# Aircraft carriers: floating coffins? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 29, 2010, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721 "2010-12-29T17:46:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![The\_Amazing\_Hanna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@The\_Amazing\_Hanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Amazing_Hanna)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/1 "2010-12-29T17:46:54Z")
Here’s a question for all you naval warfare buffs. The Chinese have deployed a long-range land-to-ship missile system against which there is apparently no good defense. [Financial Times article: Chinese missile shifts power in Pacific](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3e69c85a-1264-11e0-b4c8-00144feabdc0.html#axzz19Vdtr2Xy). Is this system all its cracked up to be? If not, what is the point of spending billions of dollars on aircraft carriers, if they can be sunk by China or any country able to buy, steal, develop or simply receive from the Chinese similar technology? If these missiles are mounted on a submarine, would carriers be safe to use anywhere? With all the military bases around the world, are carriers really a sound investment? If the era of the aircraft carrier group is waning, what military doctrine will replace it? ---
**Author:** ![Quartz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quartz/32/267_2.png) [@Quartz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Quartz)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/2 "2010-12-29T17:50:12Z")
They’ve got to find the carrier first. The article doesn’t indicate the range of the missile, but if the aircraft carrier has to be only a little bit further off-shore then that’s manageable. ---
**Author:** ![Tristan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tristan/32/18058_2.png) [@Tristan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tristan)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/3 "2010-12-29T17:54:19Z")
There may be no good defense NOW (a claim I always find highly dubious anyways). There will certainly be one soon. There will always be a need for force projection, and that is what keeps Aircraft Carriers a going concern. However, the nature of that beast may change. I keep hearing a lot of talk about smaller craft, loaded with many more drone craft… ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/4 "2010-12-29T18:11:56Z")
I am convinced that if a big naval shooting war broke out (which would most likely have been during the Cold War between the Russian and NATO navies) that there wouldn’t be very many non-submarine vessels afloat after about a year. CVs have been vulnerable for many years now, but rarely have any of America’s enemies been in a position (tech-wise and/or force-wise) to take advantage. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/5 "2010-12-29T18:19:29Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > I am convinced that if a big naval shooting war broke out (which would most likely have been during the Cold War between the Russian and NATO navies) that there wouldn’t be very many non-submarine vessels afloat after about a year. CVs have been vulnerable for many years now, but rarely have any of America’s enemies been in a position (tech-wise and/or force-wise) to take advantage. Agreed…If such a war did break out, China would find it’s hands full just dealing with our SSBN fleet. ---
**Author:** ![Le\_Jacquelope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e0b2c6/32.png) [@Le\_Jacquelope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Le_Jacquelope)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/6 "2010-12-29T18:20:31Z")
> [@John\_DiFool](#): > > I am convinced that if a big naval shooting war broke out (which would most likely have been during the Cold War between the Russian and NATO navies) that there wouldn’t be very many non-submarine vessels afloat after about a year. CVs have been vulnerable for many years now, but rarely have any of America’s enemies been in a position (tech-wise and/or force-wise) to take advantage. What I want to know is how is it that China hopes to get any kind of missile within a carrier’s defense grid to hit it? Carriers are protected by all kinds of anti-aircraft systems, including high-powered cannons that would shred an incoming missile. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/7 "2010-12-29T18:24:15Z")
Carriers don’t operate in isolation. They’re surrounded by ships that exist for the sole purpose of sinking gloriously while defending the carrier. These missiles stand a very good chance of being eliminated on the way in or eaten by a picket ship on purpose. I’d say that the aircraft carrier isn’t the floating coffin, it’s the destroyers, frigates and cruisers that surround it that are likely going to die so the carrier doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/8 "2010-12-29T18:26:49Z")
It’s a surface to surface missile. Doesn’t need a launch vehicle. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/9 "2010-12-29T18:31:04Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > They’ve got to find the carrier first. The article doesn’t indicate the range of the missile, but if the aircraft carrier has to be only a little bit further off-shore then that’s manageable. The DF-21D (CSS-5 Mod-4) Anti-ship ballistic missile has a range of about 1900 miles, which is greater than the operating range of an F/A-18 Hornet. It’s a balistic missile which means unlike a cruise missle like the Tomahawk, it travels into space and then reenters the atmosphere to strike it’s target. Exactly like a SCUD missile. We already have systems that have been proven to shoot down ballistic missiles in flight under combat conditions (ie the Patriot missile) and even more advanced systems are under development. As Tristan pointed out, with 2/3 of the world covered in H20, the need for a mobile platform for projecting force will not go away. But I do think the nature of warfare will change significantly over the next several decades. Large aircraft carriers (and their battlegroups) are expensive and can only be in one place at a time. Manned fighter aircraft are becoming increasingly obsolete. But countries still like the awe inspiring size and flexibility of the carrier as a capital ship. The US is already designing the Gerald Ford class (CVN 78) to replace the Nimitz class. Another idea I’ve heard thrown about is the concept of an “arsenal ship”. Esentially it is a relatively small, possibly remote controlled ship with hundreds of vertical missle tubes for firing cruise missiles and whatnot. This concept is currently represented by the conversion of four Ohio class ballistic missle subs (SSBN) into guided missile subs (SSGN) carrying 154 cruise missiles as well as options for deploying UAVs, SEAL teams, various sensors and electronic warfare packages and other fun stuff. