The U.S. Navy Aircraft Carrier Nightmare Explained in 3 Words

We support our Publishers and Content Creators. You can view this story on their website by CLICKING HERE.

Obsolete Naval Warships?: Critics argue that aircraft carriers are obsolete due to their high costs and vulnerability to modern missile and submarine threats.

-However, proponents, including naval veterans, stress their critical role in projecting power, boosting morale, and providing unmatched versatility in warfare.

-Despite their hefty price tag, carriers remain essential, especially as China expands its naval power and pursues anti-access strategies.

-While risks of losing a carrier exist, the U.S. Navy’s robust defense systems and strike groups offer substantial protection. Ultimately, carriers symbolize American military might and are crucial for maintaining global maritime dominance.

Aircraft Carriers: Are They Still Relevant in Modern Warfare?

You may have heard the many arguments against the aircraft carrier, all basically saying they are all done as a major naval platform. 

Many experts say they are too expensive, too complex, and too costly to maintain, again, the critics say. Anti-ship missiles or torpedoes from submarines can easily take them out. These naysayers believe that carriers are no longer needed to project power and the floating airports are a relic of a bygone age.

But is that the case? Many would take a different perspective.

Aircraft Carrier Talk: Hear It Straight from a Veteran

But try criticizing the aircraft carrier around navy veterans who worked on flat-tops during their career and you will get a much different opinion. My father-in-law, Eddie Sanchez, served on the USS Oriskany for four years during the Vietnam War. This is the carrier that the late U.S. senator and presidential candidate John McCain flew from. Sanchez worked one of the most dangerous jobs on the ship – flight deck operations. He was a “green shirt” who operated and maintained the ship’s catapults and arresting gear. Sanchez worked incredibly challenging hours – 48-hour shifts – and he oversaw hundreds of sorties.

Sanchez believes that aircraft carriers will always be necessary. “We continually put pressure on the enemy in North Vietnam, he said. “Without the carrier operations, the war would have gone on longer. If something ever happened with China, the carriers in the region would answer the call and bring the fight to the enemy again,” Sanchez said.

There is an Eye-Watering Price Tag

However, U.S. aircraft carriers come with a cost that makes critics bristle.

The new Ford-class carrier will set the United States back an estimated $13 billion.

Maintenance is another monetary sinkhole. The Ford-class will cost around $700 million a year to maintain.

Critics say this gargantuan expense could be spent better on other ships and submarines. Perhaps they are correct. Nuclear-powered submarines have incredible advantages in modern maritime warfare. Whether carrying nuclear missiles or firing anti-ship or land-attack cruise missiles, the submarine brings much to the table. Having more in the water would be an obvious advantage. Frigates and destroyers can fire stand-off missiles, too. They are smaller targets than carriers and can deploy the vaunted Aegis Combat System to ward off enemy missiles.

Enter China as a Dangerous Naval Power

The Chinese navy is the biggest in the world, so it would make sense for the United States to build as many warships as possible to maintain parity with China. The Chinese are also employing asymmetric tactics, such as anti-access/ area denial operations against the U.S. Navy, that would keep aircraft carriers out of range of Chinese assets in the Indo-Pacific. Plus, the Chinese have three aircraft carriers of their own, so the United States will need to keep up with its own carrier operations to defend Taiwan and other allies.

Could America Lose an Aircraft Carrier?

There are problems with U.S. naval doctrine that depend on the aircraft carrier. In my latest book, I wrote that American battle planners who focus on the East Asia fight must face a new reality. The United States could face the unthinkable—losing an aircraft carrier in battle. This would shatter American resolve in the region and horrify the public. It would be difficult for the president to continue the fight in East Asia if a carrier was sunk.

The U.S. Navy Is Prepared

But any type of warfare is risky. The Navy is aware of the dangers to its carriers. That is why it patrols in strike groups with a flotilla of combat and support ships. The Aegis Combat System can protect carriers from anti-ship missiles and drones. American prowess in undersea warfare can detect and scare off Chinese submarines.

Aircraft Carriers Boost Morale

Another aspect of aircraft carriers that does not get enough attention is the psychological impact on morale. The United States has the best navy in the world and is not afraid of the rise of China. I have talked to senior naval commanders, and they are confident that the Americans would “roll up” Chinese warships so fast that any conflict with Beijing would be short. The carrier thus has implications about the way Americans conduct warfare. They are symbolic psychologically and give enlisted sailors and officers a boost of confidence, sending a message to the enemy about power and prestige. Carriers are thus a psychological and morale-building force multiplier. No other ship can boast of such traits.

More than ever, the aircraft carrier is needed now. It has disadvantages, such as cost per ship, maintenance difficulties, and expenses, but it is not obsolete. The Chinese will not stop building them, and the United States should not stop either. They are too important an asset to abandon.

About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood

Brent M. Eastwood, PhD, is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare, plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.