Carrier Warfare, What it mean to a country

[jhungary]

First of all, i need to say, i am not a navy expert, i was trained as an Infantry Officer, i am not a keen Naval expert nor did i comment much on any Naval issue, here are what i think of the carrier group and nation's navy issue, if you found them useful, then i am happy this article helps but if you found it false claim, untrue or not useful in anyway, well, i am here to discuss not start a agruement, you can kindly point out to what's wrong with my article and i am more than happy to accept it.

What's it mean to have an aircraft carrier to a navy?

Well, carrier is big, a floating airport, where you can literally launch air-strike in any corner of the world, it's so fearsome that the enemy usually relent before you actually launch a strike from an aircraft carrier.

The tactics advantage of having an aircraft carrier servicing your navy are tremendous, you can give close air support to your ground troop in a hostile sky where no airport or airfield available (I have been on the receiving end of these strike.) Or it can help with natural diaster on your own nation by service like an airport. Finally it depict as the symbol of international superpower or regional superpower and you will be extra alert even with just a carrier ploughing up and down outside your doorstep.

As it is a symbol of superpower (Both international and Regional), why ther aren't many aircraft carrier in the world? There are in total 22 aircraft carrier (Does not count Ambi ship and LHD and so on) in service around the world, half (11) of those are with the US Navy, where Italy and Spain each have 2 and India, China, France, UK, Brazil, Russia, Thailand each have 1.

What it is or why it is there are just a little carrier force in the world (22 out of Tens of Thousand Ship) What stopping people building their own carrier? I eman everyone want to be the best and by building Aircraft carrier, they protrait them as the best,so there should be more, not less.

There are several issue regarding carrier building that stop country from developing, i am trying to point them all out in this article.

First of all, money - Modern Carrier ain't cheap, a big super carrier like the Nimitz Class cost around 4.5 to 5 billions (B, not M) to build just the hull, not including the Aircraft complement. A smaller newer Aircraft carrier like the Queen Elizabeth Class still have a pricetag of 1.5 to 2 billions (Again, B not M) for the hull only. Older, less modern Carrier priced from 30 millions to 150 Millions and then you need another "A few quid" like the british saying, to refurb it. Building a Carrier ain't cheap, but carrier cannot go out to see alone, you need to go in as a strike group, in the Current US CSG (Carrier Strike Group) the standard Group compromise of 1 Carrier, 2 Air Defence Cruiser (AGEIS), 2-3 Air Defence Destroyer (AGEIS), 2 attack submarine and 6 replenishment ship or all sort, IN smaller navy like Britain, thye usually replace 2+3 Cruiser/Destroyer combo to 4 or 5 Destroyer. All those ship are not cheap. And then you need to run them, it was estimated by a close source that a daily expenditure of a carrier can be up to 2 millions a day, although the number is classified and you guess is as good as mine, 1 mil a day price tag is very much unreachable for some.

Still, you can say, many country have a defence budgetted on 10 of billions of dollars, they should have at least able to operate one or 2 carrier group, after all, if you bought all the ship it's done and pay for, you don't pay 4 to 5 billions every year, yet only 8 of top 15 big spender have aircraft carrier. And the lest on the top 15 are turkey which ocntribute 17 billion a year, they should be able to have 1.

You're right, money is not as big of a matter, i mean it's just money, basically a country cna forked out 4-5 billions can have an aircraft carrier, but then is that it? That bring to the seocnd problem -Technology

You may have money but if you do not have the technology, even if you have the hull and aircraft to play with, you are not going to do anything with the carrier. To be able to operate a carrier one need to have multiple technological ability, you are talking about flight deck control, radar interception, scanning and communication, command structure. Which everything is connected to everything, and if you do not have the technology to connect them, you would just go running back and forth and doing nothing on the process.

And yes, you can bought the technology from where ever you got your aircraft carrier, but one thing you cannot buy is the Personnel who operate the carrier, a standard supercarrier need 5000-6000 officer and sailor to opearate, with 11 carrier, the US Carrier force alone are actually bigger than the whole Royal Australian Navy, you can't buy people who know how to operate each and every machine on its carrier, you have to train them, thinking on how you train about 10000 people professionally is a hassel to country that's only have a small logistical threater.

