(Click on Image to Enlarge)
The aircraft carriers USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69), USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77), USS Enterprise (CVN 65), USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75), and USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) are in port at Naval Station Norfolk, Va., the world’s largest naval station. Chief Mass Communication Specialist Ryan J. Courtade, Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Ernest R. Scott, and Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Kevin J. Steinberg
Jamie McIntyre, Washington Examiner: Too big to sail? US aircraft carriers could go the way of the dinosaur
President Trump is worried that the newest class of American supercarriers may have a fatally flawed system for launching aircraft, and has ruminated publicly about why the new electromagnetic catapults have replaced the old-fashioned steam version.
But deep thinkers believe the most tangible symbol of America’s military dominance could face a much bigger problem: U.S. aircraft carriers may soon be rendered obsolete by short-sighted decisions and new long-range weapons.
No other nation in the world has more than two modern aircraft carriers. The United States has 11, and is proceeding at flank speed on an ambitious multibillion-dollar program to gradually replace its Cold War-era Nimitz class carriers, with the new Gerald R. Ford class, the biggest and most expensive warship in human history, price tag $13 billion.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: I can understand their value in conflicts where the opponent is not a peer-to-peer adversary. But advancements in technology are making long range weapons more accurate and deadlier, and if the trend continues, it will make no difference on where these aircraft carriers are, they will just be large sitting ducks.
15 comments:
"...large sitting ducks." Actually a better description is "floating death trap." Aircraft carriers are obsolete and have been for quite awhile actually. It's nice to see that some are finally catching on at least to the point that they can dare ask the question. Oh well, its a step in the right direction.
Actually I don't think it will take a "peer to peer" adversary to counter then. A country with even a third or fourth rate Navy would have no problem with them. Again, I am glad to see people are finally catching on. Being slow on the uptake is better than not being able to learn I suppose.
There are 5 major naval harbors for the USA. Take them out in a surprise attack either with drones and mines or missiles and the USN is finished for years. Just 5 ports. Kings Bay, Pearl Harbor, Olympic bay, San Diego and Norfolk.
WAHT, whatttt ahahahah wtf man.
Nooo, carriers are far from obsolete, infact there is a commercial use for even larger more grandest carriers.
Only thing that is obsolete is the old fools driving them, in this fast paced world they should be flying across the oceans. HYROMATIC
Anon (11:01AM),
Quite correct unfortunately. The myth of America as some sort of "superpower" let alone a "hyerpower" or an "exceptional" and "indispensable" nation is just that a myth. It's ridiculous nonsense. Such conceit is not only ridiculous but it is very unhelpful when trying to develop and implement realistic policies. Fortunately to the best of my knowledge, POTUS has personally refrained from using such nonsensical terms.
Anon (11:06AM),
"...the old fools driving them." The US Navy has had problems with basic navigation of late. I DO NOT blame the Navy personnel driving the ships for this. This is squarely the fault of the political and military leadership. When you drive your personnel to points beyond extreme exhaustion in fruitless operations around the world that not only don't advance our interests but actually undermine them training will suffer, morale will be lowered, and the personnel will be exhausted. In this situation, things like this are inevitable.
A little history helps, it took Pearl Harbor to change the Admirals minds that the Battleship was extinct, it will take some event to change their Minds again. Very hard at this level to actually measure benefit vs risks, but I would say that our Carrier fleet is safe for some years to come.
P.S. The Navy carrier tasks forces have always been at risk against a Nuke, that is why extensive testing was done early on against navy vessels.
Michael,
"Very hard at this level to measure benefit vs risks...." You are quite correct sir.:-) You seem to be a bit more optimistic than I am and you may well be correct. I hope you are. By the way I would say that pretty much anything is at risk against a nuke.
I think the only way to "know" for certain is to actually have the military conflict. With that said based upon whatever conclusions the leader(s) reach beforehand policies and procedures will naturally flow from this.
