Why aircraft carriers are still the go-to for projecting power

The ability of aircraft carriers to project power is more important than ever as global threats rise.
"There is no other single weapons system that can deliver the same kind of signal, message, flexibility," International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) naval forces and maritime security expert Nick Childs told Forces News.
In the video above we take a look at why aircraft carriers are still the go-to system for projecting power.
More: www.forces.net/services/navy/...
#forcesnews #navy #aircraftcarrier #warships #military
Subscribe to Forces News: bit.ly/1OraazC
Check out our website: forces.net
Facebook: / forcestv
Instagram: forcesnews...
Twitter: / forcesnews

[@johnallen7807]

And maybe if we ever get the 138 F-35s we were originally supposed to order we will have a half way capable force?

[@unknownuser069]

The RN/RAF are waiting on their Block 4 F-35, which have some major improvements. The UK could have had all their F-35 if they accepted the Block 3 they originally ordered. But when the UK wanted to wait on the Block 4, which is a good decision for several reasons, we traded and took their Block 3 and started operating them. You get your new Block 4's as soon as the software is complete. (The planes are already manufactured and at least some already have their RN and RAF livery.) The UK will have the best F-35's in the world for a little while. What about those Block 3 F-35? Actually a lot of "your" F-35B are operating from QE and PoW in USMC livery. We are partners... the US will never leave you without adequate defense.

[@johnallen7807]

The problem is that since the end of the Cold War we (and the rest of NATO) have relied on the US to cover our constant defence cuts. I'm embarrassed and ashamed that we barely spend 2% on defence while the US is over twice that! Both of our tired old two parties are a disgrace, I understand for example we have only "about 40" MBT's ready for immediate deployment! God help us @@unknownuser069

[@dnmurphy48]

@@unknownuser069 IN thus increasingly dangerous world we need to stand together and we in the UK need to up our game rapidly. INteresting ti know the F35s are there.

[@TheIceman567]

@@dnmurphy48 are you British? Do you like the USA and Americans?

[@TheIceman567]

@@johnallen7807are you British? Do you like the USA and Americans?

[@rogermadeley7413]

I'm sure if push came to shove the US would deploy a few squadrons of F3Bb's to operate off the QE & POW's especially if their carrier force was being stretched, that's why we and others are working so closely with them.

[@ak9989]

That's because you have no other choice! Britain is our B now!

[@mosthaunted2]

The US would definately fill both our Carriers with F-35s if they ever needed to, to support them overseas.

[@mosthaunted2]

@@ak9989 Only by equipment, not by skill & Knowledge 😀

[@rogermadeley7413]

Lol...the US works for us@@ak9989

[@marsbound2024]

@@ak9989dude show some freaking respect to the Brits. They are our allies…

[@magecraft2]

We also need enough escort ships / subs for the CV's not just f-35b (although that is a serious shortage) will be a long time (without relying on allies for cover both in planes and ships) before we are comfortable.

[@al28854]

that's where the US navy comes in, because the bulk of the UK's mil. budget was dumped on these two 'new' ..... 'super carriers' that runs on diesel. So it's a still a 'brown water navy' then. Whenever the two 'new' HMS carriers venture into 'blue water' territory, the US naval escorts are there.

[@grahamthebaronhesketh.]

VTOL aircraft should be able to operate off smaller ships.

[@K_-_-_-_K]

They do in the USMC. Ospreys & f35s use their amphibious assault ships. I think Japan does it too

[@adamcottrell6454]

​@@K_-_-_-_KItaly too

[@davidhouseman4328]

They can, big mostly just means more. But it also has advantages on takeoff/landing weight.

[@jonreid7957]

Cue all the KZbin comment section military experts with their amazing knowledge and insight…

[@dnmurphy48]

And cue the morons out on a backstabbing ego trip

[@K_-_-_-_K]

Could it be that the next major conflict makes carriers redundant like they did with battleships in the last? Drone swarms. Long range anti ship missiles etc. Just a thought.

[@EnglishScripter]

Not really. Phalanx and Lasers are anti drones, then you have the Asters and SM's to counter anti ship missiles. Western offensive weapons are the planes, which is why they are superior to say the Russians not that they pose much of a threat, but the chinese sure do.

[@andrewwiggins9262]

Short answer no they will still be effective

[@davidhouseman4328]

Not redundant, but maybe they'll change. Battleships went but we still have cruisers. Similarly it might not be worth all the risk in one place that a supercarrier represents but a ship carrying aircraft still fulfils a needed role.

