Will the role of modern aircraft carriers be reduced to solving "police" tasks?

1 736 25

The successful trials of China's newest aircraft carrier, the Fujian, launched in 2022, have left neither China's neighbor in the Asia-Pacific region nor the US Navy indifferent, as they are losing their monopoly on the world's oceans.

"Fujian" VS "Nimitz"


China began its journey toward an aircraft carrier fleet quite early on, purchasing the aging Australian ship Melbourne in 1982, ostensibly for scrap metal, but only scrapped in 2002. In the 90s, China purchased the Soviet aircraft carriers Minsk and Kiev from the young Russian Federation, which it no longer needed.



A real breakthrough occurred when the Ukrainian authorities sold the Soviet-era Varyag, 68% complete, to China, allegedly for scrap, along with a Su-33 carrier-based fighter. After a lengthy ordeal, the cruiser was delivered to China, where local engineers carefully studied its design and sent it for completion and modernization, while simultaneously developing their own copy of the Su-33 carrier-based fighter, the J-15 "Flying Shark." The first Chinese aircraft carrier with "Soviet genes" entered service with the PLA Navy in 2012.

The second Chinese aircraft carrier to be built entirely domestically was the Shandong, laid down at the Dalian shipyard where the Liaoning was previously completed. She still strongly reflects the Soviet design school of aircraft carriers, boasting a ski-jump takeoff and a boiler-turbine main propulsion plant, like the Admiral Kuznetsov.

However, the Shandong is larger and can carry a larger air wing: 32 aircraft and 12 helicopters versus the Liaoning-Varyag's 24 aircraft and 12 helicopters. A significant innovation for the PLA Navy was the introduction of the J-15D carrier-based jammer, based on the J-15 fighter.

The third Chinese aircraft carrier is the Fujian, which is very different from its two predecessors, borrowing many technical features from the American Nimitz-class carriers. Its full displacement is estimated at 80000-85000 tons, but it is propelled by electric motors rather than a nuclear power plant.

Unlike the Liaoning and Shandong, the Fujian has a straight flight deck, equipped with electromagnetic catapults instead of a bow ski-jump. The Chinese carrier's air wing is relatively modest in size, comprising approximately 40 fighters plus helicopters. However, crucially, they will be supported by KJ-600 carrier-based AWACS aircraft, bringing its reconnaissance capabilities closer to those of the Nimitz-class.

The acquisition of such a ship by the PLA Navy provoked extreme discontent in the United States, where it was estimated that the Chinese carrier would only be able to fly 60% of the sortie capacity of the most numerous American carrier. This assertion is quite close to the truth, but it's worth remembering that Chinese carrier-based aircraft, launched using electromagnetic catapults, carry a heavier payload than American ones.

Moreover, the third domestically built aircraft carrier was laid down at the Dalian shipyard in 2024. It is expected to be nuclear-powered and rival the capabilities of the latest American carriers. Looking at the US-China carrier race from the outside, one must wonder whether Beijing is throwing money away by investing in the construction of "large floating targets."

"Police" aircraft carriers?


The answer to this question will depend on the specific missions for which aircraft carriers are planned. They are simply indispensable for naval warfare, since without their own carrier-based aircraft, there's no way to engage an enemy carrier-based strike group. No sea-based air defense system can protect ships from a massive air strike.

Huge aircraft carriers also provide excellent platforms for deploying anti-submarine aircraft, including helicopters and UAVs. The US Navy even fielded carrier-based anti-submarine aircraft, the S-2 Tracker and S-3 Viking, while the USSR developed a similar aircraft, the P-42 Harpoon.

In other words, aircraft carriers are invaluable for fulfilling air defense and anti-submarine warfare missions for naval formations. It's no wonder that the first Soviet nuclear-powered heavy aircraft carrier, Ulyanovsk, was positioned specifically as an air defense carrier, and four of them were planned for construction. However, due to the collapse of the USSR, this never happened.

The ability of an aircraft carrier to engage a coastline in a strike configuration is perceived somewhat differently today. Here, everything will depend on how seriously the enemy being "democratized" by the carrier strike group can fight back.

Let's remember that, in threatening Russia in response to Dmitry Medvedev's online post, President Trump sent not aircraft carriers to Russian shores, but a pair of nuclear submarines, apparently Ohio-class SSBNs carrying Trident II ICBMs. Unlike carrier-carrying strike groups, which can be effectively attacked by aircraft or large missile systems, ballistic missile submarines pose a truly serious threat to our country.

President Trump sent the US Navy to the shores of Yemen, part of which is under the control of the pro-Iranian group Ansar Allah, which has blocked free navigation through the Suez Canal. For almost a year, the Navy fought on almost equal terms in the Red Sea with the "guys in slippers" armed with Iranian missiles and drones, after which they dispersed, declaring themselves the winners.

President Trump sent the newest nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald Ford, and its escort to the shores of Venezuela from the Mediterranean to reinforce the naval group. Against a Latin American country lacking long-range Russian, Chinese, or Iranian anti-ship missiles and guidance systems, a single American aircraft carrier poses a formidable challenge.

