I suspect the development of laser AA will be the more likely determinant. Of course, detection and guidance against stealth gliders will be right up there too (a smart bomb with wings).
Logic dictates that at some it will be impossible to protect these massive targets.
Super sonic stealth cruise missiles come to mind, couple get through and game over.
Yep too slow, too vulnerable.
That is the same discussion we had when I was in the Navy during Vietnam. The F-4 was replaced by the F-16, but the F-15, which I believe is a better aircraft, was the main fighter on Aircraft Carriers when they replaced the F-4s. There were over 4600 F16s made, but 1600 F-15s made. They were maintained separately, but effectively. I think mistakes are made when an aircraft is tasked with multiple tasks instead of designated ones. They become the ‘Jack of all, but Master of none’.
Arsenal ships with highly capable and dense weapon loading are more feasible for high level conflicts. These can be maintained with small crews and on virtually anything that floats. Imagine an Aegis class vessel matrixed to four of these missile barges That's a lot of bang for a low cost.
Build airframes with large fuel tanks for long range that can use two F-35 engines and F-35 avionics and have a cockpit like that of an F-35.
That will cut out a lot of development and training costs.
It will also cut development time.
The plane might be in service in less than a year.
Though we have been operating ACs for over 100 years, they are not obsolete. However, we need several new design types to keep up with technological innovations.
1. UAV drone carriers. Lots of potential here. A human pilot may command several drone aircraft as “wing men”, flying along side. Drone “swarms” can make a formidable defense for an entire carrier group. etc., etc.
2. UUV (undersea unmanned vehicles) carrier, for a range of missions. These include the large Orca XLUUV from Boeing, the Manta Ray from Northrop Grumman, and smaller AUVs like the REMUS 300. These drones are designed to operate autonomously for extended periods, performing tasks such as intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, mine countermeasures, and potentially even offensive operations.
“An LNG tanker costs about $260 million per vessel. South Korean shipbuilders dominate the global LNG carrier market, having built about 700 of the 750 LNG carriers now in service.”
“South Korea is home to major global shipbuilders – HD Korea Shipbuilding & Offshore Engineering Co., Hanwha Ocean Co. and Samsung Heavy Industries Co.”
“Demand for very large crude carriers (VLCCs) with a deadweight tonnage (DWT) capacity of 160,000–320,000 tons is also growing.”
“Norwegian shipowner Hunter Group ASA said it needs more than 150 VLCCs by next year. A VLCC costs about $129 million per unit.”
https://www.kedglobal.com/shipping-shipbuilding/newsView/ked202502170003
They are big, have a low profile and are cheap by US Navy procurement standards.
It’s the old Air Force vs the Navy thing again we’ve been hearing since the cold war, why even have a Navy? all we need is a super-duper Air force, aircraft carriers are obsolete.
Existing aircraft with radar might be accompanied by a new stealth aircraft.
Once a bandit has been found, the existing aircraft would fly to safety and the stealth aircraft would move in for the kill.
In reality the Navy has only two types of ships, submarines and targets.
In the interim, it all comes down to mission and what kinds of aircraft to put on each carrier to accomplish that mission. At this point, putting an F/A -XX on a carrier is simply not possible nor productive.
More importantly, we need to focus on fielding a 6th gen capability while building up a credible missile defense system as fast as possible which means we focus on F-47 and B-21 along with their support aircraft and weapons systems to get them in the air ASAP.
The goal is build advanced capability to deter Chinese aggression and force the Chinese to make very hard and very expensive defense decisions that divert assets from existing offensive weapons programs to undermine future Chinese offensive posture.
Navy F/A-XX adds little to the equation for this effort short term. Frankly, at this point, given the the rapidly evolving nature of 6th gen technology, it's not entirely obvious what a 6th gen carrier aircraft would look like and by the time that is all figured out, the Navy will be looking a 6.5 or 7th gen F/A-XX given the rapid state of flux of the technology.
Plus, at this point, it's not even a given that 6th gen systems are going to play nice with the marine environment.
For the foreseeable future 6th gen aircraft are going to be pampered and temperamental F1 race cars not the tough working class Indy and NASCAR race cars the navy depends on.
“The term ‘Panamax’ refers to a type of vessel which is of a size and specification specifically designed to pass through the Panama Canal. The maximum dimensions of Panamax vessels are set to ensure they can pass through the canal’s smallest lock. These are:
Length: 294 metres (965 feet)
Width: 32.3 metres (106 feet)
Draft: 12 metres (39.5 feet)
Capacity: 65,000 to 80,000 dwt”
https://www.clarksons.com/glossary/a-guide-to-bulk-vessel-sizes/
USN Panamax Carrier One might go to sea with USN Panamax Rust Bucket 32 and USN Panamax Rust Bucket 47.
They might shift places under an aluminum foil ‘window’ cloud.
I thought X-wing fighters had to launched from a death star ...
:)