• Shrike502
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 years ago

    can be used basically only in gunboat diplomacy

    Is that not the point of aircraft carriers to begin with?

    • PolandIsAStateOfMind
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Depend when. I think up until 80’s they were completely viable weapons for long range combat, but the rocketry and submarine tech advanced after that made them less and less usable. I think hypersonic missiles sended them to museum for the forseeable future. And so, while the smaller ASW carriers still have a lot of defensive usage, the huge carriers can now only be gunboats for terrorising countries that cannot defend themselves.

      • Shrike502
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 years ago

        I was mainly going off the Soviet navy doctrine, which AFAIK specified carriers as “tools of imperialism” (which is also why USSR haven’t bothered with them, only making carrier cruisers)

        • PolandIsAStateOfMind
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          USSR strategically never needed carriers in the first place, their enemy was NATO and by the time soviet could build carriers they had NATO except USA in their land based aircraft and rockets range anyway, and the main theater of sea battle would be North Atlantic. So to reach USA soviets developed the submarine technology more. And US also never needed carriers against the USSR specifically, since they did have Iceland, UK, Japan, Germany, Turkey.

          So yes, imperialism and antiimperialism as you can see have big meaning for the military doctrine.