The only planes the Navy has are these little propeller-driven things that launch off the deck and drop bombs on people! They don’t count! They’ll never replace battleships!
Bollocks. I know what I’m saying, and I’m saying the same thing he is: huge, expensive, relatively vulnerable platforms are not the future. Smaller, more diffuse, and unmanned systems are.
Nobody is saying carriers all need to be mothballed this very minute; we’re asking whether we ought to keep building them.
Yes, thanks…I was part of that discussion so I do recall it. However, when I said ‘magic weapons’ I was referring to the unproven and untried Chinese ballistic carrier killers. Considering that I mentioned several ways that carriers are vulnerable IN THIS VERY THREAD, I’d say that I’m aware of the point.
:rolleyes: You mean like the Predator armed drones I mentioned? They are hardly capable of replacing manned aircraft.
And you accuse me of making strawmen? Either you aren’t following at all what I’m saying, or you are being deliberately belligerent for some reason.
Bollocks yourself. He’s saying we need to develop alternatives, you seem to be under the impression we have them already. We don’t. And we won’t any time in the next few years. Even when we do have them in the production pipeline there will be a gap when they are spun up and carriers are spun down (if indeed they are spun down and not simply adapted to the new systems).
You seem to be implying that they are on the cusp of being so, and the OP of this thread is asking if the things are death traps TODAY. And you didn’t ask if we should be building more, nor did the OP…the implication is that the ones we have today should be sent to the scrap heap…and sent BEFORE we have a freaking viable alternative to them! THAT’S what I have an issue with, which you would know if you actually read and absorbed what I’m actually saying, instead of what you seem to think I should be saying or would be saying or whatever it is you are doing.
Each strike by a B-2 isn’t just risking a crew of 2; the flyaway cost of each B-2 is $1.01 billion, total cost of the entire program (R&D, etc) divided per plane is $2.87 billion per plane. The cost of losing one isn’t altogether that far from the cost of losing a supercarrier.
There was the charge of the 4th Australian Light Horse Brigadeat Beersheba in 1917, but well, what can you say - Australians are kind of nuts.
What happens to robot ships the first time somebody boards one and claims that since there are no humans aboard, he can claim possession by right of salvage?
Carriers have been “on the way out” for decades. During the revolt of the admirals 60(!) years ago in 1949 was the first such instance that building carriers was a waste of money because they were obsolete. They weren’t obsolete then and they aren’t now.
If we get in a thermonuclear war with China, the least of our worries will be the vulnerability of carriers. But anything short of that, i.e. any other type of war the world has ever known since 1945, aircraft carriers will be useful.
There are two conflicting issues with all of our capabilities, and all of our weapons systems:
we don’t want to be prepared to fight yesterdays war.
We don’t want to spend billions chasing every potential threat.
There is a reason we don’t have battleships and all gun small boys anymore. Navy knows they aren’t effective. So we won’t be fighting yesterdays war. But power projections will always be important. And nothing does that like a carrier.
The second point. We can’t though billions every time China (or Russia) tests some weapon system. We’ll look hard at it, and determine with the threat is. But there are a lot of weapons systems that didn’t pan out, or weren’t as capable as they were first thought to be.
The bottom line today is this: There is no Navy in the world that can effectively challenge an aircraft carrier battle group. It’s been that way for 65 years (with the possible exception of sometime during the latter part of the cold war). And there will be many other scenarios, less than full war with China, where the carrier battle group will be critical.
Even if a time comes in the near future that China could challenge the battle group, the other 75% of the world’s oceans and the littoral battle field adjacent that ocean area, is still vulnerable to the battle group.
How do carriers handle attacks from stealth warships? take the Swedish navy’s fast gunboats-they are fast (40 knots) and almost invisible to radar-could one slip through the screening force at night, and launch a torpedo/gunfire attack on the carrier?
Or would such a ship be blown out of the water, from 40 miles away?
Technology doesn’t seem to favor big expensive ships like carriers-the Navy could have 30-40 fast gunboats for what a carrier costs (and much lower operating costs).
The problem is those fast gunboats aren’t self sustaining. One of the things a carrier does is act as a giant mobile fuel tank. Not just for aircraft, but for smaller ships too. Eliminating carriers means eliminating the “blue water” capability of the US Navy.
Could we send them to the Gulf or to Taiwan and expect them to have the same capabilities as our current Navy? I’m thinking…not.
How well do you expect gun boats to do against cruisers, destroyers and subs? Because that’s what they would have to get through to get to the carrier…not to mention all those airplane thingies they have on board.
Sweden is a US ally, so I don’t believe they built their navy to confront the US…which means they probably didn’t build their gun boats to confront carriers, but instead built them with the idea that the US would be on their side and so they didn’t need carriers. You may not have noticed this, but Sweden’s blue water global naval requirements are pretty small compared to the US…which is why they concentrated on coastal gun boats with stealth capability.
The problem with using this assumption in support of the anti-carrier stance is they cannot do it anywhere in the world, and they can only do limited scope attacks in permissive airspace. Remotely piloted vehicles or aircraft (RPA’s in the case, the correct term) today have extremely limited usefulness in unrestricted combat operations and have in fact recently been rejected for increased roles in the North American air soverignty mission for these reasons and others.
They are not very flexible from an operational standpoint, stealthy, long ranged or highly powerful at all. Their primary role today is ISR - not attack, although they do it on a limited basis. They have a fairly large sustainment and operations tail that few if any ouside the RPA community appreciate or understand, so cost goes unrecognized there as well making the basic premise of your statement false.
One more useful feature of a carrier: Flexibility.
Need to do humanitarian relief missions? Load up on C-2s and helicopters.
Need to do aerial recon? Get a bunch of E-2s and E-3s, buddy store fuel tanks, and F/A-18 Fs for protection.
Need to make somebody EAT DEATH? Kit the boat out with F/A-18 E/Fs, JSFs, attack choppers, electronic warfare planes, E2s/E3s, and then fill every remaining bit of deck/hangar space with UAVs. Then double up on marine boats in the battle group. And triple the FFG/DDG count in the CVBG. And put some UAVs and VTOL or rotary-wing combat craft on mini carriers too. Borrow a SEAL team and you’re ready to make someone’s day.
All of this with one hull. Reconfiguring a Nimitz-class carrier for a substantially different mission is a LOT easier than reconfiguring an Iowa-class battleship.
I figure this missile probably uses some sort of radar or IR guidance system; it seems like it would be simple enough to put some sort of IR or radar reflectors on other ships in the battle group to fool the missile into not knowing which one of the returns is the carrier.
Personally, I’ll worry about the Chinese when there’s actually a reason to worry; they haven’t proven the ability to develop and produce quality electronics; most Chinese made stuff is abject crap, unless it’s Western-designed and produced in factories with Western-level quality control and from Western sourced materials.
Either you aren’t following at all what I’m saying, or you are being deliberately belligerent for some reason.
