It’s great to be a country with a fleet of aircraft carriers. The floating air bases can project power, improve national unity, and increase military might throughout the globe, especially if they are nuclear-powered. A political leader can always order a carrier strike group to a restive region and be assured that dozens of aircraft can take off and land at a moment’s notice to strike military targets deep into the interior of adversarial countries.
But just how many aircraft carriers does the U.S. Navy need for the long-haul considering threat from, well, what seems like everywhere in 2024?
The Money That Must Be Invested Is Sizable
Surely these carriers come with a high cost. The U.S. Navy’s new Gerald R. Ford super carrier has at least a $13.3 billion price tag. The other expense is maintenance. It always seems like at least one American flat-top is out of action for some type of re-fit or series of repairs.Has the Aircraft Carrier Become Obsolete?
The other problem is that some analysts think the carrier is obsolete. Anti-ship missiles can form a protective screen against carrier strike groups and create the strategy of anti-access area denial – a gambit that China is executing so deftly in the Indo-Pacific, specifically in the East and South China Seas.
Let’s Keep the Numbers Where They Are
These two requirements for American aircraft carriers – unit cost and maintenance – are reasons to keep the number of total flat-tops at 11 and not build more, despite the advantages they have. China, however, is a problem.
Beijing boasts the navy with the largest number of ships in the world. The Chinese also have three functioning aircraft carriers. They are building a nuclear-model now and would like six within the next decade.
But Sometimes There Are Not Enough
This means that the U.S. Navy must make the Ford-class carriers the best in the world to keep up. Perhaps the number of American carriers is enough for deterrence. But sometimes 11 is not adequate. The United States, at one point, had zero carrier strike groups in the Pacific Ocean in August, leading observers to conclude that the Navy would not be ready for a Chinese military operation against Taiwan. This would be one example where the United States could use at least one more carrier.
More carriers could improve deterrence, crisis response, flexibility, shows of strength, and overall optimization of naval strategy. He who controls the high seas wins. With the large numbers of ships in the Chinese Navy and Coast Guard, more U.S. carriers would make sense despite the limitations of U.S. shipyards, snarled supply chains, and lack of workers.
Supporters Cite the Strengths
A carrier advocate, Rear Admiral Roy Kelley, wrote in Defense News that “a carrier strike group, by its mere presence, can shape events in the nation’s favor. When deterrence gives way to war, a naval force enabled by an aircraft carrier and its air wing comes to the fight trained and equipped across a full range of missions, ready to control the sea, conduct strikes from the sea, and maneuver across the electromagnetic spectrum and in cyberspace. No other naval force fields a commensurate range and depth of combat capabilities.”
How About More Submarines Instead?
Keeping the number of carriers constant would allow the Navy to build more submarines, destroyers, and frigates with money saved from building an additional flat-top. Submarines will especially be helpful against China should a shooting war occur. U.S. nuclear-powered and nuclear-equipped subs and fast attack models have their own brand of deterrence and efficacy. Firing land-attack or anti-ship cruise missiles could be decisive. The subs are challenging to detect and defend against. They have their own cost issues and maintenance requirements but sacrificing one new carrier to build two more submarines has advantages in naval tactics, operational art, and strategy.
Anti-ship Missiles Are Dangerous
To be frank, I am in favor of delaying the building of the United State’s next carrier until we know more about how 21st-century naval warfare will shape up. Use the war in Ukraine as an example. The Ukrainians have no navy but have the anti-ship missiles and drones to take out the best of Russia’s Black Sea fleet – around 15 of Vladimir Putin’s warships have been sunk outright.
Anti-ship missiles would not eliminate a submarine unless it was caught on the surface. So, I favor keeping the number of carriers in the United States constant and investing in other types of new shipping, particularly submarines, until the Navy is more confident about survivability in a shooting war. The stakes are too high and the cost for new and existing carriers is considerable whether building new ones or maintaining the existing fleet.
