Comments by "Alan Friesen" (@alanfriesen9837) on "Just when will aircraft carriers become obsolete?" video.

  1. Carriers are more effective in some situations than in others. Marines are going to need air support and if the target is a long way from a friendly airfield the carrier can provide that. Certainly in a conflict with a relatively weak foe carriers can act as effective hammers as well as contribute to the area air superiority. Also, during peacetime nothing says "Don't ignore me!" quite like a visit from a carrier group. The costs and rebuild times of capital ships seem to have made naval powers reluctant to engage each other at least during the World Wars. It's during these all-or-nothing wars though that we really learn which weapons can get by which defenses and how vulnerable these vessels actually are. Of course there are other less direct influences on this as well, especially the ability, or inability, of a force segment to avoid detection. Also, things like communications interception and code-breaking have played huge roles in who defeats whom especially in the open ocean. And then there is luck: A commander who dooms their people by engaging prematurely without enough information to make a sound decision could on the other hand be the commander who doesn't seize the opportune moment because s/he is afraid to engage without a better understanding of the battlefield details. Sometimes being aggressive is the path to victory, other times it's the best way to get slaughtered, but I digress. The supercarrier is a remarkable weapon, and given the choice, I'd rather enter the war with a fleet of them than without, and I think that will be the case for some time.
    3
  2.  @Gguzicki  I think it was a PR stunt. If anything we should have fewer branches of service. There was no good reason to elevate the Army Air Corp into the Air Force, it just complicated the command chain and created a branch of service with no consideration of casualties. This creation of a "Space Force" is even worse. The orbital military assets and strategy should be determined by the needs of the Army and Navy and they should be controlled by those branches.
    2
  3.  @endintiers  Running out of assets first makes whatever you've got obsolete.
    1
  4. The advantage an island has over a carrier is that if an airfield is bombed it can be repaired in a few days if the construction equipment is present. Of course, it could be bombed again. If a carrier is bombed successfully it probably won't be salvaged during the current conflict. Of course theoretically if a carrier survives a bombing it could go somewhere else, maybe somewhere out of reach or at least somewhere where defenses are stronger.
    1
  5. That's a sensible approach if you don't have the budget build a proper battle fleet.
    1
  6. I don't think a helicarrier is realistic, at least not one that remains airborne indefinitely. It would require too much fuel and a simple mechanical issue would spell the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, as well as the loss of an insanely expensive platform. What would be more feasible would be an airship. Of course a lighter-than-air craft that could hold an air wing and all of its components would be incredibly large.
    1