I think there is a bias among US political and military leaders to both overestimate our abilities while simultaneously underestimating those of adversaries and potential adversaries all combined with a tendency to behave recklessly. An example of this recklessness, is the invention whole cloth of Russian "collusion" and "interference" all for the benefit of a preferred candidate and, in the process, alienating a major world power who we need to work with and whose assistance we are going to need in variety of areas all for the catharsis of allowing the losing candidate and her supporters to feel good about themselves and give them an excuse to try and use "lawfare" to try and destroy the candidate they don't like. Such behavior is that of children in adult bodies and is unbecoming of a major world power. We could stop right here but, in my considered opinion, this tendency of our "deep state" to "act out" like spoiled children combined with the tendency of our leaders to vastly overestimate while vastly underestimating the power of our adversaries and potential adversaries is VERY DANGEROUS.
For non Americans who want a certain policy, this isn't such a big deal. As an American, if these ill thought out policies go awry, it is the heads of my loved ones who are on the chopping block.
I have a bit of a different take.
Yes, weapon systems are getting more accurate and longer in range. However, defense systems are also getting much stronger. I see this balancing out at some point with carrier groups being nearly untouchable because of laser/rail-gun interception systems.
Air strikes will always be useful, the aircraft may just be UAVs instead of manned. While aircraft have been getting longer ranged, it will still be necessary to have airbases relatively close to the front lines. And ultimately that is what carriers are, highly redeploy-able airbases.
to provide an additional counterpoint. The scenario is as follows: Say that they can destroy a carrier group. They (whoever they are) can sink those carrier groups with relative ease even with their layered defenses. it has gotten so bad that it would be a waste of time, money, and blood to build aircraft carriers.
Following that logic you could also say goodbye to practically every prepared airstrip we have. Then perhaps it would be wise to stop building out most military bases in general. You know what, those logistics bases are a bit vulnerable. The enemy could get to them. Better not build them.
That sound ridiculous right? Because it is. Yes carriers are vulnerable, they always have been. There are many reasons why we have them, and those reasons aren't disappearing soon.
To briefly discus the range issues brought up in the article: A few things. Firstly, we are developing refueling aircraft for carriers for a reason. It is almost deployed. Secondly, we have delayed getting conformal fuel tanks for the F/A 18 for far too long. Thirdly, anyone who told you the f-35 was a good idea in practice tried to sell you a pack of lies especially on the combat radius.
As for the cost. Government work at the best of times is expensive. Maintaining facilities to work on specialized projects is expensive. This does not only apply to Carriers. The cost to maintain B-2As is mind boggling. The cost of long range missiles is massive for what you get out of it. So, the question is if you kill of the carrier (and at the same time most of the navy), what do you replace it with that won't be countered by issues already raised?
I am not going to argue that the current direction of carrier program could use some major reorientation, but to say that the idea of the large carrier is dead is laughable at best.
{I could spend all night haranguing on the subject, but all I really wanted to say is that you probably don't want to prognosticate the death of the idea of the carrier too hard. It still has a ways to go before it disappears.}
I am a former naval person from the U.S. Navy.
The question of whether carriers are obsolete is really asking: What is their mission?
In my view, for a traditional battle in the deep ocean for naval superiority (think Midway), carriers are far from obsolete. In fact, they remain indispensable for bringing air superiority with the fleet. That air power is both defensive and offensive. Without air power, one depends on missiles, because future battles will be fought at long range.
The Soviets never developed a satellite able to distinguish carriers, or smaller ships, from waves. And the Soviets tried hard. I am sure that the Chinese will also try hard to develop such satellites, but I have never seen evidence that the technology is available to make the carriers "visible" from space. Of course, in a war, how long will such satellites survive?
Suppose the Chinese figure out how to secure targeting information. The next problem is: how to send targeting information to the command authority, and orders back to your own fleet to attack, in a timely way? The Soviets had a "top down" system, in which all authority was concentrated at the top. Such a system is vulnerable to disruption. I suspect (but do not know for sure) that the Chinese, as most dictatorships, prefer a top down command system. This would also be true for targeting information gathered by drones.
