I love carriers. Their history is incredible. They were vital for the Pacific campaign in World War II to undermine Japan's plan to force American forces to die in too high numbers to approach Japan and apply superior industrial power. But I won't let sentimental respect allow me to support many of these too expensive floating tombs.
But where this argument breaks down is when the available alternatives are considered. What other option does the Navy have than what an aircraft carrier essentially is, a floating, mobile air base? Where are the better options?
Because the Navy is not dependent on land bases, it is not vulnerable to attack the same way the Air Force would be. Along with allowing the Navy not to be tied to land bases, aircraft carriers play a role that a fleet of smaller ships could never fulfill, at least for the foreseeable future. Here are a few reasons that their role is so indispensable.
Sure, they are irreplaceable if you mean power projection against small powers rather than sea control against peers.
But I find this argument frankly nuts:
Sinking or disabling just one is thought to be nearly impossible—except through the use of a nuclear weapon.
Seriously? If it floats it can sink. And sinking isn't even necessary. And if we lose a number of them while keeping them in the central role for sea control, we will find them literally irreplaceable because they take many years to build from scratch. Or even to repair those "merely" damaged.
Assuming our shipyards can be protected for years during a long war to complete them.
Hell, given the morale effect of seeing carriers burn and sink, with their thousands of crew lost,
the first time we lose one we'll probably pull the rest out of range of
enemy forces. What replaces them to fight for sea control if they are too central in our fleet for that role?
Still, I'll grant the author's argument that if we have afloat air power, big decks make more sense than smaller carriers. I like our America class Lightning "light carriers" because they are in a secondary role from their primary role of amphibious warship. I would not build pure light carriers because they add few additional baskets for the same price. And they would have far less sustained firepower than the big decks for power projection.
Further, as that initial article finds objectionable, so what if critics of carrier vulnerability have suggested no replacement for their sea control role? The carriers will still be burning. Isn't not having them burn in battle a good first step to finding a replacement?
I hate repeatedly addressed super carriers. But the proponents keep making what I think are silly arguments in their favor without distinguishing between power projection and sea control missions.
We need a sea power debate rather than a carrier debate.
NOTE: War updates continue here.
