ARE aircraft carriers now as obsolete as the battleships they so dramatically defeated?

It’s a debate which rages in think tanks and military blogs around the world.

The argument generally goes that the big-gunned behemoths of World War I and II went the way of the dodo because they were inherently vulnerable to the new kid on the block — air power.

This doesn’t quite ring true.

The aircraft carrier is itself a far more vulnerable ship with its huge open internal spaces and vast stores of fuel and ammunition.

Its one advantage lay in its weapon system: Aircraft.

The battleship’s enormous guns could reach out and destroy targets some 40km away. But it took time for the big ships to get close to their target. And they were rarely capable of catching other ships.

The aircraft carriers of World War II did away with both problems. Their rapidly moving aircraft could quickly carry meaningful bomb loads to targets up to 500km distant. Meanwhile, the volatile thin-skinned ships that carried them were — usually — safely hidden far over the horizon.

The bombs, bullets, guns — and thinking — of last century’s world wars have long since been consigned to history.

Battleships were scrapped due to basic economics: Their return on investment was pitifully small.

But does distance still equal safety in the modern world? Does a mobile air base still offer war-winning security and power-projection?

Some defence analysts think not.

TOO MUCH BANG FOR YOUR BUCK?

The debate is intense.

A recently released analysis — Sharpening the Spear: The Carrier, the Joint Force, and High-End Conflict — argues the immensely expensive ships remain vital to the defence of the Western world.

“The emerging threat environment increases the need for aircraft carriers, and that none of the alternatives to the CVN offer an equal or better capability and capacity across the range of military options from peacetime presence through major power war,” its authors declare.

But a retired US Navy captain has published his own study: Retreat from Range — The Rise and Fall of Carrier Aviation.

In it he puts forward a controversial concept: That aircraft carriers are based on outdated abilities.

It’s a notion that has staggering implications.

Are the US Navy’s new, $17 billion-apiece Ford class aircraft carriers the biggest white elephants of all time?

Hendrix cites a litany of reasons why he thinks so.

The increasingly short range and high cost of strike aircraft.

The threat of long-range, disposable cheap drones.

The growing size and cost of the aircraft carriers themselves.

The growing number of long-range, ship-killing missiles.

All of these combine to make the modern aircraft carrier inherently vulnerable.

This is an unpalatable idea. Big ships are big business. And the whole doctrine of several navies are built around the set-piece use of carriers and their aircraft.

Former combat pilot and US Senator John McCain is leading a growing chorus in government circles challenging the cost and effectiveness of modern weapon systems. Specifically, he has raised doubts about the enormous new Ford class aircraft carriers which are significantly over budget and increasingly behind schedule.

Why they were built around still unproven technologies have many bean-counters scratching their heads. How could problems with science-fiction sounding technology such as electromagnetic catapults not have been anticipated?

Why are the aircraft they will carry now and in the future so much less capable than those that preceded them?

GROWING SHIPS, SHRINKING CAPABILITIES

At 100,000 tonnes, the new Ford class super carriers are bigger than big.

With such an increase in size — and budget — one would expect a corresponding increase in performance?

Not so.

Its improvements are incremental.

Apart from extra automation reducing the size of its crew, its mega-expensive new catapults, arresting gear and radar have theoretically boosted the number of aircraft launches it can conduct in one day from 120 to 160.

Then there’s the other elephant in the room.

The aircraft carrier’s key defence — distance — has been greatly reduced in recent decades.

The variety of aircraft the nuclear-powered behemoths carry have been steadily reduced. With this reduction has come a focus on multipurpose designs, instead of mission-specific types.

The A-6 Intruder bomber of the Vietnam era could reach out 950 nautical miles (1770km) with a meaningful weapons load. The F-14 Tomcat specialist interceptor had a combat radius of 650 nautical miles (1200km).

The current generation of F/A-18 Super Hornet strike fighters only do 500 nautical miles (925km).

The next-generation F-35C strike fighter is reportedly falling short of its promised performance figures, and is likely to be no better than the Super Hornet.

