Quora Answer: Why are Large Aircraft Carriers Apparently Difficult to Build?

The following is my answer to a Quora question: “Why are large aircraft carriers apparently so difficult to build, even if they are conventionally-powered with oil, when many countries such as South Korea, Singapore, Japan, and China build hundreds of tankers and container ships that are much larger?”

All the countries mentioned above are quite capable of building aircraft carriers.  In fact, all of them have aircraft carriers in everything but name, designated as landing ship carriers, helicopter carriers, or refurbished aircraft carriers, as China has.

What you are likely thinking of would be the supercarriers that the US Navy has.  Again, from a technology perspective, all these countries have the capability of building them, or acquiring that technology.  The question here is do they need it?  Are the costs of maintaining a carrier and the support group worth it?  Does it fit in with their strategic needs?

China is actively working towards having carrier capabilities, and they have expended money and research into acquiring an indigenous ability to not only build carriers, but carrier-based aircraft.  We can argue that they are between 20 to 30 years behind the US in terms of doctrine and deployment, but they are on the way there.  Currently, China has the same technology gap that Russia has – metallurgy.  They do not know the secrets to the exact metal composition of the landing gear and the engine exhaust.  This means that their landing gear snaps too often, and the engine wear is tremendous, limiting the lifespan of the aircraft.  Both of them have also not managed to bring down the weight of the carrier-borne aircraft, limiting deployment numbers and logistics.

Japan already operates very large helicopter carriers that are small aircraft carriers in all but name.  The constraint for Japan is their post-war Constitution, which forbids Japan having an offensive capability.  An aircraft carrier is not a defensive weapon.  It is meant to project force far away from home and extend the theatre of conflict.  Helicopter carriers, apparently, are “defensive”.  This is despite the fact that the Japanese Self-Defence Force can, and has, put VTOL aircraft on their “helicopter carriers”.  They are actively exploring the deployment of F-35 Lightning IIs.

South Korea has helicopter carriers as well.  They have this balancing act of having deterrence against the North, but not appear as a belligerent since their situation is as much a propaganda as a military conflict in armistice.

The issue, as demonstrated above, is not simply their capability to develop it, but whether it suits their doctrine and force structure.  We must also consider that a full-fledged carrier group, including the logistics elements, is very expensive.  It involves an investment in infrastructure, hardware and manpower.  In a worst-case scenario, the US can survive the loss of a carrier group, no matter how catastrophic it is propaganda wise.  Aside from China, none of Japan, South Korea or Singapore could stomache that sort of loss.  The loss of an aircraft carrier is also the loss of an air wing.  It would be a political as well as military disaster.  None of these nations have the strategic manpower reserve to simply field another naval aviation wing.  This is dangerously putting their eggs in one basket.

For Japan and South Korea, naval aviation is an option to confront Chinese assertiveness in the East China Sea, and to support a possible military operation in the Korean Peninsula.  It is a single theatre operation where naval aviation has a supporting role, not force projection far from home.  There is no need for a full-fledged carrier group since they will operate in the near abroad, within the EEZ.

For Singapore, it makes even less sense considering the RSAF has the operational ability to bomb Beijing and come back, her assets are dispersed from Taiwan to Australia, and she has total naval dominance and air superiority in the region.  An aircraft carrier would be operating in littoral waters, and vulnerable to shore launched anti-ship missiles, or swarm tactics by small craft.  These are cheap solutions to destroy an expensive military asset.  It does nothing to help Singapore’s force projection.  Also, the political cost of starting an arms race in ASEAN would not benefit anyone.