How antiquated are aircraft carriers?

[Magiver]

@XT

That’s the thing. There are vulnerabilities, to be sure. But you are handwaving away all of the things we’ve done to mitigate those vulnerabilities as if China (who isn’t exactly a typical potential foe for us in the future) could just magically roll through them. They can’t. They might get lucky…or, they might get their asses handed to them if they try, and they have only a finite number of such weapons at their disposal. The odds are in our favor, but even if they were evenly balanced then carriers would still not be antiquated or obsolete even against a ‘major power’ such as China. And, the thing is, China is only a remotely potential foe in the future…the probability of the US and China going toe to toe all out is pretty remote, even over Taiwan, which is really one of the few possible friction points.

you’re trying to hand wave away my point. Carriers are not front-line defense weapons against real threats to the US.

@XT

And there are myriad counters THAT WE HAVE BEEN USING FOR DECADES AND CONTINUE TO REFINE.

there’s nothing that can be refined on a carrier to make it invulnerable to attack from a high tech country.

@XT

Dude, seriously…the threats you’ve laid out here the Navy has been dealing with since before most of the people on this board were born! We were dealing with them and working on counters when the old Soviet Union was still a going concern.

As for 200+ mph torpedoes, well, when they become a reality and of proven worth then come on back and we will talk about our carriers being antiquated or obsolete.

They’ve been a reality for quite some time.

@XT

No one is denying that carriers could potentially be vulnerable to subs, diesel or otherwise. You are vastly overstating the potential danger, however, and totally handwaving away the fact that we have had counters to them for decades, and that diesel subs themselves have very serious vulnerabilities…doesn’t that mean they are antiquated and obsolete too, since they could be destroyed?

The part where you continuously attempt to shut down any discussion about using them against not 3rd world nations by just waving around nuclear weapons as if that ends the discussion and wins the argument. It doesn’t.

It starts with the inability to withstand a tactical nuke. That’s not up for debate. It then goes on to any nation purchasing modern diesel subs such as Pakistan or Iran & North Korea.

You have to remember that the Navy retired the carrier launched S-3 Viking in 2009 and there isn’t another plane to take it’s place. Those tasks have been transferred to helicopters or land based P-3’s. They’re funding a drone project that will autonomously track submarines but that’s a way’s off.

I don’t understand this desire to see aircraft carriers like some kind of Tom Cruise movie. Things change with time. Look at the battleship. They’re gone. You seem to see carriers as some kind of symbol of national pride and not a floating runway that’s too expensive to risk losing. They have their political function and that function has limitations. Those limitations are set by advances in technology that are not easily defeated. The end result is a verrrrrry expensive ship that cannot hide and is vulnerable to much cheaper weapons.

If you think carriers have the same function as they did 70 years ago then we are never going to agree.

[Magiver]

@rogerbox

I don’t think anyone does. There are 11 carrier groups, I think we should have less.

If china wants oil I see no reason why they can’t babysit the Persian Gulf for a change.

[Magiver]

@flyboy

Magiver, put up or shut up. You keep asserting knowledge of Naval operational tactics. Do you have any kind of education, training, or trade that backs this up? Because I do, and I can say that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

put up or shut up yourself flyboy. Tell me this great Navy secret where a carrier group is immune from nuclear weapons. After that you can go back to making excuses for how a Chinese submarine manages to pop up in the middle of this dome of invincibility. So far all you’ve done is say nuh uh, can’t happen. It did.

[the_diego]

@rogerbox

I don’t think anyone does. There are 11 carrier groups, I think we should have less.

I take it you think we still need them. I think you mean 11 fleet carriers. How many carrier groups the US needs depends on their planning. I can only assume they have scenarios that could call on that many carriers and them some.

[flyboy]

@Magiver

put up or shut up yourself flyboy. Tell me this great Navy secret where a carrier group is immune from nuclear weapons. After that you can go back to making excuses for how a Chinese submarine manages to pop up in the middle of this dome of invincibility. So far all you’ve done is say nuh uh, can’t happen. It did.

Einstein, I’ve been a Naval Officer for the last 18 years, held a TS clearance for 17 of those years, worked in a major command warplans shop, worked at CENTCOM SIOP plans shop during the beginning of the Afghan campaign writing certain annexes for O-Plans, have worked at three different squadrons as Mission Commander flying SIGINT reconnaissance missions against various countries. In other words, I know what the fuck I’m talking about. And while I’m not about to divulge any specific information to you, I’ll repeat what I’ve been saying all along: You have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about.

Your turn. Put up or shut up.

