6 ms·

>The era of carrier-dominated airpower is fading, as cheap, unmanned anti-ship weapons reshape naval warfare, whether US planners are ready for it or not. is n

by tim333 7mo ago

>The era of carrier-dominated airpower is fading, as cheap, unmanned anti-ship weapons reshape naval warfare, whether US planners are ready for it or not. is not really backed up by reality. Pretty much the whole US operation so far, destroying much of Iran's military and leadership was done from US carriers. If anything it demonstrates how powerful they are. Also straits being closed to shipping by whatever power controls the shores is not a new thing. The Bosphophorous has been closed on and off by the Ottomans or Turks since 1453 and the allies couldn't break through in WW1. They can send raiding ships, use canons, artillery, naval mines etc. You don't need the new tech.

brokencode 7mo ago
I agree that this conflict in Iran doesn’t really indicate that the aircraft carrier is any weaker now than it ever was. Though I do worry about the possibility of a more sophisticated opponent being able to launch swarms of drones and missiles at aircraft carriers. More than any air defense could ever stop.
- rustyhancock 7mo ago
  I get the feeling you haven't read the article. The carrier is not in drone range precisely for that reason. The reason so many tankers have been lost and that E3 sentry is that the carriers are having to stay out of the preferred range and rely on refueling for the bombing campaign. If the CSG could move to the Iranian coast they wouldn't have to maintain a constant chain of refueling tankers which have become so vulnerable.
  - edm0nd 7mo ago
    >The carrier is not in drone range precisely for that reason. umm, you have no idea what you are talking about. the Iranian Shahed drones typically have an operational travel distance of approximately 1,200 to 2,000 kilometers (roughly 750 to 1,250 miles). and >USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) CSG: As of March 30, 2026, this strike group is operating in the Arabian Sea supporting Operation Epic Fury. Satellite imagery from mid-February and March 2026 placed the Lincoln roughly 700 kilometers (approx. 430 miles) off the coast of Iran and Oman.
    - AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
      All right, they have the range. Let's say a carrier is 700 km away and the drone has a range of 1200 km. Great. Now, does it have the kill chain to supply it with an accurate targeting fix and update it during the flight? Or, does it have a radar good enough to find the Lincoln on its own? If it doesn't, then it's a really big ocean. But sure, they've got the range.
      - edm0nd 7mo ago
        I was just correcting the dude and letting them know they 100% have the range and they are wrong. Of course the CSG and its advanced weaponry are going to obliterate them before they have a chance to do anything. The Shahed-136 could 100% find the ship if Iran had the intel on the CSG location.
- refulgentis 7mo ago
  It sounds like you agree vehemently with the article, modulo the reframe of what the military had to already as solely your personal worry, about a hypothetical, that could only occur with a more sophisticated opponent, in the future.
- TacticalCoder 7mo ago
  > ... drones Regarding drones they are, by definition, not very sturdy: for they're drones and not B52 bombers or bunkers. What's very likely going to happen is that, just I can take a Browning B525 Sporter balltrap shotgun and shoot any civilian drone from afar because the gun shoots an expanding cloud of tiny, cheap, pellets, armies are now going to come up with systems to both defend and destroy drones. I'm not saying the drones used in war are the same as DJI drones: what I'm saying is that with the proper tech, they're much less expensive to take down than, say, a ballistic missile or an aircraft carrier. Anyone seeing this conflict and thinking that the militaro-industrial complex isn't hard at work working on solutions to take down drones is smoking heavy stuff. Ukrainian and Russian did it already (although it's nothing serious, it's just an example): here we were talking about actual tiny drones, carrying explosives, and running towards vehicles. As a cheap defense measures, they started immediately adding metallic "spikes" (not unlike hairs) to the vehicles, so that the drone wouldn't reach the vehicle's body and instead explode when hitting the mettalic spikes. War has always been about "tech x" / "anti tech x". This time is not going to be different. > Though I do worry about the possibility of a more sophisticated opponent being able to launch swarms of drones and missiles at aircraft carriers. China. They're demos of thousands of drones fully synchronized in the sky at night making nice 3D patterns with everybody on the ground going "aaaah" and "wooooow" is a display of military capability. I'm not saying it's not a concern: but it's not as if the US (and others) were going to sit and think "oh drones exists, the concept of war is over".
- switchbak 7mo ago
