Key Points – Despite the rise of new threats, the U.S. Navy’s aircraft carriers remain indispensable for projecting power and deterring aggression from peer adversaries like China.
-The “tyranny of distance” in the Indo-Pacific and the need to maintain sea control in contested areas like the first and second island chains make mobile airpower essential.
-While the U.S. rightly prioritizes its submarine programs, the slow production rate of new boats means there is no near-term alternative to the carrier for maritime dominance.
-Therefore, the US must continue to invest in carrier-centric operations, focusing on enhancing their range, survivability, and integration with other domains like space and cyber.
The Aircraft Carrier Will Sail On
Absent the leaders in Beijing acting like they will be the next Golden Horde, America’s fleet of aircraft carriers might have been headed for the mothball fleet, floating museums, or candidates as artificial reefs.
That’s not going to happen. The odds are that the Trump administration will extend the lease on life for carrier-centric fleet operations for another generation. Here is why.
The Aircraft Carrier Just Keeps on Sailing for the U.S. Navy
The most memorable line from the iconic and irreverent comedy Blazing Saddles! (1974) was the advice, “Better not shoot Mongo. You might make him mad.” This was, perhaps, a suggestion the Chinese leadership might have considered before they embarked on their aggressive campaign, constantly flaunting their capacity and willingness to take control of Taiwan by military force. In the short term, other than a daunting carrier force, the US has no option for demonstrating maritime dominance in the Indo-Pacific.
As a result, Americans are likely to make investments in sea, air, cyber, and space power that will extend the utility of carriers not just for the near term but also until the current crew in Beijing is long-dead and buried.
Maritime Power Dynamics
It cannot be said enough: ” The continued utility of killing systems is determined more by context than consumer choice … Weapons, unlike fashion, don’t go out of style on a whim.” Context is everything in determining the weapons of choice for the present and future US Navy.
Context starts with geography. Suppose the United States loses the capacity to deter overt aggression in the first island chain, particularly in the case of Taiwan. In that case, America can pretty much write off its place as an Indo-Pacific power.
There is no clearer signal that the current administration understands the importance of sea control than the Trump team’s obsession with building up maritime capacity and capability. Washington is sending very strong signals to Beijing that their free lunch in competition in the first and second island chains is over.
That said, the US government appears to be taking seriously the assessment that the Chinese goal is to have sufficient combat power by 2027 to take Taiwan by force. This is not a start date but a marker for Washington if the Americans want to get Beijing’s attention sooner rather than later—over the imperative that China back down and back off.
However, three years is not enough time to have a very different Navy than America. Make no mistake, Washington wants a lot more ships at sea. The absolute top priority is the Virginia-class and Colombia-class submarine.
The US Navy would probably strip any dollar they could find from any program, including aircraft carriers, to produce more subs faster. Building boomers, however, is not just about money. The US government has and continues to dump millions into the industrial base funding for subs.
Yet, the production rate for both classes of submarines has actually declined in recent years rather than accelerating. The bottom line is that there is not enough money in the treasury to physically deliver a dramatically different Navy to deter China three years from now.
Geopolitics and Naval Power
The present threat of China aside, there is also a strong rationale for why carriers are valuable for global powers. It is no coincidence that the islands coveted by Beijing today are exactly the same as the ones the Japanese tried to seize in World War II. Islands are unsinkable aircraft carriers.
They are logistical and military hubs that expand the physical ocean space that can be monitored and controlled. Carriers, in contrast, only deliver sea control where they are. Once they move on, the ocean is up for grabs.
On the other hand, aircraft carriers can dynamically extend power and influence because they can move. Without a carrier fleet, during World War II, there was zero chance the US could have projected sufficient power to counter the Japanese effort to control the first and second island chains and lock America out of the Pacific space.
The bottom line is that while global powers don’t have the capacity or even the interests to be everywhere all the time if they want to remain global powers without the burden of empire, they will need some capacity for mobile power projection and sustained sea control.
Future Past Naval Power
Suppose the US doesn’t have a realistic near-term alternative to carrier warfare or the need for deployable sea control. In that case, the Pentagon has little alternative but to ensure its aircraft carrier fleets are lethal, responsive, and survivable.
Currently, US carrier operations in the Red Sea are delivering a case study addressing all the critical challenges that keep carriers relevant.
Recently, a carrier lost a fighter aircraft while making a sudden defensive maneuver. The US, allies, and adversaries will undoubtedly be studying this incident and the overall campaign, drawing lessons for future aircraft carrier operations.
Since the US will have little alternative but will depend on its carrier force in the near term, expect the Pentagon to make some investments—particularly in extending the range of combat reach by the carrier task force and enhancing survivability against drone and missile attacks. In particular, carriers could benefit from expanding US military capabilities in other domains, especially sub-surface, space, cyber, and operations in the electromagnetic spectrum.
The outcome of initiatives to ensure carrier operations remain viable and dominant, whether tactical or technological, could well influence the US decision to pursue a next-generation aircraft carrier beyond the Ford-class and what that capability might look like.
About the Author: Dr. James Jay Carafano
Dr. James Jay Carafano is a leading expert in national security and foreign policy affairs. Carafano previously served as the Vice President of Heritage Foundation’s Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy and served in the US Army for 25 years. He is an accomplished historian and teacher as well as a prolific writer and researcher. Follow him on X: @JJCarafano.
Iran War
30,000 Pound Bunker-Buster Bombs Might Not Be Able to Destroy Fordow
D-O-Y-L-E
June 19, 2025 at 10:48 am
(D-O-Y-L-E = Does orange yellah love extinction-level-event.)
Aircraft carriers are derelict type warships today.
Why. They attract missiles like flies get attracted to a massive nanure pile.
The ongoing missile exchanges between Israel and iran demonstrate the missile will always get through. No matter what dome you have.
Iron dome, droopy dome, golden dome, silver dome, yellah dome or super titanium alloy dome.
The brazen unprovoked israeli attack on june 13 2025 against iran proves that missiles, rockets, and drones are a must to defend your people from modern genghisian hitlerites and ultra powerful super mega bigfoot aggressors.
Read up on the battle of tuteborg forest. The natives rained down a storm of javelins on the roman legion soldiers who broke ranks and thus got slaughtered.
Same, same very same thing today.
Rain a dead-deadly storm of missiles down on the aircraft carrier that brazenly sails right up to your front gate.
Kaput for the carrier. Kaput.
Pingback: The Navy's Ticonderoga-Class Cruiser Nightmare Has Begun - National Security Journal