Agreed…I misspoke when I said they were ‘front-line defensive weapons’, as I was basically quoting from Magiver and was more focused on the ‘front-line’ aspect of his assertion. They aren’t defensive weapons, but instead they are offensive oriented tools, used for power projection and deterrence of our potential adversaries. Magiver seems to believe that they are useless against ‘major powers’ because of nukes (end of discussion and all that) and because they also have vulnerabilities…vulnerabilities they have pretty much always had, and ones we have worked constantly to counter and mitigate. As if ANY weapons system is supposed to be completely invulnerable, and if it’s not then it’s antiquated and obsolete, despite the fact that he has repeatedly admitted that they are useful against ‘3rd world countries’.
And yes, I know it’s role and not roll…sometimes my iPad helps in strange ways, and sometimes I just get excited when I’m posting and type in the wrong thing.
flyboy has shared nothing of his expertise. I cited multiple examples of diesel subs overcoming attempts to find them and that was during exercises focused on the attempt.
I think the question right now is on what experience, schooling or practical application do you base your assertions on. What qualifies you to question the strategic decisions of the U.S. Military? Your not just someone with no experience in the field claiming, I know better! Right? What’s your background here…
I am related to sub chasers. Like you they can’t discuss any of their work. Unlike you they don’t see carriers attacking major powers.
You seem to think the carrier holds the same function it held in WW-II. It doesn’t. We have used carriers to bully 3rd world countries since WW-II. That has been their function.
Please don’t take offense but this is why I think those with close ties to carrier procurement and operations will, when the time comes, be the last to admit (even to themselves) that the world’s most expensive weapon has become obsolete. The same thing has happened with countless other military instruments and doctrines through history; self-interest and sentimental attachment has preserved outmoded military systems long after their past due date, often to the detriment of national defense.
I think carriers are still useful, but not as useful as in the past. I haven’t read anything in this thread that indicates that trajectory will change.
How could I take offense to that Elmer? You are entirely correct. To be entirely honest with you I know very little, nothing exactly, about those that lobby to keep our carrier fleet afloat. I do know that today they are very, very relevant to the situation at hand.
To argue that we are not constantly reviewing ways to protect them is folly. We are constantly looking at the situation.
No, can’t you read? He’s an expert. He’s related to sub chasers. Whatever that means. Officer? Enlisted? What job/rate/designator? What command? When did they serve? Do they have any experience with warplanning? Have they ever touched an O-Plan? How long were they in?
Magiver, sorry you don’t accept my credentials in this matter. All I can say is that I’ve seen warplans. Read them (not all the way through–they’re huge). Written parts of them. It seems to satisfy others here, but I understand you’re in a world of your own, so nothing is going convince you. I will reiterate, for the umpteenth time, that you have no clue what you’re talking about. I don’t give a flying frack who you’re ‘related’ to. I’ve done it and lived it.
A better question to posit (and which wouldn’t have gotten you into so much targeted debate) is whether drones portend a change in national security strategy and the carrier’s role therein. But that’s not what you’re claiming.
I’m sure you’re being dishonest here flyboy. Certainly he’s the son of an admiral at least. With time I’m sure he will explain his reasoning and we will all understand his point of view. Or not. Whichever. I present to you all he might come back and say, brace your selves, nuclear weapons and old school subs are a hazard! I for one quake at his logic.
Does anyone believe that the Chief of Naval Operations, or the Secretary of the Navy, have to come up with elaborate schemes to ensure the carriers are remembered to be included in whatever operations they are currently engaged in around the world?
The world I live in which is the real world, Chinese diesel subs along with at least the 2 other nations I cited have repeatedly sailed passed the defenses needed for a carrier to survive. In the real world we have never engaged a major power directly with a carrier group. I’m not posting something remotely radical. I’ve given cites of what has actually occurred. Subs are not as easy as you seem to think to find.
You’ve already admitted that a nuclear strike ends a carrier group I’m not even sure why you’re arguing at this point.
I’ve already stated my position on drones. The X-47C is suppose to have a payload of 10,000 lbs which is a significant upgrade over known drones. If you combine that with the goal of a swarm formation (with a manned aircraft) it makes a formidable advancement in technology.
