5 ms·

They’re huge, slow targets though. If war breaks out they’ll be the second thing to go after satellites. Great for these times when there isn’t open conflict b

They’re huge, slow targets though. If war breaks out they’ll be the second thing to go after satellites. Great for these times when there isn’t open conflict between major powers, though. You can easily park it next to some middle east country and bomb the crap out of them.

njarboe 6y ago
If nuclear (major) powers are blowing up each others carriers, avoiding a nuclear exchange is going to be difficult. Conventional weapon systems have been just for power projection and using on countries without nuclear weapons since WWII.
- Udik 6y ago
  I thought about that sometimes. It's funny how the size and cost (and size of the crew) of an aircraft carrier can work as a deterrent from sinking it. As in "this weapon is so expensive that, even if you can destroy it, you'd better not because that would bring an inevitable escalation". I wonder if major powers have devised plans to disable aircraft carriers without completely destroying them and killing the crews. It would make a lot of sense.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    Interesting idea. Similar to US troops stationed in South Korea; a "if you kill this smallish contingent of us, a lot more of us will come".
    - lazylizard 6y ago
      fat lot of good those "a lot of us" did for both the korean n vietnam wars?
claydavisss 6y ago
Any surface ship is basically as vulnerable to modern antiship missiles. Aircraft carriers have repeatedly proved their worth since WW2.
credit_guy 6y ago
> If war breaks out War doesn't just "break out". If tensions mount, the US can place its carriers 1000 miles or more away from any Russian or Chinese battery. At that distance, the carriers are not "huge and slow", they are tiny dots on a map and quite evasive too. In the time a hypersonic missile covers 1000 miles, a carrier can move a few miles.
- akmarinov 6y ago
  Missiles don’t just get fired to one position, they can adjust their heading to hit a moving target.
  - chomp 6y ago
    While this is true, there’s limits to the capabilities of many ballistic missiles, some are incapable of changing trajectory. A sufficiently advanced missile should be able to predict course of the carrier and intercept, but I’m sure enemy capability would be taken into account in a high tension scenario.
  - credit_guy 6y ago
    Yes, but homing on a moving target hundreds of miles away is no easy feat. The missile obviously can't do this by itself (like an air-to-air missile). It needs external guidance. There is no radar that has this type of range so you either need a satellite, or an AWACS airplane. In other words, the kill-chain will be quite complex. You can bet there are multiple countermeasures that can disrupt such a kill-chain (shot down the AWACS airplane, blind the satellite with laser, jam the spectrum for the incoming missile, deploy a smoke screen, etc). The simple indication that the "carrier killer" missiles are not such a sure thing is that the Chinese are busy building aircraft carriers themselves. Are they really stupid?
Balgair 6y ago
For France, it would be power projection into west and central Africa, northern South America, the Antarctic ocean, the Indian Ocean departments, and in the francophone Pacific ocean. Remember, France's longest land border is with Brazil and the non-metropole departments are ~1/5 French citizens. Francophone Africa overpopulates France herself by about 5x. Such a mobile base of operations and air power is worth it to her, per the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_entities_where_French_is_an_official_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_entities_w...

njarboe 6y ago

If nuclear (major) powers are blowing up each others carriers, avoiding a nuclear exchange is going to be difficult. Conventional weapon systems have been just for power projection and using on countries without nuclear weapons since WWII.

Udik 6y ago
I thought about that sometimes. It's funny how the size and cost (and size of the crew) of an aircraft carrier can work as a deterrent from sinking it. As in "this weapon is so expensive that, even if you can destroy it, you'd better not because that would bring an inevitable escalation". I wonder if major powers have devised plans to disable aircraft carriers without completely destroying them and killing the crews. It would make a lot of sense.
- ceejayoz 6y ago
  Interesting idea. Similar to US troops stationed in South Korea; a "if you kill this smallish contingent of us, a lot more of us will come".
  - lazylizard 6y ago
    fat lot of good those "a lot of us" did for both the korean n vietnam wars?

claydavisss 6y ago

Any surface ship is basically as vulnerable to modern antiship missiles. Aircraft carriers have repeatedly proved their worth since WW2.

credit_guy 6y ago

> If war breaks out War doesn't just "break out". If tensions mount, the US can place its carriers 1000 miles or more away from any Russian or Chinese battery. At that distance, the carriers are not "huge and slow", they are tiny dots on a map and quite evasive too. In the time a hypersonic missile covers 1000 miles, a carrier can move a few miles.

akmarinov 6y ago
Missiles don’t just get fired to one position, they can adjust their heading to hit a moving target.
- chomp 6y ago
  While this is true, there’s limits to the capabilities of many ballistic missiles, some are incapable of changing trajectory. A sufficiently advanced missile should be able to predict course of the carrier and intercept, but I’m sure enemy capability would be taken into account in a high tension scenario.
- credit_guy 6y ago
  Yes, but homing on a moving target hundreds of miles away is no easy feat. The missile obviously can't do this by itself (like an air-to-air missile). It needs external guidance. There is no radar that has this type of range so you either need a satellite, or an AWACS airplane. In other words, the kill-chain will be quite complex. You can bet there are multiple countermeasures that can disrupt such a kill-chain (shot down the AWACS airplane, blind the satellite with laser, jam the spectrum for the incoming missile, deploy a smoke screen, etc). The simple indication that the "carrier killer" missiles are not such a sure thing is that the Chinese are busy building aircraft carriers themselves. Are they really stupid?

Balgair 6y ago

For France, it would be power projection into west and central Africa, northern South America, the Antarctic ocean, the Indian Ocean departments, and in the francophone Pacific ocean. Remember, France's longest land border is with Brazil and the non-metropole departments are ~1/5 French citizens. Francophone Africa overpopulates France herself by about 5x. Such a mobile base of operations and air power is worth it to her, per the article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_entities_where_French_is_an_official_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_entities_w...