Posted on 02/23/2016 3:07:13 PM PST by Kaslin
Going back to the Battle of Midway and beyond, the United States aircraft carrier task forces have been the dominant power on the seas, and for good reason. When properly deployed and flanked by smaller, versatile warships, they provide the equivalent of a massive air base and marine troop deployment station which can be parked on the doorstep of any enemy. Unfortunately, their days of supremacy may be numbered, at least according to one recent report. (Washington Post)
A report published Monday by the Center for a New American Security, a D.C.-based think tank that focuses on national security, claims that the Navy's carrier operations are at an inflection point. Faced with growing threats abroad, the United States can either "operate its carriers at ever-increasing ranges … or assume high levels of risk in both blood and treasure."
The report, titled "Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers," focuses on China's burgeoning military posture in the Pacific and on a term that is starting to appear with increasing urgency in defense circles: anti-access/area denial, or A2/AD. The term A2/AD refers to a concept that has long existed in warfare: denying the enemy an ability to move around the battlefield. Currently A2/AD strategy is much the same as it was when moats were dug around castles, except today's moats are an integrated system of surface-to-air missiles, anti-ship cruise missiles, submarines, surface ships and aircraft - all designed to push enemy forces as far away as possible from strategically important areas.
This area denial threat is coming from a few sources, and they all present significant challenges to the way we’ve previously done business on the open seas. One bad actor on that stage is Russia. They have a sophisticated naval base at Kaliningrad with serious anti-aircraft capabilities and now they’ve been building up similar defenses around Syria. In a worst case scenario, they could significantly degrade our ability to launch air strikes and potentially hit our carriers, rendering them useless as aircraft platforms even if they can’t sink them.
Even more serious is the potential loss of patrol area around China. We’ve been covering the situation in the South China Sea here for a while now as the Chinese continue to build up their artificial islands, but this reports shows that some of their new radar installations on these remote reefs may be the biggest threat of all.
Satellite images show China may be building a powerful new radar system on a disputed island in the South China Sea, which could have worrisome military uses in monitoring — and potentially trying to control — a strategically vital waterway, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)…
“This would be very important in a Chinese anti-access area denial strategy that sought to reduce the ability of the U.S. to operate freely in the South China Sea, including bringing forces up through the South China Sea in case of any future crisis in Northeast Asia,” Poling wrote.
The Strait of Malacca passes between Malaysia and Indonesia and is one of the most important shipping lanes in the world, while a third of the world’s shipping, and much of Asia’s oil, passes through the South China Sea.
I wasn’t taking the question of the Chinese artificial islands very seriously when it first started, but the more news I see coming out of that region, the more it’s becoming a concern. We’re still sailing and flying in the area despite China complaining about it a bit. Of course, none of this really matters as long as we don’t have open warfare breaking out in the region, but with North Korea seemingly growing more unstable by the day, nothing seems all that certain anymore. We do seem to be losing one of our greatest, long range advantages, though.
This makes me particularly sad because it involves our carriers. Having spent a few years of my life sailing around on one of them in the Pacific and Indian Oceans (Salute, Connie! We’ll always miss you.) it’s impossible to avoid thinking of our carrier task groups fondly. I wouldn’t put it past American technology to overcome some of these challenges and retain our edge in sea power, but the modern era has certainly changed the landscape and naval power isn’t the be all and end all that it once was.
Cruise missle can take them out I think.
“When properly deployed’
I think they are still formidable ,as long as the ships commanders have freedom of engagement
Cruise missiles and submarines could eliminate most if not all on Day One.
I recall Nikita Khrushchev calling U S carriers sitting ducks and taxi cabs that the Soviet Navy would quickly sink in a conflict between the great powers. Interesting that both the Soviets and now the Chinese went on to build their own carriers. That said we should look at the lessons of WW-II to see carriers are vulnerable despite extensive protection from an accompanying task force. A single submarine from even nations like North Korea or Iran could sink a US carrier
Several years ago the Chinese allegedly deployed brilliant mines. They are autonomous and periodically float up from the bottom and power themselves to a new location. They are remotely activated and have the signatures of the US ships afloat when they were launched. In the event of war the mines would be activated and create an exclusion zone of much of the Pacific, effectively neutralizing the US Navy.
I read about this while working on a Navy project concerning mine neutralizing. It was not classified, but I am unable to find an open source for this information.
