Aircraft Carrier - WW2 relic, or modern asset?

I have two views here:


1. Seems unreasonable to spend billions of dollars and thousands of tonnes of resources on something that can be destroyed by a rocket.

2. Modern plane is very expensive today, which mean everyone have it less than before. And carrier can transport 50-100 planes to the front, near countries that have 50-1000 planes. For example, if USA bring 5 carriers to Russia, it will have 50% less than Russian Air Force (RF have 1000 active), which is acceptable ratio. Most countries have 50-300 planes, few carriers can bring more than that.


First view is more logical to me, second one is far fetched. Is it worth pushing forward something so expensive in todays war?

Aircraft carriers have a lot of utility. If they're deployed in battle, then the enemy will have to divert its air power to take them down. They serve as a "light" to attract the enemy flies. So the advancing force is able to use this to its advantage. Air craft carriers are never the objective, anyway. The objective is to defeat the enemy. It entirely depends on context. If the enemy wants to deplete opposing forces, making them have to decide whether to allow the aircraft carrier to carry on unaffected or target it might be a good idea. This works very well with countries like Syria.

In a theoretical great power war they're probably obsolete, in reality however they are good to bully/destroy third world nations and so a good investment for a super power that wishes to leverage its status.

Geschreven door learster, 11.02.2021 at 17:45

In a theoretical great power war they're probably obsolete, in reality however they are good to bully/destroy third world nations and so a good investment for a super power that wishes to leverage its status.

Wikipedia says modern aircraft costs around $10 billion, plus aircraft costs, maintenance, and training/wages for 5000 personnel. Is this sum acceptable for its purpose of bullying small countries?

What if another superpower gives anti-carrier missiles to bullied country, and attacking superpower loses the carrier, how would the public react to 5000 dead in one strike?

Geschreven door Skanderbeg, 12.02.2021 at 06:52

Wikipedia says modern aircraft costs around $10 billion, plus aircraft costs, maintenance, and training/wages for 5000 personnel. Is this sum acceptable for its purpose of bullying small countries?

What if another superpower gives anti-carrier missiles to bullied country, and attacking superpower loses the carrier, how would the public react to 5000 dead in one strike?

Spending that sort of money serves a dual purpose for the American society:
1) You enable force projection globally, which in itself would already be worth it.
2) In the context of the wider military-industrial complex, it's a continuous stimulus and employment programme that America could not exist without.

Those $10 billion don't just evaporate into thin air when the next carrier rolls out, much of it will end in the pockets of the average American. Lesser countries like my own build highways for the purpose of economic stimulus (which is why the Autobahn is ALWAYS under construction everywhere). More serious countries like the US spend their stimulus on force. Good on them.
Don't really enjoy what-if scenarios so won't answer your second question.

Geschreven door learster, 12.02.2021 at 14:32

Spending that sort of money serves a dual purpose for the American society:
1) You enable force projection globally, which in itself would already be worth it.
2) In the context of the wider military-industrial complex, it's a continuous stimulus and employment programme that America could not exist without.

Those $10 billion don't just evaporate into thin air when the next carrier rolls out, much of it will end in the pockets of the average American. Lesser countries like my own build highways for the purpose of economic stimulus (which is why the Autobahn is ALWAYS under construction everywhere). More serious countries like the US spend their stimulus on force. Good on them.
Don't really enjoy what-if scenarios so won't answer your second question.

I understand your first point, but second is my concern especially for being 'what when' not 'what if'!
Military equipment is destined to get destroyed sooner or later, and people's mentality changed (for the better). 5000 dying on one carrier in WW2 is not the same as 5000 dying today, it will be a big shock and that's what worries me.

--------------------------

You have any opinion about China building carriers?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_programme