it was felt that the 80+ GR4 fleet was a better bet in terms of combat capability that the 40+ GR9 fleet.

the_doctor

I had though that the UK lost a carrier in WWII. They seemed to think that it was acceptable to allow a carrier to travel in an extremely limited flotilla with limited anti aircraft gunnery.

helimachoptor wrote: »

An interesting article i think.

When will the US rivals advance to a stage that will negate the power projected by the carriers?
and who will be the first nation to lose a carrier in a military action?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_aircraft_carrier_boom

banie01

the_doctor wrote: »

I had though that the UK lost a carrier in WWII. They seemed to think that it was acceptable to allow a carrier to travel in an extremely limited flotilla with limited anti aircraft gunnery.

There have been numerous carriers sunk in action during world 2, via means such as airstrike, submarine attack and the british even managed to lose a carrier to surface gunnery during the Norwegian campaign as they had no recon aircraft airborne and were caught by suprise by German cruisers.
During WW2 there were heavy carrier losses sustained by all carrier operators, but particularly by the Japanese who lost 24 carriers(Incuding converted hulls) and the British who lost 10 including escort carriers.

I think the thrust of the article above is more towards who will be the 1st navy to lose a carrier to the assymetric threat offered by modern cruise/ballistic missiles and the difficulty in bringing your massive offensive force(Carriers) to bear in what is becoming an increasingly 'littoral' warfare scenario for navies.

roundymac

the_doctor wrote: »

I had though that the UK lost a carrier in WWII. They seemed to think that it was acceptable to allow a carrier to travel in an extremely limited flotilla with limited anti aircraft gunnery.

The UK lost at least 4 carriers, Courageous, Ark Royal, Eagle ( all to subs) and Hermes ( jap dive bombers). The US also lost 4 carriers, Lexington, Yorktown, Hornet and Wasp. The japs lost a rake of carriers including all the Pearl harbour fleet, Kaga Akagi, Hiryu, and Soryu.

MickJB1989

I don't think it's likely that asymmetrical warfare could eliminate an aircraft carrier. In terms of AQ, as far as I know they don't have cruise missile level tech, so would have to resort to a 9/11 style commercial plane turned suicide bomber. This isn't a viable way to attack a target that is mobile, stocked full of fast jets, has very effective radar, doesn't openly broadcast location to civilians, and if missed, then the attack would have no effect whatsoever i.e. it would crash into the sea rather than into other buildings if they had missed on 9/11.

Avgas

The idea that Britain really really NEEDs aircraft carriers is an assumption that has become a quasi-religious article of faith. The real reason why the RN will get the carriers is because of politics: the RN want them real bad and have lobbied hard; the Labour admin who signed off on the deal did not want to be a govt. remembered for ever canceling carriers; oh and its jobs in the UK in shipyards.

As regards the Falklands, the air base at Mount Pleasant changes the game totally-as long as even a token force is kept there, the Argies are very unlikely to try a conventional invasion (there are four Eurofighters down there now AFAIK). That does not preclude the Argies trying something at sea...viz something short of open hostilities...like the Cod War in the 1970s.....

The fact is that if greater money were spent on MORE Type 45 destroyers and in particular in evolving that design the British taxpayer might get a lot more for their buck.....that platform could provide the UK with its own Ballistic Missile Defence platform ...or at least a starting off point. Consider the likelihood that various states will deploy such missile with Nuclear warheads...especially Iran and maybe later Saudi Arabia...maybe even Egypt......then that would make sense.

The Sylver launchers (it has 48 of them) can probably fire a cruise missile such as the SCALP (i.e. Storm Shadow) without a great deal of modification which is already used by RAF. In a scenario like Libya, where RAF Tornados have fired storm shadows, it should be feasible that a Type 45 could fire a dozen and simply re-arm/replenish at sea. Given that most manned aircraft now attack ‘stand-off’......why not fire them from ships stand-off?

A proposed upgrade of the gun to an extended range 155mm model would give any Type 45 real usefulness and many PK/lower intensity scenarios.....

The RN was supposed to have a dozen Type 45, and so far they are promised 6 and an unclear number of new Type 26 frigates...which I’ll believe when I see it. The RN will end up with 2 carriers and not much more than 20 frigates and destroyers...two many chiefs and not enough indians?......

The can also apparently carry about 2 platoons worth of Royal Marines and a Merlin-not by any means fantastic, but in one ship quite a ‘force package’.

