The Nimitz-class aircraft carriers USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74), and USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) (rear) conduct dual aircraft carrier strike group operations in the U.S. 7th Fleet area of operations in support of security and stability in the Indo-Asia-Pacific in Philippine Sea on June 18, 2016. Courtesy Jake Greenberg/U.S. Navy/Handout via REUTERS
Adam Weinstein, Task & Purpose: US Aircraft Carriers Are Screwed In A Real Battle, According To Defense Analysts
When Dubya wanted to celebrate a “mission accomplished,” he flew in an S-3 onto a carrier hardtop. When Trump wanted to project American military strength, he spoke on the hangar deck of the newly christened carrier USS Gerald Ford. “Where are the carriers?” the old president’s line goes. Nobody comes close to matching America’s 10 operational floating airports, and the current administration has announced plans to add at least two more carriers soon.
There’s just one problem: A growing chorus of defense analysts says that in a real maritime battle, U.S. aircraft carriers are totally fucked.
“Beyond a shadow of a doubt, a carrier is just a target,” one former career Pentagon analyst told Reuters in a depressing investigation of flattops’ vulnerabilities that the news service published Thursday.
Read more ....
Update: Aircraft carriers, championed by Trump, are vulnerable to attack (Reuters).
WNU Editor: If true .... I guess these aircraft carriers will be avoiding "real battles".
5 comments:
War escalating to the point where these ships are getting sunk would unleash a terrible evil on the world. Nuclear retaliation would soon follow and like in the past any sinking would gain public support for such action.
These ships are more vital than ever, with proxy wars and largely air campaigns targeting terrorist organization. The ability to deploy such forces is more effective now more then ever. You can just look how effective the Russian carrier was.
Despite Americans fleet of carriers, their effectiveness is nothing but poor. Is it the fault of the carrier, the planes or ammunition. Well its a combination, Capitalism dictates i sell you cheap junk under the pretense of the latest and greatest advancements, i sell you a speech.
Carriers will always be a target, but like pearl harbour they are the navy's biggest asset and as such you protect them like the quarterback in football. You say it will sink, i say i run it aground before it does, i say Americans where the original kamikaze pilots at the battle of midway and will step up and sacrifice their lives to save others.
All the Navies have about a 2 week life span when the balloon goes up, anti ship missiles and area denial weapons systems will shock the world. There will be lots of shock and holy fuck, in the air and on the ground as well. The Inbred So Called Leadership will be down to 2 options Talk or go Nuclear, I wonder which one they will chose hmm?
Guys, it's not news that aircraft carriers are sitting ducks.. always been that way.. that's why they don't go out alone.. that's why they won't go near a coast with the aircraft killers in place during conflict times.. it's always the same:
1. Establish air (and space) superiority
Rinse and repeat:
2. Take out the missile systems as well as you can
3. Try to get closer with aircraft carriers
4. Bomb the shit out of those aircraft carrier hating sons of bitches ;)
What has changed however is that those aircraft carrier killers apparently have become a) more sophisticated, b) more common, c) cheaper
That's bad, because air craft carriers have become
a) also more sophisticated, b) about the same level of common, c) way more fucking expensive --- whenever you have this asymmetry of cheap vs expensive, you know you're going to have a bad time
You get close the enemy coast, you take risks like the USs Franklin found out.
Egyptian boats carrying Styx Missiles and with Egyptian crews trained by the Russians took out the Eilat.
What is not at risk?
Post a Comment