  Carriers have been in question long before this conflict. There's been a big question as to how effective and/or survivable a carrier battle group will be in the South Pacific, especially given China's long range anti-ship missiles. There's been a whole ramp up of very exquisite technology to try to get the upper hand here, but I don't expect we'll see the carrier be the force it has been over the last few generations. It's just too tempting a target.
  - jojobas 7mo ago
    Long-range anti-ship missiles of old are also obsolete, they and their launch problems are also too expensive for their vulnerability. A salvo Shahed-style drones launched from expendable unmanned vessels would overload a carrier group air defences way cheaper than old school ASMs from frigates.
    - switchbak 7mo ago
      New weaponry poses great challenges for these platforms. I don’t know if a swarm of very slow moving drones would be my biggest concern though. You can afford to spend a few million when you’re taking down billions of dollars worth of hardware. I would think a simultaneous barrage of maneuvering hypersonic missiles would pose a much bigger threat. A CIWS or three can take down a lot of slow drones.
      - pas 7mo ago
        but if you know there are 3 CIWS, you know they can move the pew-pew pipe at some radians per second this axis, and that axis, you put the drones in a formation to maximize the need for muzzle movement, estimate how many rounds are in them (or how long can they fire before getting overheated) and send that number + 1 drone. . . of course it's a bit oversimplified, but really with decoys, and putting cheap shaped charges on them ... they can fuck up the launch/landing surfaces, the AA capabilities, there's absolutely no way to jam them if they have the "last mile" set to automatic. (yes, in theory a dumb and big fireball or good old flack can take out a lot of them, seems trivial, but in practice we don't see that, instead we see faster drones trying to intercept them)
- JackFr 7mo ago
  Carriers aren’t going away because there’s nothing else that does what they do. Many nations can blow stuff up but to actually project power, you need a mobile air base.
- jandrewrogers 7mo ago
  Cheap drones are pretty useless against large naval vessels. Making a dent in those ships requires a heavy, specialized penetrating warheads. And even then you'll need to score several hits. Just the warhead alone on a standard anti-ship weapon weighs more than an entire Shahed-136 drone.
  - ceejayoz 7mo ago
    To sink it, yes. To render it useless for a while is easier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_fire All from a little drone-sized warhead.
  - fsagx 7mo ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire (~20kg warhead)
    - jandrewrogers 7mo ago
      That was over half a century ago. Completely irrelevant.
      - thedrexster 7mo ago
        > That was over half a century ago. Completely irrelevant. This is Trump's America, brother, we don't learn from the past here!
      - fsagx 7mo ago
        Seems likely to be even worse now. USS Ford out of action, removed from region due to "laundry fire" and some socks in the toilets. Also USN has far fewer carriers to deploy. Three or more were deployed continuously off Vietnam for years at a time.
  - newsclues 7mo ago
    You could fly an FPV drone into the hangar and smash a plane full of ordinance if you get lucky. Unfortunately warships have a lot of flammables and explosives aboard.
rustyhancock 7mo ago
I think the point being made is that before Iranian drone doctrine (they were the originators of the long range drones, the FPV drones and sea drone which have dominated the Ukraine way too). A US CSG could simply sit in the Hormuz strait shoot down any incoming missiles and keep it open. Right now the US has 3 CSG in the middle east and nearly 50000 troops. After weeks of intensive bombing the strait remains closed and any associated asset in the region is at risk the loss of the E3 to drones is particularly shocking.
- somat 7mo ago
  Quick, what's the difference between a suicide drone and a guided missile?
  - phil21 7mo ago
    Cost.
  - baud147258 7mo ago
    Cost, I'd guess? There must be a reason why Russia and Ukraine are using more drones than missiles in their strikes. And while capabilities are somewhat different, if a ship carrying oil or LNG get hit by either one, it's going to have some consequences
  - fhub 7mo ago
    At the moment, cruise speed and manufacturing price.
  - colechristensen 7mo ago
    - 2-4 orders of magnitude in cost. - One of them I could reliably build a factory for in my garage.
    - jandrewrogers 7mo ago
      And one of them can't scratch the paint on a modern naval vessel. Anti-ship warheads alone weigh more than an entire Shahed-136 drone. As has been demonstrated countless times in SINKEX training, it requires literal tons of deep penetrating explosives to severely damage a modern naval vessel. And even then they usually don't actually sink. Nothing you can cheaply build in your garage will do meaningful damage to a large naval vessel. It will have neither the weight nor the penetration required.