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > It’s a surface to surface missile. Doesn’t need a launch vehicle. Well they don’t just light and shoot them off like a bottle rocket. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/10 "2010-12-29T18:36:47Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Well they don’t just light and shoot them off like a bottle rocket. I was responding to **Le Jacquelope** ’s question (which upon review appears to be more about how the missile would get through the Phalanx/SeaRam/SeaDart net). The answer, of course, is that the Phalanx and other ship defense systems probably aren’t very effective against next-generation low-trajectory anti-ship missiles. ---
**Author:** ![Darth\_Panda](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ee7513/32.png) [@Darth\_Panda](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darth_Panda)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/11 "2010-12-29T19:44:08Z")
I’m assuming that we would just destroy China’s ability to fire the missiles by using tactical ICBMs or similar on the launch sites, and then send in the carriers. ---
**Author:** ![TehRoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bb73d2/32.png) [@TehRoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TehRoot)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/12 "2010-12-29T19:49:07Z")
There has always been talk of the Chinese or other nations, Russian and Iran for example, developing these so called “Aircraft Carrier Killers”, in all reality these missiles are just normal missiles with bigger payloads, and in some cases slightly modified guidance systems to deal with carrier defense platforms. Missiles like the P-500 Bazalt, the main armament on the Slava Class Guided Missile Cruiser of the Russian Navy, has been hailed as one of these aircraft carrier killers. In reality, it’s a slow, lumbering giant of the missile family, easily killed by the variety of CIWS weapon systems the USA and it’s allies has to offer. The basic operation and capabilities of a modern US Navy Strike Group. [http://www.dailypress2.com/cvn77/images/ng\_SS-11-strike-group-10-06.jpg](http://www.dailypress2.com/cvn77/images/ng_SS-11-strike-group-10-06.jpg) The air defense capabilities of a carrier strike group make it impervious to nothing but the most sophisticated anti-ship missiles in the world. Below the water line attacks are fruitless due to the Phalanx and Sea RIM CIWS defense. Terminal missile attacks, where missiles basically hit vertically, are somewhat more plausible as an attack, but don’t hit below the crucial waterline, only damaging the superstructure. Missile attacks aren’t very successful on any ship, unless the other side has exploited an obvious vulnerability on the other ship, mainly since many ships outside of the US navy, have somewhat limited CIWS capabilities, opening them to missile attacks. I’d say that the tiered, layered defense system of the Carrier Strike Groups, provides a somewhat insurrmountable odds against a threat like that. The implicit vulnerability in all CIWS systems however, is how it manages multiple targets. You can still flood and overwhelm even the most sophisticated CIWS systems with overwhelming numbers of in flight missiles, using different attack vectors and launch vehicles. Nothing is safe, but the carrier’s defense structure makes it impractical. ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/13 "2010-12-29T19:49:17Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > T…We already have systems that have been proven to shoot down ballistic missiles in flight under combat conditions (ie the Patriot missile) and even more advanced systems are under development… I don’t know much about missiles, etc. other than what I read, but my recollection is that the Patriot missile performed very poorly when Iraq was firing SCUD’s. Am I remembering wrong? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/14 "2010-12-29T19:52:21Z")
No, but it wasn’t designed to intercept Scuds. It was designed to shoot down aircraft, and adapted in 1988 to provide limited ballistic missile interception functionality. Frankly, it’s something close to a miracle that it was able to intercept Scuds _at all._ ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/15 "2010-12-29T20:02:36Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > No, but it wasn’t designed to intercept Scuds. It was designed to shoot down aircraft, and adapted in 1988 to provide limited ballistic missile interception functionality. Frankly, it’s something close to a miracle that it was able to intercept Scuds _at all._ What is difficult about hitting a ballistic projectile following a parabolic trajectory? Fight my ignorance. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Gedd](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gedd/32/4938_2.png) [@Gedd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gedd)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/16 "2010-12-29T20:11:18Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The answer, of course, is that the Phalanx and other ship defense systems probably aren’t very effective against next-generation low-trajectory anti-ship missiles. IIRC the Phalanx can cover up to something like 85 degrees elevation. Or do you mean the newer missiles have some anti-anti-anti-ship missle systems? The Phalanx has been around for quite some time now so it might be pass its “cutting edge” status. I know the navy is/was working on a newer system for longer range defense but I don’t have a clue if it’s in use. Don’t have a cite for that, I just remember it has “RAM” in the name somewhere. ---
**Author:** ![TehRoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bb73d2/32.png) [@TehRoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TehRoot)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/17 "2010-12-29T20:14:40Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > What is difficult about hitting a ballistic projectile following a parabolic trajectory? > Fight my ignorance. 🙂 Trying to hit a target traveling at reentry velocity, while your projectile is going about the same speed. It’s like trying to hit a bullet with a bullet. Parabolic trajectories don’t matter, there are thousands of factors that can alter the path of the warhead. The missile needs to correct thousands of times per minute in order to hit that warhead reentering the atmosphere. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/18 "2010-12-29T20:18:00Z")
> [@carnivorousplant](#): > > What is difficult about hitting a ballistic projectile following a parabolic trajectory? > Fight my ignorance. 🙂 You should probably ask **Stranger on a Train** , but I gather the difficulty is that that the missile is going _really fucking fast._ That, and the missile’s radar and fuse were designed to detect aircraft sized targets, not missile-sized ones. > [@Gedd](#): > > IIRC the Phalanx can cover up to something like 85 degrees elevation. Or do you mean the newer missiles have some anti-anti-anti-ship missle systems? New anti-ship missiles come in at less than zero elevation (from the point of view of a missile fire control system located on the deck). Hard to detect and hard to shoot. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Amazing\_Hanna](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@The\_Amazing\_Hanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Amazing_Hanna)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/19 "2010-12-29T20:18:37Z")
> [@](#): > > “China can reach out and hit the U.S. well before the U.S. can get close enough to the mainland to hit back,” said Toshi Yoshihara, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College. He said U.S. ships have only twice been that vulnerable — against Japan in World War II and against Soviet bombers in the Cold War. > Carrier-killing missiles “could have an enduring psychological effect on U.S. policymakers,” he e-mailed to The AP. “It underscores more broadly that the U.S. Navy no longer rules the waves as it has since the end of World War II. The stark reality is that sea control cannot be taken for granted anymore.” > [@](#): > > The Navy has long had to fear carrier-killing capabilities," said Patrick Cronin, senior director of the Asia-Pacific Security Program at the nonpartisan, Washington-based Center for a New American Security. "The emerging Chinese antiship missile capability, and in particular the DF 21D, represents the first post-Cold War capability that is both potentially capable of stopping our naval power projection and deliberately designed for that purpose. [http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2010/08/chinese\_aircraft-carrier-kille.html](http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2010/08/chinese_aircraft-carrier-kille.html) As for the question posed by the honorable Carnivorousplant, I believe the following quotation may resolve the conundrum: > [@](#): > > The key point to why the weapon system does in fact represent a significant technology evolution and asymmetrical capability is the ability of the DF-21D to change course and identify its target in mid-flight. The current anti-ballistic missile defense system fielded by the United States is not capable of intercepting a ballistic missile that can significantly change course during flight and identify a target in mid-flight - and that capability to maneuver significantly in flight is what gives the DF-21D its asymmetrical advantage against existing US anti-ballistic missile defense systems. > > Current US anti-ballistic missile technology, including the AEGIS anti-ballistic missile defense system, develops data during the launch of a ballistic missile to calculate course and speed. Factors that include the speed of the ballistic missile and the trajectory of the ballistic missile are part of the calculations that are made to develop an intercept track. Anti-ballistic missile interceptors can then be fired in the general direction of the calculated path of a ballistic missile - and when the anti-ballistic missile interceptor gets close enough, the terminal guidance and detection system on the anti-ballistic missile interceptor can then detect and intercept the ballistic missile target. [http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/07/chinese-fireworks-on-4th-of-july.html](http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/07/chinese-fireworks-on-4th-of-july.html) ---
**Author:** ![TehRoot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bb73d2/32.png) [@TehRoot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TehRoot)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2010, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721/20 "2010-12-29T20:19:13Z")
> [@Gedd](#): > > IIRC the Phalanx can cover up to something like 85 degrees elevation. Or do you mean the newer missiles have some anti-anti-anti-ship missle systems? The Phalanx has been around for quite some time now so it might be pass its “cutting edge” status. I know the navy is/was working on a newer system for longer range defense but I don’t have a clue if it’s in use. Don’t have a cite for that, I just remember it has “RAM” in the name somewhere. Yes, they are moving from the kinetic hit to kill policy using thousands of tungsten bullets, to a Patriot Missile like system of using kinetic kill vehicles. It’s called the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile(RAM). > **[RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-116_Rolling_Airframe_Missile)** > > The RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) is a small, lightweight, infrared homing surface-to-air missile in use by the German, Japanese, Greek, Turkish, South Korean, Saudi Arabian, Egyptian, Mexican, UAE, and United States navies. It was originally intended and used primarily as a point-defense weapon against anti-ship missiles. As its name indicates, RAM rolls as it flies. The missile must roll during flight because the RF tracking system uses a two-antenna interferometer that can measure p... The Phalanx Replacement is called the SeaRAM. It involves using the same Electro-Optical tracking system(R2D2) and attaching the missiles instead of a Vulcan 30mm Cannon. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/aircraft-carriers-floating-coffins/565721.md?page=2)