[Oliveritaly]

@flyboy

Einstein, I’ve been a Naval Officer for the last 18 years, held a TS clearance for 17 of those years, worked in a major command warplans shop, worked at CENTCOM SIOP plans shop during the beginning of the Afghan campaign writing certain annexes for O-Plans, have worked at three different squadrons as Mission Commander flying SIGINT reconnaissance missions against various countries. In other words, I know what the fuck I’m talking about. And while I’m not about to divulge any specific information to you, I’ll repeat what I’ve been saying all along: You have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about.

Your turn. Put up or shut up.

I could tell reading Flyboy’s first or second post in this thread that he had a background similar to what he’s listed up above. While no longer in the military I also work (as a civilian now) at a combatant commands plans shop and can further attest the he (and a few others in this thread) are exactly correct in their assessment of this. Magiver I’m sorry man, you’re certainly not presenting a very informed argument.

[Oliveritaly]

Also Flyboy, how do you know if there is a pilot in the briefing you’re sitting in on? They’ll tell you

[Magiver]

@flyboy

Einstein, I’ve been a Naval Officer for the last 18 years, held a TS clearance for 17 of those years, worked in a major command warplans shop, worked at CENTCOM SIOP plans shop during the beginning of the Afghan campaign writing certain annexes for O-Plans, have worked at three different squadrons as Mission Commander flying SIGINT reconnaissance missions against various countries. In other words, I know what the fuck I’m talking about. And while I’m not about to divulge any specific information to you, I’ll repeat what I’ve been saying all along: You have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about.

Your turn. Put up or shut up.

Well Mr “I’m in the Navy and can’t divulge our super secret nuclear proof shield” you can’t make the statement that carrier groups are immune from submarine penetration because the Chinese have already done it. They did it in the middle of a military exercise. Here’s a cite of the Aussies spanking the US Navy in a controlled war game where the goal was to go through a narrow choke point. Here’s a cite of a Swedish submarine doing the same thing repeatedly. Against carriers.

A carrier operates on open seas. It cannot hide. even with radar coverage of 100 miles in every direction that’s over 30,000 square miles of surveillance. that’s 30,000 square miles of water for submarines to hide in. You’re not going to know where every submarine is and stealth aircraft are not the private domain of the United States. The technology to shoot down a low flying cruise missile is spotty at best. Here’s a cite discussing the testing of such systems.

[Magiver]

@Oliveritaly

I could tell reading Flyboy’s first or second post in this thread that he had a background similar to what he’s listed up above. While no longer in the military I also work (as a civilian now) at a combatant commands plans shop and can further attest the he (and a few others in this thread) are exactly correct in their assessment of this. Magiver I’m sorry man, you’re certainly not presenting a very informed argument.

All I’ve heard is it can’t be done and I’ve posted cites that it’s been done repeatedly as well as overflights of carriers.

[Oliveritaly]

I really don’t have the background specific to naval operations that Flyboy has but I think the point has been made that nothing is invulnerable to a nuclear strike so yes, carriers and everything else are rendered obsolete by a direct nuclear strike.

I would further add that just because something happens in peacetime or, even better, in a training environment it in no way really encompasses what our reaction or even action would be in the event of an actual war against a modern force.

Training events are set up to test the training unit, they do indeed often fail at the mission during these events and that’s generally okay …

[Magiver]

@Oliveritaly

I really don’t have the background specific to naval operations that Flyboy has but I think the point has been made that nothing is invulnerable to a nuclear strike so yes, carriers and everything else are rendered obsolete by a direct nuclear strike.

I would further add that just because something happens in peacetime or, even better, in a training environment it in no way really encompasses what our reaction or even action would be in the event of an actual war against a modern force.

Training events are set up to test the training unit, they do indeed often fail at the mission during these events and that’s generally okay …

so in conclusion carriers are great at attacking 3rd world countries but are of limited use against countries with nuclear weapons and or the ability to deliver anti-ship weapons at close range but might survive.

Now apply the probability of survival in a risk assessment of a battle group that costs billions of dollars.

[Oliveritaly]

Maybe, heck likely, we’re just not going to agree on this.

You’ve brought up the same two points over and over and various posters have explained why your assumptions were incorrect. XT earlier in the thread (page 2 I think) answered your questions about nuclear weapons and third world countries better than I ever could.

Our carrier battle groups aren’t going anywhere in the foreseeable future and, again as a person that works closely with plans, I’m grateful they’re there and will be for the foreseeable future.

[Monty]

@Magiver

You represent the board as a science advisor. You know better than to call someone a troll AND you knew this would be my response which makes it all the worse for making a semantic argument.