Still, a lot of navy still have potential to own carrier orown more carrier. but they didn't why? That's bring us to the final issue regarding carrier ownership. The Necessity. Necessity is everything, you ca have all the money, all the personnel trained and all the technology, but will you spend all the time and money if you don't need them? It will be kind os strange but didn't i just say this is one undenialle power symbol a country could get, if so, why people don't need them?

You may not know, but there is operation limit on ship operation. Ship of everytype will not operate indefintely without support and replenishment. Carrier is no exception. You maybe right, with modern Nuclear powerplant, ship's does not need to take on fuel but sailor got to eat, they got to have access to port, aircraft need jet fuel, you need ammunition to fight a war. Where did all that come from? Port. The fact is, unless you own port in EVERYWHERE in the world, you are restricted by your logistic effort, and in case you don't know, the world is pretty big....

Let's take Operation Black Buck for an example, whichis a 8000 mile raid from ascension island to falkland island in the 80s, a bomber required to fuel 7 times by 11 other tanker just to make a single trip of 8000 mile to Falkland, where the first wave 6 tanker refule the other 5 tanker and the bomber, then the 5 tank left refuel the bomber and the 2 tanker, the 2 tanker left will then refuel each other and the bomber and final journey have the last tanker refuel the bomber and then head home. This is how you do logistic if you are from a far away port without any actual port to support you, you need an exponantial number of refueling vessel to refuel and go back to home port to keep your carrier supported. Which is actually no an option.

If you still don't know what i am talking about, i will give you a senario. What if the US and the Chinese Navy were to engage a far away country, say US carrier have to deploy to afghanistan while the Chinese need to deploy to say Italy via suez canel.

US would approach either from north and stop at (Greenland (NATO-Denmark), Iceland (NATO), Britain (NATO-US Base), Italy (NATO), Turkey (NATO) and then onto Afghanistan and since they are all NATO port, unless that country are at war with the US, they have to render assistance to US warship and let them port or moored.

If China were to deployed near Italy for whatever reason, they need to stop at port (Thailand (Neutral) or India (Unfriendly), Pakistan (Friendly), Saudi Arabia (Neutral), Egypt (Neutral) and then suez canel then Italy. Thing is, Where Neutral mean they do not need to render support to Chinese fleet and unfriendly mean war or conflict has been or was broken out between those two country. Which support seems unlikely. If one of more of those port does not allow Chinese ship to moor or port at their port, then Chinese have to use the logistic train to keep the force carrier supplying.

In this sense, China does not need an aircraft carrier, well, unless you want to build a large support unit to support your carrier opeation outside homewater, your carrier is just a multi-billions dollars attactions to your citizens. Not a symbol of naval power.

In another words, Carrier should be a symbol of your country having a lot of allied. As you know, no matter how big your navy is, take US for an example, they have thousand of ship and hundred thousand of sailor 11 carrier a few good Submarine, but they all mean nothing unless they have the support of her allied, one need to know, it's the ally make a country strong, any defence force military are unless after they left their home soil, without local support, they may as well put their thumbs up their ***** as there are nothing they can do without allied support and that's what make a strong military, not because of your own force but because of how many firend you have made

 

[Icarus]

Interesting, Carriers are a luxury few can enjoy, besides the capabilities needed to build and maintain these mammoth ships, you need to set aside an entire naval group for it's protection. The carrier although a very effective weapon (especially against land based targets), is quite vulnerable in the sea. It's bulk and slow manoeuvring make it an easy target for other vessels.

 

[anon45]

First of all, i need to say, i am not a navy expert, i was trained as an Infantry Officer, i am not a keen Naval expert nor did i comment much on any Naval issue, here are what i think of the carrier group and nation's navy issue, if you found them useful, then i am happy this article helps but if you found it false claim, untrue or not useful in anyway, well, i am here to discuss not start a agruement, you can kindly point out to what's wrong with my article and i am more than happy to accept it.

What's it mean to have an aircraft carrier to a navy?

Well, carrier is big, a floating airport, where you can literally launch air-strike in any corner of the world, it's so fearsome that the enemy usually relent before you actually launch a strike from an aircraft carrier.

The tactics advantage of having an aircraft carrier servicing your navy are tremendous, you can give close air support to your ground troop in a hostile sky where no airport or airfield available (I have been on the receiving end of these strike.) Or it can help with natural diaster on your own nation by service like an airport. Finally it depict as the symbol of international superpower or regional superpower and you will be extra alert even with just a carrier ploughing up and down outside your doorstep.