Practically, this means the USS Ford will have to sit 450 nautical miles (830km) closer to the battlefield than its 1960s counterparts.

As the aircraft carriers are forced to get closer to the threat, the reach of the threat is itself growing.

This hasn’t been a problem in low-intensity conflict zones such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

But with a freshly belligerent Russia and China exerting its ambitions in the South China Sea, the raw power of modern weapons is being brought sharply back into focus.

China, for example, has begun to field its ‘supercarrier killer’ DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missiles. These have a stated range of 1000 nautical miles (1850km)

Can an aircraft carrier survive in the face of a modern military?

FACING THE SWARM

Modern aircraft carriers face a new opponent.

Ballistic missiles designed specifically to fly higher and faster than ever before.

These missiles are relatively cheap. Therefore it is a viable option to fire dozens of them at a single high-value target.

Such as $17 billion of next-generation US aircraft carrier.

The concept is called a sea-swarm attack. It’s an idea that is giving naval commanders nightmares.

If the missiles and their manoeuvrable warheads work as intended, the ship’s defences — and those offered by its escorting fleet — would simply be overwhelmed.

Could one — or several — such missiles ‘kill’ a super carrier?

Probably not. These enormous ships are divided up into thousands of watertight compartments.

The US Navy has also learnt the lessons of World War II and given these vulnerable ships armoured decks and sides. Raging infernos from single hits are now much less likely.

But it is much easier to make a missile bigger and faster than to improve a 30-year-old ship’s protection.

The possibility remains that a modern super carrier could quickly be put out of action — and sustain heavy casualties among its 5000+ crew.

A damaged supercarrier would be a morale disaster. A sunk one would be a national and military catastrophe — with the sudden loss of some 10 per cent of the US Navy’s total strike power.

But the implications of such a torrent of missiles go far beyond simply destroying these enormous, expensive ships.

They also limit its power.

The likes of the USS Ford now have huge swathes of ‘no-go zone’ carved into world maps. From bases in the South China Sea, for example, missiles such as the DF-21D can cover most of the region’s major sea lanes and choke points.

But the USS Ford will have to sail deep within the threatening reach of these missiles in order to launch its own much more limited weapon — manned combat aircraft.

The ship becomes meaningless if its aircraft can no longer reach their targets.

BATTLING REALITY

Would smaller, cheaper aircraft carriers be the solution?

Lessons from the likes of the Falklands War suggest perhaps not. While the loss of any such ship would be nowhere near as catastrophic as that of a single US super carrier, smaller airfields equates directly to reduced capabilities.

While vital for the defence of the fleet, the Royal Navy’s ‘harrier carriers’ were simply too limited to provide a meaningful strike force over the Falklands.

Large numbers of flying machines remains the most efficient means of delivering weapons.

It’s just that they no longer have to be manned. Or have an enormous ship as their delivery service.

Hendrix says in his report that the US Navy should cut its losses with the troubled F-35C stealth fighter procurement program.

Instead, it should invest in a fleet of cheaper — long range — flying robots.

To keep the carrier relevant, these drones would need a range of 1500 nautical miles (2780km), he says.

“If we really truly leveraged what we already know (about drones) … I think that’s achievable within the decade,” Hendrix writes.

But do these cheaper, more ‘expendable’ weapons need a huge nuclear-powered mobile island to support them?

And are drones themselves just expensive versions of a more cost-effective technology: Fast and long-reaching missiles?

The last time the US lost an aircraft carrier in combat was the USS Hornet when it was sunk by Japanese dive bombers in 1942. Will it take a string of catastrophes on a scale experienced by battleships in the early years of World War II to challenge mindsets?

Unlike the battleship, there is no obvious successor to the carrier in the wings. But this raises yet another ominous question: Are all warships equally obsolete, for the same reasons? And what about submarines?

In this combined context, expensive aircraft carriers may already have been relegated to being very expensive targets.

Just like the battleships they killed.

@JamieSeidel