We think of World War II in the Pacific as the "war of the carriers." Well, that's technically true. But keep in mind that only five carrier v. carrier battles were fought during the entire war. Moreover, there hasn't been another carrier-to-carrier battle since the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June 1944. That's over 60 years and another one doesn't look too likely anytime soon.

The carrier versus carrier era lasted only 25 months (from the Coral Sea in May 1942 to the Philippine Sea in June 1944). Actually, the last carrier v. carrier combat that was anything like an even fight was in October 1942 (Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands). This was the last time an American carrier was sunk by carrier aircraft. In effect, the Golden Age of Aircraft Carriers lasted from May to October 1942. Five months, four battles. To be sure, there was a fifth carrier battle, which the Japanese lost, in mid-1944. But that one was called the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot, which gives an idea of how lopsided it was.

Carriers proved to be more useful against everything else. Attacks on enemy bases and ships and in support of amphibious landings composed the bulk of carrier activity throughout the war. Although land-based planes were more effective than carrier planes, the carriers could be moved quickly across the vast expanse of the Pacific. It was this mobility that made carriers less effective. They could not carry as much avgas and munitions as a land base could stockpile. Operating at sea caused more damage to planes and the shortage of space on a carrier made aircraft maintenance much more difficult. Despite these limitations, the aircraft carrier reigned supreme across the Pacific. The last American carrier lost in combat was a victim of land-based aircraft (USS Princeton (CVL 23) on 24 October 1944). As long as carriers stayed away from more numerous land-based aircraft, carriers could slug it out with anything they came up against.

Erm YNCS, the USS Bismarck Sea, CVE 95, was sunk by Kamikaze planes on February 25th 1945. This was the last allied carrier to be sunk.

Adler

He probably wasn't including escort carriers in that statement.

I probably wasn't. :p

That he didn't say :p.

Adler

I didn't include the Bismarck Sea because the reference book I used, Robert Brown's Warship Losses of World War Two (New York: Sterling/Arms and Armour, 1990), lists losses by kamikaze in a different section than losses by other air attack. I didn't look in the kamikaze section when I looked for the last aircraft carrier lost by air action, since I knew that no fleet or light carriers were sunk by kamikaze.

Moreover, there hasn't been another carrier-to-carrier battle since the Battle of the Philippine Sea in June 1944. That's over 60 years and another one doesn't look too likely anytime soon.Only superpowers and great powers can field aircraft carriers, and considering we never have a 'major' war since WW2, it's perhaps not too surprising...

I have read a claim that major surface ships are now very vulnerable to subsonic missiles (of which the PRC has stashed thousands apparently). Is there any truth to this?

Consider how much damage the Argentineans did to British ships during the Falklands War with Exocet missiles. The British kept their aircraft carriers well to the east of the Falklands, just to keep them out of range of the Exocet carrying planes. So the British believed that their ships were vulnerable to subsonic missiles. If anything, the problem has gotten worse in the past 20 years with new generations of cruise missiles being developed.

Carriers are the ultimate in "projecting power", simply because they have such a large combat coverage area. In the thread on the Atlantic War I tried to pick up the importance of air recon a bit (not sure how successfully). Early in the war, the Germans would attack at night on the surface, or cruise on the surface while the batteries recharged. Air cover ended that, crippling the U-boat's mobility, and causing fatigue problems in the crew.

Reconniasance is in many ways more important than the combat punch. Certainly US forces, and the helicopters on cruisers and destroyers reflect the need to "go and see."

J

YNCS, I think CIWS or AEGIS can take care of most ballistics inbound to a carrier. However, if you've read Red Storm Rising, there's a scene where the Ruskies overwhelm Nimitz's anti-air capabilties with like 50 missles, its pretty nasty. Other than that, I'm confident in the capabilities of CIWS, its a beastly system they got there

The aircraft carrier is still a very usefull weapon. without it the Iraq war would have been more difficult for the Americans in the first week or so.

Carriers have changed in their role from an ASuW to a multirole combatant, with an emphasis on strike warfare, to the detriment of the other Cold War main crowns of AAW and ASW.

