Could the US Navy get rid of the aircraft carrier?

Summary and key points you need to know: Given advances in submarine and missile technology, there are growing concerns about the survivability of American aircraft carriers in a potential conflict with China.

– Aircraft carriers have played a central role in U.S. naval strategy for decades, but their vulnerability is increasing, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region.

-Some experts suggest shifting the emphasis to a strategy that relies on a larger submarine fleet and smaller, more maneuverable surface ships.

– This approach could offer cost savings, greater flexibility and a reduced risk of catastrophic losses, but would come at the expense of the carrier's unprecedented ability to project its air power worldwide.

Are US aircraft carriers still competitive in the war with China? Expert opinion

Some experts are concerned about whether American aircraft carriers could survive a war against China. But not only has enormous resources already been invested in the world's best aircraft carrier fleet, but America's global strategy depends on the immediate deployment of forces to that aircraft carrier fleet.

Is American dependence on aircraft carriers incompatible with the requirements of a conflict with China? And if so, what should the Americans do about it?

Concerns about the survivability of the aircraft carrier

The aircraft carrier has been the most important ship in the world's most important navy for some 80 years. As a floating city capable of projecting air power around the world, the aircraft carrier offers a unique capability that expands the Navy's operational envelope exponentially. But technology is catching up. Submarines are becoming more sophisticated and better able to slip through the defensive line of supply ships deployed to protect the aircraft carrier.

During a war exercise with American and French forces, for example, Rubis Class Submarine slipped past Carrier Strike Group 12 and landed a (simulated) fatal blow against USS Theodore Rooseveltshowing that the mighty aircraft carrier is indeed fallible. Likewise, surface ships are becoming more agile and nimble, making defense scenarios more difficult. China has a clear lead over the US in medium-range missiles. And hypersonic missiles are emerging – a threat so new and deadly that the Americans are still desperately trying to develop countermeasures.

The point is that aircraft carriers are more vulnerable than ever. Are aircraft carriers completely obsolete? In most conflicts, not. The US can probably deploy its supercarriers in most parts of the world without fearing major consequences. Well, that may change: Houthi rebels in Yemen deployed anti-ship missiles in late 2023, sparking concern among the exponentially better-funded US Navy.

And that's the Middle East, with low-budget players. The Indo-Pacific may be a different story, with more experienced players; in the Indo-Pacific, the US may have reason to be very concerned. And that's not to say that an aircraft carrier couldn't survive a conflict with China. Many experts would argue that the carrier is still sufficiently equipped to survive. But the margin for error appears to be narrowing – leading some to question whether alternative naval plans are overdue.

Alternatives to the aircraft carrier

Aircraft carriers are extremely large and extremely expensive. America’s newest aircraft carrier, the Gerald R. Fordcosts $13.3 billion – and requires millions and millions annually for maintenance and personnel. And at over 300 meters long, American supercarriers are an impressive target, they are about 500 meters long. That's a big target. A big, slow target that, if damaged or destroyed, would cost billions of dollars.

So what does an alternative scheme look like? National interest Author Brandon Weichert argues for a “reorientation of the US strategy to strengthen and expand the American submarine fleet” by adding “smaller, more maneuverable and harder to destroy surface warships”.

Refocusing on submarines and surface ships would spread American firepower across multiple ships. The benefit here would be cost reduction, improved offensive flexibility, and harder-to-destroy targets. The downside would be the loss of the ability to deploy as many fighters and bombers as one air base from any coast of the world.

About the author: Harrison Kass

Harrison Kass is a defense and national security writer who has written over 1,000 articles on world affairs. Harrison is a lawyer, pilot, guitarist, and part-time professional hockey player. He joined the U.S. Air Force as a student pilot but was medically discharged. Harrison holds a BA from Lake Forest College, a JD from the University of Oregon, and an MA from New York University. Harrison listens to Dokken.

All images are Creative Commons.