Outside view:A Tale Of Russian Aircraft Carriers

[Afro-European]

by Ilya Kramnik
RIA Novosti military commentator
Moscow (RIA Novosti) Aug 11, 2008
Sealed and decided: Russia will build aircraft carriers. After years of debate the naval command and the national leadership seem to have agreed that the navy should have such ships. But this has not always been the case. To understand current thinking, it is necessary to take a look at the history of aircraft carrier building in Russia.

The Russian navy first used seaplanes in World War I, when its Black Sea Fleet used them to bombard enemy ports.
The possibility of building full-scale aircraft carriers was first mooted in Russia after the Civil War. Plans were drawn up to convert some ships - the training ship Komsomolets, the battleship Poltava and uncompleted battle cruisers of the Izmail class - into a new type of vessels.
However, the economy and industry were at such low ebb that the programs had to be postponed until better times.
The next step was taken in the late 1930s, when Soviet naval architects came up with two new projects: Project 71 (a light aircraft carrier with 45 planes) and Project 72 (a heavy aircraft carrier with 62 planes).
The work got under way, but World War II intervened. After the war the naval chiefs again raised the issue, but Soviet leaders did not share the admirals' enthusiasm for this class of vessels. Nonetheless, the shipbuilding program the country adopted in the 1950s provided for the construction of two light aircraft carriers, to gain operating experience and test their capabilities.
But when Stalin died, construction of large surface ships practically ground to a halt: the new leadership did not believe in traditional fighting services and opted for missile and nuclear weapons. The question was shelved for 10 more years.
In the late 1960s, the navy got its first helicopter cruisers, Moskva and Leningrad. But they were specialist craft intended for very specific missions, and could not operate as regular carriers. Meanwhile the Nevsky PKB, the country's largest producer of surface ships, was pondering plans for a carrier of 45,000 to 50,000 tons.
Intended to provide air cover for groups of surface ships and submarines, it was to carry a complement of 35 to 40 planes, including of deck-based MiG-23 fighters, early warning aircraft, and helicopters. The ship's own armaments were meant to deal with aircraft and submarines.
But instead of a fully operational carrier, the navy again got a dud - the Nikolayev shipyard began building a series of Project 1143 ships. These so-called "heavy aircraft carrying cruisers" were to be equipped with hunter-killer helicopters and Yak-38 vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) planes. Bazalt anti-ship missiles provided an additional capability.
Still, the idea of a full-blooded aircraft carrier was slowly but surely forcing its way into the open. It had high-placed patrons: Minister of Shipbuilding Boris Butoma, who was interested in big orders from the navy, and Defense Minister Andrei Grechko, who quite undiplomatically requested that industry build aircraft carriers like the USS Nimitz.
It was decided that with completion of the two Project 1143 heavy aircraft carriers Kiev and Minsk, the first carrier of Project 1160, with a displacement of 80,000 tons, would be laid down.
But the anti-carrier lobby prevailed, and instead of starting a new series a third Project 1143 ship, Novorossiisk, was laid down. The good work, however, was continued - by 1967 the Nevsky PKB had completed plans for a Project 1153 ship, which, though smaller than the previous 1160 project, was still a true carrier and, importantly, had a nuclear power plant.
But the deaths of Grechko and Butoma put paid to the undertaking. After the Novorossiisk was launched in 1978, Nikolayev started construction of a fourth Project 1143 carrier. The new vessel was named the Baku and was to be fitted out with then non-existent Yak-141 fighter planes.
But the lame philosophy of Project 1143 was clear to everyone - twice as large as British Invincible class light carriers equipped with Sea Harriers, the Russian vessels little differed from them in capability.
The missiles they carried, while increasing displacement and adding to costs, did not redeem them - the ships proved cumbrous and under-armed either as missile cruisers or light aircraft carriers. Normally-configured aircraft, moreover, required a total redesign of Project 1143 ships.
The upshot was that, in 1982, when the Baku hit the water, the Nikolayev yard laid the keel of a vessel capable of carrying a full-bodied air wing of MiG-29 and Su-27 jets. Yet the ship, initially christened the Riga, proved another messy compromise: it had a ramp instead of a catapult and 12 Granit anti-ship missiles in vertical launch silos to complement the organic aircraft.
Even before she was launched, the first full-blown Soviet aircraft carrier changed her name from the Riga to Leonid Brezhnev. In 1987, she was renamed the Tbilisi and in 1990, Admiral Kuznetsov.
The Kuznetsov has remained the only Soviet-built carrier. Its sister-ship Varyag, which was laid down two years after the Kuznetsov, was launched but remained unfitted, while the Ulyanovsk, a larger vessel with catapults and a nuclear power plant, was cut up on the blocks.
The Kiev, Minsk and Novorossiisk also suffered a sad fate. In 1993, they were decommissioned and sold to China as floating entertainment centers, while the Baku, renamed Admiral Gorshkov and sold to India, is currently being refitted as a standard aircraft carrier at Severodvinsk, Russia.
In the 1990s, few if any debated the subject. The theme re-emerged in the mid-2000s, when it was declared that Russia needed several aircraft-carrying ships in its Northern and Pacific fleets.
The numbers mooted ranged from two or three to six or eight. Now plans envisage building five to six carriers over the next 20 years. Construction proper is expected to start after 2012.
Much as we might wish to believe in the feasibility of these plans, there remain several unanswered questions. What missions will the aircraft carriers and their escort groups fulfill? When and with what funds will Russia re-engineer (or build from scratch) the infrastructure of its naval bases for new ships? What types of planes will be based on them? How are their crews to be staffed? And lastly, how long will it take to build these vessels and their escorts, especially with the current personnel squeeze in the shipbuilding industry? It is my fond hope that the navy's command and national leaders know the answers to these questions. Otherwise, we will get at best a couple of unprovided-for ships, which will have to be sold after 10 to 15 years of service, or at worst, nothing