There was almost a carrier strike in the Falklands, but the Argie 25th of May couldn't get enough speed up to launch her Skyhawks.
The Brits did have worries with Exocet, as it cut through their unarmoured ships without great difficulty; using RN Exocets against the General Belgrano was discounted because of her belt.

Certainly, however, the Falklands showed the utility and utter necessity of the carrier, and the folly of the 1966 decision to cancel CVA-01.

Phalanx CIWS is an aging to obsolescent technology, being replaced with the far more capable RAM 21 round launcher. I am still a supporter of medium calibre CIWS, in greater than current numbers - 30-40mm provides a good rate of fire and size of shell to disrupt and destroy incoming sub and supersonic ASMs. There needs to be a good inner defence, given the limitations of modern passive defences.

AEGIS is good, very good. It is designed to deal with a mass attack, and most combatants are either equipped with it, or interface. However, a CVBG/CSG would have a bit of trouble with a persistent multi vector threat; multiple raids, and multiple sub launched ASMs bleeding their escorts dry; the ships can only have their VLS cells replenished in port.

But, in such a scenario of high intensity warfare with a sophisticated opponent, the USN would be proactive, rather than reactive.

YNCS, I think CIWS or AEGIS can take care of most ballistics inbound to a carrier. However, if you've read Red Storm Rising, there's a scene where the Ruskies overwhelm Nimitz's anti-air capabilties with like 50 missles, its pretty nasty. Other than that, I'm confident in the capabilities of CIWS, its a beastly system they got there
I Love that book. It's gotten pretty dated, but the naval/air war and the tank war in Germany are textbooks of how to write combat.

J

Certainly, however, the Falklands showed the utility and utter necessity of the carrier, and the folly of the 1966 decision to cancel CVA-01.
I disagree. What the British really needed in the Falklands was airborn Radar. A single AWACS or Hawkeye would have made an enormous difference.

J

I disagree. What the British really needed in the Falklands was airborn Radar. A single AWACS or Hawkeye would have made an enormous difference.

J
well thats one issue the RN has, they dont have a carrier-born airborne radar platform like the hawkeye.

BTW, what was CVA-01, a light carrier? ( my ship designations arent exactly up to par, id beter work on that)

CVA-01, which would have been named Queen Elizabeth, was to be 54,500 tons standard displacement, 60,000 tons full load. She would have been capable of handling E2 Hawkeyes or similar size AWACS aircraft. Certainly she could have carried Gannet AEW.3s, like the smaller Ark Royal and Hermes carried.

BTW, CVA stands for Aircraft Carrier Attack. While smaller than contemporary American designs like the John F. Kennedy and America (approximately 82,000 tons full load), Queen Elizabeth would have been rated as a large (attack) carrier.

I disagree. What the British really needed in the Falklands was airborn Radar. A single AWACS or Hawkeye would have made an enormous difference.

J

Wasnt there some controversy about Reagan denying the UK use of AWACS and sat recon after a direct request by Thatcher?

AWACS E-3s would have been at their extreme range operating out of Ascension Island. Wideawake Field on Ascension was overfilled with transports, bombers and refueling aircraft (Hercules, Vulcans and Victors) during the war. So trying to put enough E-3s on Wideawake to give any sort of meaningful coverage would have been almost impossible.

Ascension was 4000 nautical miles from the Falklands. Putting one Vulcan bomber over Stanley to bomb the airstrip required 17 air-to-air refuelings by Victors. Over half of the Victors just refuelled other Victors. AWACS E-3s would have required similar refueling to be able to loiter near the Falklands.

Yep, the RN missed AEWC, and the only way to get them down in the South Atlantic would have been via fixed wing aircraft operating off a full size CV.
Having a fleet carrier would have also probably deterred the Argies from making a play in the first place; if anything, being able to put Phantoms and Bucs into action would have been even more of an aerial victory than Sea Harriers.

Having the birds is one thing, but they need a base to operate from in a useful manner; the extreme range was one factor that limited the utility of the Black Buck strikes.