refulgentis 7mo ago
[dead]
PunchyHamster 7mo ago
> is not really backed up by reality. Pretty much the whole US operation so far, destroying much of Iran's military and leadership was done from US carriers. If anything it demonstrates how powerful they are. The country with 0.3% of global spending in military is putting a noticeable dent in assets of country that has 35% of global spending in military and are begging allies for help coz they can't even stop the drones With that level of difference you'd expect whole thing to end already and yet it is not. So any actor at even 10% scale of US going all in in drones would probably obliterate US navy without all that much. US is behind and frankly invested in wrong tech over the years. That is not to say carriers are going away any time soon, you need to ship the firepower to the target somehow, but one filled to 3/4 with drones would probably be far more effective
- kcb 7mo ago
  [flagged]
  - acdha 7mo ago
    This would be more effective as criticism if you demonstrated the superior knowledge you imply having. Maybe point to some primary sources?
    - Der_Einzige 7mo ago
      Nah it’s pretty convincing simply by itself. Reddit is a slur.
  - sedawkgrep 7mo ago
    A strong and convincing rebuttal!
- PaulKeeble 7mo ago
  The Chinese have drone carrier ships already in fleet and I think that is likely the future addition to fleets that is necessary. I am not sure how much the era of human controlled flight is coming to an end but certainly substantial drone capability and anti drone defence is urgently required.
originalvichy 7mo ago
I think it was achieved by two nuclear armed countries openly amassing their assets in the region for months. Any conflict between peer non-nuclear nations would have probably began with the country in Iran’s position sinking those carriers. Thanks to US and Israeli nukes, they were free to start killing people without fear of getting surprised.
- hax0ron3 7mo ago
  It is unlikely that Iran decided to not sink US carriers because of fear of nuclear retaliation. It is much more likely that before the air attack started, Iran's leadership preferred not to do anything that could make an attack more likely, such as attacking carriers. And after the invasion started, they would have loved to attack carriers but did not have the military capability to do so.
msabalau 7mo ago
The Quincy Institute exists to push their "restraint/realpolitic" agenda, not to accurately describe reality.
- iugtmkbdfil834 7mo ago
  This comment did catch my attention. While I am willing to accept some level of bias from various parties, I have an odd feeling that we about to argue that reality is in the eye of the beholder. With that in mind, what do you think the reality is? I am not leading you on. I am genuinely curious.
- oa335 7mo ago
  > The Quincy Institute exists to push their "restraint/realpolitic" agenda Every think tank exist to further their agenda… do you have a more substantive critique?
  - linehedonist 7mo ago
    It’s not a bad critique on its own! Yea, good to engage on the merits, but also good to acknowledge the messenger’s allegiances and biases.
    - t-3 7mo ago
      They haven't "acknowledged any allegiances or biases" though, they just dismissed them because they're not of the right ideology. If they don't engage on the merits or offer substantive criticisms, there is no discussion, just a cheering contest.
jmward01 7mo ago
How many of the strikes in Iran were 100% organic Navy assets? Sure, f18's took off and landed on carriers, but they tanked a couple times before dropping their bombs. The CSG helps, but was it really the thing enabling strikes? We have a massive air base in Qatar and other capabilities in the region. We are using bases all over the place to support these operations. The CSG helps... but isn't crucial to what is going on here. Now, bring S-3 organic tanking back and maybe the CSG would have a -little- more legitimacy.
- waste_monk 7mo ago
  >How many of the strikes in Iran were 100% organic Navy assets? Not sure if they're organic, but they sure are free range.
class3shock 7mo ago
The point is a country like Iran can, in 2026, force the US Navy to keep an large stand off distance. How much further could a country like China keep the Navy back? What about in 10 years? Eventually you are beyond the range of being able to project force or risking losing billions invested in one asset to a $50k missile. That is where reality is heading.
- jojobas 7mo ago
  Seems like USN can still do whatever it was made for from this large standoff distance, also seems like it wasn't made for chasing individual nondescript trucks in a hundreds-miles-long mountainous shoreline.
  - oa335 7mo ago
    > USN can still do whatever it was made for One of the primary functions of navies historically has been to secure vital shipping lanes. It’s a big deal that USN can’t seem to fulfill that function anymore.
    - jojobas 7mo ago
      It can be safely said that current carrier groups were not built for that, they were built for power projection on land.