The first part of your post is incorrect. The second part is simply a mistake as I didn’t refer to you with my comment “agreed”. The last part is kind of funny because you seem to be the only one who thinks that those of us using the term deterrence mean purely defensive by that term. AFAICT, nobody has said that is the case. I, along with others using the term deterrence simply mean deterrence by that term.

[Sailboat]

@Magiver

the use of nuclear weapons is a guaranteed deterrent against the use of carriers in a war with nations that have them.

The use of nuclear weapons abrogates all planning. Just having them deters us from using carriers against them in exactly the same way it deters us from any other action against them.

@Magiver

British fighter pilots had a 25% survival rate.

I’m curious about what you’re talking about here. That seems like it must be inaccurate; the oft-quoted statistic on the German U-boat service in WWII is 75% losses (thus, 25% survival rate, one supposes), “the highest of any branch of service in any country in the war,”* which, if true, would pretty much have to mean British fighter pilots had better than 25% survival rate.

*and, ironically, those were diesel subs.

[Ravenman]

@Magiver

That had nothing to do with corrosion and we were flying the stealth fighter for 13 years prior to 1996.

Yes, flying stealth fighters that had to be maintained in hangars that were kept free of saltwater, exhaust, humidity, and other contaminants. There is no way to replicate those conditions on an aircraft carrier.

The maintenance of exotic coatings has ZERO to do with corrosion. The maintenance of RAM involves the maintenance of RAM and nothing else. You literally don’t understand what the word corrosion means or how it’s applied to aircraft. Corrosion is the deterioration of metals and is a structural concern.

You don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s been well publicized that RAM and corrosion has been a particular problem on the F-22 because of the use of a nonchromated primer being used as a base layer for the RAM. It’s also been well cited that the X-47 design includes tolerance for saltwater corrosion. It’s mentioned in the second sentence of the wikipedia X-47 article, for example.

To summarize again: corrosion is a special problem for all Navy aircraft (well, everything the Navy owns, actually), and that fact of life means that any aircraft used shipboard has to be specifically designed for that purpose. Up until the JSF (and I’ll say the jury is still out on this one since it’s still early in the program), the RAM used on other stealth aircraft has made shipboard use totally impractical due to corrosion and the generally dirty environment, because of the significant maintenance demands.

Since flyboy shared his bona fides of his expertise, why don’t you share how you know so much about naval operations concepts?

[Oliveritaly]

I agree with Ravenman, explaining where your knowledge about naval operations and U.S. Defense policy is general comes from would help, me at least, understand where you’re coming from Magiver.

[XT]

[QUOTE=Magiver]
you’re trying to hand wave away my point. Carriers are not front-line defense weapons against real threats to the US.
[/QUOTE]

No, I’m flat out telling you that you are wrong. They ARE front-line defensive weapons. You simply don’t understand what the defense of the US actually entails, despite multiple people trying to explain it to you over and over.

there’s nothing that can be refined on a carrier to make it invulnerable to attack from a high tech country.

And, interestingly enough, no one said there was. There is nothing that will make ANY weapons system invulnerable, and only a fool would think so. You will note that I said we had been working on counters to those things for decades…not building sooper dooper invulnerability shields.

They’ve been a reality for quite some time

Certainly, but I was talking about proven worth, not simply a weapons system that a country (like Russia and Iran, who are two of the major nations claiming to have the things) CLAIM do all sorts of magical stuff. Sort of like the supposed Chinese carrier killer missile, I’ll believe it can do all those wonderful things when I see it confirmed by 3rd parties doing extensive testing of the system under rigorous conditions. Until then it’s something to think about, but not something to wet your pants over…certainly not something to render our carrier force obsolete or antiquated simply on the rumor of such a weapon.

It starts with the inability to withstand a tactical nuke. That’s not up for debate. It then goes on to any nation purchasing modern diesel subs such as Pakistan or Iran & North Korea.

:rolleyes: Still on about the nukes I see. And, how many have been used in combat either from a tactical or strategic perspective since 1945, again? Just give me a nice round figure please.

As for diesel subs, again, you are exaggerating their use and effectiveness. You are basically conflating a stunt done by the Chinese under peacetime conditions with a super weapons system that renders our carriers antiquated or obsolete, all the while ignoring both the myriad vulnerabilities of diesel boats AND the fact that the US has been developing and refining ASW tactics and doctrine for literally decades. I really don’t know why this is so difficult for you to grasp. Yes, a diesel sub could pose a danger to a carrier. They could sink one. But the odds aren’t in their favor, despite your attempt to build them up to be some sort of super force.