Below is a link to Wiki on aircraft carriers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_in_service
Across a wide range of operations there is no suitable alternative to a Carrier Strike Group. That’s why the Chinese are now building Carriers. In a general war with a peer competitor there will be major losses on both sides.
The US Navy is looking to increase the offensive punch of all surface ships for this reason. The concept called Distributed Lethality received significant funding in the FY17 budget.
Carriers will be around for a long time, while the technology to replace them exists it will be decades before these alternatives are practical replacements.
Anti ship ballistic missiles are the current weapons keeping Naval leadership awake at night ......still a powerpoint weapon.
Source is Center for a New American Security?
Seriously?
“Michèle Flournoy is Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer of the Center for a New American Security (CNAS).
She served as the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy from February 2009 to February 2012.
She was the principal adviser to the Secretary of Defense in the formulation of national security and defense policy, oversight of military plans and operations, and in National Security Council deliberations.
She led the development of DoD’s 2012 Strategic Guidance and represented the Department in dozens of foreign engagements, in the media and before Congress.
Prior to confirmation, Ms. Flournoy co-led President Obama’s transition team at DoD.”
Bwahahahahahaaha....just what I always look for in a source. Someone who has almost singlehandedly made our military what it is today.
Our admirals better be careful not to spend all their time preparing for the last war. Carriers will eventually fade as new technologies make them too vulnerable.
Shoot, I think we need a new generation of heavily armored battleships that can resist missile attacks and then lob heavy kinetic shells that will themselves be almost impervious to interception.
As to the aircraft carriers? If they were really obsolete then China and Russia wouldn’t be so worried about them.
Gerald Ford (CVN-78)-class vastly exceed those of the previous Nimitz-class carriers. In the short term, this may not mean much, although it will certainly make some tasks easier (including EMALS, the new electromagnetic launch system). In the longer term, this extra power generation capacity may make lasers an effective tool for air defense.
The U.S. Navy has devoted a great deal of attention to the prospect of making directed energy weapons a useful defense system. In theory, lasers could resolve many of the problems associated with ballistic and cruise missile defense, including the accuracy and limited number of interceptors. A carrier with sufficiently powerful laser defenses could curtail the threat of even large salvos of cruise and ballistic missiles, providing a carrier group with an extra degree of security and lethality in contested areas.
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/5-ways-us-aircraft-carriers-will-soon-be-more-lethal-13589
Just came back from visiting the Pensacola Air station Museum and our docent was a TAILHOOKER!! The museum was AWESOME...AWESOME!!!
I’ve often questioned the value of an aircraft carrier in an era when the U.S. has military bases all over the globe, and the major nuclear powers can send ICBMs anywhere in the world in a matter of minutes.
I think the Russians and Chinese would strike out satellites first making our weapons and gps obsolete
This person does not seem to understand that we lost many carriers in World War II.
They have never been invincible. They are not now.
But with a good strike group around them they are a VERY difficult nut to track.
In the end it comes down to whether a nation has the will to use them.
If they do, they can accomplish some amazing things...but they are also at risk.
If we have an administration that understand show to use Naval Power and understands the risks and rewards, the US Navy will remain virtually unbeatable for the foreseeable future.
That does not mean they will be untouchable...just very very hard to beat.
Most of what today passes for journalists do not know or understand naval history, particularly World war II, or understand naval warfare doctrine.
.......I would add to your comment, which I substantially agree with, two things:
1. Since the end of WWII, the carriers have never been significantly attacked by a nation state because the cost of doing so would be ruination of the attacking nation. China is weak internally, so is Russia, I don’t see either of them attacking a US Carrier as doing so would be akin to national suicide (after Obama is out of office and any of the top 3 pubs moves in).
2. These carrier battle groups keep the bad guys at bay all over the world allowing millions of citizens to go about their lives in relative peace and tranquility. I think that is their major contribution and relative worth.
Carriers will be obsolete when the concept of air superiority on the open ocean becomes obsolete, i.e. NEVER.
“I wasn’t taking the question of the Chinese artificial islands very seriously when it first started,”
This guy was playing golf, I guess, as was president ubama. He sat there and encouraged them to go right ahead and build this island that definitely wasn’t theirs. Hell, if an American company would have wanted to put a resort there, he would have sent in the Marines because of all the environmental damage to what were actually pretty neat coral islands.
We’re screwed.
Nuclear carriers are too expensive, go back to conventional. The air wing doesn’t care. Plus the concept of doing damage control on nuclear warship give me the willys.
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.