That Enemy: The threat of being cancelled. Could the never-ending debate about aircraft carrier survivability lead to the eventual cancellation of the Ford-class?
The discussion has been both ongoing and quite clear, as it centers upon whether large, floating-city carriers like the Ford-class are now far too vulnerable to enemy anti-ship cruise missiles to exist.
Will the range, precision, and accuracy of Chinese DF-26, DF-17, and DF-21D anti-ship missiles prevent carriers from operating within the ranges necessary to project power?
Chinese Anti-Ship Missiles vs. Ford-Class
The DF-26, for example, is reported to be capable of traveling as far as 2,000 miles to destroy aircraft carriers operating off the coast of mainland China.
Chinese newspapers regularly reference the testing and the effectiveness of the PLA’s “carrier-killer” missiles.
Do these PLA (China People’s Liberation Army) weapons have the precision to track and destroy a large, slowly moving carrier?
Does this threat prevent carriers from operating within range to launch air-attack campaigns?
The discussion has been widespread and characterized by conflicting analyses. Some are of the mind to suggest that carriers have become obsolete and should not exist anymore.
In contrast, others have argued that emerging layered-ship defense technologies, refueler aircraft and tactical adjustments would still allow carriers to successfully project power.
Advocates for the continued existence of carriers point to the growing effectiveness and maturity of layered ship defenses and the ability to support warships in a Carrier Strike Group to protect large carriers; there are many fast-emerging technologies better positioned to defend carriers, such as advanced laser interceptors, EW, specific kinds of munitions such as air burst or proximity fuses to counter drone threats and multi-domain threat detection using unmanned systems to conduct forward ISR
New Concepts of Operation
The US Navy is already adjusting concepts of operation and implementing new strategies to fortify further the services’ ability to project 5th-generation air power in a successful maritime warfare environment.
Examples included the long-awaited arrival of the MQ-25 drone refueler designed to “double” the attack range of carrier-launched aircraft.
As a related development, the US Navy is not only developing large numbers of drones to operate from carriers to reduce risk to human pilots. Still, it is also engineering large-unmanned warships such as its LUSV (Large Unmanned Surface Vessel) able to launch weapons and project power without placing sailors within the line of fire. Launching fighter jets from an unmanned platform seems unlikely or complex.Yet, there may be ways to build smaller, faster, drone-carrier types of armed warships able to project offensive air power in a more survivable fashion.
The largest and most significant adjustment relates to emerging concepts of operation enabling smaller, faster, more mobile warships and platforms to carry and launch 5th-generation aircraft.
America-class amphibious assault ships, for example, can operate with as many as 20 F-35Bs on board, able to operate with ranges of roughly 1,300 nautical miles.
While still at risk of being targeted, amphibious assault ships are smaller and arguably less vulnerable than a huge carrier would be.
Smaller Mini Aircraft Carriers?
For instance, the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force has been testing smaller F-35 B-carrying mini-carriers able to project 5th-generation air power without placing a massive floating city at risk. Part of this relates to lessening the impact of casualties or ship destruction.
The Navy does not want to or plan to lose amphibious assault ships.
Yet, the built-in redundancy of a number of smaller, 5th-gen launching platforms ensures continued operational ability if some ships are disabled or hit by anti-ship cruise missiles.
Smaller platforms and unmanned systems do seem to make tactical sense, given that new networking technologies could enable a smaller, more disaggregated, less concentrated, or vulnerable air-power projection capacity.
Should warships, unmanned systems, satellites, and surface ships continue to improve the ability to securely transmit targeting and ISR detail across multiple domains in real-time, war platforms can not only be farther apart but can also be better positioned to “see” and “destroy” incoming enemy anti-ship missiles at greater stand-off distances.
About the Author: Kris Osborn
Kris Osborn is the Military Technology Editor of 19FortyFive and President of Warrior Maven – Center for Military Modernization. Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a highly qualified expert in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army—Acquisition, Logistics & Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has appeared as a guest military expert on Fox News, MSNBC, The Military Channel, and The History Channel. He also has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University