      - don_esteban 7mo ago
        The problem is that nowadays essentially nothing can really secure vital shipping lines ...
        jojobas 7mo ago
        Ergo navies don't exists.
        7mo ago
maxglute 7mo ago
> destroying much of Iran's military and leadership was done from US carriers No. This is absurd claim that can't physically comport with sortie generation math. CSIS report from first 3 weeks noted Israel did more than half of strikes on ~15,000 targets... all Israel's hits would be from land basing. 2xCSG at surge for 3 weeks = ~6k sorties, ~20% for kinetic strike (80% of sorties supportive, cap, tanking, ew etc). Optimistically carriers hit ~2000 targets when not standoff during first 3 weeks. Likely strike compositions: Israel from land, 50%, US from regional land ~35% (we know lots of none carrier aviation was involved), carriers ~15%. The real kicker is CSGs since been pushed to standoff - kinetic strike ratio to dwindle to single digit % sorties at those distances, making carrier cost:strike ratio even more unfavourable. This something most expect from peer/near peer adversaries, not Iran, i.e. carriers seem vulnerable to lower tier of adversaries than originally thought.
dundarious 7mo ago
> destroying much of Iran's military and leadership Good at hitting targets, terrible at achieving goals. Same as Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. Were the Taliban destroyed by killing their upper echelons several times over? In terms of resilience, the Iranians are similar, arguably much more so.
- t-3 7mo ago
  > Were the Taliban destroyed by killing their upper echelons several times over? Of course not, because that wasn't the goal and would be impossible, because we were recreating the conditions that led to the Taliban taking control in the first place (corrupt and amoral warlords oppressing the populace). Afghanistan's strategic location and suitability for poppy farming and generating dark money flows is why we went in. It was the staging ground for the plans to overthrow "Iraq [...] Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan" (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2003/9/22/us-plans-to-attack-seven-muslim-states https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2003/9/22/us-plans-to-attack-...). We're still involved in active conflicts in most of those countries.
  - dundarious 7mo ago
    The US state is so large, that there are different constituencies operating within it. There was certainly a group that wanted the new state to succeed. I don't disagree with much of what you said though.
    - t-3 7mo ago
      You're very right, it's important not to forget that hindsight makes the cloudiest things clear. At the time, it seemed as if almost everyone supported the invasion and thought we were taking revenge for 9/11 and liberating the oppressed from a brutal theocracy. It was not until later, sometimes much later, that the facts became apparent. Very few people knew that the Taliban had offered to surrender Bin Laden and hand over Al Qaeda members before the invasion, and almost nobody outside the military knew about what kind of people we were supporting in their stead. Even today when the historical situation is relatively clear I don't think many people have really thought much about the many uncomfortable facts of the opiate/opiod "epidemic" and it's connection to that occupation.
interestpiqued 7mo ago
Yeah I don’t find this article particularly insightful. If we don’t have troops on the ground to prevent attacks in the straight, it would be always be vulnerable despite superiority. Shit if we don’t control the land, they could drop a bunch jet skis with bombs in the water in the middle of the night. The straight is only 21 miles wide at some points
marcusverus 7mo ago
Carriers are OP against middle powers, but they would be toast against another major power.
asdff 7mo ago
>destroying much of Iran's military and leadership was done from US carriers. If anything it demonstrates how powerful they are. When you have a hammer that costs billions of dollars in budget you tend to find excuses to use it lest you lose that budget. Imagine if their were no carriers. US airpower just takes off from gulf state airbases and same thing happens to iran. Unless the US is fighting an air battle in the middle of the ocean, they can probably get by without carriers.
- dinkumthinkum 7mo ago
  Did you go to War College to learn this? I mean seriously, do you really think they would spend billions of dollars and millions of man hours training …. I mean, I’d it’s possible that maybe you just don’t understand the dynamics of war fighting and there is a reason for carriers to exist besides “fighting in the ocean?”
  - asdff 7mo ago
    What are they for beyond a platform for landing planes?
    - dinkumthinkum 7mo ago
      It's so much more than that. You're asking something that is equivalent to "isn't a cpu just for doing binary stuff?" I would just look more into it. I think even the LLMs that everyone is so fond of will give you more information than that.

