3 ms·

The above commenter has exaggerated, but large aircraft carriers are indeed regarded as increasingly vulnerable to high-speed missiles. E.g., from [1]: "More

The above commenter has exaggerated, but large aircraft carriers are indeed regarded as increasingly vulnerable to high-speed missiles. E.g., from [1]: "More controversially, the navy remains wedded to new aircraft carriers, but at $13 billion each they are arguably more an outdated symbol of twentieth-century power than an effective weapon system for a future in which they will be increasingly vulnerable to attack by high-speed, maneuverable missiles that can be bought for a minuscule fraction of what a carrier costs." [1] https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/07/18/americas-indefensible-defense-budget/ https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2019/07/18/americas-indefen...

ckozlowski 7y ago
"they will be increasingly vulnerable to attack by high-speed, maneuverable missiles that can be bought for a minuscule fraction of what a carrier costs." Except that assertion is far from proven. Missiles of that type have been around since the 70s and 80s, and the Navy was planning for it then. They are a threat, yes. But they're not assuredly effective. Finding the carrier and then delivering a missile that has the range, sensor coverage, lethality, is not a trivial problem to solve, and there's trade-offs in every area. Discussing all of this in context is not easy, which is why this article is a nice one. Places like the NYtimes and others, while great in many areas, consistently seem to oversimplify defense issues. That's not to say that the threat from missiles to carries is one to be disregarded. But it needs to be understood that the defense against a carrier is not an easy one either. And while anti-ship missiles is a logical direction as far as cost vs. effectiveness, success is far from guaranteed.
imtringued 7y ago
That completely ignores their logistical utility. There are cheaper alternatives to aircraft carriers if you want to attack something but if you need a cargo plane to land near enemy territory for resupply then you either need an ally who provides you access to their airbase or you need an aircraft carrier.

ckozlowski 7y ago

"they will be increasingly vulnerable to attack by high-speed, maneuverable missiles that can be bought for a minuscule fraction of what a carrier costs." Except that assertion is far from proven. Missiles of that type have been around since the 70s and 80s, and the Navy was planning for it then. They are a threat, yes. But they're not assuredly effective. Finding the carrier and then delivering a missile that has the range, sensor coverage, lethality, is not a trivial problem to solve, and there's trade-offs in every area. Discussing all of this in context is not easy, which is why this article is a nice one. Places like the NYtimes and others, while great in many areas, consistently seem to oversimplify defense issues. That's not to say that the threat from missiles to carries is one to be disregarded. But it needs to be understood that the defense against a carrier is not an easy one either. And while anti-ship missiles is a logical direction as far as cost vs. effectiveness, success is far from guaranteed.

imtringued 7y ago

That completely ignores their logistical utility. There are cheaper alternatives to aircraft carriers if you want to attack something but if you need a cargo plane to land near enemy territory for resupply then you either need an ally who provides you access to their airbase or you need an aircraft carrier.