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The doctrine is outdated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.

 

[the annoying thing]

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?

Yes we need as many as we can get and afford to operate the world is a very dangerous place and aircraft carriers allow us to extend our military arm basically anywhere in the world.1 one carrier has more air power than most Nations

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

I think PR was happy we had one to spare.
The world i s still a big place and nothing allo we you to project power like these ships.

I do not think that carriers are as powerful as they used to be because of drones.
A drone can be a kamikaze, that is undeniable.

I think the US has as many carriers as it needs.

 

[Stalin]

no number of carriers can prevent the ultimate demise of the WarParty and their NATO and zionist lickspittles

maybe you should read this

Loading…

www.amazon.com

comrade stalin

 

[the annoying thing]

I do not think that carriers are as powerful as they used to be because of drones.
A drone can be a kamikaze, that is undeniable.

I think the US has as many carriers as it needs.

You do not have a clue about a carriers defense capabilities much less the carrier groups defensive abilities.
untill the whole world basically abandon their military and make peace.

 

[Stalin]

"For want of doubt, the graphic below compares Washington’s 11 carrier battle groups, which cost about $25 billion each including their escort ships, suites of aircraft and electronic and missile capabilities. But self-evidently, none of the non-NATO countries shown in the red area of the graphic – China, India, Russia or Thailand – will be steaming their tiny 3, 2 and 1 carrier battle groups toward the shores of either California or New New Jersey any time soon. Any invasionary force that had any chance of surviving a US fortress defense of cruise missiles, drones, jet fighters, attack submarines and electronics warfare would need to be 100X larger.

Yet there is no GDP in the world – $2 trillion for Russia, $3.5 trillion for India or $18 trillion for China – that is even remotely close in size to the $50 to $100 trillion GDP that would be needed to support such an invasionary force without capsizing the home economy.

Washington DC: The Unaffordable and Unecessary War Capital of the World - Antiwar.com

Ultimately, there is no mystery as to why the Forever Wars go on endlessly. Or why at a time when Uncle Sam is hemorrhaging red ink a large bipartisan - David Stockman for Antiwar.com

original.antiwar.com

comrade stalin
victorious in the donbass

 

[the annoying thing]

"For want of doubt, the graphic below compares Washington’s 11 carrier battle groups, which cost about $25 billion each including their escort ships, suites of aircraft and electronic and missile capabilities. But self-evidently, none of the non-NATO countries shown in the red area of the graphic – China, India, Russia or Thailand – will be steaming their tiny 3, 2 and 1 carrier battle groups toward the shores of either California or New New Jersey any time soon. Any invasionary force that had any chance of surviving a US fortress defense of cruise missiles, drones, jet fighters, attack submarines and electronics warfare would need to be 100X larger.

Yet there is no GDP in the world – $2 trillion for Russia, $3.5 trillion for India or $18 trillion for China – that is even remotely close in size to the $50 to $100 trillion GDP that would be needed to support such an invasionary force without capsizing the home economy.

View attachment 15315

Washington DC: The Unaffordable and Unecessary War Capital of the World - Antiwar.com

Ultimately, there is no mystery as to why the Forever Wars go on endlessly. Or why at a time when Uncle Sam is hemorrhaging red ink a large bipartisan - David Stockman for Antiwar.com

original.antiwar.com

comrade stalin
victorious in the donbass

lol if you were in the ukraine you would soil yourself

 

[Gabriel_Bell]

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

The Spanish Armada tale is largely British propaganda. The Spanish were poorly led, their shops were in bad shape and there was a massive storm. There are several good books on this.