Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The U.S. Navy’s Big Mistake; Building Tons of Supercarriers
War is Boring ^ | May 27, 2015 | David W. Wise

Posted on 05/28/2015 6:52:21 AM PDT by C19fan

“History,” it has been written, “does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.” Today it’s rhyming with Gen. Billy Mitchell. In the 1920s, Mitchell challenged conventional thinking by advocating air power at sea in the face of a naval establishment dominated by battleship proponents.

The hubris of the “battleship Navy” was such that just nine days before Pearl Harbor, the official program for the 1941 Army-Navy game displayed a full page photograph of the battleship USS Arizona with language virtually extolling its invincibility.

Of course, the reason that no one had yet sunk a battleship from the air — in combat — was that no one had yet tried.

(Excerpt) Read more at medium.com ...


TOPICS: Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: carrier; navy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-156 next last
To: Bogey78O
If an enemy gets a lucky hit and disabled a carrier or destroyed it, how fast could we plug the gap?

At the moment, there is one shipyard that can do the work, and it takes approximately nine years to lay down, build, fit out, trial and commission one.

I agree with those who say these floating bombs are obsolete (in a warfighting sense), and that the upcoming Chinese Pearl Harbor will simultaneously attack and sink 5 or 6 of them.

61 posted on 05/28/2015 7:53:56 AM PDT by Jim Noble (If you can't discriminate, you are not free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: central_va
If watertight doors are all shut it is almost impossible to sink one

Nonsense. One 100kT warhead within 1000 yards will do the job easily.

62 posted on 05/28/2015 7:55:11 AM PDT by Jim Noble (If you can't discriminate, you are not free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
I imagine the Navy has some of the STOVAL ones also though, correct?

Only because the Navy owns the Marine Corps. All F-35s for the Navy are F-35C and all F-35s for the Marine Corps are F-35B, and all F-35s for the Air Force are F-35A.

The British Royal Navy are purchasing F-35Bs for both their Air Force and Navy.

63 posted on 05/28/2015 7:55:42 AM PDT by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

How do you maintain air superiority at sea without A/C carriers?

Maybe we could equip subs with paper airplane launchers instead.

64 posted on 05/28/2015 7:56:47 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: mad_as_he$$
True, the Navy is purchasing the F-35C, but the requirements were still part of intended operations from smaller vessels, like the assault carriers.
65 posted on 05/28/2015 7:57:11 AM PDT by The_Victor (If all I want is a warm feeling, I should just wet my pants.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Fai Mao
a 70,000 ton merchant ship could be converted to carry 70 or planes in about 9 months

The war with China will be over in nine days.

66 posted on 05/28/2015 7:57:13 AM PDT by Jim Noble (If you can't discriminate, you are not free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

When either side starts hurling nukes, A/C carriers would be the last of our worries you idiot.


67 posted on 05/28/2015 7:58:17 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Doesn’t work. CVNs need to be large to operate the aircraft. The large air wing is just a side effect.


68 posted on 05/28/2015 7:59:19 AM PDT by Little Ray (How did I end up in this hand-basket, and why is it getting so hot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

You get your check from the Chinese propaganda ministry?


69 posted on 05/28/2015 8:01:23 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
Outside of a tactical nuke, it is nearly impossible

Do you not believe that an enemy with tactical nukes that faced an existential threat from CBGs would use them?

I've believed this since various REFORGER exercises presumed air cover from CBGs. The Russians would NEVER allow themselves to be defeated if it could be prevented by tactical nukes at sea - and no President could or would release strategic weapons in response to an attack that killed zero US civilians.

70 posted on 05/28/2015 8:01:27 AM PDT by Jim Noble (If you can't discriminate, you are not free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: central_va
You can disable an A/C Carrier with one or two torpedoes. But there are 3,000 guys trying to get the damage under control and back operational. If watertight doors are all shut it is almost impossible to sink one. The question is can air wing bingo to the beach while A/C gets back operational.

You don't need to sink a carrier to cripple it. You only need to destroy the flight deck. No DC team of 18-year old seamen will be repairing the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) of the Ford (not to mention the steam cats of Nimitz-class carriers).

Punch some big holes in the flight deck and the next stop is Newport News, VA, --for several months.

What good is an aircraft carrier that can't launch or land aircraft?

71 posted on 05/28/2015 8:03:37 AM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: central_va
When either side starts hurling nukes, A/C carriers would be the last of our worries you idiot

Why do you say that? (not the idiot part, I get that).

Seriously. Five carriers are vaporized in a BOOB attack one day in 2017, followed by a massed amphibious assault on Taiwan. Wargame it for me.

What's your move, and what's the path to victory?

72 posted on 05/28/2015 8:04:30 AM PDT by Jim Noble (If you can't discriminate, you are not free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: central_va
You get your check from the Chinese propaganda ministry?

Unfortunately no.

73 posted on 05/28/2015 8:04:58 AM PDT by Jim Noble (If you can't discriminate, you are not free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

The lots of smaller carriers is an argument that has been made, repeatedly, in the 90 or so years since the USN started building them. And with examples like Ranger (CV-4), Wasp (CV-7) running up through the Sea Control Ship concept (which was the basis for the Euro Harrier Carriers) it’s been proven flawed time and time again.

The purpose of the big USN carriers is to project power on the other side of the planet. You can’t really do that with smaller ships. Even the Brits acknowlege that the primary purpose of their 60,000 ton QE class carriers is to supplement USN CSGs in joint allied actions, and work in conjunction with Euro allies in regional actions (like Libya), with a limited capability to act truly independently outside of regional operations (which would include going South if Falklands II cooks off)


74 posted on 05/28/2015 8:06:53 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
A 600 ship Navy perhaps? I heard that somewhere.

It's what Ronald Reagan wanted, but never quite got.

75 posted on 05/28/2015 8:08:06 AM PDT by NorthMountain ("The time has come", the Walrus said, "to talk of many things")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

What good is a sub? By definition it cannot project power on land.


76 posted on 05/28/2015 8:10:49 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: EQAndyBuzz
What people seem to be missing the point on is what an enemy must go through to get to an A/C. The satellite data, technology, logistics.

Easy. You overwhelm the defense systems with sheer numbers. And as anti-ship weapons become more powerful, cheaper, concealable and easier to produce, eventually you'll find yourself on the wrong side of math.

77 posted on 05/28/2015 8:11:21 AM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

The Marines are getting F-35Cs too, to fulfill their commitment to having some squadrons integrated into carrier airwings.


78 posted on 05/28/2015 8:12:00 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

Once nukes start flying around all tactical missions/goals cease to matter- or perhaps exist.


79 posted on 05/28/2015 8:13:24 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Jim Noble

“Do you not believe that an enemy with tactical nukes that faced an existential threat from CBGs would use them?”

I believe anything is possible. I also believe that if we are ever in that situation, something probably happened in the world where global nuclear war is inevitable. If an enemy is ready to launch a nuke, everyone will want in.


80 posted on 05/28/2015 8:14:55 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Liawatha, because we need to beat a real commie, not a criminal posing as one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-156 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson