How many aircraft carriers do we need?

[dogtowner]

with aircraft carriers?

With drones launched / operated from carriers.

 

[The Scotsman]

With drones launched / operated from carriers.

You don't need a carrier to launch a drone its a waste of time and $100billion dollars.

I understand where you're coming from but for me the question is one of cost versus benefit. The lifetime cost of a carrier group runs into hundreds of billions of dollars - whole gobs of money used on an ineffective weapon of doutbful viability in a real conflict. Yes they can pack a punch but so can a swarm of cruise missiles or a flight of UAVs which are unmanned and operate with a high degree of stealth and do not need billions of dollars worth of protective assest just to guard them. Trouble is they ain't sexy.

Ultimately the only fighting assest that the carrier has is its aircraft. Take for example your thoughts on NK, there is basically no region of NK that is not capable of being targetted by aircraft from either Kadena or bases in South Korea. Same practise for Iraq and Afghanistan. For me it is just a matter of pride - the Navy wants to have a role in these conflicts to justify its need for carriers therefore it justifies its carriers because it wants a role in combat zones. Its exactly the same here in the UK we are buliding these two useless hunks of steel that are about as much good as a chocolate teapot.

The doctrine is outdated

 

[dogtowner]

You don't need a carrier to launch a drone its a waste of time and $100billion dollars.

I understand where you're coming from but for me the question is one of cost versus benefit. The lifetime cost of a carrier group runs into hundreds of billions of dollars - whole gobs of money used on an ineffective weapon of doutbful viability in a real conflict. Yes they can pack a punch but so can a swarm of cruise missiles or a flight of UAVs which are unmanned and operate with a high degree of stealth and do not need billions of dollars worth of protective assest just to guard them. Trouble is they ain't sexy.

Ultimately the only fighting assest that the carrier has is its aircraft. Take for example your thoughts on NK, there is basically no region of NK that is not capable of being targetted by aircraft from either Kadena or bases in South Korea. Same practise for Iraq and Afghanistan. For me it is just a matter of pride - the Navy wants to have a role in these conflicts to justify its need for carriers therefore it justifies its carriers because it wants a role in combat zones. Its exactly the same here in the UK we are buliding these two useless hunks of steel that are about as much good as a chocolate teapot.

The doctrine is outdated

I understand your point, I just disagree with it.

 

[PLC1]

Worked pretty well back then too till GB made a better one.

The Spanish Armada "worked pretty well"? Are you serious? The ships proved too heavy. Most of them sank.

 

[The Scotsman]

I understand your point, I just disagree with it.

As is your right sir!

 

[Old_Trapper70]

or at least line the pockets of whoever it is that makes them.

That's all folks.

 

[Centrehalf]

Meanwhile:



source



source

and yet we hear of how the military has been depleted under Democratic rule....

How many aircraft carriers do we need, when China has two and Russia is about to have none at all?

Just wondering, just like I wonder whether we really need to spend so much on the military. What do you think?

Two, maybe three. Missile Cruisers are where it's at today.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Two, maybe three. Missile Cruisers are where it's at today.

Drones are less expensive.