[@VanderlyndenJengold]

what future?

[@ingamgoduka57]

After Ukraine war I don't think so.@@EnglishScripter

[@sirwalterkissmecrack]

Two types of vessels, submarines and targets.

[@jackwardley3626]

we need 30 carries 70 cruisers 170 destroyers

[@dnmurphy48]

Purchase cost 300 billion. Operating cost at least 30 billion a year. 70 carriers would require about 3,000 aircraft at a cost of about 300 billion. And that would be the smaller UK requirement. The US would spend about 3 trillion for such a fierce (task forces are larger and the carriers need more aircraft.

[@dannycostello]

In the middle east we have Cyprus so no need for an aircraft carrier in alot of it

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Consider the following: A remote and AI controlled unmanned sub with a 'device' onboard. Could hug the bottom of the sea and go full speed vertical underneath a carrier (or other ship). Could even take out bridges and/or disrupt ports. Could even have a diver externally mounted driving the sub to get closer who could let go once the target was obtained. Sure, the cost of the sub might be expensive, but far cheaper than the cost of a carrier. (Cost / Benefit analysis).

[@charlesbrightman4237]

And with H2 electric/magnetic drive, no moving parts for propulsion.

[@FarmerDrew]

Confederate army tried the manned version and it didn't go well

[@EnglishScripter]

And there are frigates and helicopters for a reason.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@FarmerDrew I think we are a little more advanced than the Confederate army.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

@@EnglishScripter How do they stop an attack from the carrier's under belly?

[@savethebeesplantherbs8809]

why do we only have 2 surely having a mix of aircraft carrier ,helicopter carrier and anti sub carrier similar too ark royal would be a real asset for the Royal navy

[@davidhouseman4328]

Extra weight put on smaller wars we actually fight rather than the potential big war (that might go nuclear anyway). You get more sorties out of two big rather than four small carriers but more redundancy with the small. Also chances are we'd only have got 3 smaller anyway.

[@cjjk9142]

Don’t have the personal to run jet and helicopter separately. We just put them together

[@dnmurphy48]

cost. we underspend on the military as it is. The extra many billions you suggest will not be provided by our morally and financially bankrupt government.

[@SonicPhonic]

....remember the USS Liberty

[@nutrunner5442]

Well all that’s ok if you have aircraft carriers that are reliable and don’t keep breaking down.

[@davidrobertsemail]

Aren’t they supposed to have planes on them though?

[@charlesbrightman4237]

Extremely Important Existential Pertinent Apparent Fact: EF AEAD SE Eternal Future, All Earthlings Are Dead, Sorry Earthlings.

[@charlesbrightman4237]

SMART PEOPLE AND/OR AI'S NEEDED: Consider the following: UNLESS the following Impossible Mission is successfully accomplished, our very life and existence does not ultimately matter: MISSION IMPOSSIBLE: (Or so it currently appears): For those who have the mental and physical resources to help (including AI's): Try to save at least 1 single species on and from this Earth to exist beyond this Earth, solar system and most probably collapsing spiral shaped galaxy into a universe that never ends in a big freeze or by some other means so that life itself on and from this Earth has continued meaning and purpose to potentially throughout all of future eternity. (Otherwise, all life on and from this Earth, real and artificial, eventually dies and goes extinct, is ultimately meaningless in the grand scheme of things, and are all a waste of spacetime in this universal existence.) * Mission Impossible of the Highest Order: MIHO. * Nature is our greatest ally in so far as Nature gives us life and a place to live it, AND Nature is also our greatest enemy that is going to take it all away. (Can we change the ending?)

[@Sp3ctr354]

The projection of gender-equality, diversity, & inclusion iz priority-one, y'all!!

[@JOHNDOE2K13]

I agree but airel droneware is a issue we must be able shoot shxt out the sky 😂

[@andrewhayes7055]

Typical UK build two mega expensive carriers and have no planes to fill them! we must be a laughing stock.

[@borinvlogs]

they are about 32 units of F35 currently in service, 50 more are being built and due for delivery.

[@SCscoutguy]

@@borinvlogs there are no 50 being built and due for delivery. If you read Ben Wallace's last white paper the UK is only committed to around 60 F-35's total for the entire life of the program with an option for 20 more.

