Nick Childs
New technologies are challenging the utility and survivability of aircraft carriers perhaps as never before. But in a crisis, they remain the go-to option.
In response to the latest eruption of violent confrontation in the Middle East, which followed the deadly attacks by the Palestinian group Hamas on Israel, the United States resorted to its classic crisis playbook: it rushed aircraft carriers to the region. But it is not just the US that is betting big on carriers. Other countries have been pouring huge sums of money into the capability and a top European Union politician recently refloated the idea that the bloc should consider developing an EU carrier.
Send a carrier
It has become almost a cliché that one of the first questions a US president asks when an international crisis erupts is, ‘Where’s the nearest carrier?’. So one of President Joe Biden’s first moves after the 7 October attack by the Palestinian group Hamas on Israel, which threatens to spur wider regional conflict, was to dispatch the USS Gerald R. Ford, plus its accompanying strike group of escorts, to the eastern Mediterranean.
The Ford is the first of a new carrier design and the world’s largest warship and was already in European waters. Washington, soon after, also ordered the Nimitz-class vessel USS Dwight D. Eisenhower to the region. Washington said it took the action ‘to deter any state or non-state actor seeking to escalate this war’ – in other words, a message to Iran and its allied Hizbullah movement in Lebanon. Washington announced other force adjustments to strengthen its presence in the region, but none grabbed as much attention as the carriers.
Glory days
Six decades ago, the USS Enterprise ushered in the era of nuclear-powered carriers, propelled by a remarkable eight reactors. Like the Ford today, it was the world’s largest warship at the time. The Enterprise debuted on the world stage in the Cuban Missile Crisis. For the next 50 years, it remained a key front-line asset at the heart of many international flashpoints. It did so, in large part, by adapting throughout its career, not least with succeeding generations of aircraft operating from its flight deck.
There is little to compare with the visual impact and intent that comes with the deployment of a full-sized US carrier, some at upwards of 100,000 tonnes full load displacement. The scale and flexibility of the combat power they can deliver is unmatched by any other single weapons system, which remains part of their enduring value and is illustrated by their air wing and escorts that add important capabilities, including ballistic missile defence and land-attack cruise missiles. They can stay on station for a prolonged period and remain largely independent of the potentially restrictive need for host-nation support.
In the crosshairs
The might carriers represent has made them a juicy target for adversaries, evidenced by the array of ‘carrier killer’ capabilities now being deployed. Those are challenging the primacy, credibility and survivability of these eye-wateringly expensive vessels – the Ford itself cost a record USD13.3 billion to procure, before adding the price-tag for aircraft (or supporting escorts).
China is heavily investing in such systems. Famously, the US deployed two carriers in 1996 during a Taiwan Strait crisis, spurring, many argue, Beijing’s remarkable naval transformation. China has fielded anti-ship missiles and hypersonic glide vehicles to threaten US carriers in a potential future crisis. Whether the US would pull off the 1996 manoeuvre again is questionable.
One answer to the carrier vulnerability issue may be that other platforms may take on some of its messaging role. Submarines, for example, are both more survivable and becoming more capable of power projection. At a time of tension on the Korean peninsula in 2017, then-president Donald Trump flagged the deployment of an Ohio-class nuclear-powered, cruise-missile-armed submarine as much as he did the dispatch of a carrier.
Arresting development
None of that has undermined the appeal of the carrier to those who can afford the considerable entry fee. The United Kingdom has got back into the business with its two 65,000-tonne Queen Elizabeth-class carriers. The Indian navy has two carriers and wants a third. France plans to replace its current nuclear-powered carrier, Charles de Gaulle, with a larger and more capable ship. Japan is converting two of its big-deck carriers for fixed-wing operations. South Korea is still toying with carrier ambitions. There are potentially others.
China, even as it pursues ways to deter US carriers, is looking to expand its force. It fields two carriers that are smaller and more limited than the American ones, though enough for long-range independent deployments for influence or other missions. Larger, more capable carriers are set to follow.
No comments:
Post a Comment