Let’s slow down on new aircraft carrier development and focus on maintaining the current number. Losing one in battle would be disastrous, while submarines are more survivable. This could make a difference in the next naval war.
About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood
Brent M. Eastwood, PhD, is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare, plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.

Jacksonian Libertarian
October 18, 2024 at 10:46 pm
The evolution of weapons/war from Industrial Age dumb weapons to Information Age smart weapons has changed everything.
The Navy should mothball or sell 1/2 its obsolete surface ships, and replace them with 200 small (1kton) AIP lightly armed (4-8 weapons) Utility Subs that can stealthily crawl (tracks) up on undefended beaches and deliver 100 tons of Marines, or deliver critical cargo on the battlefield.
In addition, the Navy should buy millions of drones to both monitor the oceans and be concentrated into overwhelming swarms in troubled areas within hours instead of weeks for the present order of battle.
Naval vessels’ miserable availability of ~30% would not apply to drones that can be put into storage brand new in case of need, and normal operating, maintenance, training, and service life costs would be negated by drones designed as disposable.
These actions would increase the Combat Power of the Navy by a thousandfold, and save the lives of servicemen that would be fighting by remote control from undisclosed locations.
Roger Danger
October 21, 2024 at 9:52 am
I agree. Submarines are far more survivable than aircraft carriers and can do things that carriers cannot do. Carriers are great for fights with inferior adversaries like the Houtis or other Middle East opponents — countries that lack strong militaries or an air force. Against peer adversaries the aircraft carrier is likely unusable. Submarines, by contrast, represent a powerful and survivable force that can destroy an enemy nation’s navy and merchant marine, and strike his land installations. We should greatly increase our force of Virginia class submarines and stop building aircraft carriers.
RTColorado
October 21, 2024 at 11:20 am
Does the US Navy need more Aircraft Carriers? Well, the answer to that depends on who you ask. The reality is it does not matter what anyone thinks. What matters is ‘Could’ the US build another Aircraft Carrier?
Given the dismal condition of America’s shipbuilding yards, if the US wanted another Aircraft Carrier, they’d need to get the Chinese to build for them. By the time a US shipyard could build an Aircraft Carrier, aircraft would outmoded. America needs to do a lot of things, but it has to set some priorities first…and stick to them. If I were running things, there would be some serious changes. One of those changes would include a major shift in foreign policies and another would be a major shift in Defense Spending. The USAF would get the “Lion’s Share” of the budget with significant slashes to the Navy.
Lewis Smith
October 21, 2024 at 11:44 am
I think the Author’s final paragraph is contradictory. I believe or current building plan is to only maintain the 11 carriers. Because the early Nimitz carriers are hitting the end of their lifespans, we are only barely able to maintain 11. Delaying the next carrier would bring us down to 10 in short order. The Reagan Bush era carriers are also getting long in the tooth and were built 3-4 years apart. So the problem is only going to get harder.
John Arthur Irvine
October 21, 2024 at 2:15 pm
Carriers have been obsolete since Okinawa when the Army Air Corps land based aircraft main turned into defending them from defeated obsolete Japanese Air Forces instead of performing their intended land oriented war ending missions. Operating 16 Fleet carriers and 11 light carriers and dozens of “baby flattops” off the coast of Okinawa the US Navy could not defend itself. It needed over 25% of strategic B-29 bomber sorties and a majority of all other land based Army aircraft available to be allocated to help in its defense and yet it still suffered unacceptably massive losses in ships, aircraft and men. The largest of the war. Losses so heavy that the island was declared secured early in order to free the fleet from its hell at the hands of untrained Japanese youth flying obsolete aircraft. So yes we need fleets of bombers that cost far less than a single carrier battle group!
Andy
October 21, 2024 at 4:49 pm
Of all the arguments. This is the weakest.
William
October 21, 2024 at 5:57 pm
Where are we getting the crew for these ships from when the bacy already can’t keep up crewing on the ships they already have??