by tim333 7mo ago

brokencode 7mo ago

I agree that this conflict in Iran doesn’t really indicate that the aircraft carrier is any weaker now than it ever was. Though I do worry about the possibility of a more sophisticated opponent being able to launch swarms of drones and missiles at aircraft carriers. More than any air defense could ever stop.

rustyhancock 7mo ago
I get the feeling you haven't read the article. The carrier is not in drone range precisely for that reason. The reason so many tankers have been lost and that E3 sentry is that the carriers are having to stay out of the preferred range and rely on refueling for the bombing campaign. If the CSG could move to the Iranian coast they wouldn't have to maintain a constant chain of refueling tankers which have become so vulnerable.
- edm0nd 7mo ago
  >The carrier is not in drone range precisely for that reason. umm, you have no idea what you are talking about. the Iranian Shahed drones typically have an operational travel distance of approximately 1,200 to 2,000 kilometers (roughly 750 to 1,250 miles). and >USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) CSG: As of March 30, 2026, this strike group is operating in the Arabian Sea supporting Operation Epic Fury. Satellite imagery from mid-February and March 2026 placed the Lincoln roughly 700 kilometers (approx. 430 miles) off the coast of Iran and Oman.
  - AnimalMuppet 7mo ago
    All right, they have the range. Let's say a carrier is 700 km away and the drone has a range of 1200 km. Great. Now, does it have the kill chain to supply it with an accurate targeting fix and update it during the flight? Or, does it have a radar good enough to find the Lincoln on its own? If it doesn't, then it's a really big ocean. But sure, they've got the range.
    - edm0nd 7mo ago
      I was just correcting the dude and letting them know they 100% have the range and they are wrong. Of course the CSG and its advanced weaponry are going to obliterate them before they have a chance to do anything. The Shahed-136 could 100% find the ship if Iran had the intel on the CSG location.
refulgentis 7mo ago
It sounds like you agree vehemently with the article, modulo the reframe of what the military had to already as solely your personal worry, about a hypothetical, that could only occur with a more sophisticated opponent, in the future.
TacticalCoder 7mo ago
> ... drones Regarding drones they are, by definition, not very sturdy: for they're drones and not B52 bombers or bunkers. What's very likely going to happen is that, just I can take a Browning B525 Sporter balltrap shotgun and shoot any civilian drone from afar because the gun shoots an expanding cloud of tiny, cheap, pellets, armies are now going to come up with systems to both defend and destroy drones. I'm not saying the drones used in war are the same as DJI drones: what I'm saying is that with the proper tech, they're much less expensive to take down than, say, a ballistic missile or an aircraft carrier. Anyone seeing this conflict and thinking that the militaro-industrial complex isn't hard at work working on solutions to take down drones is smoking heavy stuff. Ukrainian and Russian did it already (although it's nothing serious, it's just an example): here we were talking about actual tiny drones, carrying explosives, and running towards vehicles. As a cheap defense measures, they started immediately adding metallic "spikes" (not unlike hairs) to the vehicles, so that the drone wouldn't reach the vehicle's body and instead explode when hitting the mettalic spikes. War has always been about "tech x" / "anti tech x". This time is not going to be different. > Though I do worry about the possibility of a more sophisticated opponent being able to launch swarms of drones and missiles at aircraft carriers. China. They're demos of thousands of drones fully synchronized in the sky at night making nice 3D patterns with everybody on the ground going "aaaah" and "wooooow" is a display of military capability. I'm not saying it's not a concern: but it's not as if the US (and others) were going to sit and think "oh drones exists, the concept of war is over".
switchbak 7mo ago
Carriers have been in question long before this conflict. There's been a big question as to how effective and/or survivable a carrier battle group will be in the South Pacific, especially given China's long range anti-ship missiles. There's been a whole ramp up of very exquisite technology to try to get the upper hand here, but I don't expect we'll see the carrier be the force it has been over the last few generations. It's just too tempting a target.
- jojobas 7mo ago
  Long-range anti-ship missiles of old are also obsolete, they and their launch problems are also too expensive for their vulnerability. A salvo Shahed-style drones launched from expendable unmanned vessels would overload a carrier group air defences way cheaper than old school ASMs from frigates.
  - switchbak 7mo ago
    New weaponry poses great challenges for these platforms. I don’t know if a swarm of very slow moving drones would be my biggest concern though. You can afford to spend a few million when you’re taking down billions of dollars worth of hardware. I would think a simultaneous barrage of maneuvering hypersonic missiles would pose a much bigger threat. A CIWS or three can take down a lot of slow drones.
    - pas 7mo ago
      but if you know there are 3 CIWS, you know they can move the pew-pew pipe at some radians per second this axis, and that axis, you put the drones in a formation to maximize the need for muzzle movement, estimate how many rounds are in them (or how long can they fire before getting overheated) and send that number + 1 drone. . . of course it's a bit oversimplified, but really with decoys, and putting cheap shaped charges on them ... they can fuck up the launch/landing surfaces, the AA capabilities, there's absolutely no way to jam them if they have the "last mile" set to automatic. (yes, in theory a dumb and big fireball or good old flack can take out a lot of them, seems trivial, but in practice we don't see that, instead we see faster drones trying to intercept them)
JackFr 7mo ago
Carriers aren’t going away because there’s nothing else that does what they do. Many nations can blow stuff up but to actually project power, you need a mobile air base.
jandrewrogers 7mo ago
Cheap drones are pretty useless against large naval vessels. Making a dent in those ships requires a heavy, specialized penetrating warheads. And even then you'll need to score several hits. Just the warhead alone on a standard anti-ship weapon weighs more than an entire Shahed-136 drone.
- ceejayoz 7mo ago
  To sink it, yes. To render it useless for a while is easier. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_fire All from a little drone-sized warhead.
- fsagx 7mo ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_USS_Forrestal_fire (~20kg warhead)
  - jandrewrogers 7mo ago
    That was over half a century ago. Completely irrelevant.
    - thedrexster 7mo ago
      > That was over half a century ago. Completely irrelevant. This is Trump's America, brother, we don't learn from the past here!
    - fsagx 7mo ago
      Seems likely to be even worse now. USS Ford out of action, removed from region due to "laundry fire" and some socks in the toilets. Also USN has far fewer carriers to deploy. Three or more were deployed continuously off Vietnam for years at a time.
- newsclues 7mo ago
  You could fly an FPV drone into the hangar and smash a plane full of ordinance if you get lucky. Unfortunately warships have a lot of flammables and explosives aboard.