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/A_Tale_Of_Russian_Aircraft_Carriers_999.html

[Mastermind]

Interesting article.

As I have watched the pangs the Russian navy have gone through over the decades, it seems, aside from the Russian subs, the Russian navy is really a shore defense force, not a deep water navy. This is really what cost them during the Cuban missile crisis and the tool Regan used against them with his 400 ship navy that simply outclassed anything the soviets could hope to field.

An AC Carrier for Russia might build a little prestige, but would have a very limited role and would be entirely out classed by the US Navy. the Russians don't have anything right now that could be called a naval airforce...that is a collection of purpose built A/C that could operate from ships in a strategic array.

I doubt there are any nations on the planet that could begin to compete with the vast armada displayed in an active role by the US navy and their incredible ability to project strength militarily. If the Russians can not build 12 carrier fleets, then they probably are best served to not waste their time trying.

[Hellfish]

I don't see how the carriers would remotely be useful. I don't even see how the Soviets could have used carriers to any effect other than providing local air cover to surface raiders or amphib groups. Being that Russia has little to no strategic sealift capability (only one Rogov-class LPD is in service, and the remaining Ropucha's are all in reserve) and a skeleton submarine and surface fleet, what are they going to use carriers for? How are they going to escort them with anything like what the American carriers sortie with?

[Winger]

Carriers designed for fixed wing aircraft are a waste for the Russians. Their money would be better spent further on subs, land based maritime air and some surface combatants with significantly better systems than what they are currently fielding.

[GazB]

This is really what cost them during the Cuban missile crisis and the tool Regan used against them with his 400 ship navy that simply outclassed anything the soviets could hope to field.

Not strictly true. The main reason for Kennedy's confidence was that he had come to power on a make the US strong policy... ie previous US governments had been soft on commies and let them get a lead in bomber numbers and strategic missile numbers. This is his campaign slogan/message. When he actually got into office he saw the U-2 photos and the early spy satellite photos that showed the USSR didn't have an enormous number of bombers and missiles and that in fact the US was already superior in numbers of both, yet his promises going into power was to greatly increase the arsenal of the US. Instead of being honest with the American public and stating all these new missiles and bombers they were planning to build were not needed he changed the goals of the US military. They had previously sought peace through parity and relied on MAD to prevent war. With the increase in production of such weapons they changed to a first strike policy in the hopes of destroying the Soviet nuclear capability without global destruction. This of course made Soviet Missiles in Cuba intollerable as because of their range and distribution they seriously complicated the task of defeating all of the Soviet nuclear weapons in one swift blow.

