The aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN 73) and the Seawolf-class attack submarine USS Connecticut (SSN 22) is underway in the Pacific Ocean as an HH-60H Sea Hawk helicopter from the Chargers of Helicopter Anti-Submarine Squadron (HS) 14 hovers nearby. Ships from the U.S. Navy and Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force are participating in Annual Exercise (ANNUALEX 21G), a bilateral exercise designed to enhance the capabilities of both naval forces. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Adam K. Thomas/Released)
Robert Farley, National Interest: Aircraft Carriers vs. Submarines: Which Is the Ultimate Naval Weapon for War?
One of the world's top military minds takes a look and provides important background.
The great naval powers emerged from World War I relatively confident that the battleship would continue to decide question of naval warfare. German submarines had nearly starved Great Britain in the last two years of the war, but the Royal Navy had turned back the offensive with minimal damage to its heavy units. The Royal Navy had also begun to experiment with aircraft carriers , a development the American and Japanese watched with close attention. Still, the major interwar naval agreements concentrated on battleships , rather than on “support” vessels such as the carrier and the submarine.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: As the above article points out, aircraft carriers and subs are not cheap. But I would put my money on submarines .... until technology makes it possible to easilylocate and track them with ease.
2 comments:
American subs sank 8 Japanese AC in WW2.
The proper name for aircraft carrier is "floating death trap." These slow lumbering vessels are easily sunk by even a second or third rate Navy. As such, they are no match for a major power. with that said the US has lagged behind in the development of anti-ship weaponry. As such, an aircraft carrier or two might pose problems for the United States but not for major powers such as Russia, China, or even Iran or North Korea.
The aircraft carrier may still have limited use. Perhaps one or maybe two should be kept in inventory for limited use but certainly not 10, 11, or whatever the waste is in the investment of these floating death traps and to think these idiots want to add to the fleet!! An upgrade to an obsolete technology does not seem to be prudent either. As such, the Ford Class floating death traps are an enormous waste of money and other precious resources. It's a bit like knowing spears are obsolete for modern warfare and what is the suggestion? Let's make more spears!! Also, upgrading the spear and making shinier or sharper is not going to make the spear a useful weapon for modern warfare. The same applies to the aircraft carrier.
I wouldn't be so sure the Russians have not identified a way to track submarines. Some reports indicated they were working on this at the end of Cold War 1. It seems very unlikely that they would have stopped. In contrast, the US blithely assuming the submarines could not be tracked haven't worked on this nor have we tried to make our submarines more stealthy.
The submarine is a much more effective weapon than an aircraft carrier. In the same manner an automobile is a much more effective means of transportation than a horse drawn carriage is. A word processor is a more effective tool for typing documents than is a typewriter. The author of the article who posed the question perhaps doesn't realize how stupid he is for even posing this question.
Nevertheless there are uninformed people who need to be educated. Perhaps the author is doing a public service by sharing this as the editor. Even idiots and ideologues need to be presented with truth even if they have trouble grasping it.
Post a Comment