4 ms·

I'm not an expert or anything, but don't modern day drone capabilities mean that aricraft carriers are easy to destroy or incapacitate?

actionfromafar 2y ago
I think it's too early to tell. Carriers can carry drones, too.
- lkdfjlkdfjlg 2y ago
  What's your point? If I'm going to blow up a carrier with a drone, the fact that the carrier can also carry drones makes no difference.
  - actionfromafar 2y ago
    Well those drones could be counter drones right? With EM, explosives, nets, chaff or what have you.
dmurray 2y ago
People keep saying this, but the trend in warfare these days is for limited wars, not superpower against superpower. A modern carrier group has plenty of air defences and anti-drone capabilities to hold off a small- or medium-sized enemy, and it would still provide a very useful mobile platform to bomb them from.
ianburrell 2y ago
What kind of drones? People keep saying this but they don't specify the kind of drones. The small drones that are being used to drop grenades in Ukraine are useless in naval warfare, they fall into the ocean after few miles. The Houthis are using medium range Iranian drones to attack ships, but they have mostly been failures since they are easier to shoot down. Also, being controlled from land limits the numbers and makes vulnerable to jamming. They also don't have range to catch carriers out at sea. The longer range "drones" that Iranians have developed could change things. They are basically slow cruise missiles, not drones. But they could be used in large numbers because they are cheap. There is no indication they have developed anti-ship guidance which would bump up the price. However, they haven't had much effect in Ukraine, Israel, or Red Sea. Also, we haven't seen what counters to drones look like. The same guidance for autonomous drone could lead to accurate cannons taking them down. Cheap missiles could mean cheap defensive missiles to shoot down all the drones.
- onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
  Wouldn't aircraft carriers be able to shoot down slow cruise missiles extremely easily? And even a direct hit wouldn't come close to sinking an aircraft carrier. You'd probably need a dozens of direct hits. Multiple direct hits from torpedoes couldn't even sink an old, decommissioned aircraft carrier. Cruise missiles were not effective. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_United_States_Navy#Under_construction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_United_States_...
  - ianburrell 2y ago
    Definitely, they have been shot down lots as I mentioned. The problem is that they are cheap enough to have lots of them that can saturate the defenses. The Houthis and Iranians haven't been able to arrange mass attack, either cause they are drones or couldn't assemble enough at once. One other factor is that they mostly work for shore defense since carrier or aircraft would use more effective weapons. Direct hit would hurt a carrier. I don't we have warhead sizes for Iranian ones but normal anti-ship missiles are 500-1000lb. Those probably wouldn't sink but could cripple it, forcing it to withdraw or knocking it out of action which makes more vulnerable.
    - onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
      > I don't we have warhead sizes for Iranian ones but normal anti-ship missiles are 500-1000lb Shahed payloads are 100lb. This is so deep into hypothetical territory. They can't even fly far enough to make it to an aircraft carrier in the first place. They'd get shot down by hornets, long before they arrived, if they even could. You'd need a swarm of 10k of these to even attempt taking on an aircraft carrier. Iran can barely produce 1k per year. The US is building & decommissioning multiple aircraft carriers per year. If you think 10 shaheds even pose a threat to a lone Destroyer, you're kidding yourself. There's a reason an aircraft carrier has never been sunk.
      - ianburrell 2y ago
        Shahed is a range of drones from Shahed company. The Shahed 136 is the one your are talking about that Iran and Russia are making thousands. As I mentioned, they are limited usefulness in naval combat. I thought Iran was selling Russia low-cost long-range cruise missiles but hard to find article with drones and ballistic missiles. The Houthi do have copy of Iranian copy of Kh-55. The fact that rebels can build anti-ship missile, even a few, should be concerning. It means that more capable countries could build hundreds and overwhelm carrier group. Lots of aircraft carriers have been sunk. Are you thinking of only nuclear supercarriers? Cause of there has been no war where one could have been sunk. The Forrestal fire shows that they are vulnerable to a single rocket (Navy firefighting has gotten better as result). It doesn't matter if they are scuttled if destroyed by fire.
ineedaj0b 2y ago
No, you can shoot them down or have a destroyer’s smaller guns run defense
Daneel_ 2y ago
I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted for an honest question.
devjab 2y ago
We have recently had a few “navy scandals” here in Denmark because our navy has been ridiculously underfunded. They’ve done stuff like lending the cannons capable of fire to the ships that might need them and then pretended the others had working systems… Anyway, one of our destroyers (or whatever we have) which was near Israel at the beginning of the Gaza nightmare was targeted by some of those missile and drone attacks from that Iran proxy group that was shooting at ships. I’m sorry I’m not more informed on this anecdote by the way. To get to the point, our ship had 3 out of 5 defense systems fail completely, and, it still managed to shoot down or jam everything coming at it. If our basically defunct navy can deal with Iran drones and missiles, then I’m fairly certain an aircraft carrier can.
Ekaros 2y ago
On other side something like aircraft carrier is decent solution to launch those drones. And to repair, rearm, refuel them. In the end they are platforms to project air power.

