Tuesday, August 6, 2019

U.S. Congress Is Starting To Question The Cost And Survivability Of The U.S. Navy's Aircraft Carriers

The Navy’s forward-deployed aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan cruises during Talisman Sabre 2019 on July 22, 2019, in the Coral Sea. (Navy photo by MC2 Kaila Peters/Navy)

David B. Larter and Joe Gould, Defense News: With mounting questions about cost and survivability, a shifting political landscape for US aircraft carriers

WASHINGTON – The new chief of naval operations, Adm. Michael Gilday, was confirmed quickly by the Senate last week, but lawmakers made clear that the cost and growing vulnerability of aircraft carriers to ever-faster and evasive missiles will be among the issues he’s expected to tackle when he officially takes the reins.

The Navy’s main force projection tool, the carrier, became a punching bag for several lawmakers at Gilday’s confirmation hearing, with lawmakers alternately raising the threat posed by Chinese and Russian hypersonic missiles, and berating the Navy’s future top admiral for the significant delays and cost overruns associated with the new carrier Gerald R. Ford.

Read more ....

WNU Editor: This debate is long overdue.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

The debate they should be having is... Do we want to be a global superpower or do we want to let China and socialism rule the world. Until a carrier is sunk, there literally no denying is has survivability.

Caecus said...

True, but the USA has not used carriers in a war against a peer since the Pacific front in WWII.

Modern carriers haven't really been tested in battle.

(I know someone is going to say, what about the millions of flight hours in Iraq or whatever, but that just shows the efficiency and discipline of the crews, not the actual capabilities and survivability against an enemy that has modern capabilities)

Anonymous said...

China is not a socialist country I'd argue it's state controlled capitalistic with very little social security. It has a quasi dictatorial, 100% ethno Chinese driven and formed government. The party line is to see westerners (=white people) as adversaries and to be exploited by all means to gather crucial advantage over. they think worse of other Asians. Worse yet of blacks and Mexicans. It is an ethno culture driven by "we are the best because our civilisation is oldest and we claim as much territory as we please" mentality. It is not every Chinese of course. Absolutely not. it's as always the people in power with their crazy claims. 9dash line that every country on earth rejects. No country agreed with China yet they arm themselves and bully everyone. .it's madness

Anonymous said...

Good points, Caecus. But you forgot in your analysis that survivability of carriers always dependet on multiple lines of defense. Carriers are not just defending themselves, barely can. But they depend on a network of air land sea and space capabilities. Think about it. A carrier is safe if it can stay out of range or the attacking targets have been previoudly neutralised and only lastely would live defence come into play. This must be obvious. You don't move a multi billion asset into a hot zone. You send either space or air assets that are hard to take out /detect first. Only then live defence and carriers moving forward is an issue. Carriers will keep playing their roles until we find need platforms anymore. That's what they are. Expensive huge movable islands that sink ;)