The visuals are stunning: China's Fujian, a brand-new, 80,000-tonne aircraft carrier, ready to project power. The price tag? A cool £5.4 billion. Then there's the USS Gerald R Ford, ordered by Trump to Venezuela, boasting a $12.8 billion price tag. These behemoths are supposed to be the apex predators of naval warfare. But are they?
Ukraine's "functional defeat" of Russia's Black Sea fleet using sea drones throws a wrench into this narrative. Small, cheap drones versus massive, expensive warships. The immediate reaction might be to declare the aircraft carrier obsolete, a relic of a bygone era. But that's too simplistic.
The article notes that China has also invested heavily in anti-ship missiles. So, Beijing sees aircraft carriers as indispensable, despite also preparing to defend against them? That seems… contradictory.
Let's be clear: the Ukrainian navy is not the US Navy, and the Russian Black Sea fleet isn't exactly a peer competitor. Russia's Admiral Kuznetsov (their sole carrier) has been in disrepair since 2017, likely to be scrapped or sold. This highlights a critical point: Russia's naval weakness isn't just about technology; it reflects wider geopolitical and economic problems.
The UK's two aircraft carriers, built for £6.2 billion, haven't exactly set the world on fire either. Deployed for "floating diplomacy," not exactly a show of force. You have to wonder if the UK got its money's worth.
The US sent the USS Gerald R Ford to Venezuela to "intimidate" the Maduro regime. This raises a critical question: does the threat of force justify the astronomical cost? The Ford can operate up to 125 sorties at peak. But what if those sorties are never needed? Are we paying $12.8 billion for a very expensive paper tiger?
I've looked at hundreds of these types of deployments. And I have to wonder if the cost of these deployments are worth it.
The article mentions Houthi rebels attacking the USS Harry S Truman with drones. The most significant damage? A $70 million fighter falling overboard. It sounds almost comical, if it weren't so serious. Here's the thing: destroyers are the real defense against drone swarms. The carriers depend on their escorts. That money spent on destroyers might be more effective than another super-carrier.
Nick Childs of the International Institute for Strategic Studies notes that China sees aircraft carriers as crucial for projecting power and influence globally. They offer "unrivalled flexibility" in conflict scenarios. That flexibility comes at a steep price. But is it a necessary price?
We also have to consider the potential conflict in Taiwan. China may view aircraft carriers as essential for a potential reunification effort. But Taiwan has been building up its defenses, including anti-ship missiles. The question is not whether the carriers can be used, but whether they can be used effectively in a modern, contested environment.
The article doesn't mention the supply chain vulnerabilities inherent in building these massive warships. China's dominance in rare earth minerals is a critical factor.
(The US and China recently reached a deal to ease rare-earth controls.)
But a snag has emerged: Washington claims past controls will be eliminated, a condition Beijing hasn't announced. This discrepancy highlights a critical vulnerability. If China controls the supply of essential materials, the US's ability to build and maintain its naval fleet is inherently limited. China-US deal to ease rare-earth controls hits snag over scope
The data points to a troubling conclusion. The US and China are locked in an arms race, building increasingly expensive aircraft carriers, while cheaper, more agile technologies are rapidly evolving. It feels like we're building castles in the sky, vulnerable to attacks from below. The question isn't just about naval dominance, but about resource allocation. Are we investing in the right technologies for the future, or are we clinging to outdated symbols of power?