actionfromafar 2y ago

I think it's too early to tell. Carriers can carry drones, too.

lkdfjlkdfjlg 2y ago
What's your point? If I'm going to blow up a carrier with a drone, the fact that the carrier can also carry drones makes no difference.
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  Well those drones could be counter drones right? With EM, explosives, nets, chaff or what have you.

dmurray 2y ago

People keep saying this, but the trend in warfare these days is for limited wars, not superpower against superpower. A modern carrier group has plenty of air defences and anti-drone capabilities to hold off a small- or medium-sized enemy, and it would still provide a very useful mobile platform to bomb them from.

ianburrell 2y ago

What kind of drones? People keep saying this but they don't specify the kind of drones. The small drones that are being used to drop grenades in Ukraine are useless in naval warfare, they fall into the ocean after few miles. The Houthis are using medium range Iranian drones to attack ships, but they have mostly been failures since they are easier to shoot down. Also, being controlled from land limits the numbers and makes vulnerable to jamming. They also don't have range to catch carriers out at sea. The longer range "drones" that Iranians have developed could change things. They are basically slow cruise missiles, not drones. But they could be used in large numbers because they are cheap. There is no indication they have developed anti-ship guidance which would bump up the price. However, they haven't had much effect in Ukraine, Israel, or Red Sea. Also, we haven't seen what counters to drones look like. The same guidance for autonomous drone could lead to accurate cannons taking them down. Cheap missiles could mean cheap defensive missiles to shoot down all the drones.

onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
Wouldn't aircraft carriers be able to shoot down slow cruise missiles extremely easily? And even a direct hit wouldn't come close to sinking an aircraft carrier. You'd probably need a dozens of direct hits. Multiple direct hits from torpedoes couldn't even sink an old, decommissioned aircraft carrier. Cruise missiles were not effective. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_United_States_Navy#Under_construction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_the_United_States_...
- ianburrell 2y ago
  Definitely, they have been shot down lots as I mentioned. The problem is that they are cheap enough to have lots of them that can saturate the defenses. The Houthis and Iranians haven't been able to arrange mass attack, either cause they are drones or couldn't assemble enough at once. One other factor is that they mostly work for shore defense since carrier or aircraft would use more effective weapons. Direct hit would hurt a carrier. I don't we have warhead sizes for Iranian ones but normal anti-ship missiles are 500-1000lb. Those probably wouldn't sink but could cripple it, forcing it to withdraw or knocking it out of action which makes more vulnerable.
  - onlyrealcuzzo 2y ago
    > I don't we have warhead sizes for Iranian ones but normal anti-ship missiles are 500-1000lb Shahed payloads are 100lb. This is so deep into hypothetical territory. They can't even fly far enough to make it to an aircraft carrier in the first place. They'd get shot down by hornets, long before they arrived, if they even could. You'd need a swarm of 10k of these to even attempt taking on an aircraft carrier. Iran can barely produce 1k per year. The US is building & decommissioning multiple aircraft carriers per year. If you think 10 shaheds even pose a threat to a lone Destroyer, you're kidding yourself. There's a reason an aircraft carrier has never been sunk.
    - ianburrell 2y ago
      Shahed is a range of drones from Shahed company. The Shahed 136 is the one your are talking about that Iran and Russia are making thousands. As I mentioned, they are limited usefulness in naval combat. I thought Iran was selling Russia low-cost long-range cruise missiles but hard to find article with drones and ballistic missiles. The Houthi do have copy of Iranian copy of Kh-55. The fact that rebels can build anti-ship missile, even a few, should be concerning. It means that more capable countries could build hundreds and overwhelm carrier group. Lots of aircraft carriers have been sunk. Are you thinking of only nuclear supercarriers? Cause of there has been no war where one could have been sunk. The Forrestal fire shows that they are vulnerable to a single rocket (Navy firefighting has gotten better as result). It doesn't matter if they are scuttled if destroyed by fire.

ineedaj0b 2y ago

No, you can shoot them down or have a destroyer’s smaller guns run defense

Daneel_ 2y ago

I’m not sure why you’re being downvoted for an honest question.

devjab 2y ago

We have recently had a few “navy scandals” here in Denmark because our navy has been ridiculously underfunded. They’ve done stuff like lending the cannons capable of fire to the ships that might need them and then pretended the others had working systems… Anyway, one of our destroyers (or whatever we have) which was near Israel at the beginning of the Gaza nightmare was targeted by some of those missile and drone attacks from that Iran proxy group that was shooting at ships. I’m sorry I’m not more informed on this anecdote by the way. To get to the point, our ship had 3 out of 5 defense systems fail completely, and, it still managed to shoot down or jam everything coming at it. If our basically defunct navy can deal with Iran drones and missiles, then I’m fairly certain an aircraft carrier can.

Ekaros 2y ago

On other side something like aircraft carrier is decent solution to launch those drones. And to repair, rearm, refuel them. In the end they are platforms to project air power.