As it is a symbol of superpower (Both international and Regional), why ther aren't many aircraft carrier in the world? There are in total 22 aircraft carrier (Does not count Ambi ship and LHD and so on) in service around the world, half (11) of those are with the US Navy, where Italy and Spain each have 2 and India, China, France, UK, Brazil, Russia, Thailand each have 1.

What it is or why it is there are just a little carrier force in the world (22 out of Tens of Thousand Ship) What stopping people building their own carrier? I eman everyone want to be the best and by building Aircraft carrier, they protrait them as the best,so there should be more, not less.

There are several issue regarding carrier building that stop country from developing, i am trying to point them all out in this article.

First of all, money - Modern Carrier ain't cheap, a big super carrier like the Nimitz Class cost around 4.5 to 5 billions (B, not M) to build just the hull, not including the Aircraft complement. A smaller newer Aircraft carrier like the Queen Elizabeth Class still have a pricetag of 1.5 to 2 billions (Again, B not M) for the hull only. Older, less modern Carrier priced from 30 millions to 150 Millions and then you need another "A few quid" like the british saying, to refurb it. Building a Carrier ain't cheap, but carrier cannot go out to see alone, you need to go in as a strike group, in the Current US CSG (Carrier Strike Group) the standard Group compromise of 1 Carrier, 2 Air Defence Cruiser (AGEIS), 2-3 Air Defence Destroyer (AGEIS), 2 attack submarine and 6 replenishment ship or all sort, IN smaller navy like Britain, thye usually replace 2+3 Cruiser/Destroyer combo to 4 or 5 Destroyer. All those ship are not cheap. And then you need to run them, it was estimated by a close source that a daily expenditure of a carrier can be up to 2 millions a day, although the number is classified and you guess is as good as mine, 1 mil a day price tag is very much unreachable for some.

Still, you can say, many country have a defence budgetted on 10 of billions of dollars, they should have at least able to operate one or 2 carrier group, after all, if you bought all the ship it's done and pay for, you don't pay 4 to 5 billions every year, yet only 8 of top 15 big spender have aircraft carrier. And the lest on the top 15 are turkey which ocntribute 17 billion a year, they should be able to have 1.

You're right, money is not as big of a matter, i mean it's just money, basically a country cna forked out 4-5 billions can have an aircraft carrier, but then is that it? That bring to the seocnd problem -Technology

You may have money but if you do not have the technology, even if you have the hull and aircraft to play with, you are not going to do anything with the carrier. To be able to operate a carrier one need to have multiple technological ability, you are talking about flight deck control, radar interception, scanning and communication, command structure. Which everything is connected to everything, and if you do not have the technology to connect them, you would just go running back and forth and doing nothing on the process.

And yes, you can bought the technology from where ever you got your aircraft carrier, but one thing you cannot buy is the Personnel who operate the carrier, a standard supercarrier need 5000-6000 officer and sailor to opearate, with 11 carrier, the US Carrier force alone are actually bigger than the whole Royal Australian Navy, you can't buy people who know how to operate each and every machine on its carrier, you have to train them, thinking on how you train about 10000 people professionally is a hassel to country that's only have a small logistical threater.

Still, a lot of navy still have potential to own carrier orown more carrier. but they didn't why? That's bring us to the final issue regarding carrier ownership. The Necessity. Necessity is everything, you ca have all the money, all the personnel trained and all the technology, but will you spend all the time and money if you don't need them? It will be kind os strange but didn't i just say this is one undenialle power symbol a country could get, if so, why people don't need them?

You may not know, but there is operation limit on ship operation. Ship of everytype will not operate indefintely without support and replenishment. Carrier is no exception. You maybe right, with modern Nuclear powerplant, ship's does not need to take on fuel but sailor got to eat, they got to have access to port, aircraft need jet fuel, you need ammunition to fight a war. Where did all that come from? Port. The fact is, unless you own port in EVERYWHERE in the world, you are restricted by your logistic effort, and in case you don't know, the world is pretty big....

Let's take Operation Black Buck for an example, whichis a 8000 mile raid from ascension island to falkland island in the 80s, a bomber required to fuel 7 times by 11 other tanker just to make a single trip of 8000 mile to Falkland, where the first wave 6 tanker refule the other 5 tanker and the bomber, then the 5 tank left refuel the bomber and the 2 tanker, the 2 tanker left will then refuel each other and the bomber and final journey have the last tanker refuel the bomber and then head home. This is how you do logistic if you are from a far away port without any actual port to support you, you need an exponantial number of refueling vessel to refuel and go back to home port to keep your carrier supported. Which is actually no an option.