It wasn't a lack of a blue water navy that allowed Kennedy to make demands regarding cuba... it was the lack of strategic nuclear weapons and strategic delivery platforms that forced the Soviets to agree to publicly back down. Ironically the main reason Kruschev wanted missiles in Cuba was because the US had Jupiter missiles in Turkey. A secret agreement that resulted in their withdrawl actually meant you could argue the US basically lost that tussle. The Cubans got an on paper guarantee that the US would not invade them... so they were happy. The Soviets got the US to withdraw jupiter missiles based close to their borders in Europe... so they were happy. The US gave up the right to invade Cuba and also Jupiter missiles in Turkey to stop the Soviets from setting up missiles in Cuba. The US got to pretend to win the confrontation... and the Jupiter missiles were being replaced anyway... the only reason they were deployed to Turkey was because of their lack of range.

Probably the best result was the setting up of the direct phone link between the US and Soviet Union.

Regarding these carriers I would expect they will likely go for 6 or so so that they can guarantee one is operational in the North Fleet and the Pacific fleet. (with carrier operations you generally need three carriers to have one ready all the time, as one will be in refit getting maintainence and or upgrades, one will be in training, while the third will be operational.)
These projected carriers will not likely be anything like Nimitz class carriers and will likely be for the air defence of a group of ships rather than a strike carrier like the US carriers.

[Hellfish]

It wasn't a lack of a blue water navy that allowed Kennedy to make demands regarding cuba... it was the lack of strategic nuclear weapons and strategic delivery platforms that forced the Soviets to agree to publicly back down. Ironically the main reason Kruschev wanted missiles in Cuba was because the US had Jupiter missiles in Turkey. A secret agreement that resulted in their withdrawl actually meant you could argue the US basically lost that tussle. The Cubans got an on paper guarantee that the US would not invade them... so they were happy. The Soviets got the US to withdraw jupiter missiles based close to their borders in Europe... so they were happy. The US gave up the right to invade Cuba and also Jupiter missiles in Turkey to stop the Soviets from setting up missiles in Cuba. The US got to pretend to win the confrontation... and the Jupiter missiles were being replaced anyway... the only reason they were deployed to Turkey was because of their lack of range.


You're dead-on in your assesment, but IIRC the US was already planning to withdraw the Jupiters (because they were obselete, IIRC). They may have prevented the replacement of the Jupiters by more capable systems, though.

I'd argue that all sides won the tussle.

[GazB]

Carriers designed for fixed wing aircraft are a waste for the Russians. Their money would be better spent further on subs, land based maritime air and some surface combatants with significantly better systems than what they are currently fielding.

If the Russians want to be a global power they will have interests around the world. The best way to protect those interests is with a group of ships and subs. The best way to defend a group of ships or subs is with airpower. The best way to get airpower to sea is via an aircraft carrier.

Even the most powerful and expensive naval SAM does not have the range of an short range AAM fired from an Su-33.

[Hellfish]

If the Russians want to be a global power they will have interests around the world. The best way to protect those interests is with a group of ships and subs. The best way to defend a group of ships or subs is with airpower. The best way to get airpower to sea is via an aircraft carrier.

Even the most powerful and expensive naval SAM does not have the range of an short range AAM fired from an Su-33.

My thing is that the Soviets never saw the need for carriers, and arguably they had more interest in the world than the Russians do (or will in the forseeable future).

[GazB]

I'd argue that all sides won the tussle.

My personal opinion is that the general perception is that the US won that tussle, but if you look at the facts... Cuba gained and the Soviets gained while the US was left with a public victory but practically it ended up no different to how it was before it started.