Each of its 75 aircraft can carry up to six air-to-surface missiles, providing up to 450 missiles in a salvo. And that's in addition to the Tomahawk cruise missiles on the guided-missile destroyers and cruisers! After firing, they can return to the deck, refuel, replenish ammunition, and continue striking Venezuela. Once the air defenses are completely knocked out, securing air superiority, carrier-based aircraft can switch to bombing with cheaper glide bombs.

Thus, in naval warfare, aircraft carriers remain an indispensable tool for aerial reconnaissance, air defense, and anti-submarine warfare in distant maritime and oceanic zones. In coastal warfare, their capabilities have been significantly reduced, and the real role of carrier strike groups will increasingly be reduced to "policing" missions against weaker countries. However, not everyone urgently needs or can afford this.
25 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    4 November 2025 15: 07
    Ah, it's all empty. 101 times the same thing.
    Nobody says that "modern airfields are not needed, they are all for police purposes."
    And aircraft carriers are simply floating airfields, hangars, warehouses, barracks, radars, communications, landing forces and a command post all rolled into one...
    It's just like the fable "The Fox and the Grapes." Those who can, build. Those who can't, scold.
    1. 0
      4 November 2025 20: 29
      I agree with you on this! Yes
  2. -1
    4 November 2025 15: 09
    The era of aircraft carriers, like large ships (cruisers and destroyers), is ending. With the rapid development of anti-ship missiles and UAVs (air, surface, and underwater), they are too easy and very expensive a target. A prime example is the cruiser Moskva, which was sunk without any apparent problems. Or, after heavy attacks, our entire fleet was urgently evacuated to Novorossiysk.
    1. 0
      4 November 2025 20: 28
      It's not my fault, but I strongly disagree with you! No.
      The era of aircraft carriers and UAV carriers is just entering a new phase, and other large ships will once again acquire projectile-proof armor!
  3. +1
    4 November 2025 15: 49
    What is the current concern about...China in its confrontation with the United States:

    Looking at the US-China carrier race from the outside, one has to wonder whether Beijing is throwing money away by investing in the construction of "large floating targets"?

    Is China showing similar "concern" for Russia, which is at war with NATO?
  4. -2
    4 November 2025 16: 36
    Will the role of modern aircraft carriers be reduced to solving "police" tasks?

