Sorry, I meant *discussed in Defense circles, & discarded, according to the Press.
*
Several things (in my violation of my usual strict policy against arguing with people online)
-
A Hellfire missile can be used against the bridge/command center of a ship can it not? It also has anti-tank variants which employ a shaped-charge warhead which, if it can be used against ground armor, can definitely defeat the majority of naval armor now in existence. That leaves carrier magazines and fuel storage tanks vulnerable.
-
I believe that I did state Global Hawks would have to be modified. I’m aware of their current usage and it’s almost certain that someone has considered using such a platform for such a purpose if they are not doing as such at this time.
That’s one of the unique things about mankind: We find the ability to make things work if we need to. Please reference B-25s taking off from aircraft carriers in 1942 if you’d like to see something which no one thought could happen, actually happening.
- The purpose of using UAVs is that they are cheaper than manned flights and thus more easily replaceable. UAV swarms would play hell with any air defense system, and with Chinese 1980s level of air defense technology “playing hell” wouldn’t be that difficult.
The reason that I chose Guam as a launching point is that for the Chinese Navy to be a threat to the US it has to at least get within striking distance of Guam. A missile launch (or missile launches) against Guam from the Chinese mainland risks China being nuked back into the Stone Age. A surprise carrier attack or moving carrier forces near to Guam is a somewhat less provocative measure that would not result in American missile launches into the Chinese mainland.
It’s doubtful that the Chinese would risk a multi-billion dollar carrier group if even one UAV got through and attacked aircraft on its decks or launch a successful strike on its command and control centers in such a fleet.
Obviously the US Navy is testing UAVs and has been for some time. What capabilities they have are unknown to the general public, but it is inconceivable that naval strategists haven’t considered or aren’t actively working towards defeat opposing surface fleets at a distance using them. The risk to cost benefits would make such a program extremely attractive.
And the ideas I have presented have the option that no one would expect them. That’s a major element in military strategy: surprise. It worked at Pearl Harbor; it can work again.
It’s not the world we live in… it’s where we are going to be.
Arguing that UAV’s, or even swarms of UAV’s could be capable of downing a carrier still wouldn’t make your original claim that UAV’s have made the carrier obsolete.
This isn’t an argument; you have a responsibility to back up what you post. If you cannot, your reputation on this board will become very well known in a short period of time. Besides, reasoned debate is the cornerstone of this board. This board isn’t Yahoo Answers or YouTube.
Whatever platform launches the missile would have to get within 5 miles of the target, and keep lasing the precise spot where the missile is intended to hit. No UAV you’ve mentioned can survive for more than one minute against any military naval vessel at that range. It’s just impossible.
Furthermore, ship armories are buried dozens of feet or yards from the exterior of a ship. Just because a Hellfire can penetrate a foot of armor does not mean that it can pierce the deck of an aircraft carrier, several more decks below that, and then explode at the exact right place – not too early and not too late. That’s silly.
Global Hawks can carry an external payload, sure, but if you actually read my post you’d see that I was commenting on the Hellfire’s ability to ever operate off of such an aircraft. Rocket motors of that sort are prone to cracking due to the vastly different environments that a Global Hawk (or any high-flying aircraft) operate in.
How much do you think a Predator or Global Hawk costs? Seriously, just off the top of your head, give me a ballpark of how much money it would cost to build a “swarm” of those.
China does not have 1980s level air defense technology. They were the first foreign customer for the modernized S-300 series of SAMs, which are on the very very short list of the most advanced anti-air systems available today. Some variants are absolutely better than the PAC-2 Patriot, and probably a significant improvement on the PAC-3 that US forces field. So I don’t know where you get your information, but you should stop listening to those people.
You don’t get to post shit, walk away and have everyone accept it as truth; without anyone arguing with or debunking you. If that’s how you like to operate, you’re on the wrong fucking board (and possibly the wrong planet).
And why would China choose Guam as the first target, out of curiosity? It’d make more sense to strike in Japan or Korea, where there are far more American forces stacked up nearby. You don’t use your first strike in such a way as to deliberately leave your opponent able to jab you right in the teeth.
