Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Why though? China's building drone carriers instead. Taking down aircraft carriers is of course no simple matter, but hardly infeasible for a super power. The problem with capital ships is that they're just as expensive to replace as they are to build. Also, blowing one up eliminates 9% of the US' AC fleet at a stroke, which would be a big psychological blow. I don't think China is as emotionally invested in its aircraft carriers and built them primarily to show that they could. That said, in any military conflict with China an opponent would be well advised to target their nearest aircraft carrier as early and powerfully as possible for the humiliation factor.


> Why though?

I suppose because you want to have more ships to store your nuclear armed planes in more places around the world. Speed.

Honestly (and unfortunately) if anyone actually did destroy a US aircraft carrier, the counter strike would be immediate and an order of magnitude more devastating.


>I suppose because you want to have more ships to store your nuclear armed planes in more places around the world.

Why? ICBMs are good enough and much cheaper. Also, launching missiles from submarines can be very effective.


> the counter strike would be immediate and an order of magnitude more devastating.

The thing is, not many things in the world cost more than an aircraft carrier. What's you're going to blow up? Also, how, short of strategic nuclear war.


Quite. It's hard to see retaliation against a civilian target in a direct response to a military loss, and if an aircraft carrier is sunk in theater there might not be sufficient capacity to respond immediately against military targets.


Everyone gave up on putting nukes on planes: too vulnerable, and quite capable of crashing on their own during routine operations. They're all on ICBMs.


France does carry their tactical nukes on the Rafale.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: