Aircraft Carriers: The New $13 Billion Battleship or Still King of the Seas?
Summary and Key Points: Critics argue the U.S. Navy’s aircraft carriers are becoming the “battleships” of the 2020s—expensive, vulnerable relics in an era of hypersonic missiles and drone swarms.
A U.S. Navy MH-60S Seahawk helicopter with Helicopter Sea Combat Squadron (HSC) 9 transfers ammunition between aircraft carriers USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), foreground, and USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75) in the Atlantic Ocean Feb. 17, 2011. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Leonard Adams/Released)
A U.S. Sailor prepares an F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft for launch from the flight deck of the world’s largest aircraft carrier, Ford-class aircraft carrier USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), while underway in the Caribbean Sea, Nov. 25, 2025. U.S. military forces are deployed to the Caribbean in support of the U.S. Southern Command mission, Department of War-directed operations, and the president’s priorities to disrupt illicit drug trafficking and protect the homeland. (U.S. Navy photo)
-With the $13 billion Ford-class now a prime target for peer competitors like China and Russia, the era of uncontested American naval dominance is over.
-However, experts warn that declaring the carrier obsolete is a mistake. Instead of retiring these floating airbases, the Navy is radically adapting them into mobile command hubs equipped with long-range drones to survive inside the deadly A2/AD “kill zones” of modern warfare.
The U.S. Navy’s Biggest Fear: Aircraft Carriers Are Becoming Obsolete Battleships
Every generation, new weapons emerge that challenge the aircraft carrier, causing some to declare the floating airfields obsolete. In fact, many experts worry the aircraft carrier could become the new ‘battleship’ of the 2020s: an old warship that seems hopelessly obsolete in the face of new threats.
Submarines, missiles, satellites, and hypersonics have all raised questions about the aircraft carrier’s survivability. Yet the carrier remains central to US naval strategy, actively deployed worldwide.
The question really isn’t whether aircraft carriers are outdated, but whether the strategic environment has changed. The question is especially pressing as the US pivots from weak or mid-tier adversaries, like Libya and Iraq, towards peer competitors who can threaten carriers directly. Is deploying the aircraft carrier worth the risk and the cost in the modern threat environment?
Historical context of the carrier
Carriers replaced battleships as capital ships after World War II. The carrier’s key advantages included mobility, each, and flexibility, allowing states to project air power without bases. For decades, most US carrier operations were against adversaries with little ability to strike back at sea (Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya).
These conflicts posed minimal naval threat to the US, and this perception led to the view that carriers were one-sided instruments of power.
Critiquing the Carrier
Critics have argued that carriers only work against weak states or that they are too expensive and too vulnerable. Critics point to the emergence of anti-ship ballistic missiles, long-range cruise missiles, and swarming drones.
Overhead view of the USS ORISKANY (CV 34). Exact date shot unknown but sometime after March 1964, during this period her flight deck was used to test the E-2 Hawkeye, (seen next to the bridge) then Navy’s new airborne early warning aircraft. Note also that there are only LTV F-8 Crusaders on the flight deck, this may put the image as shot between 1975-1976, the last all LTV air wing on its last cruise.
An F/A-18F Super Hornet Strike Fighter Squadron 103 is parked on the flight deck of the aircraft carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69) as the ship operates in the Arabian Sea on Dec. 5, 2006. The Eisenhower is in the Arabian Sea in support of maritime security operations.
And yes, against China or Russia, carriers would face real danger, so the critiques are rooted in accuracy. But the critiques assume that carriers can’t adapt, that they must operate the same way they always have. Warfare tends to be more dynamic than that.
Carriers Still Relevant
Carriers still provide persistent air power, flexible response, and escalation control. No other platform combines mobility, sortie generation, and political signaling quite like the carrier. And there is no alternative elsewhere.
Land bases are fixed and politically constrained. Bombers lack persistence. Missiles are single-use. Carriers, meanwhile, are not just strike platforms; they are command hubs, air defense nodes, and ISR platforms. Those capabilities are hard to replace with one platform—which is why carriers are still being built.
Shifting to Contested Space
The US is no longer fighting opponents who can’t contest the sea. ISIS or the Taliban ever posed much threat to US carriers—but Russia and China can. China’s A2/AD strategy, for example, is designed to push carriers back and raise the cost of forward presence.
This doesn’t eliminate carriers, necessarily, but it changes how close carriers can operate and what missions they can perform. It forces adaptation, such as a greater emphasis on stand-off capabilities, longer-range aircraft, and distributed operations. The carrier is adapting, essentially, from the tip of the spear into a mobile base and network hub. The threat environment has matured, become more sophisticated—but that has not rendered carriers useless.
Asymmetric Risks
Modern threats are asymmetric, further complicating the carrier’s standing in the battle space. Drones, cyber attacks, and space targeting—these are relatively cheap ways to disrupt carrier operations. Ironic, given how expensive a carrier is (the Ford-class costs $13 billion per unit).
But this exorbitant price tag is exactly what makes the airline such a magnet; targeting a carrier draws attention, with the prospect of damaging a multibillion-dollar vessel that took several years to construct.
Losing a carrier would be catastrophic in both military, fiscal, and political terms. This raises the stakes every time a carrier sets sail. But high stakes don’t equal obsolescence. The answer isn’t abandoning the concept entirely; it’s in protection, redundancy, and more innovative use.
US Adaptations
Changes are already underway. Longer-range air wings are being developed, with more emphasis on tanking and integration with submarines and space assets. Future carrier air wings may include more drones and loyal wingmen, with fewer short-range strike missions.
Carriers operate as part of a system, not some isolated vessel, and that entire system will flex to protect the carrier against new risks.
So, the aircraft carrier is not yet obsolete. They’re just invulnerable, which is unsettling, but a fairly standard part of deploying weapons systems. The era of uncontested carrier dominance is likely over. The era of contested, adaptive carrier operations is beginning.
USS Iowa Battleship Guns. Image Credit: National Security Journal.
The US is adapting accordingly, refining how carriers are used to remain effective and survivable in the 21st century.
CORRECTION: The last image shown above was missing its caption. We have corrected this to show that this photo is an original National Security Journal Photo. We apologize for this error.
About the Author: Harrison Kass
Harrison Kass is an attorney and journalist covering national security, technology, and politics. Previously, he was a political staffer and candidate, and a US Air Force pilot selectee. He holds a JD from the University of Oregon and a master’s in global journalism and international relations from NYU.