Would six extra Type 45s be worth two carriers? In symbolic terms never. But in actual cost, value and operational use I’m not so sure.

Carriers are ‘glamour’. The reality is frigates and destroyers are vital ‘bread and butter’ and if you consider subs and mines to be the main high intensity naval threat, allied with air or shore fired 3rd gen. missiles, then a flexible destroyer with a bias towards AA seems is a crucial investment.

Using carriers for situations like LIbya is like using a land-rover for the school run + shopping: yes it can do those jobs, and is roomy and tough, but your wasting a lot of spend on capability your not needing, like off road that you never get to use. A cheaper helicopter carrier such as HMS Ocean would suffice.

Equally the French Navy are desperate to prove the relevance of their Rafale/Carrier combo......but a mix of amphibious ships and destroyers could provide effective support if they were prepared to fire stand off precision strike missiles and fly-off appropriate naval helicopters...would a Navalized version of the Eurcopter Tiger (or a Sea Apache) not have been as effective at the Rafale’s on the night Benghazi was at risk? They don’t need a carrier to fly off from!

The orthodoxy that carriers are ‘necessary’ seems to me about as accurate at the view in the second world war that you had to have battleships (which yeah did get used but really...were far from war winners or decisive on the naval front).

helimachoptor

Good post Avgas

Capt'n Midnight

constantg wrote: »

quite interesting really. thing is how does it reflect modern thought when Britain has cancelled such essential platforms for a decade only to rebuild one?

Guess the falklands are gonna get a hammering sometime soon then

If the junta had waited a few months then the UK would have tansfered one carrier to Oz and scrapped another.

The loss of Hermes would have scuppered the war.

Capt'n Midnight

MickJB1989 wrote: »

I don't think it's likely that asymmetrical warfare could eliminate an aircraft carrier.

In war games staged by the US in the persian gulf the Iranians could take out a carier with explosive landen speed boats.

A good while ago the US looked at big dumb carriers. Basically large concrete pontoons that could be towed to where they were needed. A lot slower than a carrier but a lot tougher and far cheaper to replace.


Re the UK carriers through deck crusiers as one US comentator pointed out the most expensive part is the electronics , steel is cheap. ie. you should spend a little more and get a big carrier.

Anyone have a look at theregister to see them pointing out that the Royal Navy is spend loads of money on air defense destroyers instead of carriers , the missile armed boats can only effectively act effectively against aircraft at short ranges, where as the carriers that cost 50% more (without planes)
can perform many additional roles.

strange this coming from the same UK that bought you stuff like the first angled flight deck, the first VTOL jet in procudtion , the first jet , proper landing lights , first use of helicopters on carriers for troop deployment , (first use of carriers at night?) , first torpedo raid from carriers .....

MickJB1989

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

In war games staged by the US in the persian gulf the Iranians could take out a carier with explosive landen speed boats.

A good while ago the US looked at big dumb carriers. Basically large concrete pontoons that could be towed to where they were needed. A lot slower than a carrier but a lot tougher and far cheaper to replace.

Surely the reason you don't send out carriers unescorted is to stop small boat attacks just like that?

So essentially, the idea for the dumb carriers was based on the Mulberry harbours used after d day in ww2?

OS119

MickJB1989 wrote: »

Surely the reason you don't send out carriers unescorted is to stop small boat attacks just like that?

So essentially, the idea for the dumb carriers was based on the Mulberry harbours used after d day in ww2?

wasn't there some idea floating around about 'ice carriers' as well...

the US Navy did a lot of work on the threat of the 'swarm of small boats idea' - and they decided they had a real problem. but they didn't just leave it at that, they, and everyone else, undertook a massive programme of 'up-gunning' all their vessels - any modern warship - regardless of its size or role, is now coated with 7.62mm, 0.5inch, 20mm and 40mm rapid firing weapons, all specifically there to counter the 'swarm' threat.

so yes, there was a problem, but its been addressed - not cured, because nothing is every really cured, but addressed, and any such 'swarm' attack would not only be vastly less likely to succeed these days, but it would be vastly more expensive in term of losses incurred.

Capt'n Midnight

OS119 wrote: »

wasn't there some idea floating around about 'ice carriers' as well...

Yeah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pykrete

virtually industructable as ice adsorbs a lot of impact and heat , you can't crack up icebergs with explosives you just end up with an iceberg with lots of holes in it

only problem was that it would cost as much as making them out of steel