The US certainly benefited from the public victory, but the result in the Soviet Union was largely the fall of Krushchev (who was replacing everything with missiles anyway and was actually worth removing) and of course the Soviets realised that bluff and military parades with a couple of dozen bombers flying past over and over pretending to be hundreds of bombers just doesn't cut it in the satellite age and they started development and production of ICBMs like no bodies business and went from well behind to in front within a decade and a half. The result was probably 20,000 more nuclear warheads in the world than there really needed to be.

[Winger]

If the Russians want to be a global power they will have interests around the world. The best way to protect those interests is with a group of ships and subs. The best way to defend a group of ships or subs is with airpower. The best way to get airpower to sea is via an aircraft carrier.

Even the most powerful and expensive naval SAM does not have the range of an short range AAM fired from an Su-33.

Do they have the funds to put both qualitative and quantitative carriers and aircraft out there? Oversees bases to support extended deployments? Logistical ships with enough picket vessels for defense? I guess where I was coming from was that you have to learn to walk before you run.

I'm in agreement with you. But, looking at what they can afford and their more immediate needs, carriers are a misallocation for them right now. Their 20 year plan I think is unacheivable. They should stick to a single aircraft carrier. Get it right, make adjustments & then go from there.

[GazB]

My thing is that the Soviets never saw the need for carriers, and arguably they had more interest in the world than the Russians do (or will in the forseeable future).

So the Kiev class carriers and the Kuznetsov and the unfinished Ulyanov didn't exist?

The Soviets had an enormous fishing and commercial fleet to protect and supply lines to interdict. The Russians will have offshore oil assets that need protecting and its own trade routes to protect.

Again I don't think these carriers will be like US carriers... US carriers are strike weapons that are supported by carrier groups. The Russians view the Aircraft as the outer air defence ring and also eyes of the fleet and a tool to deal with enemy subs at long range.


Do they have the funds to put both qualitative and quantitative carriers and aircraft out there?

Again... these will be nuclear powered ships just for the range, but they will not be 75,000 ton Nimitz class vessels, they will much more likely be 30-40,000 ton vessels with a wing of perhaps 30 fighters. AEW is likely to be by UAV. These vessels will not all be in service till 2040. The aircraft carried will likely be Flankers initially and perhaps later a variant of the PAK-FA perhaps but that is all speculation on my part.

[Hellfish]

So the Kiev class carriers and the Kuznetsov and the unfinished Ulyanov didn't exist?.

The Kievs weren't aircraft carriers in the true sense - they were missile cruisers with short ranged fighters. The Kuznetsov is mechanically unreliable. The Ulyanov doesn't count - it wasn't finished.

[GazB]

The Kievs weren't aircraft carriers in the true sense - they were missile cruisers with short ranged fighters. The Kuznetsov is mechanically unreliable. The Ulyanov doesn't count - it wasn't finished.

I have mentioned it several times yet westerners still don't get it. The Nimitz is an example of a western aircraft carrier. The original purpose of an aircraft carrier was a ship to bring the fire power of a battleship with the range of an aircraft. Before the Soviets decided to start looking at aircraft carriers to support their naval fleet another innovation appeared... the anti ship missile and the related cruise missile. In a sense the idea of using large antiship missiles is rather similar to the current trend of using UAVs. It allows a role to be performed without risking a pilot.
The Granit missiles under the deck of the Kuznetsov don't stop it from being an aircraft carrier, just as the large antiship missiles on the Kiev class carriers don't stop them from being aircraft carriers.
They are not the same as the Nimitz but how many other carriers are like the Nimitz? The British carriers of the 80s like the Hermes are more like the Kiev than the Nimitz. In fact for targets out to 550km from the carrier group the Kiev makes rather more sense than the Hermes.
Regarding the reliability of its engines... early F-111s crashed because they had design faults in their tail design... did that mean that when the US introduced the F-111 into service they had abandoned low level strike aircraft?

It is a bit like saying the west had no interest in cruise missiles because they didn't make any custom designed cruise missile carrying subs (SSG and SSGN). They just made generic cruise missiles that all their subs could carry. The result is much less capable unless they went with nuclear warheads as standard (which they didn't), but at the end of the day it was good enough. For an attack on an AEGIS like defence however it probably could never be enough for the Soviets to adopt that idea so they built Granits and Yakhonts and a space network of satellites to use the weapons at max range.

