U.S. aircraft carriers are the main stand-alone naval muscle of America, but the vulnerability of such behemoths in this modern warfare has been considered to be a serious matter of concern.
Though advanced technologies are not lacking, these huge vessels have been vulnerable due to various adversarial capabilities, particularly from advanced submarines and anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) systems.
Aircraft carriers undoubtedly play a crucial role in power projection, but as military technology continues to evolve, so too does the ability of potential adversaries to locate, target, and destroy these assets.
Nuclear and non-nuclear submarines have increasingly shown capability for undetected operation near U.S. carriers and pose critical questions about the continued viability of these floating airbases in contested environments.
This further complicates the defense landscape for U.S. naval forces with advanced torpedoes, which can evade traditional defenses,
and the introduction of next-generation missile systems, which do both; air and underwater capabilities.
Such technological changes make it clear that risks to aircraft carriers are not limited to traditional threats but also include highly sophisticated, multi-domain weapons systems.
The USS Gerald R. Ford is, therefore, one of the newest embodiments of an enormous investment the US Navy has made in ships to underpin this commitment to maintaining naval supremacy.
However, the lofty price tag as well as technical woes that accompany these technologies challenge one’s thought process about whether some of the money expended might have been better spent elsewhere, perhaps by more agile and cost-efficient platforms.
Alternatives that range from attack submarines to unmanned systems, hypersonic weapons, and directed-energy systems provide an alternative avenue for maintaining strategic dominance at a fraction of the cost.
While the Ford-class carriers were supposed to replace the old Nimitz class, size and cost characterized their design, and a lot of criticism has been raised claiming that they are oversized targets from the viewpoint of advanced missile and rocket forces.
Even the loss or damage to just one of these carriers might have profound strategic implications on the change of the balance of naval power in favor of adversaries with highly capable A2/AD systems.
In its course and continued debate, it will be seen that future U.S. naval power rests in a more intense resuscitation of how to project force and protect critical assets.
For decades, aircraft carriers have defined naval warfare, but it can be envisioned that new threats and new technologies will make a more diversified approach to naval strategy necessary,
one that emphasizes flexibility, cost-effectiveness, and rapid adaptation to the shifting dynamic of modern warfare.