Worth noting, the only thing particularly surprising about the Pearl Harbor raid wasn’t the technical aspect of it (successful aerial attack of battleships by aircraft, in and out of port and even using aircraft carriers, had already been demonstrated by this point), but more the logistics of it (Hawaii is rather far from Japanese territory, and in fact the only reason the Pacific Fleet was there to begin with was because American leadership lacked confidence that they could support the Philippine Islands and other Pacific holdings effectively from the Fleet’s previous home base in California, even farther away).
As for the tanks vs ships thing, worth noting, a 70 ton Main Battle Tank is an insignificant sideshow in the realm of warships, even with the modern emphasis on mobility over armor. Even hitting the bridge dead-on and killing everyone there shouldn’t render a modern warship combat ineffective (for that you’d have to also take out the Combat Information Center, located somewhere in the guts of the ship beneath several air gaps that would easily defeat modern anti-tank warheads)
Ah, but if a swarm of UAVs were to drop an M1A1 from 50,000 feet, precisely hitting the bridge of the ship as it fired it’s main gun using a depleted uranium armor piercing round… 
The obvious deterrent would be a missile launcher that fires Hellfires to shoot the tank down before it lands.
Ah, see? That’s the key part of this cunning plan! No ship is outfitted with anti-tank weapons! It would be totally unexpected! 
Of course, if the aircraft carrier is on a treadmill, all bets are off.
And if the aircraft carrier was being defended by an upsidedown submarine…
The attackers might have greater success using some sort of stealthy blimp in a terrifying night operation.
The shear size of the attack was also completely stunned the US.
While you are quite right about the surprise being that the Japanese were able to handle the logistics, there were several technical aspects which were surprising to some. Although the US should have been more concerned about areal torpedo attacks, Taranto having happened a full year prior, the local commanders still were assuming that the shallow waters would save them.
Japanese naval aircraft had greater range than what the Allies were expecting. They were able to attack from greater distances, which was one reason that the Prince of Wales was successfully attacked.
There were questions at the time if moving the Pacific Fleet to Pearl Harbor was the right move. The administration wanted to send a message to Japan and some in the Navy were concerned about moving it there without adequate protection.
Which is kind of funny, because IIRC, all American battleships built from around WWI onward were designed to be able to make a run across the Pacific without having to stop for fuel (can’t say the same for the various cruisers, destroyers, etc. that would need to accompany the BBs on any combat sortie though). Of course, being able to get to the Philippines and being in any shape to fight when they got there would be two different matters. Just ask the Russian Second Pacific Squadron, which made a frankly amazing run from the Baltic Sea, around Europe and Africa, and through the Indian Ocean. They almost made it to Port Arthur, but got caught by the Japanese when trying to slip through Tsushima Strait.
By the time the battle was joined, the Russian crews were worn out, their ships were badly in need of overhaul, and their Japanese opponents were well rested and fresh from port (the wireless telegraph also played a part in this, allowing the Japanese main force to stay in port while their scouts were out looking for the Russians)
But back to aerial torpedoes, part of me likes to think the American leadership discounted the threat of aerial torpedo attack because their only experience with torpedoes were with their own American-made torpedoes, which were historically a bigger threat to their own ships than to any hypothetical enemies (the USS Vesuvius nearly sank herself with a malfunctioning torpedo during World War I, and that one was one of the better examples of pre-1943 American torpedoes in action)
ETA: Weren’t Prince of Wales and Repulse attacked by land-based bombers?
Yes, although some were IJN aircraft: Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse - Wikipedia
Bumped.
Another Chinese carrier has entered service: https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/12/asia/china-aircraft-carrier-trial-intl/index.html
It’s basically a (slightly larger) copy of the 1980’s Russia retread they got working according to this:
I believe they plan to build 4 of these. It’s actually a good move as they are going to need decades of carrier operations to spin their navy up to building something that isn’t a copy as well as getting the crews that can pass on the lessons learned. This platform will let them really do some blue water training, since they aren’t risking their one and only carrier which also is quite old and from what I’ve read less than reliable.
I’m reasonably certain this isn’t going to happen in the next two years.
I’ve wondered - do these ski-jump carriers have catapults? If not, why don’t their aircraft need that boost in propulsion to get off the deck the way American carrier jets do?