Are Aircraft Carriers Too Easy To Sink?

In summary, while aircraft carriers undoubtedly face real threats, most experts believe their extensive defenses and continued utility make them worthwhile - for now.

The debate really centers on how the threat environment is evolving and how quickly defenses need to adapt. Reasonable minds can disagree on where that balance lies. There are good arguments on both sides of this complex debate.

[edferd]

Don't forget the fast attack submarine escorts. 🇺🇸

[reynoldrosa]

This video is asking the wrong question. The question that should be asked is: What happens to a country that manages to sink a U.S. carrier?

Think about it. The U.S. has 11 carriers. It'd be hard for any military to sink all of them. Most countries wouldn't be able to get past the rest of the ships in the carrier battle group, or its aircraft. Imagine having the full force of the U.S. Navy coming at you. The retaliatory strike would make an example of any country dumb enough to try to sink a carrier. They'd be wiped out of existence if they did succeed.

[YouTubeOdyssey]

It doesn't hurt financially when you lose one unless you intend to replace it

[gijsdewever]

There was once a nuclear bomb dropped dead center on a aircraft carrier it didnt sink and that was a older claas hull

[LordNerfherder]

It isnt a coincidence that bigger ships are slowly getting phased out. The future will be smaller drone motherships that perhaps can even bed submerged to hide almist completely, with at most a couple of vtols. It is cheaper and safer with 10 smaller ships than 1-2 larger ships and are almost as hard to shoot down each singular one. It is more flexible and power can be projected where needed, not where they are currently stationed.

[Indyofthedead]

The Soviet Union acknlowledged they'd need to dedicate and lose hundreds of aircraft just to destroy a single carrier. The US has 11 of these.

[razzlevision]

Don't forget they have submarine support

[randytrader]

they're not quite sitting duck's, they have a wide range of defensive weapons and even more offensive weapons.. I wouldn't worry too much

[londoncab]

Not easy to sink...But a "Mission Kill" is all our enemies need, though it'd be a feather in their cap to sink one

[paulmaurer]

Peace Through Strength and Superior Fire Power .

[Foxtrot_UniformCharlieKilo]

The exercises are heald under strict limitations in order to test specific capabilites. They are not meant to be a real world representation of how things would go down.

[laurencebledsoe]

What's the cost of the 80 possible aircraft and the cost of operations per year?

[Kyte]

They need to re-vamp carrier roles. Their roles should be reduced to intel gathering. Air drone carriers would be a better idea. They should have a maximum size of 300m and still carry 80 planes. Here is my personal idea.

Plane Types
1.) 10 Alpha type (manned) planes. Alpha type can be the F-35 or Gen 6 planes that will be used for strike operations. They would work along side Beta type (unmanned).

2.) 30 Beta type (unmanned wingman) would be the "Loyal Wingman" gen 6 drones. They would work along side Alpha type in a 1 Apha to 3 Beta team setup.

3.) 10 Omega type (unmanned and similar to the MQ-4C Triton's role ) would be the high altitude, long endurance reconnaissance unmanned drones.

4.) 20 Delta type (unmanned) low to medium altitude reconnaissance amphibious helicopter drones. These drones would work in shifts, so a few of them are always in the sky; day and night.

5.) The remaining 10 planes are the ones that carry mail, food and other resources on and off the carrier. Gamma type?

I wonder if aircraft carriers have the ability to make hydrogen fuel. They do have a reactor that can provide both the heat and electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. If so, they can save jet fuel for Alpha and Beta types and use hydrogen fuel made on the carrier to fuel the Omega and Delta types; since they will be constantly in the air.

[Edited some typos]

[gregw]

I can’t say I’ve ever thought about it 😂

[robdog]

Aircraft carriers never go anywhere alone they are in battle groups, which consists of all kinds of different ships and submarines. It would take a lot to get passed them all and as someone else stated. The country that did sink one would be gone the next day.

[tsr]

I'm sure in the next 20 years we are gonna find out

[dfmrcv]

An issue often overlooked when citing excercises where carriers were sunk are the rules of engagements.

For example, the infamous exercise where the Iranian Navy sunk a ton of US ships including carriers was the result of the general in charge placing ASMs on ships that can't carry them, and the simulation not factoring in the defense systems of the ships.

Nevertheless, this exercise is cited as an example for how "useless" carriers are.

[vimages]

I realise the ship has to be manned 24-7 but why on earth are there 5000 on board?

[qrzone]

It makes sense for the US because nobody even comes close in terms of naval power. Sure they might be able to sink one carrier group, but what about the others? Chances are the enemy navy will be on the ocean floor before the US runs out of carrier groups.

[syedjamil-rl]

One speed boat is enough
Sydney Australia 🐽🇦🇫♿🪑🐂🐓🐓🐗🐵✈️🐯🐅🐈🐒