Yet nothing you’ve presented here indicates why your qualified to make these statements. Again what, besides your ability to read, qualifies your opinion on this matter? Flyboy, XT and others have told us their backgrounds in naval operations yet you remain oddly silent. Again, what experience do you have with naval operations?
A nuclear strike ends any military grouping in a relatively confined area. Any nation using a nuclear strike against U.S. forces does so with the knowledge that a retaliatory strike would effectively end their ability to wage war.
As has been said several times, this is a ridiculous approach to take for this discussion.
As I see it, our big problem is that we currently have a military designed to fight another major power, but spend 99% of our time fighting little ones. At this point, it almost feels like we should have five supercarrier groups to fight the Chinese (or whoever) and spend the other half of the Navy budget on smaller ships to fight the sort of wars we actually have.
This rests a bit on my assumption that the traditional Nimitz-class battle group arrangement is not optimal for fighting an Iraq-type engagement. Maybe flyboy can address that.
Not flyboy, and I won’t presume to speak for him, but to my way of thinking, the Iraq war is a perfect example of why aircraft carriers are still indispensable.
With that war, we had a need to maintain a continuous air interdiction/supremacy campaign in an area of the world with few U.S. military airstrips. (We have several air bases and/or military access to airports in the Middle East now, but at the time the number was much fewer.) Carrier groups allowed us to have strike aircraft perform a multitude of missions with very little turnaround time during that war.
For all the cost involved with aircraft carrier groups, it’s still cheaper (and provides much more flexibility in our ability to project force) to maintain them rather than create, staff and maintain air bases in all areas of the world in which we might need them one day.
It also allows us to respond quickly to threats without worrying about some of the political ramifications involved. For example, I don’t think you’ll find a stronger ally of the U.S. than Great Britain, but in 1986, when the U.S. launched air strikes against Libya using bases in Great Britain, the British government gave the U.S. a significant ration of equine excrement about it. Combine that with political issues that sometimes cause countries to not allow U.S. planes to use their airspace for military strikes, and it can become extremely difficult to control the battleground airspace during a conflict, which is a basic tenet of U.S. military strategy. Only aircraft carriers give the U.S. the flexibility to move an airstrip to an optimal position for a situation based on a variety of factors.
In the event of a war between China and Taiwan, and if the US supports Taiwan, there is concern of missile attacks on Kadena AFB in Okinawa. If China launches a nuclear strike on Kadena it will be toast.
So, are air force bases also only to be used against third world countries?
There is much to be said for what a battlegroup brings to bear for any conflict. The basic (but strategic) function of power projection, down to flexible tactical strike precision, are applicable to pretty much any conflict. I don’t think Big Navy is much concerned that it’s bringing a hammer to nail a thumbtack in (and all the excess cost that may entail). That’s our mission, so as long as the budget supports it, we execute. Unfortunately, you can’t move the carrier without the battlegroup.
You could look at something like the LCS as a step toward modular evolution and thrift, but even if that modularity spreads to cuisers and DDG’s, the carrier will always require at least a several-ship escort. Considering how long (if ever) it will take UAV’s to affect some sort of change in how we employ the battlegroup, I don’t see any sort of strategic or operational change in how we do business for next 50 years, at least. From the big picture perspective, the problems that radical Muslims and desperate people bring to our doorstep won’t go away for another few generations (if ever), and we have to be prepared for that fight as well as a major power. The problem is that the more we cut the military budget while at the same time focusing on ground support and tactical strikes, the more we lose our proficiency in dogfighting, and if we ever tangle with a major power, that’s going to hurt us.
We are already modular enough to flex as needed to meet pretty much any type of conflict. Things just get messy when DoD/Gov’t starts asking us to take the fight overland and (along with the rest of the military) starts messing with mission end states and objectives (or cannot provide them at all…).
And I don’t really think the military in general is Cold-War designed anymore. Even the Army has changed its structure to be more modular and flexible. The level of integration we’ve achieved amongst the services has allowed more flexibility than we’ve ever seen in our military. Looking at the Iraq and Afghan campaigns, I’d argue that’s they’re a good representation that we’re no longer Cold-War-centric (and also that COIN is just as hard of a battle as it’s ever been–ask us to fight a campaign against another military, whether major player or 3rd World, and we’re good. Ask us to start winning hearts and minds, and, again, things get messy).
