No, carriers are not like battleships were in WW1. A battleship TODAY wouldn't even be like a battleship in WW1. Carriers have maximal defense against the things that can attack them, whereas battleships did not. Battleships could only attack other surface ships and targets close to shore, but with terrible accuracy, especially compared with the modest submarines and aircraft of that era. Carriers today, however, can launch aircraft that can fly for hundreds of miles, even thousands with refueling aircraft, and hit targets at sea or on land with pinpoint accuracy, often while being out of range of their defenses. The carriers can certainly stay out of range. Our supercarriers can carry more aircraft than the vast majority of air bases can house, and they're mobile, making them far more difficult to attack. An airbase can easily be knocked out of action by a few missiles. Carriers are loaded with counter-measures. They are basically mobile air bases that are very difficult to attack.
Chinas two "carriers" are decidedly not that. They have new ships, but that doesn't make them good. They make big claims about their capabilities so they are likely compensating for their weakness. Their navy doesn't have enough defense against what we can throw at them, and they are basically locked into China's coastal waters, making them much easier to find and easier to avoid. The fighters they can launch from their carriers can't take off with a full load of weapons OR fuel, making them much more ineffective in combat. They also likely won't be able to detect our stealth aircraft before getting shot down, and even if they do they won't be able to lock onto them. Our pilots are far more highly trained, too. Same goes for our surface ships. We will degrade their navy by air and submarine until we can easily overmatch them on them on the surface. They have "more ships", but they include small coastal patrol or missile boats in that number, which our Navy has like a dozen of. So yeah, the Chinese look good on paper, but that's it. And this is the opinion of someone who is not a layman.
No, carriers are not like battleships were in WW1. A battleship TODAY wouldn't even be like a battleship in WW1. Carriers have maximal defense against the things that can attack them, whereas battleships did not. Battleships could only attack other surface ships and targets close to shore, but with terrible accuracy, especially compared with the modest submarines and aircraft of that era. Carriers today, however, can launch aircraft that can fly for hundreds of miles, even thousands with refueling aircraft, and hit targets at sea or on land with pinpoint accuracy, often while being out of range of their defenses. The carriers can certainly stay out of range. Our supercarriers can carry more aircraft than the vast majority of air bases can house, and they're mobile, making them far more difficult to attack. An airbase can easily be knocked out of action by a few missiles. Carriers are loaded with counter-measures. They are basically mobile air bases that are very difficult to attack.
My meaning was that they're becoming too expensive for the punch they pack relative to modern options.
I would venture that space force (rods from god, DEWS, and other orbital weapons) in addition to recent improvements to classical tech (hypersonic missiles, artillery that can fire thousands of miles, destroyers with limited air and outsized rocketry armaments (or laser weapons to fight off incoming planes, drones, or rockets, and an uplink to call in a rod from god/DEWS strike)) will present attacks that large targets like carriers cannot defend against. At the same time, a return to real money and a worldwide end to the slavery of communism will make it impossible for other nations to finance the construction of such gigantic projects. The latter factor will make smaller scale operations run out of destroyers and smaller the norm.
I doubt we'll see many more carriers built beyond than those that already exist. The biggest military ships are in our past.
Chinas two "carriers" are decidedly not that. They have new ships, but that doesn't make them good. They make big claims about their capabilities so they are likely compensating for their weakness. Their navy doesn't have enough defense against what we can throw at them, and they are basically locked into China's coastal waters, making them much easier to find and easier to avoid. The fighters they can launch from their carriers can't take off with a full load of weapons OR fuel, making them much more ineffective in combat. They also likely won't be able to detect our stealth aircraft before getting shot down, and even if they do they won't be able to lock onto them. Our pilots are far more highly trained, too. Same goes for our surface ships. We will degrade their navy by air and submarine until we can easily overmatch them on them on the surface. They have "more ships", but they include small coastal patrol or missile boats in that number, which our Navy has like a dozen of. So yeah, the Chinese look good on paper, but that's it. And this is the opinion of someone who is not a layman.
This is pretty well what I've been saying, but articulated better. China acting like having a floating platform on top of which planes can technically land is the same as a US carrier group. It definitely is not and if it came to blows, China would be almost immediately restricted to operating off its coast, if even that.
I bet you the US navy knows where every single Chinese sub is all the time. I doubt very much the Chinese have that advantage on any Western power.
No, carriers are not like battleships were in WW1. A battleship TODAY wouldn't even be like a battleship in WW1. Carriers have maximal defense against the things that can attack them, whereas battleships did not. Battleships could only attack other surface ships and targets close to shore, but with terrible accuracy, especially compared with the modest submarines and aircraft of that era. Carriers today, however, can launch aircraft that can fly for hundreds of miles, even thousands with refueling aircraft, and hit targets at sea or on land with pinpoint accuracy, often while being out of range of their defenses. The carriers can certainly stay out of range. Our supercarriers can carry more aircraft than the vast majority of air bases can house, and they're mobile, making them far more difficult to attack. An airbase can easily be knocked out of action by a few missiles. Carriers are loaded with counter-measures. They are basically mobile air bases that are very difficult to attack.
Chinas two "carriers" are decidedly not that. They have new ships, but that doesn't make them good. They make big claims about their capabilities so they are likely compensating for their weakness. Their navy doesn't have enough defense against what we can throw at them, and they are basically locked into China's coastal waters, making them much easier to find and easier to avoid. The fighters they can launch from their carriers can't take off with a full load of weapons OR fuel, making them much more ineffective in combat. They also likely won't be able to detect our stealth aircraft before getting shot down, and even if they do they won't be able to lock onto them. Our pilots are far more highly trained, too. Same goes for our surface ships. We will degrade their navy by air and submarine until we can easily overmatch them on them on the surface. They have "more ships", but they include small coastal patrol or missile boats in that number, which our Navy has like a dozen of. So yeah, the Chinese look good on paper, but that's it. And this is the opinion of someone who is not a layman.
My meaning was that they're becoming too expensive for the punch they pack relative to modern options.
I would venture that space force (rods from god, DEWS, and other orbital weapons) in addition to recent improvements to classical tech (hypersonic missiles, artillery that can fire thousands of miles, destroyers with limited air and outsized rocketry armaments (or laser weapons to fight off incoming planes, drones, or rockets, and an uplink to call in a rod from god/DEWS strike)) will present attacks that large targets like carriers cannot defend against. At the same time, a return to real money and a worldwide end to the slavery of communism will make it impossible for other nations to finance the construction of such gigantic projects. The latter factor will make smaller scale operations run out of destroyers and smaller the norm.
I doubt we'll see many more carriers built beyond than those that already exist. The biggest military ships are in our past.
This is pretty well what I've been saying, but articulated better. China acting like having a floating platform on top of which planes can technically land is the same as a US carrier group. It definitely is not and if it came to blows, China would be almost immediately restricted to operating off its coast, if even that.
I bet you the US navy knows where every single Chinese sub is all the time. I doubt very much the Chinese have that advantage on any Western power.