rustyhancock 7mo ago

I think the point being made is that before Iranian drone doctrine (they were the originators of the long range drones, the FPV drones and sea drone which have dominated the Ukraine way too). A US CSG could simply sit in the Hormuz strait shoot down any incoming missiles and keep it open. Right now the US has 3 CSG in the middle east and nearly 50000 troops. After weeks of intensive bombing the strait remains closed and any associated asset in the region is at risk the loss of the E3 to drones is particularly shocking.

somat 7mo ago
Quick, what's the difference between a suicide drone and a guided missile?
- phil21 7mo ago
  Cost.
- baud147258 7mo ago
  Cost, I'd guess? There must be a reason why Russia and Ukraine are using more drones than missiles in their strikes. And while capabilities are somewhat different, if a ship carrying oil or LNG get hit by either one, it's going to have some consequences
- fhub 7mo ago
  At the moment, cruise speed and manufacturing price.
- colechristensen 7mo ago
  - 2-4 orders of magnitude in cost. - One of them I could reliably build a factory for in my garage.
  - jandrewrogers 7mo ago
    And one of them can't scratch the paint on a modern naval vessel. Anti-ship warheads alone weigh more than an entire Shahed-136 drone. As has been demonstrated countless times in SINKEX training, it requires literal tons of deep penetrating explosives to severely damage a modern naval vessel. And even then they usually don't actually sink. Nothing you can cheaply build in your garage will do meaningful damage to a large naval vessel. It will have neither the weight nor the penetration required.