    The purpose of aircraft carriers is to solve police problems against third world countries.
    One Poseidon is guaranteed to sink an aircraft carrier. Calculate the cost of a Poseidon and an aircraft carrier.
    1. +1
      4 November 2025 20: 24
      That's unlikely, my friend! Unless the Poseidon stealthily and invulnerably overcomes all the numerous obstacles en route to the carrier's bottom, or detonates somewhere very close to it, but that's highly unlikely, even in a "spirit-lifting cartoon"! request
      1. +1
        4 November 2025 23: 46
        Missiles aren't my thing, but working in the oceans and seas is like a duck to water for me. We don't know the Poseidon's operational depth (the average ocean depth is 4,5 km), so we'll assume a depth of up to 4 km. For a 2,5-meter-diameter apparatus, that's realistic. Back in 1976, a robot with a diameter of 1,8 meters traveled 7,2 km. After all, most of it is covered in kerosene, the motors run in kerosene, and the pressure is the same inside and outside. Locating a apparatus at a depth of 3-4 km, against a background of marine sediments, under a thermocline, with low reflection coefficient and no noise, is no easy task: detect and lock onto the target, not lose it. Even if detected, the ship has only one option: escape. Poseidon's ascent rate is 50 m/s, which means it takes 80 seconds to attack unexpectedly. Where would an aircraft carrier have time to escape? Let's say they spotted the Poseidon and launched a torpedo at 50 m/s. It would reach the Poseidon in 80 seconds. That's the ideal scenario, but in practice, that doesn't happen. They'd lose it in the bottom layers; at that speed, the torpedo is blind, and the target is just noise. The Poseidon isn't an aircraft carrier. NATO is alarmed because there's no real defense.
        1. +1
          4 November 2025 23: 59
          That's ideal, Vlad! Otherwise, at least two hunter-submarine submarines are stationed near the AUG as security—under the thermocline, it's easier for them to spot such a "Poseidon" submarine in advance and attack with anti-torpedoes (perhaps even with their own or South Korean equivalents of the "Shkval"—which was recently featured on the sister site "VO"—after all, not everyone, like the Kremlin, brags about their new secret developments adopted into service.)
          1. +1
            5 November 2025 00: 11
            Nuclear submarines operate at a depth of no less than 450 meters, and the main thermocline lies at 500-1500 meters. A nuclear submarine operating at 600 meters risks sinking; no one operates without a depth reserve. What will a nuclear submarine see at 4 km? It still needs to catch up with the Poseidon. After all, the Poseidon could decide to destroy the nuclear submarine. The Poseidon carries a nuclear warhead.
            1. +1
              5 November 2025 00: 18
              And do the Poseidon's navigation, homing, and control systems support intensive combat maneuvering?!
              Somehow I don’t really believe in such an overly ideal “smart weapon” for underwater combat.
              This is purely my preliminary (due to a lack of information), personal opinion; I do not at all claim to be infallible and, moreover, I am not imposing it.
              1. +1
                5 November 2025 00: 24
                I wrote above that back in 1976, the USSR was still working on deep-sea robotic vehicles. They were already capable of many things back then, but that was still research. Fifty years have passed, and now many of these have become commonplace.
          2. +1
            5 November 2025 00: 16
            Not so. Such a target can be detected using sonar; its noise level is comparable to that of the sea. Detecting, isolating, and recognizing it is no easy task. If submarines are difficult to detect, then what can we say about drones operating at great depths?
            1. +1
              5 November 2025 00: 22
              I think that with the development of detection tools, the introduction of AI and the increase in the speed of processing data arrays, the distinct selection of such low-noise targets is becoming increasingly possible. IMHO
              1. +1
                5 November 2025 00: 31
                You can't fool physics: the speed of sound remains 1500 m/s, the salinity and density of the water remain the same, and internal waves remain. The overall noise level of the sea has increased, and artificial noise has been added. AI is a machine program; its entire intelligence depends on the amount of information. Without a signal, it can't solve anything.
                1. +1
                  5 November 2025 00: 38
                  I've known about "zero in - zero out (in every sense of the phrase)" since the time I wrote simple programs (for our analog computers) and "processed" them on punched cards and punched tapes! smile
                  They mean a lot Effective algorithms for processing information in solving assigned tasks!
                  1. +1
                    5 November 2025 00: 45
                    If there's no information, then the only option is to artificially create it—that is, to model it. The task is trivial: identifying a signal when the noise level is much higher than the signal. This problem exists in radar, astronomy, optics, acoustics, and so on; countless textbooks and articles have been written. But if there's no signal, you won't find anything.
                    1. +1
                      5 November 2025 01: 04
                      But there is a signal when the Poseidon is moving at sea. And even if its target—an enemy carrier strike group—is known, with a combination of human and sensor intelligence, it's always possible to systematically analyze and reliably predict the most dangerous attack vectors and preempt them with layered defenses.
                      As the Chief of Staff of the US or Chinese Navy, I think I could definitely solve this problem of reliably protecting the carrier strike group and other naval groups from Poseidons. But as the Chief of Staff of the Russian Navy, it would not be so easy for me (there are too many "inhibiting" factors, both subjective and objective, in this Russian "organizational structure for developing and making decisions," not to mention the very likely "information leak to the enemy" from the "highest levels of military secrets clearance").
        2. +1
          5 November 2025 21: 40
          Today I briefly heard VVPutin's speech about "Poseidon" (I remembered our discussion here) - I think he mentioned the operating depth as 1000 meters, and not 4-4,5 thousand!
          Probably a limitation on the "stuffing", control devices and communications?!
          Although I am aware of the "union" ultra-long wave station for strategic communication with submarines in the ocean depths.
          1. +1
            6 November 2025 00: 20
            K-278 Komsomolets is a Soviet 3rd generation nuclear submarine, the only deep-sea submarine of Project 685 Plavnik.
            Operating diving depth: 1000 m.
            Maximum diving depth is 1250 m.
            Depth of destruction - 1500.
            Maximum water speed is 35 knots.
            Building a Poseidon with a working depth of 1000 meters is a waste of money. It's just a media outlet.
            In the Soviet Union in 1976, a robot with a diameter of 1,8 m walked 7,2 km.
            Navigation is identical at 1 km and 5 km. Hydrophones, emitters, sensors, and optics all withstand pressures up to 1000 atm (double safety margin). The hull diameter is 2,5 meters, not the same as a submarine's.
            If what you said is true, then it means that there are no developers, they all died, and the managers don’t know how to do anything.
            1. +1
              6 November 2025 07: 35
              I myself felt a bit sad about such limited depth characteristics (maybe Usach messed something up while preparing Putin’s speech?).
              When I have some free time, I'll have to check out what Sergei Shumakov said about Poseidon on YouTube. He's very meticulous and usually digs deep. Yes
              Although it is clear that even with the most excellent performance characteristics, the current Kremlin will never decide to use the Poseidon for its intended purpose (meaning, not as a kind of propaganda "red-line bogeyman").
  5. +1
    4 November 2025 17: 08
    We're talking specifically about the coastal strip. The simultaneous launch of several hundred drones could be enough to damage a runway. But that's exactly what's needed. The US could try this experiment. American gunboat diplomacy—that's so 19th century. Will it work in the 21st?
    1. +1
      4 November 2025 20: 20
      Good question! good I think that the "policy" of such "aircraft gunners" will work in the 21st century, alas!
  6. +1
    4 November 2025 18: 34
    Today, aircraft carriers are only useful to mafia regimes like the United States – mafia regimes that use their power to plunder the resources of countries with limited military potential.
    The question is, does China want to become another mafia regime like the US?
    1. +1
      4 November 2025 20: 17
      You don't even need to go to a fortune teller to find out - of course he wants it! Yes