“Today’s supercarriers will likely serve on for decades. However, the new threats arrayed against them, combined with the limited range of the current generation of carrier-based aircraft, suggest they may prove too vulnerable to operate within striking distance of near-peer opponents.”

If a carrier tasks forces defense’s function properly—not something to take for granted when both the attacking and defensive systems have scant operational records—then they should be able to handle a few incoming missiles. However, an attacker would seek to “saturate” the defender’s defenses by launching large volleys of the missiles all at once, and it may only take a few getting through to wreak considerable havoc.

The United States’ nuclear-powered fleet carriers are currently without rival in the world, and their onboard Carrier Air Wings can unleash tremendous sustained firepower. They serve as potent symbols of American military power, and floating air bases for campaigns in Libya, Iraq and the Balkans.

But how would the supercarriers fare when taking on something tougher than a third-world despot? Advances in missile and submarine technology put in question whether such large and expensive ships are survivable when operating within striking distance of an enemy coastline.

Readmore: V

Share:

Written by

The author didnt add any Information to his profile yet

17 thoughts on “Why The Navy Aircraft Carriers May Never Wage Battles Against Russia or China

  1. As it looks at the moment in the world, the US Army will not be able to gain any air superiority any where.
    The bombers will fall like ping-pong balls
    There are still a few states in the world that have nuclear missiles and world peace is assured.

  2. I guess I'm somewhat jaded…being a former B-52 pilot. BUT….I ALWAYS felt..the long range bomber was never given the credit it deserves for being one of the FEW weapons in the USA's arsenal, in a conventional war, that can deliver the biggest BANG for the buck. In Vietnam I watched fighters do very little damage to enemy targets. They're too small…carry too few bombs and missiles…and have an unbelievably low loiter time. And NOW with the prospect of losing an entire carrier group to one Chinese high mass warhead ICBM…I think carries should be held back from any war with China or Russia…UNLESS the ability of either country to strike that group has been reduced to an absolute ZERO! And WHEN could we count on that?

  3. I HOPE we're considering retaliating against the Chinese and Russians with our OWN ICBM's armed with high mass war heads designed to eliminate all THEIR ICBM's armed with high mass war heads. Of course WHO (them or us) can tell whether those ICBM's have a high mass war head or a nuclear war head? What if China and Russia launch high mass warhead ICBM's all at one time? Are we gonna wait to see if the targets they hit are vaporized by a high mass warhead or a nuclear war head before we launch a retaliatory strike? I…DON'T….THINK….SO!

  4. Of course HOW would the USA be able to determine whether the ICBM's launched from China are targeted at aircraft carriers and armed with high mass warheads…OR…ICBM's launched at American cities and military bases armed with nuclear weapons? In other words…ANY launch of China's anti ship ICBM's COULD very likely spark a nuclear retaliatory strike against ALL Chinese targets.

  5. The ships and subs with a battle group have over a hundred stealthy Tomahawk cruise missiles with over a thousand mile range. The Carrier can deploy stealthy LRASM with over a six hundred mile range. B1 bombers can deploy twenty four LRASM each. The U.S. spends three to five times more on defense than China or Russia every year. My bet would be, 10 B1's with 240 LRASM followed by a few Virginia Class Attack Subs would put anyone's navy on he bottom of the ocean. I know we have other thing that no one knows about until we need them.

  6. If all this is true I would bet the admirals will still send them in. They're sitting in Washington and not on those ships. Well maybe 1 admiral will be there but the rest don't like him anyway. Then the admirals will blame the personal for the lose.

  7. plain and simple Russia can destroy a American carriers, if one gets destroyed American morale will go down and that's pretty much it for the United States

  8. OK———– You say the obvious but is easily countered by simply adding more Point defense weapons from Gatling guns, Ram missile launchers and Lasers. The big achilles heel with the Gatling and Ram launchers are no easy and fast way to reload them. Which is stupid. All the Phalanx Gun needs is an under deck mega drum that can hold 10,000 round with the capability of being reloaded during battle. Getting rid of the moving mounts 1500 round under gun drum magazine. A below deck magazine allows a larger 30mm gun to be mounted doubling the range for engagements. While a 40mm 4 barrel gatling gun would double the range again with a guided round reducing the number of rounds used for the average engagement. —— Then the Ram launcher only needs a box magazine matching the launcher box that simply slides up to the back of the empty launcher and quickly slides a full load of missiles onto the empty rails and the launcher is ready for combat again.

    ————- Fact is, no American ship should have less than two Phalanx and Ram Point defence mounts. Preverable two of each. Twice that if they do not have rapid reload magazines. Each Carrier needs to have 6 off each. Then the American fleet can sail into harms way with a good chance of surviving. Even across the middle of the South China Sea as well as the Taiwan strait. Even the Chinese would eventually run out of missiles and ships as all hell descended upon them from the American Fleet.

  9. that's way large volleys of stealth bombers and fighters soften the target first taking away their ability to launch anything:)

  10. Enemies would have to find them first! meanwhile the enemies land based missile installations would be destroyed because their locations are known!
    The US is NOT Crimea, or Ukraine. The US would not be just interested in defending it's self but relentless assault and destruction of the enemy! This would not be just a police action of skirmish, it would be total war!! Communist China and authoritarian Russia should give it a lot of thought before they do something stupid!

  11. Countries should fight against AT&T, Netflix and foster care instead of each other for the following reasons:

    AT&T is an evil terrorist company that mistreats me by not letting me use my iPhone for absolutely any purpose when it’s not connected to a WiFi and AT&T tries to take over Lockheed Martin and Boeing and turn America into the biggest AT&T empire in the world

    Netflix for their mass stupidity and not featuring any films or tv shows that have aircraft carriers and fighter jets

    Finally foster care for torturing and abusing kids and turning our children into homeless bums and criminals

    Also I don’t even know why America and china are trade partners and why America let china and Russia be members of the UN when there are tensions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *