So it's not just us!

Hitherto, I thought it was just us that produced the likes of floating (just!), multi-zillion aircraft carriers without any aircraft, or the equivalent there-of.  Today I am cheered to read that the 'cousins', as so often in other areas, have done even better and, needless to say, even more expensively by producing a $12 billion aircraft carrier with a propulsion system that, er, doesn't propel.  Obviously, someone is to blame and personally I point the finger at 'JK' who may have been under the influence of Mr. Barney Magroo!

Of course, both these aircraft carrier mishaps raise a question in my simple, Corporal's head, are aircraft carriers worth anything at all today?  You might say in reply that of course they must be useful because the admirals say so.  However, I would remind you that the British admirals of the pre-WWI era, except one of them, Admiral Fisher, resisted the construction of behemoth battleships which  Fisher pushed through and which saved our bacon at the battle of Jutland.  Needless to say, 'yuuuuuuuge' battleships became, so to speak, 'the flavour of the month' in the approach to WWII, especially within the Japanese navy which was 'A Good Thing' because the American carriers sank most of them!

I have raised this question before without receiving any persuasive answers but I still wonder, in this age of electronic warfare, just how useful will aircraft carriers be against foes armed with the latest laser beams and electronic energy 'bombs' that will close down communications?

Jes' askin'!

 

 

Comments

[Richard]

David,

You could throw a wonderful 'cockers P.'(that's naval jargon for cocktail party) on our shiny new carriers. So wonderful in fact that one could be forgiven for thinking that that was their intended function.

What ho old chap!

Richard

[graham b]

I read that various countries ,ie China and Russia are working on rockets so fast that they do not need explosives ,the sheer inertia of a hunk of metal doing 4000 mph will destroy pretty well anything. I don't doubt that they will sell these weapons to the nearest terror group so what is the bloody point?
Now there may be a few sh*tholes left that we haven't invaded so I suppose sending HMS Stoodstill might throw the natives into a dance of terror but honestly I doubt it.
I've already bought 3 Concordes and a Nuclear submarine through the kind auspices of HMRC so can I be let off this one Sir?

[Whitewall]

Littoral combat ships working with full size carriers can be quite effective. Not all carriers must be seen for their aircraft at all times. Some carriers are effective instruments of 'diplomacy'.

[missred]

My brother the FA-18 pilot (who me brag?) would say they are useful. It gives young men a goal to become a top gun!

[AussieD]

Some carriers are effective instruments of 'diplomacy'.

G'day Whitewall. For at least two centuries the Royal Navy was the most efficient long range "instrument of diplomacy" the world had seen. The ability to make your point is greatly enhanced by the presence of a man of war whether it was a ship of the line, one of Jacky Fisher's dreadnoughts or in today's world a USN carrier.

[Bob]

It's not unusual to have a learning curve for producing cutting edge technology. At least no one will have to go into orbit to fix a ship drive like they did for the Hubble telescope lens.