If you still don't know what i am talking about, i will give you a senario. What if the US and the Chinese Navy were to engage a far away country, say US carrier have to deploy to afghanistan while the Chinese need to deploy to say Italy via suez canel.

US would approach either from north and stop at (Greenland (NATO-Denmark), Iceland (NATO), Britain (NATO-US Base), Italy (NATO), Turkey (NATO) and then onto Afghanistan and since they are all NATO port, unless that country are at war with the US, they have to render assistance to US warship and let them port or moored.

If China were to deployed near Italy for whatever reason, they need to stop at port (Thailand (Neutral) or India (Unfriendly), Pakistan (Unfriendly), Saudi Arabia (Neutral), Egypt (Neutral) and then suez canel then Italy. Thing is, Where Neutral mean they do not need to render support to Chinese fleet and unfriendly mean war or conflict has been or was broken out between those two country. Which support seems unlikely. If one of more of those port does not allow Chinese ship to moor or port at their port, then Chinese have to use the logistic train to keep the force carrier supplying.

In this sense, China does not need an aircraft carrier, well, unless you want to build a large support unit to support your carrier opeation outside homewater, your carrier is just a multi-billions dollars attactions to your citizens. Not a symbol of naval power.

In another words, Carrier should be a symbol of your country having a lot of allied. As you know, no matter how big your navy is, take US for an example, they have thousand of ship and hundred thousand of sailor 11 carrier a few good Submarine, but they all mean nothing unless they have the support of her allied, one need to know, it's the ally make a country strong, any defence force military are unless after they left their home soil, without local support, they may as well put their thumbs up their ***** as there are nothing they can do without allied support and that's what make a strong military, not because of your own force but because of how many firend you have made

You should probably change Pakistan from (Unfriendly) to (Friendly), unless you have a reason to believe otherwise?

To have global access and a long term sustainable global presence, open ports are an absolute necessity, but regions close to the countries home region are open to a short term non-sustainable presence.

 

[anon45]

Interesting, Carriers are a luxury few can enjoy, besides the capabilities needed to build and maintain these mammoth ships, you need to set aside an entire naval group for it's protection. The carrier although a very effective weapon (especially against land based targets), is quite vulnerable in the sea. It's bulk and slow manoeuvring make it an easy target for other vessels.

Indeed, its a pretty interesting convergence with the position of artillery. It is a fearsome force multiplier, but is very vulnerable if sailing without protection. Of course they can't really be compared much except in the sort of role they play.

 

[jhungary]

You should probably change Pakistan from (Unfriendly) to (Friendly), unless you have a reason to believe otherwise?

To have global access and a long term sustainable global presence, open ports are an absolute necessity, but regions close to the countries home region are open to a short term non-sustainable presence.

Lol i was thinking India when i wrote Pakistan, it have been resolved.....

 

[Soumitra]

THis is the reason why only US can afford 11 carriers. However India will also have 2 carrier groups soon. And since we do not have any conflict with Italy (an ex Italian is the most powerful woman in India) or Timbuktu so logistics won't be a problem for us. We will operate in IOR region or pay a friendly visit to some like minded countries in South China Sea area.

 

[Shinigami]

OP, is there a place called "Lund" in sweden? are you from there?

i have a swedish in law. he never mentioned it

 

[tvsram1992]

Thanks , India is blessed with natural defensive carriers : Andaman , Nicobar and Lakshadweep .

 

[jhungary]

THis is the reason why only US can afford 11 carriers. However India will also have 2 carrier groups soon. And since we do not have any conflict with Italy (an ex Italian is the most powerful woman in India) or Timbuktu so logistics won't be a problem for us. We will operate in IOR region or pay a friendly visit to some like minded countries in South China Sea area.

Well, the definition of "Blue Water Navy" as a navy that can provide sustained naval operation away from homeport and condution operation from anywhere in the world, there are no definite measurment of how to count a navy as "Blue-water" but one universe requirment are they have to be able to gain access to all open sea and have permanent resupply base in most of the world and within it's own navy's supply range (Hence your operation can be sustained)

If we use that, then unfortunately, India is not a blue water navy since the capital ship of india are still using diesel power instead of nuclear power, infact, only 3 countries in this world can count as a blue water navy if we are under this term, they are USA, French and the Great Britain.