Brian
October 21, 2024 at 8:30 pm
The trade-off for one aircraft carrier being replaced by two submarines is a reduction of the number of targets that can be hit at once and an increase in the time it takes to hit them. We’re already building carriers, destroyers, and submarines as fast as possible (and we should follow through on plans to increase the production rate on the latter two).
If we’re going to have any large carriers at all, the principles of logistics (a third on deployed, a third in refit and maintenance, and a third in training and transit) tell us we need 12 or 15 of them now. Assuming we keep the current rates of production, here are the options…
1. Delay retirement of Nimitz carriers until we are maintaining 12 Nimitz/Ford CVNs. Assume enough Burke’s to be able to surge all 12 with 6 escorts each.
2. Delay retirement of Nimitz carriers until we are maintaining 15 Nimitz/Ford CVNs. Assume enough Burke’s to be able to surge 12 with 6 escorts each and the remaining three carriers are considered to be replacements in case of loss and perhaps we can take more time to refit, upgrade, and train. This keeps the cost of escorts down and some leeway for losses and commitments.
3. Delay retirement of Nimitz carriers until we are maintaining 15 Nimitz/Ford CVNs. Assume enough Burke’s or a follow on class to be able to surge all 15 with 6 escorts each.
In each scenario, all we do is stretch out the Nimitz class retirements and continue building Ford class, Burkes, and subs as before. Eventually, all Nimitz classes are retired. At any time, when the thinking on naval warfare changes, we can change. Perhaps there are more combat drones launched by every kind of ship in the fleet and/or a special class for drones is built. But until then, I believe we should follow one of the three construction paths above.
Dennis
October 21, 2024 at 8:55 pm
We can’t afford more carriers, or subs, or a host or other new equipment, but every year we send billions in aid abroad including $175 billion to Ukraine, and we always seem able to afford it. Defense spending is currently the lowest as a percentage of GDP (2.9% projected for 2024) in years, and is well below the historical average of 4.2%. This at a time of major worldwide conflict. Just has Trump demanded NATO members meet their 2% requirement, we should be meeting our self defense requirement.
Donald Leonard
October 22, 2024 at 8:38 am
If carriers are so obsolete then why are the chicoms trying to build them at breakneck speed? Yeah, it’s because the islands and land masses in the vast waters of Asia are too far apart to provide air support for the communist’s plans of domination. This is but another “expert” schilling for the politburo in Beijing hoping to weaken the US and distract us from their own buildup of the very same platforms.
Chris Cha
October 22, 2024 at 11:16 am
We don’t need more carriers. We need more carriers IN SERVICE. We need greater throughput at maintenance, repair, and overhaul facilities so carriers don’t spend 18 months in MRO. It also means the amount of ongoing maintenance, beyond routine, performed in the field needs to increase so the MRO facilities can focus on major components – engines, propulsion, power generation, etc.
Pingback: Philly Shipyard's Transformation: How Hanwha’s Investment Is Driving U.S. Navy Readiness - NationalSecurityJournal
Pingback: Philly Shipyard’s Transformation: How Hanwha’s Investment Is Driving U.S. Navy Readiness – Patriosity.com
Pingback: Philly Shipyard's Transformation: How Hanwha's Investment Is Driving U.S. Navy Readiness - Bugle Call
Pingback: Philly Shipyard’s Transformation: How Hanwha’s Investment Is Driving U.S. Navy Readiness – News
Pingback: Philly Shipyard’s Transformation: How Hanwha’s Investment Is Driving U.S. Navy Readiness – Scott Adams Show
Pingback: Philly Shipyard's Transformation: How Hanwha's Investment Is Driving U.S. Navy Readiness | ZeroHedge
Pingback: Philly Shipyard’s Transformation: How Hanwha’s Investment Is Driving U.S. Navy Readiness – Solwd
Pingback: Philly Shipyard’s Transformation: How Hanwha’s Investment Is Driving U.S. Navy Readiness – Bugaluu :: News
Pingback: Philly Shipyard’s Transformation: How Hanwha’s Investment Is Driving U.S. Navy Readiness – Mist Vista