Aircraft carrier in modern warfare?
 

I was watching a program the other day about life aboard the reagan as it traveled from west to east coast. The program had lots of interesting information about the Nimitz class and their abilitly to track and defend themselves from missiles in an event of an attack.

It got me thinking wether in the event of an attack a ship that size could really defend itsself?

Against terrorists the aircraft carrier has no fear of attack but what about another superpower?

Alone against a determined missile or submarine attack? Probably not. it is precisely this the reason that carriers are positioned as the center of CVBGs, surrounded by dozens of ASW and AAW ships.

Red Storm Rising, anyone?

I believe that the lifespan of a carrier in the "next great war" is counted in days if not hours. Any amount of resources is justified against a target so valuable and so concentrated. Just throw everything at it, one hit will justify all the expenses combined. This is not to say that "carriers are worthless". A carrier's greatest use is the demonstration of a power's military might during peacetime. It is a tool of coercion without breaking any international law. Just sail outside anybody's home waters and no one will have doubts about your intentions. A ballistic submarine's far greater firepower, on the other hand, is unwieldy and unusable without incurring doomsday. Carriers are like show muscles, it sends a message to people that you are not to be messed with; ballistic missiles are like guns -- you can't use it lightly or without consequences.

I'll have to disagree that any expense is justified to sink a carrier, IMO in many scenarios the carrier's presence would be strategically secondary to other targets which would merit the use of force better (Of course, depending on the situation).

For example, consider the classic non-nuclear NATO vs. Warsaw Pact scenario, the main show being a land war in Germany with NATO armies being supplied across the sea. A NATO carrier in this situation is able to do the following:

1. Support ground troops in Europe

Not very useful considering land-based air is in abundance, so this wouldn't help much (Short of every major airfield in western Europe suddenly going out of commission).

2. Strike targets on the Russian coastline

Much of the Russian coastline is highly inaccessible for parts of the year, and even then, it doesn't have major operational targets short of airfields and the like, which would probably be heavily defended by SAMs and other air defences. So, while doing this will cause some damage, it won't really hurt anybody enough to justify any expense to sink the carrier.

3. Protect NATO convoys

The Warsaw Pact has 3 ways to attack the convoys:

1. Submarines
2. Aircraft
3. SAGs

In opposing all of these, carriers are of secondary importance to airbases in places like Britain, Iceland and North America:

1. Submarines can be hunted down by destroyers with helicopters and long-range naval patrol planes like the P-3 Orion just as well or better.

2. In protecting against air attack, a carrier's only advantage to land-based aircraft is it's ability to stay directly with the convoy. Soviet bombers are capable of carrying long-range anti-ship missiles such as the AS-4, which has a range of 400km, that practically nullifies the carrier's advantage due to the fact that the CAP would have to travel several hundred kilometers in order to stop the bombers from launching.

3. These could be sunk just as well by land-based bombers and submarines, and an AAW ship would probably be a better defence as well.

So, while a carrier would undeniably be useful in this scenario, it's destruction, beyond the morale and prestige hit, would not be as strategically decisive as to warrant the use of unnecessary force. One might take a dozen bomber regiments and use them better to destroy targets like airfields, supply dumps and convoys (Thus nullifying some of their added air defense as well).

Of course, carriers can be more important targets in locations such as the Pacific, where the ranges are large and a moving airbase more essential; but even then it's destruction wouldn't justify any amount of resources.

There was a scene in the 2002 movie, "The Sum Of All Fears" in which several low-flying Russian Tu-22M Backfire bombers attacked the USS Carl Vinson (CVN-70) en masse. Most of the missiles fired from the bombers were destroyed by the carrier strike group's anti-missile defenses, but a few managed to make it through and thus caused significant damage to the ship. Then again, it was only a movie.

Again, it is most likely very difficult to "sink" a carrier due to the principles of buoyancy resulting from the design of most aircraft carriers themselves. Not to mention an aircraft carrier's defensive weapon systems and sensors carried on board and those of the ships surrounding her.

It is very, very difficult to attack a carrier strike group with air and/or surface forces, due to the fact that the carrier herself has several weapon systems, sensors, radar, sonar, etc. Not to mention the fact of the several other ships in the carrier strike group with the same aforementioned properties. The most feasable way to attack or sink an aircraft carrier, (and I use the word "sink" very lightly), is via sub-surface forces. If I recall correctly, carrier strike groups also travel with a few fast attack submarines for protection against enemy submarines.

The only other feasable way that I can think of to sink an aircraft carrier and/or its entire carrier strike group, is via a nuclear weapon, in the tactical, low yield range.