However, in an internal memo released on 2008, US Navy started classified some country's navy as a new "Green-Water navy" which is an ocean going navy without proper logistic support.

OP, is there a place called "Lund" in sweden? are you from there?

i have a swedish in law. he never mentioned it

Lund is a place in southern Sweden, almost the southern tips of Sweden, in the province Scania (Very famous for its heavy vehicle) Lund is a cultural city where there are a very well know Catheral built around 1100 AD (Lund Catheral - Lunds domkyrka) and a very well know Top 5 University in Sweden (Lund University- Lunds universitet)

I was from the USA, born in Kansas City, and my wife is a Swedish from Dalarna (Old Norse) and she was a Doctoral research candidate with the Lund University

 

[Abingdonboy]

If we use that, then unfortunately, India is not a blue water navy since the capital ship of india are still using diesel power instead of nuclear power, infact, only 3 countries in this world can count as a blue water navy if we are under this term, they are USA, French and the Great Britain.

How can you call the RN (UK Navy) Blue water but then not the Indian Navy? The RN doesn't have nuclear powered ACCs (they don't even have ACCs right now!). The IN has a SSN and will have a SSBN in operations by next year. As for logisisitcs the IN too has a capable logsitics arm.

 

[longyi]

self deleted ....

 

[Icewolf]

Very nice & informative

 

[jhungary]

How can you call the RN (UK Navy) Blue water but then not the Indian Navy? The RN doesn't have nuclear powered ACCs (they don't even have ACCs right now!). The IN has a SSN and will have a SSBN in operations by next year. As for logisisitcs the IN too has a capable logsitics arm.

lol don't shoot the messenger, i did not made the rules and i am just interpreting it.

Let me further explain the concept of Blue-Water Navy.

The basic idea of Blue-Water Navies is they can influence international politic by their navies. In short, when one country can deploy an sustainable naval operation to any oversea location, they should be considered a Blue-Water navy.

The idea was so, but ther are lack of clear requirement or procedural rules to further define the meaning "Sustainable", so many explaination follow. Factor like ocean going vessel, base location, allies and Military Cooperation should consider as the decisive factor.

Basically there are 2 branch of definition that classified a Navy as Blue-water navy, one if by judging the Operation side of a navy, and the other is judged by their Influence side. And UK can be classified as Blue-Water by the either side.

The fact is UK does have aircraft carrier, infact, under some naval doctorine, the UK have 1.5 aircraft carrier.

HMS Illustrious (R05) is a traditional Ski-jump Light Aircraft carrier with a complement of 22 sea harrier and an array of helicopter.

HMS Ocean (L12) is a Helicopter Carrier which can be double as Aircraft transporter, without modification it can launch and receive non-full loaded harrier

You may say even so, both ship are diesel powered and they cannot gon far without resupply, the only different between RN and INS is basically RN own ports that's outside its sphere of influence, while India have not. Do remember UK own 16 British oversea Territories over Atlantic, Africa, Pacific, Indian Ocean and Carribean. Which thus extending the operational limit of RN by multiple fold.

BOT are series of Island that was owned by the British and under British Rule, they HAVE to give support to RN fleet no matter what.... They are generally an forward port to the RN

Caribbean (Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands)
Africa, South Atlantic (South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, nt Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, Falkland Island)
Indian Ocean (British Indian Ocean Territory)
Pacific Ocean (Pitcairn Islands)

In terms of oversea territories, the British have more than US and French combine which mean them very influencial within the Pacific, Indian Ocean, Europe, the Americas and the Atlantic, well, this is pretty much the whole world.....

Operational side, they have maintain oversea bases and they did conduct oversea naval operation alone (the recentest is the Falkland Operation in 1982) and by keeping Falkland Island, they are committed to the defence of the Island, so their Oversea Naval Operation is classed as On-going.

These two factor is what the India is lacking at the moment, do remember RN in everyway is similar to the Indian Navy but the lack of territorial influence pushed Indian Navy to Green-water Navy

 

[RKhan]

How can you call the RN (UK Navy) Blue water but then not the Indian Navy? The RN doesn't have nuclear powered ACCs (they don't even have ACCs right now!). The IN has a SSN and will have a SSBN in operations by next year. As for logisisitcs the IN too has a capable logsitics arm.

They conduct operations far away form home and have foreign port. Your country has none.