If the Soviets never saw a need for aircraft carriers then why bother going to the expense of developing the Kiev class carriers and the Yak-36 and Yak-38 and Yak-141 VSTOL aircraft? Why bother making the Kuznetsov and laying down two other similar aircraft carriers, one of which was sold to China in a 70% completed state that is now used as a casino AFAIK, and the other even larger carrier with nuclear propulsion and steam catapaults was scrapped. They invested billions of dollars in aircraft carriers but you claim they had no interest in aircraft carriers.

[Mastermind]

Well, I thinkthe soviets may have had a much better chance of projecting their influence if they had carriers and carrier groups. Fortunately, they didn't. The only nation on earth that is still a super power is the one with the Aircraft Carriers.

That said, the advent of robotic AC, and long range deadly accurate hyper velocity cruise missiles will pretty much nullify the carriers in event of another big war.

Carriers still have that glass jaw. Now days, with satellites watching every square inch of ocean, destroying the carriers is a simple matter of pushing a few buttons. The are good against these pissant third worlders. But even those guys are getting more and more technologically adept...it will not be long before such huge expensive fleets are not worth the expense due to their outlandish vulnerablity.

They will go the way of the B-36.

That will be a sad day...they are so beautiful and full of power they bring a lump to my throat when I see them. They are the greatest things!

[GazB]

Carriers still have that glass jaw. Now days, with satellites watching every square inch of ocean, destroying the carriers is a simple matter of pushing a few buttons. The are good against these pissant third worlders.

First of all what you call third worlders make up the majority of the potential enemies of Russia in the near to medium future. Apart from the US that doesn't even have hypersonic anti ship missiles in service, not other country has the satellite coverage or weapons platforms or is likely to have them in the forseeable future. Hense if only the US and Russia have sat coverage of the worlds oceans then carriers make sense. At the end of the day unless the seas dry up there will be a need for ships and while there is a need for ships there will be a need for air power to help protect those ships. That means two choices. 1 is airfields in every country in the world with a beach or port so you can have aircraft reasonably nearby to support your ships... which wont really work that well in the middle of the pacific or atlantic where flight distances could still be long. The second option is carriers. Considering it was not too long ago that a ship based missile brought down a satellite in orbit I really don't think it will be too hard to deploy ship based missiles and with nuclear propulsion the electrical power for powerful lasers that can handle almost any missile able to fly in earths atmosphere. Aircraft don't just add reach to attack and defence they add very mobile and flexible eyes and ears without betraying the location of the fleet. They also add long range anti sub capability and sabre rattling capability that no ICBM with a conventional warhead can ever match. It can support attacks but also humanitarian operations. Helos can hunt subs but also missing yachtsmen.

Carriers might change but aircraft are as useful at sea as they are everywhere else.

[Mastermind]

First of all what you call third worlders make up the majority of the potential enemies of Russia in the near to medium future. Apart from the US that doesn't even have hypersonic anti ship missiles in service, not other country has the satellite coverage or weapons platforms or is likely to have them in the forseeable future. Hense if only the US and Russia have sat coverage of the worlds oceans then carriers make sense. At the end of the day unless the seas dry up there will be a need for ships and while there is a need for ships there will be a need for air power to help protect those ships. That means two choices. 1 is airfields in every country in the world with a beach or port so you can have aircraft reasonably nearby to support your ships... which wont really work that well in the middle of the pacific or atlantic where flight distances could still be long. The second option is carriers. Considering it was not too long ago that a ship based missile brought down a satellite in orbit I really don't think it will be too hard to deploy ship based missiles and with nuclear propulsion the electrical power for powerful lasers that can handle almost any missile able to fly in earths atmosphere. Aircraft don't just add reach to attack and defence they add very mobile and flexible eyes and ears without betraying the location of the fleet. They also add long range anti sub capability and sabre rattling capability that no ICBM with a conventional warhead can ever match. It can support attacks but also humanitarian operations. Helos can hunt subs but also missing yachtsmen.

