4 ms·

The problem is that if you want one aircraft carrier on active deployment, you really need three physical carriers. One on patrol, one about to go on/off patrol

The problem is that if you want one aircraft carrier on active deployment, you really need three physical carriers. One on patrol, one about to go on/off patrol, and another in maintenance. So really 11 carriers lets you actively patrol 3, maybe 4 zones. And again, that's just one carrier in that area, if you can to concentrate resources you might get a few more there, but then you're delaying maintenance/training. If anything the US needs more carriers as recent years have taught the navy. https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/254568-how-many-aircraft-carriers-does-the-us-need https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/25... https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a35928241/navy-aircraft-carriers/ https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a359282...

pirate787 5y ago
Except that aircraft carriers are obsolete-- sitting ducks that will be sunk by long range guided missiles within hours of the next Great Power conflict. Submarine carriers with fleets of drones are the obvious replacement.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  So your solution for an expensive surface vessel is an even more expensive subsurface vessel that does the same thing?
- reissbaker 5y ago
  A true life-or-death Great Power conflict will likely end human civilization, regardless of who wins, due to nuclear weaponry. Why bother trying to win a war that everyone is bound to lose? Until then, submarine carriers are a lot more expensive.
  - ren_engineer 5y ago
    you are proving the point that aircraft carriers are useless for anything other than bullying 3rd world nations
    - njarboe 5y ago
      More like useless against counties that have nuclear weapons. There are probably only nine[1] of those. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_we...]
tsimionescu 5y ago
>If anything the US needs more carriers as recent years have taught the navy. This is an insane position. The US already has a bigger navy than the next 10 great navies combined, 8 of which are close allies. There has never in the history of the world been such a huge power imbalance (the British Empire at its height maintained a navy twice the size of its two biggest rivals). And you think they need a bigger one???
- scottLobster 5y ago
  Not so insane if your goal is serious force projection in two or more disconnected theaters simultaneously. The US Navy does a lot more than sink enemy ships. Given that the US is in North American and is on friendly terms with Canada and Mexico, the vast majority of our force projection is facilitated by the Navy. It's not about relative size, it's about desired capabilities. And if China ever makes a move on Taiwan, I think a lot of people will appreciate the "insanity" of those capabilities, just as they've appreciated our policing the world's oceans for the last 70 years.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    < And if China ever makes a move on Taiwan, I think a lot of people will appreciate the "insanity" of those capabilities How many carrier fleets do you need to protect a small colony? And of course, this is assuming the US would actually go to war with China over Taiwan, which is highly doubtful. > just as they've appreciated our policing the world's oceans for the last 70 years. That is highly debatable. Most of the world does not appreciate US imperialism.
    - manigandham 5y ago
      > "That is highly debatable. Most of the world does not appreciate US imperialism." Then I'll happily debate you and say that most of the word does appreciate US peacekeeping and aid. It's easy to throw around the imperialism word without context. What would you call the Belt and Road initiative by China which now practically owns Africa? And who do you think will defend against it when that situation escalates?

pirate787 5y ago

Except that aircraft carriers are obsolete-- sitting ducks that will be sunk by long range guided missiles within hours of the next Great Power conflict. Submarine carriers with fleets of drones are the obvious replacement.

ethbr0 5y ago
So your solution for an expensive surface vessel is an even more expensive subsurface vessel that does the same thing?
reissbaker 5y ago
A true life-or-death Great Power conflict will likely end human civilization, regardless of who wins, due to nuclear weaponry. Why bother trying to win a war that everyone is bound to lose? Until then, submarine carriers are a lot more expensive.
- ren_engineer 5y ago
  you are proving the point that aircraft carriers are useless for anything other than bullying 3rd world nations
  - njarboe 5y ago
    More like useless against counties that have nuclear weapons. There are probably only nine[1] of those. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_we...]

tsimionescu 5y ago

>If anything the US needs more carriers as recent years have taught the navy. This is an insane position. The US already has a bigger navy than the next 10 great navies combined, 8 of which are close allies. There has never in the history of the world been such a huge power imbalance (the British Empire at its height maintained a navy twice the size of its two biggest rivals). And you think they need a bigger one???

scottLobster 5y ago
Not so insane if your goal is serious force projection in two or more disconnected theaters simultaneously. The US Navy does a lot more than sink enemy ships. Given that the US is in North American and is on friendly terms with Canada and Mexico, the vast majority of our force projection is facilitated by the Navy. It's not about relative size, it's about desired capabilities. And if China ever makes a move on Taiwan, I think a lot of people will appreciate the "insanity" of those capabilities, just as they've appreciated our policing the world's oceans for the last 70 years.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  < And if China ever makes a move on Taiwan, I think a lot of people will appreciate the "insanity" of those capabilities How many carrier fleets do you need to protect a small colony? And of course, this is assuming the US would actually go to war with China over Taiwan, which is highly doubtful. > just as they've appreciated our policing the world's oceans for the last 70 years. That is highly debatable. Most of the world does not appreciate US imperialism.
  - manigandham 5y ago
    > "That is highly debatable. Most of the world does not appreciate US imperialism." Then I'll happily debate you and say that most of the word does appreciate US peacekeeping and aid. It's easy to throw around the imperialism word without context. What would you call the Belt and Road initiative by China which now practically owns Africa? And who do you think will defend against it when that situation escalates?