Do US super-carriers make sense anymore? The BBC goes on board one

On the vast Pacific Ocean, it initially appeared small. However, as we approached the USS Carl Vinson aircraft carrier, it nearly filled the entire view from the back of the Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, its deck packed with state-of-the-art warplanes. The USS Carl Vinson, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with a displacement of nearly 90,000 tons and a length of over 300 meters, is one of the largest warships ever built.

Watching FA18s and F35s being catapulted off the carrier's steam catapults at a frequency of once or twice a minute was an exhilarating experience. On the crowded deck, the crew managed the entire process with impressive composure.

A sudden Pacific storm drenched us and everything else, but it did not slow them down in the slightest.

Despite the rapid development of China's military power in recent years, the United States' ability to project military force globally with its fleet of 11 supercarriers remains unmatched.

But does a $13 billion (£10 billion) aircraft carrier, which could potentially be sunk by China's latest missiles in minutes, still make sense in the era of Donald Trump?

We were invited aboard the USS Carl Vinson to learn about another side of the US aircraft carrier strategy, one that emphasizes America's friendliness and willingness to cooperate with allies – something rarely heard in Washington these days.

The USS Carl Vinson was then operating about 200 kilometers east of the Philippines, conducting exercises with two aircraft carriers from France and Japan, along with their escorting destroyers. With no wars to fight, the majority of a US carrier strike group's time is spent doing just that, learning how to operate in conjunction with allied navies. Last year, they held an exercise that brought together naval vessels from 18 countries.

This exercise was smaller in scale, but it was the first time in over 40 years that a French aircraft carrier had participated in an exercise in the Pacific.

Below the noisy flight deck, in a vast hangar, Rear Admiral Michael Wettje, commander of the USS Carl Vinson's strike force, was seated with his French counterpart, Rear Admiral Jacques Mallard of the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, and his Japanese counterpart, Rear Admiral Takashi Natsui of the Kaga. The Kaga is undergoing modification to become Japan's first aircraft carrier since World War II.

The Charles de Gaulle is the only warship in the world that can rival an American supercarrier in certain capabilities, but even so, it is only half the size of an American carrier.

All three admirals were effusive in their remarks.

In Europe, where President Trump's team is tearing up the rules that have underpinned the international order for the past 80 years and telling former allies that they are now on their own, the tensions seem far removed from here.

"Our strong network of alliances and partnerships, such as our relationships with France and Japan, is a key advantage for our nations in addressing shared security challenges," said Rear Admiral Wettje. Rear Admiral Mallard concurred in impeccable English: "This exercise expresses a willingness to better understand each other and to work towards upholding international law."

No one mentioned the radical new perspectives coming from Washington, nor the increasingly assertive China, although Rear Admiral Takashi Natsui may have had both in mind when he said that Japan now finds itself in "the most severe and complex security environment. No country can now protect its security alone."

In the labyrinth of steel corridors that make up the living quarters for the 5,000 men and women on board the USS Carl Vinson, official portraits of the new President and Vice President have been hung, Trump's with his now-signature combative expression. We were not allowed to interview the crew, and politics were off-limits anyway, but some on board were curious about my views on the new administration.

Internet access on board was spotty, but they did stay in touch with home. We were told that they could even receive Amazon deliveries at sea, picking them up from designated collection points.

So, it is safe to say that there will be plenty of discussion about what President Trump has in store for these naval behemoths. Elon Musk has already vowed to bring his cost-cutting disruption to the Pentagon and its $900 billion budget, something Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has welcomed, although he stressed that the Pentagon is not the US Agency for International Development, which President Trump has vowed to shut down completely.

In the hangar, we watched crew members maintaining aircraft, surrounded by crates and spare parts. We were warned not to photograph any exposed parts of these technological marvels, lest we leak classified information. We didn't even dare touch the F35s, as they have a special, and expensive, coating that helps them evade radar.

They showed us the "jet engine workshop," where they repair and test engines. A technician who identified himself as "082 Madeiro" explained that they need to carry enough spare parts to keep the aircraft flying during long deployments, and that after a certain number of hours, the engines must be completely replaced, whether they are faulty or not. Next to him was a brand new engine, in a huge crate. Cost, about $15 million.

The USS Carl Vinson costs approximately $700 million per year to operate.

So, will the Trump administration cut the Pentagon's budget? Hegseth said he believes significant efficiencies can be found. He has also publicly pondered the value of aircraft carriers. "What does it look like if our entire power projection platform is aircraft carriers, if 15 hypersonic missiles can take out our ten aircraft carriers in the first 20 minutes of a conflict?" he said in an interview last November.

The debate over the utility of aircraft carriers is nothing new. It dates back to when they first appeared a century ago. Today's critics argue that they are too vulnerable to China's latest generation of ballistic and hypersonic missiles, forcing them to stay far from the Chinese coast, which would put their aircraft out of range. This money, they say, would be better spent on new technologies.

These enormous, welded blocks of steel, which seemed to reach their peak in the Pacific War of the 1940s, do seem somewhat outdated. However, in the vast ocean, where airfields are scarce, it has proven difficult to get rid of them. Supporters argue that, escorted by missile destroyers, supercarriers can protect themselves well, and that they are still difficult to sink. Scaling down these carriers to carry only helicopters or aircraft that can take off and land vertically, as many countries do, would ultimately result in more vulnerable ships.

It is worth noting that China also believes in the value of aircraft carriers; it has already built three. And, as symbols of American prestige, they may appeal to President Trump, who is known for his love of ostentatious construction, regardless of the economic arguments for and against them.

At his Senate confirmation hearing, Pete Hegseth said the Trump administration would prioritize increasing shipbuilding, although he did not say how this would be achieved. The United States has only four naval shipyards left; it is estimated that China's shipbuilding capacity is more than 200 times that of the United States. He also told his counterparts in Japan and South Korea that he wanted to deepen defense cooperation with them. Europe may be on its own, but it seems that Asian allies will receive attention from the White House as it focuses on the strategic challenge posed by China.

Three new Ford-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, the next generation of the USS Carl Vinson, are currently under construction, although two of them will not be in service until the next decade. There are plans to complete ten of these new types of carriers, and so far, there is no indication that the Trump administration wants to change this. Despite many critics, America's supercarriers are likely to remain.