Carriers might change but aircraft are as useful at sea as they are everywhere else.
I don't disagree with that. I see this rapid growth of technology and the easy availability of it to anyone with a pocketbook deep enough...Iran comes to mind. A five billion dollar fleet ..twelve of them, at risk to a few two million dollar cruise missiles just does not make sense. Sure, right now they don't have the full capability to use hyper sonics...but, who would have dreamed tweny years abo a back water outfit like Iran could begin developing nuclear weapons and long range missiles and cruise missiles? A bunch of rag head Hezbollahs managed to pinpoint strike that Israeli ship...and did tremendous damage. Tiny programmable computers, GPS guidance systems and such are readily available to every highschool kid now days and the programming is extroadinarily simple. Look how the terrorists have used cell phones, remote garage opener controlls modified to set remote controll bombs off. Such stuff is becoming childs play...and a small nation, hell bent on self destruction, with fifty billion to bank roll a disaster industry can produce all kinds of havoc...eventually even against very sophisiticated Air Craft carrier fleets.

I just hope our technology can stay ahead of theirs....so far so good. But, time is not on our side, I think.

[GazB]

I see this rapid growth of technology and the easy availability of it to anyone with a pocketbook deep enough...Iran comes to mind.

Attack is easy. Ask the current Georgian president. A sneak attack might be successful for a time but in the end it is usually counter productive. At the end of the day the sea lanes are vital to world trade. Everyone has their own interests and to protect those interests you need ships and to protect those ship those that can afford it use aircraft on aircraft carriers. The Aircraft carrier made the battleship obsolete because an aircraft can carry a warhead much further and with better accuracy than even the largest battleship gun. Cruise missiles can reach just as far but on their own they are not as flexible as an aircraft.


A five billion dollar fleet ..twelve of them, at risk to a few two million dollar cruise missiles just does not make sense.

Hahahaha... sorry are you talking about the US carrier groups? Don't wish to offend with my laughter, but 5 billion dollars would barely cover one carrier group... the carrier itself is probably 3 billion on its own. Add other ships like the AEGIS class cruisers, support vessels and of course a Sea Wolf or Los Angeles class SSN or more likely two and each carrier group will cost 5 billion to buy and probably half a billion to a billion a year to operate them.

Regarding attacking them, it is a little harder than you seem to think. They are targets... but they are also weapons and quite capable of defending themselves from most things. The Soviets created the Kursk and the other Oscar class SSGNs specifically to kill US carrier groups. Each of the Oscars carries 24 Granit AShMs that are much more capable than anything the Iranians have in service. One Oscar would not take on a carrier group alone either. It would be planned and coordinated attack from many platforms using satellite based info... Iran doesn't have either. The greatest threat to US carriers in the Persian Gulf would be torpedos from Iranian Kilos.


but, who would have dreamed tweny years abo a back water outfit like Iran could begin developing nuclear weapons and long range missiles and cruise missiles?

Begin developing nuclear weapons? Are these being made in mobile labs moving all around Iraq... oops Iran?
An old propaganda tactic is repetition. Keep saying it is true and eventually accepts it is true. Perhaps until there is some real proof we could refrain from making such claims?


Such stuff is becoming childs play...and a small nation, hell bent on self destruction, with fifty billion to bank roll a disaster industry can produce all kinds of havoc...eventually even against very sophisiticated Air Craft carrier fleets.

Having seen the performance of western media over the coverage of what is happening in Georgia I really wonder if the job of reporter has descended to that of copy and paster from the US State department reports and press releases. What happened to the public has a right to know? It seems it is more important to have pictures of Britney Spears with a shaved head or Paris Hilton and her little dog than to get different sides to a situation.

The Iranian people aren't suicidal. Nor are they stupid. If they ever develop nuclear weapons they will certainly not use them for anything except self defence. If they wanted a war with the US they have plenty of opportunity. They share borders with Iraq and Afghanistan. If the leadership of Iran was suicidal he could simply order his troops into both countries and deliver support to American enemies directly and in the open. What difference would it make if they had nuclear weapons or not?
The case you fear is them having nuclear weapons and actually using them. The reality is that if they did the US would likely level Iran with nuclear weapons. Look at what the US has done to Iraq and Afghanistan... it has gone in and removed the governments of both countries and replaced it. For what? For Afghanistan not handing over Osama Bin Laden, and for Iraq... who knows... it was nothing to do with the war on terror. The only al quada in Iraq when the west invaded were in the north with the kurds where saddam had no control because of the northern no fly zone. The excuse given was that Iraq had WMD. Currently the US claims Iran is trying to make nuclear weapons. In other words the US is claiming the Iranians are trying to get something they invaded Iraq for. How do you think that makes Iran feel?


