Article on Changing Carrier Duties

[Covertwalrus]

 Came across this through FB conatcts - Seems interesting -

 http://cimsec.org/age-strike-carrier/30906?fbclid=IwAR2vDII25LLs2EE6Z0j3J1INcDc-CSBLbVzpb5sJSmXB_0QqNkY_KDGuJ8k

[Easy E]

I was expecting a screed about Long-range anti-ship missiles making the aircraft carrier obsolete.  Thankfully, this was not that Chinese propoganda.  Instead, it was a pretty well reasoned article about the historical role of carriers and where they excelled as opposed to how many people "expect" them to be used in a future war.

[Ruckdog]

A very thought-provoking article! I'm not sure I totally agree with some of the claims made about the lack of effectiveness when it comes to the strike mission, but I definitely agree with the points raised about the lack of diversity within the current air wings being a cause for concern.

In the final analysis, a big reason carriers have remained relevant because they are the ultimate "modular warship." The air wing can evolve over time to take advantage of new technology and respond to new threats.

[Covertwalrus]

 

In the final analysis, a big reason carriers have remained relevant because they are the ultimate "modular warship." The air wing can evolve over time to take advantage of new technology and respond to new threats.

 True enough, as changing the aircraft carried is often an easier option that refitting the Systems on other warships. Of course, that can mean some huge changes, such as the challenge of adapting carriers to jet aircraft as happened in the 1950s.

 This part interested me - "American naval forces are only a fraction of the way to recognizing the capabilities the MV-22 provides. At present, the U.S. Navy has only tested MV-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft in a Carrier Onboard Delivery (COD) capacity, the CMV-22. However, the aircraft retains substantial potential in anti-submarine warfare and airborne early warning, among other uses."
 I keep hearign the arguments on aviation sites about the Osprey; The argument seems to devolve into three opposing camps, namely the pilots who fly them and are supporters of them, the skeptics who seem to dislike anything "SciFi" in nature, and the Helo pilots who still prefer their rotor-driene buses. Nevertheless, tilt-rotors might just be here to stay as numerous designs of both nmanned and unmanned types are coming along. What do people think of the idea of a specific design of carrier for all-VTOL Tilt-rotor craft?

[hammurabi70]

Very interesting article but it does not seem to address a major issue of today: the use of drones and consequently cheaper and less sophisticated carriers that might be used and how that might impact on naval war.

[Fracas]

Very interesting article but it does not seem to address a major issue of today: the use of drones and consequently cheaper and less sophisticated carriers that might be used and how that might impact on naval war.

Drone carriers for air defense halo
Point defenses for core
Missile cruisers for attacks

[Covertwalrus]

Drone carriers for air defense halo
Point defenses for core
Missile cruisers for attacks

 Which kinda comes back on Easy E's comment about the Chinese propaganda viewpoint about long-range ship killer missiles. Though I can see that drones would provide a low-cost if not effective solution to that problem ( Banzai Jammers I beleive is one term for them  ) for large fleets, the idea of drones that could "leave peopel out of the loop" is not going to sit well with a lot of peopel, expscially those holdign the purse strings.

 Point=defense cores? I assume you're talking about the Aegis-Class and further developments? that's an interesting approach, but it still leaves a lot of holes - small attack boats, the illustrious (?) Boghammer for one, seem to be a solution to takign on such equipped fleets.  And as for missile cruisers. . . Well, i have read the UK's infamous White Paper on Defense from 1957, and while we are well past the 1980s I see no seru=iuos proposla to replace infantry with missiles yet.  ( In case anyone hasn't heard of this document, it's conclusions were in a nushell - Manned Interceptors and fighters would be replaced by missiles by the end of the 1960s, Manned Bombers byICBMS in the early 1970s, tanks and otehr AFVs by helo-launched missiels in the mid-1970s and infantry replaced by missiles in the 1980s. helicopters and torpedo-carrying aircrfat would still be useful, but the latter only until more versatile forms of SubRoc were developed. Please note that the author was a consultant for Westland in the UK at the time : )