[@cjjk9142]

@@SCscoutguywe moved on to building our own 6th gen. The money is going there instead. BAE are getting billions for R&D

[@cjjk9142]

Both can be filled to sufficient capacity, 15 on each. Only the USA has the capacity to fully deck super carriers; also we prefer to have a few Merlins and apache which takes up a lot of space

[@davidhouseman4328]

@@SCscoutguy they looking at the next order of 26 on top the the current 48 order. They've always avoiding saying a final number.

[@TheLastCrumb.]

In other words we have two empty floating car parks. Complete joke.

[@davidhouseman4328]

No, we have two part empty carriers. Empty is a joke, part empty is effectively just a smaller carrier, still very useful.

[@cjjk9142]

No we have 2 carriers that are on exercises and not deployed. The whole “why don’t we fill them to the brim for no reason” is getting annoying We could fill the HMS queen ELIZ with 30 F35s; which is more 5th gen fighters than Russia has combined in their entire fleet. 10 Merlin helicopters and then a handful of apache attack helicopters.

[@Rudraksh-ql4ce]

​@@cjjk9142china has 200 stealth J20s , so how's that more than china and Russia combined=?

[@borinvlogs]

Not against China.

[@mamadu7298]

Air craft carriers are outdated for a modern warfare, as matters of fact it is a single point of failure where you have a lot of assets in the carrier but cannot protect it from some type of missiles.

[@alexanderthegreat445]

That’s why you have vessels like Destroyers and Frigates to protect it. The Royal Navy operates one of the most advanced Air-Defence Destroyers in the world while the Type-26 that’s coming into service is also cutting-edge in anti-submarine warfare, and that’s not even mentioning the air-defence capability it brings with it. Aircraft carriers are only outdated when something comes along to replace it and does it’s job better in Modern warfare which we have yet to see. Carriers aren’t outdated because they can be sunk, all ships can be sunk and destroyed, but only when a replacement type of ‘capital ship’ comes along would it become outdated.

[@jb76489]

Do you not know what air defense is?

[@ak9989]

😂😂🤣 I laugh at how Britain thinks the USA needs their help with carriers. The UK is still trying to act like a major power, which in reality they are not.

[@davidhouseman4328]

They don't need the UKs help, but they certainly want it. Extra assets are extra assets.

[@JG-mp5nb]

The UK clearly punches above her weight, and the USA would quickly backfill the UK carriers F-35 complement.

[@unknownuser069]

The UK carriers fill a special niche, and we are always proud to have you alongside. Stronger together! The RN does things differently than the USN ... and that means there is a lot of learning that happens when we work together. That said ... there is a plan to convert QE and PoW to CATOBAR... and I am against that. They'd lose what makes them unique and only gain a little capability. Better to partner with the French on their PANG concept, (or develop a similar concept on your own) and use the money that would go to converting QE and PoW on a 3rd and 4th carrier- which would cost about the same as the conversions! The French tech is about on Par with what is on the USS Ford - in fact its the same same key systems. Then again I have also argued for the USN buying about 10-20 of those small carriers. We don't need to put 100 aircraft off a coast that often... but being able to get 30 in more places would be good. It would also allow us to spare assets more often for humanitarian missions.

[@alexanderthegreat445]

Very few nations can even operate a medium-sized aircraft carrier, let alone two heavy QE-Class carriers. Britain’s closest equivalent in terms of power, France, only operates one carrier that’s smaller than a QE and a bit aged. The fact that the United Kingdom, which according to you is not a major power, can do this while literally no other country other than the massive powers of China and the USA, should seriously make you reconsider your judgement. The USA WANTS the UK to help them in order to increase interoperability and assist in coalition-building, they have made that very clear.

[@JG-mp5nb]

Fun fact; Italy has two light carriers with F-35’s, and a LSD that also has VSTOL capability!

[@ak9989]

Hey Britania you don't rule the waves anymore, we do 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇲🇺🇲🇺🇲

[@TheMVCoho]

Considering China has the worlds largest Navy and the US isn't investing in ship building nearly enough to replace the ones leaving service, our Navy is rapidly shrinking too. And even at that we aren't meeting recruitment numbers for new sailors. In light of those facts it would be best to put down the trumpet and work with our best military partner.

[@bootlegpete7984]

Everyone has Nukes now mate... You're 80 years too late to be an unstoppable super power like Britain was. Just. One. Single. Nuke. And its over for everyone.

[@mosthaunted2]

Your Country exists because of Britain, don't forget that.

[@bootlegpete7984]

@@mosthaunted2 They do tend to forget that George Washington has a Cornish accent, don't they?

[@mosthaunted2]

@@bootlegpete7984 And they forget that their Independance was fought by Britains against Britain.