The aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle has begun its sea trials before soon leaving on a mission. The main vessel of the national navy had been held at the dock for several months for a technical shutdown. “The crisis in the Middle East has raised the question of a second aircraft carrier,” sighs a deputy, a connoisseur of military issues.
To display a presence in the Eastern Mediterranean, France was only able to send amphibious helicopter carriers for possible evacuation operations or humanitarian missions. “Deterrence was provided by the United States,” continues the elected official. The French aircraft carrier would not have stopped the crisis, it is said within the navy… But to dissuade Iran or others from seeking to exploit the situation, the American navy sent two aircraft carriers. “Everyone understood that we should not seek escalation,” commented the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, General Burkhard, at the opening Thursday of the second naval conference organized by the French Institute of international relations (Ifri).
At a time when international crises spill over into the sea, the role of carrier battle groups (GAN) – that is to say the aircraft carrier and its escort – is returning to the forefront of the capabilities or doctrinal concerns of the armies. Ifri opened the debate. “The GAN is a tool of power par excellence,” continued General Burkhard, emphasizing the firepower, reach and even diplomatic weight of an aircraft carrier. In addition to “strategic signaling,” a carrier strike group is capable of “aggregating” a coalition by allowing navies that do not have aircraft carriers to provide other capabilities. “An aircraft carrier expresses the rank of a nation,” said Admiral Enrico Credentino, who commands the Italian navy and whose main ship, the Cavour, is an aircraft carrier. He spoke alongside Admiral Vaujour, head of the French navy, Admiral Luisa Franchetti, for the United States, Admiral Sir Ben Key, for the United Kingdom, and Vice-Admiral Rajesh Pendharkar, to represent India. Aircraft carriers are “a structuring capability”, insisted Admiral Vaujour, however, inviting us to rethink naval combat “from the seabed to space”.
In the absence of massive investments after the end of the Cold War and because the cost of an aircraft carrier is disproportionate, European navies have restricted their numbers to a minimum. Two for the United Kingdom, one for France… They therefore weigh little compared to the eleven American aircraft carriers. An aircraft carrier “offers options” to political leaders, said Admiral Luisa Franchetti, who commands the US Navy, emphasizing the assets of “adaptability” and “flexibility” of aircraft carriers: “100,000 tons of American diplomacy” each. But American mass is no longer enough: in terms of number of boats, the Chinese navy has caught up. “By its size and its operations, the Chinese navy will determine what the West will do with their carrier groups,” warns the specialist in military issues at the Heritage Foundation Brent Sadler. Chinese power poses the main threat to freedom of navigation in the Indo-Pacific. Russia and Iran also have maritime assets.
Since the Second World War, aircraft carriers have no longer been on the front line of conflicts. For several decades, maritime space has no longer been contested by Western powers. These times have changed. Hypervelocity missiles, drones, cyber, denial of access… New threats make carrier groups more vulnerable in a context of greater battlefield transparency.
Also read: The threat of drones at sea forces navies to rethink their defenses
In China, the People’s Liberation Army trains in the desert against a life-size model of an American aircraft carrier. Beijing has developed an arsenal of long-range missiles to destroy enemy buildings. The marines must prepare. The chiefs of staff of the French, American, British, Italian and Indian navies, invited by Ifri, are all convinced of the future of aircraft carriers. Airborne means always offer access to closed theaters while guaranteeing permanence and mobility. “Targeting an aircraft carrier” that is moving at sea “is difficult,” assures Admiral Franchetti. But the possibility of an engagement can no longer be ruled out. Worse, naval combat is a war of attrition where the destruction of opposing buildings is an objective. Instrument of prestige and political symbol, will European armies be prepared to lose an aircraft carrier in a naval battle? To free up financial margins for other capabilities, some question the relevance of aircraft carriers. “It’s a Franco-French debate,” said former Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian at the end of the conference. “The evolution of theaters and their diversification raises the question of the effectiveness of deployments and that of the format of our navies,” he added.
The navies must rearm. They will also have to think about another type of use of their abilities. “The end of operational comfort means that it will no longer be possible to acquire total (maritime) superiority,” insisted General Burkhard. This goal “has become out of reach.” But faced with their adversaries, the carrier groups must be able to acquire “a bubble of temporary superiority”, asks the chief of staff. Weapons will also have to evolve. “In an imposed war, there is a challenge of sustainability,” noted the general. “We must be able to design less expensive weapons of attrition, and not systematically seek to solve a tactical problem with high technology,” he stressed. Clearly, to defend a building targeted by drones worth a few tens of thousands of euros, you will have to find something other than a missile costing more than a million euros. Even if the ship costs billions.
