Aircraft Carriers - SO Twentieth Century...

[klr]

It'll take one of em being sunk for us to move on

...to what?

Regretful public breast-beating that we bought it, and a penurious but weapon-free future.

What's this "we" business? Won't you be independent by then, with two leaky patrol vessels for your navy?

[John_fi_Skye]

It'll take one of em being sunk for us to move on

...to what?

Regretful public breast-beating that we bought it, and a penurious but weapon-free future.

What's this "we" business? Won't you be independent by then, with two leaky patrol vessels for your navy?

Yes, you're quite right. I forgot.

But though they leak, we will have the paddles for them, and the sea-loch in which they'll be stationed is not Shit Creek.

[Ian]

By the end of the century, aircraft carriers will not be a dominant platform for naval warfare like they have been for the past seventy years. I'd guess that they'll be effectively obsolete (due to greatly increased vulnerability from long-range, highly intelligent, accurate and stealthy hypersonic antiship missiles, a battery of which will cost a fraction of what a carrier does) within the next few decades. So carriers will have enjoyed roughly a century as the kings of the sea before they're dethroned. Not bad.

[Svartalf]

So what will be projection power? missiles and extra long range stealth bombers?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Militarization of space is the next logical progression.

[mistermack]

My prediction is aircraft-carrying subs. Just big enough to carry one or two jets with vertical takeoff.

Can't imagine why nobody's thought of it.

[Svartalf]

Militarization of space is the next logical progression.

Which is why the space programs have been slashed to the bone?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Militarization of space is the next logical progression.

Which is why the space programs have been slashed to the bone?

In the US, yes. I didn't say the US would be doing this first, or best.

[John_fi_Skye]

Empires have always been about establishing markets. Up to the 20th century, the world was a big enough place for empires to bump into one another over markets, and fight wars. Now that the world has shrunk to such a small place, first world "countries" (which are of course increasingly irrelevant to the multinationals, who are the organisations that hold real power) have realised that the kinds of wars we used to have are unnecessary, undesirable and so pretty unlikely. And yet we still have to have to keep the weapons with which we'd fight such wars (like the carrier), so the populace in general doesn't twig what's going on, and realise that because countries don't matter much, our "democracy" is a sham.

In the meantime, the first world reckons it also needs to fight new types of war, against nutcases, and also against others who want to overthrow the present world order. So, we have the "War on Terror", and we have Britain's involvement in Afghanistan, which - whether it's right or wrong - we can't afford, because we're spending so much on daft things like the carrier.

Nor can we afford to support the NHS properly, nor to stimulate the economy so that everybody has a chance of employment.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think the first empires were about looting their neighbors.

[John_fi_Skye]

I think the first empires were about looting their neighbors.

Yep. That too. But looting takes a lot of aggression, and the stability that can come from having peoples subjugated and then just milking them makes for a much calmer existence.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think the first empires were about looting their neighbors.

Yep. That too. But looting takes a lot of aggression, and the stability that can come from having peoples subjugated and then just milking them makes for a much calmer existence.

They invented organized warfare in the Middle East to get around that glitch in their fighting.

[Hermit]

The start of each new war is fought with the technologies and tactics of the previous one.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The start of each new war is fought with the technologies and tactics of the previous one.

Barring interim advances, yeah.

[Svartalf]

The start of each new war is fought with the technologies and tactics of the previous one.

Not really... In the 100 Year War, Philippe de Valois had initial success at Crécy because (or so the English claim) he used a newfangled weapon called the bombard, whose noise and smoke spooked the English horse... Then again, later in the war the English won total victories through use of older, but more efficient and reliable tactics and equipment (the longbow)
Similarly, in 1870, the Prussian fielded a rifle, the Dreyse, which was fairly untested in war, and the French were confident that they'd win easily thanks to their newer and better Chassepot rifle.