Having a fleet carrier would have also probably deterred the Argies from making a play in the first place; if anything, being able to put Phantoms and Bucs into action would have been even more of an aerial victory than Sea Harriers.
I don't know. One of the main reason the Junta invaded the Falklands was to take the populace's mind off the the dismal state of the Argentinean economy. They needed to do something, and a foreign adventure, especially for something so tied up in national pride as the Malvinas, was the obvious choice.

Of course, in real life, the Argies didn't believe that the Brits would respond the way they did. The Junta thought there would be a couple of nasty diplomatic notes and maybe a protest in the UN, and then the Thatcher government would accept the fait accompli. The Junta could read Jane's as well as anyone else. They knew the Brits couldn't do a credible force projection 8,000 miles away.

Interesting conclusion. I would argue that the Golden Age of aircraft carriers began on Dec 7, 1941, and is still going to this day. Why? Since that day aircraft carriers have basically been the undisputed queens of the sea. Cruise missiles could give them a run for their money to be sure, but even today I don't think that they alone could seriously challenge the carrier.

After all, even the Soviet triumph in Red Storm Rising relied on a very clever deception, and the arrogance/failure of the USN pilots to properly ID their targets.

I have little doubt too that we'll see carrier vs carrier battles, probably in the not so distant future. As other superpowers begin to seriously rise in the near future (China, India) and/or the US begins to wane, it won't take that long to get to the point where someone will be capable of fielding carriers capable of challenging the USN.

I have little doubt too that we'll see carrier vs carrier battles, probably in the not so distant future. As other superpowers begin to seriously rise in the near future (China, India) and/or the US begins to wane, it won't take that long to get to the point where someone will be capable of fielding carriers capable of challenging the USN.
I don't know, China has hardly any Navy to speak of, and even that is outdated Soviet equipment ( diesel submarines, an Alfa or two). India has their own carriers I believe, but they are based on HMS Colossus, so hardly a real threat there, at least not the same as if she had her hands on a Forrestall-class. But when it comes down to it, even if we get matched carrier-wise, they still have to put up with the Los Angeles and Ticonderoga class, and that my friend is where the real challenge begins.

India is getting the Gorshkov, and building its own Hermes replacement (Colossus types are fairly long gone).

Red China is investing in a number of systems and potential solutions - Kilos, Sovremennys, as well as shore based anti surface systems. They cannot hope to play conventional catch up, so are instead trying a different means of effective parity.

Neither have anything close to the Nimitz CVNs, and will fall further behind with CV-21.

Yea the Reds are mostly getting some of the 'newer' Soviet equipment, or basing their designs heavily off of them. They might be able to eventually muscle around some other nations, but they won't come close to ours, just a big turkey shoot. And now that we have those MK48 torpedoes, their Alfas cant outrun torps anymore.
CV-21, as in USS Boxer? How/why would they be getting THAT? It's lke 60 years old, I didn't know it was still around.
What does/will India operate off of the Hermes and Gorshkov? I know they're not getting JSF, do they use Yak 141s or Harriers, or just helos?
Back to subs again, the Kilos are getting old, but they're still nukes, i wonder if they have Papas and whatever that other 'new' Soviet sub was . I've never heard of the Sovremennys, but that might be what I'm thinking of.

I would assume he was referring to CVN-21, aka CVN-X or CVX.

yea probably. I'm a moron, dont mind me.

It's rather stupid that they call it that anyway, since the first ship of the class will be (IIRC) CVN-78.

the Dubya, right?

No, that is CVN-77.

It is correct that the reference to CV-21 was to CVN-21, which will probably end up as the USS Gerald Ford if current developments are followed.

It is a turkey shoot if they fight conventionally.

Indians are deploying Mig-29s on the Gorshkov, and are working on some indigenous advanced aircraft. However, if the Arjun is anything to go by, there is no need to hold one's breath.

Kilos are SSKs, and there was only one Papa that went to the scrapyard a few years ago. There is the new Amur SSK, and some SSN development. Sovremennys are DDGs with Sunburn SSMs; torpedo fodder, but can get a shot off.