refulgentis 7mo ago

[dead]

PunchyHamster 7mo ago

> is not really backed up by reality. Pretty much the whole US operation so far, destroying much of Iran's military and leadership was done from US carriers. If anything it demonstrates how powerful they are. The country with 0.3% of global spending in military is putting a noticeable dent in assets of country that has 35% of global spending in military and are begging allies for help coz they can't even stop the drones With that level of difference you'd expect whole thing to end already and yet it is not. So any actor at even 10% scale of US going all in in drones would probably obliterate US navy without all that much. US is behind and frankly invested in wrong tech over the years. That is not to say carriers are going away any time soon, you need to ship the firepower to the target somehow, but one filled to 3/4 with drones would probably be far more effective

kcb 7mo ago
[flagged]
- acdha 7mo ago
  This would be more effective as criticism if you demonstrated the superior knowledge you imply having. Maybe point to some primary sources?
  - Der_Einzige 7mo ago
    Nah it’s pretty convincing simply by itself. Reddit is a slur.
- sedawkgrep 7mo ago
  A strong and convincing rebuttal!
PaulKeeble 7mo ago
The Chinese have drone carrier ships already in fleet and I think that is likely the future addition to fleets that is necessary. I am not sure how much the era of human controlled flight is coming to an end but certainly substantial drone capability and anti drone defence is urgently required.

originalvichy 7mo ago

I think it was achieved by two nuclear armed countries openly amassing their assets in the region for months. Any conflict between peer non-nuclear nations would have probably began with the country in Iran’s position sinking those carriers. Thanks to US and Israeli nukes, they were free to start killing people without fear of getting surprised.

hax0ron3 7mo ago
It is unlikely that Iran decided to not sink US carriers because of fear of nuclear retaliation. It is much more likely that before the air attack started, Iran's leadership preferred not to do anything that could make an attack more likely, such as attacking carriers. And after the invasion started, they would have loved to attack carriers but did not have the military capability to do so.

msabalau 7mo ago

The Quincy Institute exists to push their "restraint/realpolitic" agenda, not to accurately describe reality.

iugtmkbdfil834 7mo ago
This comment did catch my attention. While I am willing to accept some level of bias from various parties, I have an odd feeling that we about to argue that reality is in the eye of the beholder. With that in mind, what do you think the reality is? I am not leading you on. I am genuinely curious.
oa335 7mo ago
> The Quincy Institute exists to push their "restraint/realpolitic" agenda Every think tank exist to further their agenda… do you have a more substantive critique?
- linehedonist 7mo ago
  It’s not a bad critique on its own! Yea, good to engage on the merits, but also good to acknowledge the messenger’s allegiances and biases.
  - t-3 7mo ago
    They haven't "acknowledged any allegiances or biases" though, they just dismissed them because they're not of the right ideology. If they don't engage on the merits or offer substantive criticisms, there is no discussion, just a cheering contest.

jmward01 7mo ago

How many of the strikes in Iran were 100% organic Navy assets? Sure, f18's took off and landed on carriers, but they tanked a couple times before dropping their bombs. The CSG helps, but was it really the thing enabling strikes? We have a massive air base in Qatar and other capabilities in the region. We are using bases all over the place to support these operations. The CSG helps... but isn't crucial to what is going on here. Now, bring S-3 organic tanking back and maybe the CSG would have a -little- more legitimacy.

waste_monk 7mo ago
>How many of the strikes in Iran were 100% organic Navy assets? Not sure if they're organic, but they sure are free range.

class3shock 7mo ago

The point is a country like Iran can, in 2026, force the US Navy to keep an large stand off distance. How much further could a country like China keep the Navy back? What about in 10 years? Eventually you are beyond the range of being able to project force or risking losing billions invested in one asset to a $50k missile. That is where reality is heading.