You have to remember that the Navy retired the carrier launched S-3 Viking in 2009 and there isn’t another plane to take it’s place. Those tasks have been transferred to helicopters or land based P-3’s. They’re funding a drone project that will autonomously track submarines but that’s a way’s off.

And you have to remember that this doesn’t significantly decrease the Navy’s ASW capabilities. Even if it did, that wouldn’t make carriers either antiquated or obsolete, it would simply be a larger hole in their potential defense (it isn’t, but for the sake of argument).

I don’t understand this desire to see aircraft carriers like some kind of Tom Cruise movie. Things change with time. Look at the battleship. They’re gone. You seem to see carriers as some kind of symbol of national pride and not a floating runway that’s too expensive to risk losing. They have their political function and that function has limitations. Those limitations are set by advances in technology that are not easily defeated. The end result is a verrrrrry expensive ship that cannot hide and is vulnerable to much cheaper weapons.

Well, you pulled THIS strawman completely out of your ass. Tom Cruise movie? :rolleyes: I suppose once you feel the need for this sort of horseshit the discussion is essentially done and you’ve given up on debate, so I think I’ll leave it here. It’s clear that you either don’t understand what multiple people are trying to tell you (namely that you are wrong in just about everything you are saying) and that you really, fundamentally don’t understand what the defense of the US actually entails, nor do you fundamentally understand carrier operations, what carriers are actually used for both today and historically, what their actual vulnerabilities are or the strengths and weaknesses of diesel boats, especially in the hands of countries like Iran, Pakistan or even China actually are.

If you think carriers have the same function as they did 70 years ago then we are never going to agree.

Of course not…they are more today than they were 70 years ago, quite obviously. They can do more, are used differently in that they are used for power projection today in ways that folks 70 years ago could only dream of. No, we aren’t going to agree because it’s clear you don’t actually understand how they ARE used, what they are for or what they were used for 70 years ago.

[flyboy]

@Magiver

Well Mr “I’m in the Navy and can’t divulge our super secret nuclear proof shield”

Well, that’s rich. So that’s it? That’s the extent of your expertise? A couple of cites of what happened here and there in the fleet?

You’re right–I’m not entering this argument with specific classified information to counter your assertions. I’m not going to talk about tactics, techniques, and procedures. I simply can’t do that. Yes, carriers are vulnerable to nukes. Get a nuke near a carrier or vice versa, and you’re going to have a bad day. But you’re so oversimplifying things that it’s pathetic. You keep insisting that the carrier’s role is a certain thing, and I’m here to tell you that you’re wrong and have. No. Fucking. Clue. You’re talking to someone who knows. That’s what you seem to lose sight of.

War is messy. Real-time, targetable data is often hard to come by. The enemy gets a vote. The plan goes out the window after the first round is downrange. I could keep spouting euphemisms, but the bottom line is that we have weapons and a defense strategy which employs those weapons appropriately. We will lose assets, but at the same time, we’ll inflict a bunch of damage to them. Chances are that nukes will not be used if we engage with a nuke-holding country. We are happy to call that particular bluff, and fortunately we have people that are willing to hang their life on that call.

I’d rather not be getting into this argument with you because you’re just not getting it, and some people are like that. I really just don’t want anyone believing the crap you’re spouting, because the whole nature of this board is to crush idiots like you.

[mlees]

The aircraft carrier was NEVER a defensive weapon.

[mlees]

The main role (not roll) of a carrier is:

1. to control the airspace centered on the carrier for x miles radius. (x being the operational range of it’s embarked aircraft). This is to prevent enemy air attack on the carrier, and/or other ships or places under that umbrella.

2. to project force (via strikes with embarked aircraft) as required. Again, the specific tactics will be dictated by the aircraft embarked. This force can be used to supress enemy aircraft from operating out of a particular airfield, to hinder troop movements, or inhibit the enemy’s use of the sealanes.

(Interestingly, the ranges of “strike” aircraft and the air defence aircraft are not always the same. The SBD Dauntless, for example, outranged the F4F Wildcat fighter.)

A purley defensive weapon would be something like coastal shore batteries and forts. During the US Civil War era, the US Navy doctrine was more along the lines of coastal forts protecting vital ports and river mouths, and commerce raiding. (And that’s all Congress was willing to pay for, and all they desired out of it’s Navy.)

Ever since Alfred Mahan (the 1890’s), the US Navy has adopted a much more agressive doctrine of seizing control of the seas, and attempting to deny their use to the enemy.