I just hope our technology can stay ahead of theirs....so far so good. But, time is not on our side, I think.

The US wont let Iran get the capabilities you talk about. To reliably track a carrier group you need satellites. Why do you think the US keeps talking about ABM systems in Europe and Iranian nuclear weapons? It is so they can kill in an embryonic state any Iranian attempt at a satellite launch capability. Without the proper detection capability a weapon is much less capable. Think of an artillery piece with an effective range of 120km but fitted only with direct fire sights and unable to elevate beyond about 20 degrees above horizontal... a paper tiger.

BTW I hope I have not offended anyone with what I have said... as I mentioned above I am currently having a very hard time getting over the hippocrasy of the western governments and the western media.

[Mastermind]

Well, although it was many years ago...I remember the USS Stark incident...call it a disadvantage by surprise, dumb bad luck...what ever, but a very inept, poorly trained Iraqi pilot, who had actually almost crashed his jet twice before launcihg the anti-ship missile, managed to damn near destroy one of those wonder ships.

I won't debate the Stark incident...for what ever reason, the thing was done. All I am saying is, the billions...what ever amount they are...hundreds of billions..trillions...it just does not make sense to put such high priced targets in front of ever cheapr and ever more capable weapon systems that can be operated by high school kids.

The Ac carriers will ventually lose their mission as they are designed this day. They will evolve into something we probably can hardly imagine, now days. I am fancifully envisioning, fully robotic ships launching fully robotic aircraft...or possibly true submarine AC carriers..launching, all manner of weapons...who knows. But, the old WWII class carrier fleets are not going to stay viable in their present form forever.

[GazB]

Well, although it was many years ago...I remember the USS Stark incident...call it a disadvantage by surprise, dumb bad luck...what ever, but a very inept, poorly trained Iraqi pilot, who had actually almost crashed his jet twice before launcihg the anti-ship missile, managed to damn near destroy one of those wonder ships.

A surprise attack is hard to defend against. They probably wouldn't have had any trouble at all if there was a carrier with that vessel at the time... not because aircraft carriers are uber boats, but because carriers can operate AWACS type aircraft which can detect launched missiles very quickly and allow the target much more time to take action to avoid being hit. That ship probably had 3-4 different options to stop that missile from hitting them... it was a lack of warning that resulted in them not using any of those options. Such a vessel could have used its medium calibre gun with proximity fused ammo, Standard SAM, Phalanx CIWS and of course ship launched decoys and jammers and integrated ESM (electronic support measures to confuse the terminal guidance system of the incoming missile.

Aircraft carriers with AEW and AWACs type aircraft extend the view of the ships of a carrier group to a thousand kms. (ie a circle with a radius of 500-600km) With no mountains at sea that means even things on the water are visible. No ship, no matter how stealthy or how well armed can see better than a plane at 15,000m.
That is half the reason a carrier is useful... the other half is that if you want to go and shoot down that Iraqi plane ships are too slow, but an F-18 or Su-33 isn't.


But, the old WWII class carrier fleets are not going to stay viable in their present form forever.

I agree that nothing will stay viable forever... if humans are good at anything we really do excel at developing new ways to kill each other with greater and greater efficiency.
At the moment there are plenty of advocates for UAVs and UCAVs but at the end of the day to fill a UCAV or even a UAV with all the bits and bobs that it would need to be aware of its own surroundings and actually know how to defend itself in a way that it wont destroy its own base as it takes off and wont miss a guy with a rifle shooting at it too... well the cost of getting there make manned aircraft look positively cheap in comparison. I am not saying it wont happen, just that it wont happen any time soon.