3 ms·

And yet the PLAN have been building carriers of their very own as they build up a navy which would be capable of challenging the USN.

magicsmoke 6y ago
Even South Korea is building their own aircraft carrier even though they have no foreseeable overseas conflicts. That's because despite all the talk about anti carrier missiles, a carrier's combat effectiveness still harder to degrade than land based airstrips because they can dodge. An airstrip covered in bomblets and mines is useless even if its aircraft hangers are intact. South Korea is investing in carriers because in a combat scenario with North Korea once the air force has sortied they still need a place to land and resupply. Even if all the airstrips in South Korea are cratered at least there's a carrier out at sea you can resupply at instead of ditching them after one sortie. All this revolves around the fact that launching and relaunching aircraft takes a lot of real estate, whether on land or on a floating metal island. Until there's a replacement everything that combat aircraft can do, maybe autonomous missile swarms that you can fire at a region and forget because they're intelligent enough to pick targets without someone in a plane handing them targeting info, then carriers will continue to be necessary. Also, radar and wireless equipment powerful and sophisticated enough to detect and flag targets while bombarded with ECM is much more expensive than the missiles and we currently can't make enough of them to send on one way missions.
- decafninja 6y ago
  Almost every aircraft used in countries' air forces are not carrier compatible. And while the US Navy is effectively like...the third? largest "air force" in the world, the very few other countries that even have fixed wing carrier naval aviation assets to begin with would be lucky to have a few dozen fighters at most. I see most carrier projects as a prestige item at this point. They aren't completely useless (yet), but I don't think their return on value during an active shooting war against a peer state is worth it. If South Korea was serious about using their proposed carriers in the manner you mention, they'd be replacing their remaining F-35A order with F-35Bs. China is also in a position where it can use carriers like how the US uses them - as a big stick to punish third world countries that can't fight back. Most other countries aren't in that position.
  - magicsmoke 6y ago
    SK is ordering 40 F35As and 20 F35Bs. 20 will fill the one carrier they're building. You're right that only carrier compatible planes can use this strategy, but having some planes usable after the initial sortie is better than none. Carriers and STOVL planes are more expensive after all, there's a cost benefit trade-off to be made here. But carrier survivability compared to airstrips does give them uses beyond just bullying countries overseas, at least until we get rid of the need for recoverable air assets entirely.
decafninja 6y ago
One could argue it's really the Type55 and their ever evolving submarines that are the bigger threat to taking on the US. Navy heads on.

magicsmoke 6y ago

Even South Korea is building their own aircraft carrier even though they have no foreseeable overseas conflicts. That's because despite all the talk about anti carrier missiles, a carrier's combat effectiveness still harder to degrade than land based airstrips because they can dodge. An airstrip covered in bomblets and mines is useless even if its aircraft hangers are intact. South Korea is investing in carriers because in a combat scenario with North Korea once the air force has sortied they still need a place to land and resupply. Even if all the airstrips in South Korea are cratered at least there's a carrier out at sea you can resupply at instead of ditching them after one sortie. All this revolves around the fact that launching and relaunching aircraft takes a lot of real estate, whether on land or on a floating metal island. Until there's a replacement everything that combat aircraft can do, maybe autonomous missile swarms that you can fire at a region and forget because they're intelligent enough to pick targets without someone in a plane handing them targeting info, then carriers will continue to be necessary. Also, radar and wireless equipment powerful and sophisticated enough to detect and flag targets while bombarded with ECM is much more expensive than the missiles and we currently can't make enough of them to send on one way missions.

decafninja 6y ago
Almost every aircraft used in countries' air forces are not carrier compatible. And while the US Navy is effectively like...the third? largest "air force" in the world, the very few other countries that even have fixed wing carrier naval aviation assets to begin with would be lucky to have a few dozen fighters at most. I see most carrier projects as a prestige item at this point. They aren't completely useless (yet), but I don't think their return on value during an active shooting war against a peer state is worth it. If South Korea was serious about using their proposed carriers in the manner you mention, they'd be replacing their remaining F-35A order with F-35Bs. China is also in a position where it can use carriers like how the US uses them - as a big stick to punish third world countries that can't fight back. Most other countries aren't in that position.
- magicsmoke 6y ago
  SK is ordering 40 F35As and 20 F35Bs. 20 will fill the one carrier they're building. You're right that only carrier compatible planes can use this strategy, but having some planes usable after the initial sortie is better than none. Carriers and STOVL planes are more expensive after all, there's a cost benefit trade-off to be made here. But carrier survivability compared to airstrips does give them uses beyond just bullying countries overseas, at least until we get rid of the need for recoverable air assets entirely.

decafninja 6y ago

One could argue it's really the Type55 and their ever evolving submarines that are the bigger threat to taking on the US. Navy heads on.