In the U.S. system, authority is decentralized to low levels, in order to enable pilots to act on their own. Such command systems are flexible, and less vulnerable to jamming and other disruption.
Since World War II the USA has also used aircraft carriers to project power ashore. In this respect, the critics have a point concerning the vulnerability of carriers to project air power into China from the South China Sea, for example. In this hypothetical, carriers would be vulnerable to attack from many missiles, aircraft drones etc. all launched from multiple bases in China. The location of the carriers would be in a relatively small areas, easing the Chinese solution in developing actionable targeting data. It is worth noting that the Soviets spent large sums to prevent carriers from approaching their coasts, and developed layered defense, much like the Chinese now. Yet the Soviets never were able to keep track of our fleet, even when we operated close to the Soviet coast. Perhaps China has solved all these problems, perhaps not.
Good to hear from you. The "what is their mission" cannot be over stated. That and the " how do you find them" and the "top down control" are the points not to be missed.
Anon (12:29PM, Publius, and James,
Thank you for the information. It is very much appreciated. Time permitting I will share a thought on this and perhaps ask questions.:-)
Ask Publius, he's way more versed on this than I.
Anon (12:29PM),
If we assume aircraft carriers are obsolete, then yes the scenarios you lay out such as building out bases or maintaining airstrips will change. Based upon what we think about something going in will influence our policies and procedures.
Publius,
Thank you for your service!! I appreciate your insights on this as a formal Naval person. There are multiple "schools of thought" on this and probably the only way to "know" is to actually have a naval conflict. For many years, it has been assumed that the aircraft carrier is the proverbial best thing since warm bread and within the main stream it was impossible to have the debate. I am pleased that now, at least, it seems we are finally able to start having the beginnings of a debate on this. Hopefully this trend will continue and, if so, we should be able to arrive at an informed decision as to what, if any, future aircraft carriers will have in our defense posture.
I guess I will add in just a little bit more.
First in order to make the point, a fundamental axiom must be addressed. This will sound pretentious and I am sorry about that, but there is a reason to make it.
War breaks things. Advanced tracking systems, area denial systems and the people used to run them would be attritted to the point of being useless at some point in a near peer battlespace. Military doctrine has relied on the concept of an alpha strike for some time. Gather all your strength and strike at the enemies critical infrastructure at the very beginning of the war. The point of this is to limit the amount of long term damage the bad guys can do very quickly.
The whole point of that spiel is to say this. There is a high chance that most systems capable of hitting/sinking a carrier group will be dead relatively early on in a protracted conflict. Of course the logical counterpoint to this is that those systems would immediately target your carrier groups.
This demands a change in our thinking. The current strategy of alpha-striking with carriers is slowly dying. Or more accurately, never really alive to begin with (but that is an argument for another time).
The solution to this is to use the main advantage of the carrier. It moves. So instead of treating it as a first strike base, bring it in later after the area denial systems have been suppressed. This brings in fresh capabilities after the Air-Force and Army have been worn down.
Aircraft carriers are a second strike-like weapon as they have the opportunity not to be involved in the first blows of the war, while still being able to have an effect later on relatively easily.
In this way they could provide sustained coverage to areas which were heavily attrited early on. Thereby providing relief to the forces already battling there.
I have belabored the point enough. I agree the the current doctrine of carrier use is pretty stupid. But the capabilities of the carrier are very useful and relatively unique. People just need to think of them differently.
Anon (8:27),
Thank you for adding in just a little bit more. Bring it in later instead of as a first strike weapon. This may just be a good use for them. I agree with you that the current way we use them is questionable. You call it "stupid." I'm still not convinced they aren't "floating death traps."
I'm glad the debate is finally beginning. For years it was assumed these things were the best things since warm bread and in the mainstream one couldn't dare suggest anything else. The counterpoint to this seems to be slowly but surely making it to the mainstream. I think this is a good thing. Perhaps with reasoned discussion we can make informed decisions regarding the future of these things in our military planning.
Agreed, a good debate is always a good thing.
Hope you have a nice day, and here is hoping for more intellectual discussions.
Post a Comment