Posted on 12/13/2013 11:57:25 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Past fears that carriers were vulnerable to new technologies weren’t proven right… nor were they proven wrong.
Over at The National Interest this week, former Naval Diplomat shipmate — U.S. Marines say there are no former Marines, just Marines; are there former shipmates? — Bryan McGrath wades into the debate over Tom Ricks’s Washington Post column urging the U.S. military to get smaller to get better.
Let me wade in as well; the water’s fine. Ricks takes aim at the U.S. Navy’s fleet of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in particular. He cites the expense of CVNs, but Bryan zeroes in mainly on the question of flattops’ vulnerability in a threat environment populated by exotic armaments such as anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles, stealth tactical aircraft, and so forth.
Bryan mocks Ricks’ observation that CVNs look much like their distant ancestors. But the point is that carriers have enormous radar cross-sections. They don’t have that sleek, angular, unearthly appearance that typifies stealth aircraft and ships. Radar essentially shouts and listens for the echo. A bulky hull featuring lots of flat surfaces, sharp edges, and protuberances is bound to reflect electromagnetic radiation — the shout — returning that echo to the adversary’s radar set and thence to his fire-control system and anti-ship weaponry. In that sense, the look of a ship does matter, as Ricks observes.
The game’s afoot once the ship is detected. To delay detection and targeting, shipbuilders have incorporated gee-whiz measures into the design of the Gerald R. Ford, the U.S. Navy’s latest supercarrier. Cutting down on its RCS helps. Still, short of conducting a true-to-life Philadelphia Experiment on a grand scale, there’s only so much you can do to disguise a 100,000-ton behemoth. While it represents the vanguard of carrier
(Excerpt) Read more at thediplomat.com ...
Aircraft Carriers are mobile ISLANDS... under american control..
Just having one in someones general vicinity causes a look over the shoulder..
More firepower than most countrys.. and better PR source than most media outlets..
and thats overlooking the military Porn angle..
American carriers are damn good looking sexy pieces of equipment..
I recall during POTUS #40 RWR's watch that he was trying to get us to a 600 ship Navy. Today we are < 300. Even if we had a merchant marine force to transport men/supplies, it would have to be defended - just think of the U-boat slaughter of the convoys in the North Atlantic during 1940-1943.
I was just thinking of our Army airborne divisions. With the world being flooded with MANPADS today, It seems almost suicidal to do a combat drop. I think the last 1 was in Aghanistan, not long after 9/11, an airfield assault somewhere between 2001-02.
As far as replacing carriers goes, the problem is sustained response. Yes, we can launch missile strikes from surface combatants, submarines and long range bombers, but those missiles are very expensive for the amount of explosive you are delivering. The result is that a large missile strike at the beginning of a conflict severely depletes our stores. Tough solution.
This is an easy one to solve, name the next carrier the USS Obama, no one will be able to find it in an emergency or pin it down...
It’s a beauty isn’t it. Thanks for the post.
When you look at the X-47b UCAV, you aren't looking at an aircraft to engage other aircraft, you are looking at a strike platform that goes downtown and drops a couple JDAM. They still aren't cheap, and you want them back. That still requires a full sized carrier deck.
I forsee drone surface and submarine launching platforms for flying drones in 10 years at less expense and risk to operate than current fleet technology. The arguement will be made that we no longer require manned fleets when we can field twice as many unmanned for a lower cost.
Then when the shooting starts we’ll have no one in theater to react when the data feeds are disrupted.
Stalin is quoted that "Quantity has a quality all its own". In some situations that may be true. I had some Air Force guy tell me that our aircraft can handle 10 enemy aircraft at one time. When I asked him what happens when nos. 11-15 show up I got a deer in the headlights reaction.
With the F-22, you can handle 10 or more, but realistically, you are talking 11 trained enemy pilots.
That is very, very expensive and hard for anyone to do, even the US.
With drones, the training becomes infinitely less expensive.
Support costs, however, could increase.
Recovering certain downed drowns may be required, for example.
My personal favorite of low-tech solutions is to kill so many of the people of an attacking nation or ideology and destroy so much of their infrastructure as to make it blatantly obvious that screwing with the US isn’t in ones best interest.
Works for me...
I think China somewhat lives outside of reality. I honestly think they’d give up half their populace if they thought they could come out on top.
Take a look:
US Military Sea Lift Command Vessels
These are not officially a part of the US Navy anymore. They are not "USS" vessels, instead, they are "USNS" vessels. Usuallu crewed mostly by Merchant Marines with small US NAvy detachments for communications and operations.
We have a lot of really big ships to move mountains of supplies and have in fact pre-positioned loats of it at places like Diego Garcia, Guam, Saipan, etc.
good to hear
Consider drones armed with homing torpedos, drone
torpedos, drone submersibles.
I wonder how DARPA is coming with LOKI?
Look up DARPA+LOKI sometime.
I could see that as a drone, no crew to worry
about.
Several millions invested, they should have made
some progress on the vortex drive by now.
He is correct. Submarines rule the sea and the is the fact.
What will make the carriers obsolete are hypersonic and trans-atmospheric aircraft that can be anywhere in the world within 90 minutes. Who needs a carrier on station when you can send in a fighter that can take off and land from the USA?
Most people think because a CVN looks huge next to the pier it’s easy to find at sea. The first part of anybody’s ‘kill chain’ starts with ‘Find’ and includes track and identify. That’s not easy when the ‘target’ can be anywhere within 2 million square miles of ocean in 24 hours.
Quite the contrary I think there will always be a place for Naval Gunfire Support.
But the fact is that these Carriers (all warships really) are getting too big vulnerable for their own good.
Take Destroyers, where does that name come from?
Torpedo Boat Destroyer
I.E. smaller ships to protect the larger ones from extremely small craft.
U.S.S. Cole proved that all the Missiles in the world can't protect you from a Skiff with TNT.
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.