Do super carriers still have a role in sea control missions by reforming their air wings? Is there a narrower mission that can enable carriers to hang in a little longer?
You know my view on aircraft carriers in a world of widespread anti-ship missiles, persistent surveillance and targeting nets, and the communications to link them. I think carriers are increasingly useful for only power projection missions against enemies without those missiles and nets. As Strategypage noted:
Only the U.S. has felt a constant need to get air power to any corner of the planet in a hurry. More importantly, no navy has been able to give battle to the U.S. carrier force since 1945.
That low threat environment can be either small powers that pose little threat to carriers at sea or great powers who've been defanged by other assets first in a sea control campaign. So I think we need fewer big carriers.
But the carriers we have will exist for a long time unless we want to just abandon the price we paid to build this capability. I've viewed them as mostly like old-style cavalry in the face of gunpowder weapons: Only able to attack and pursue a defeated and de-fanged enemy. But is it possible to use them on the front line as long as we have them?
This author sees carriers and their air wings as being part of that surveillance and targeting net:
These attributes allow naval aviation to be at the forefront of finding and classifying targets, cueing anti-ship fires against these targets, and giving prompt notification to friendly forces if those targets have discharged last-ditch fires. Through its superior ability to gain information and mitigate the risks of emitting, naval aviation is uniquely situated to act as quarterback to the broader distributed force.
The carrier's air assets could re-target the ballet of diverse types of missiles with varying flight times needed to arrive on target at the same time to overwhelm missile defenses. Carrier aircraft could also escort the friendly missile strike, diverting enemy air defenses. And the carrier air wing could assess the effects to inform new strikes.
And the author sees the carrier as providing air defense to surface ships with its air wing. Aircraft extend the range of shooting down incoming anti-ship missiles with direct fire and airborne radar extending the radar horizon of the surface ships. I've noted the possibilities when shooters and sensors are separated in other areas.
And aircraft offer the chance to sink the shooters before they fire the missiles. Although that really falls into the first mission described. Significantly, aircraft can be reloaded faster than ships--even if at-sea reloads are made possible.
And this combat air patrol mission would in theory allow surface ships to weight their armament a bit more to offensive missiles rather than defensive missiles.
Although that angle puts a lot of risk into one platform, no? Which
defeats the purpose of network-centric warfare by simply making
platform-centric warfare defensive rather than offensive.
Still, I think this idea has merit, as I've noted:
We have carriers. Simply dumping ships with 50-year lifespans loses their capabilities in situation short of general war for control of the seas. They will also be useful for air defense and for pursuing and destroying broken fleets. And for exploiting sea control to project power ashore. For a while, at least.
And the author's recon angle is good. I don't remember if I've ever mentioned that. But I suspect that Starlink's approach of large numbers of redundant cheap satellites might make the carrier redundant in this recon role. Large numbers of cheap surveillance satellites will do the job better. Eventually, of course.
So looking for super carrier missions right now in light of the emerging missile-network environment is good. The carriers exist. We should find a way to use them. That author summarizes the carrier's proposed missions:
Many of these critical missions, including scouting, counter-scouting, battle damage assessment, salvo escort, and retargeting support still require proximity to targets and can pull the carrier deeper into the battlespace.
But my worry remains that this puts a lot of risk into one platform. And when the carrier is that important, don't the surface ships sailing with the carrier get drawn into its orbit to defend it as a point defense rather than being part of a networked offense or defense of the whole force? Which defeats the purpose of network-centric warfare.
I mean, if we have a networked fleet, an enemy will have it eventually even if we are first.
The carrier can potentially contribute to sea control going forward. For a while. Perhaps an air wing that emphasizes fighter aircraft, long-range surveillance drones, and recon/electronic warfare aircraft could survive and contribute to the fight.
But this does not mean that building more carriers to sustain our current number of carriers is justified.
Indeed, what happens when guns return to challenge missiles? And if that shift includes rail guns?
Let's have a sea power debate rather than a carrier debate. But yes, we should examine how existing carriers could extend their usefulness with different roles.
NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.
