Quote:
Originally Posted by desertisland
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.