jojobas 7mo ago
Seems like USN can still do whatever it was made for from this large standoff distance, also seems like it wasn't made for chasing individual nondescript trucks in a hundreds-miles-long mountainous shoreline.
- oa335 7mo ago
  > USN can still do whatever it was made for One of the primary functions of navies historically has been to secure vital shipping lanes. It’s a big deal that USN can’t seem to fulfill that function anymore.
  - jojobas 7mo ago
    It can be safely said that current carrier groups were not built for that, they were built for power projection on land.
    - don_esteban 7mo ago
      The problem is that nowadays essentially nothing can really secure vital shipping lines ...
      - jojobas 7mo ago
        Ergo navies don't exists.
        7mo ago

maxglute 7mo ago

> destroying much of Iran's military and leadership was done from US carriers No. This is absurd claim that can't physically comport with sortie generation math. CSIS report from first 3 weeks noted Israel did more than half of strikes on ~15,000 targets... all Israel's hits would be from land basing. 2xCSG at surge for 3 weeks = ~6k sorties, ~20% for kinetic strike (80% of sorties supportive, cap, tanking, ew etc). Optimistically carriers hit ~2000 targets when not standoff during first 3 weeks. Likely strike compositions: Israel from land, 50%, US from regional land ~35% (we know lots of none carrier aviation was involved), carriers ~15%. The real kicker is CSGs since been pushed to standoff - kinetic strike ratio to dwindle to single digit % sorties at those distances, making carrier cost:strike ratio even more unfavourable. This something most expect from peer/near peer adversaries, not Iran, i.e. carriers seem vulnerable to lower tier of adversaries than originally thought.

dundarious 7mo ago

> destroying much of Iran's military and leadership Good at hitting targets, terrible at achieving goals. Same as Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc. Were the Taliban destroyed by killing their upper echelons several times over? In terms of resilience, the Iranians are similar, arguably much more so.

t-3 7mo ago
> Were the Taliban destroyed by killing their upper echelons several times over? Of course not, because that wasn't the goal and would be impossible, because we were recreating the conditions that led to the Taliban taking control in the first place (corrupt and amoral warlords oppressing the populace). Afghanistan's strategic location and suitability for poppy farming and generating dark money flows is why we went in. It was the staging ground for the plans to overthrow "Iraq [...] Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan" (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2003/9/22/us-plans-to-attack-seven-muslim-states https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2003/9/22/us-plans-to-attack-...). We're still involved in active conflicts in most of those countries.
- dundarious 7mo ago
  The US state is so large, that there are different constituencies operating within it. There was certainly a group that wanted the new state to succeed. I don't disagree with much of what you said though.
  - t-3 7mo ago
    You're very right, it's important not to forget that hindsight makes the cloudiest things clear. At the time, it seemed as if almost everyone supported the invasion and thought we were taking revenge for 9/11 and liberating the oppressed from a brutal theocracy. It was not until later, sometimes much later, that the facts became apparent. Very few people knew that the Taliban had offered to surrender Bin Laden and hand over Al Qaeda members before the invasion, and almost nobody outside the military knew about what kind of people we were supporting in their stead. Even today when the historical situation is relatively clear I don't think many people have really thought much about the many uncomfortable facts of the opiate/opiod "epidemic" and it's connection to that occupation.

interestpiqued 7mo ago

Yeah I don’t find this article particularly insightful. If we don’t have troops on the ground to prevent attacks in the straight, it would be always be vulnerable despite superiority. Shit if we don’t control the land, they could drop a bunch jet skis with bombs in the water in the middle of the night. The straight is only 21 miles wide at some points

marcusverus 7mo ago

Carriers are OP against middle powers, but they would be toast against another major power.

asdff 7mo ago

>destroying much of Iran's military and leadership was done from US carriers. If anything it demonstrates how powerful they are. When you have a hammer that costs billions of dollars in budget you tend to find excuses to use it lest you lose that budget. Imagine if their were no carriers. US airpower just takes off from gulf state airbases and same thing happens to iran. Unless the US is fighting an air battle in the middle of the ocean, they can probably get by without carriers.

dinkumthinkum 7mo ago
Did you go to War College to learn this? I mean seriously, do you really think they would spend billions of dollars and millions of man hours training …. I mean, I’d it’s possible that maybe you just don’t understand the dynamics of war fighting and there is a reason for carriers to exist besides “fighting in the ocean?”
- asdff 7mo ago
  What are they for beyond a platform for landing planes?
  - dinkumthinkum 7mo ago
    It's so much more than that. You're asking something that is equivalent to "isn't a cpu just for doing binary stuff?" I would just look more into it. I think even the LLMs that everyone is so fond of will give you more information than that.