So, articles like this make it ambivalent if some upstart nation like China is about to weld together 9 more aircraft carriers and go kick USA’s ass on the high seas…
So, I have a question. Who’s bright idea was it to measure the capabilities of a navy by the number of ships? Shouldn’t it be by warship tonnage or something? Otherwise, I could have a 300 speedboat navy and say I have a bigger navy than the USA.
And, of course, what difference does it make? I’ve yet to hear a lot about the USA actually doing anything that makes it wealthier or happier by parking some aircraft carriers offshore and making some empty threats. You can go park a carrier off the coast of Iran or North Korea and send some threats by radio, but savvy despotic leaders aren’t going to fall for it. They will know that all they have to do is shoot down enough attacking aircraft with SAMs and to hide and spread out their assets, and the damage will be minor. (and it has been historically)
If China did somehow gin up 20 more aircraft carriers in one of their robotic factories and kicked the US Navy out of the pacific, it would just come to nukes, which ships are extremely vulnerable to.
Navies are vital for keeping sea lanes open for trade. Eastern Asia has lots of exporting nations. Do we want them at the mercy of the Chinese? Do we want the Japanese to rebuild their powerful navy?
An aircraft carrier doesn’t have enough bombs or enough planes to do enough damage to a real nation like Iran. Also, you have the problem of attrition - a reasonably modern nation is going to shoot down a significant percentage of the attacking aircraft, no matter how much jamming or anti-radiation missiles are used. That’s going to run the carrier out of planes. To be a credible threat you need the entire airforce and you have to launch from land (much bigger bomb loads) and you have to bomb for a long time.
Politifact just examined this; I was quite surprised that this was actually first used by a stupid Democrat, albeit not in the same context in which it was immediately picked up and spread around by a whole shitload of stupid Republicans, most prominently candidate Romney.
The number of hulls is important as well as what they are and what their capabilities are…if you have one very capable ship it doesn’t do you a ton of good if you need it on the other side of the world tomorrow. You have to measure this by the mission…do you have enough hulls to achieve the mission you are giving your Navy? I’d have to say that, based on the fact that for the first time in a LONG we will have to uncover a fairly vital area wrt carrier coverage, we are probably drawing down too much wrt the Navy. We either need to stop that trend or change the mission to something less expansive. One or the other. For years now we’ve been running our Navy, especially our carriers to long and hard without the maintenance and downtime they need, and now it’s catching up to us.
If you haven’t heard anything tangible that the Navy does then you haven’t been paying attention, especially in either the South China Sea area (or Taiwan, or the disputed islands between Japan and China, or…well, just about everywhere else there is water). There is a reason why the Chinese and India are spending a lot of money trying to build up their navy…and why Russia wished they could. The US Navy is an extremely powerful tool for keeping the peace, and there are a number of nations that absolutely rely on us having it. Ask the Philippines, Taiwan, Japan…hell, even Vietnam, ironically enough…how important it is sometime. You might want to consider the fact that something like a quarter of the worlds trade goes through this disputed region…well over a trillion dollars a year. And how the lack of a firm US presence has gotten us to what might be a tipping point there, unless Obama’s swing to the Pacific thingy works out (doesn’t seem to be so far, but maybe)…and that a very large percentage of the worlds trade travels on that water stuff, getting from place to place.
Having 20 carriers doesn’t enable China to be able to use the things. The big worry is that China is obviously in an expansionist phase, especially in the South China Sea (which really isn’t close to China at all), and that the only thing basically keeping them even semi in check at this point is the US and the USN. Many of their neighbors are getting more than a little nervous AND pissed off, which isn’t a good combination. A weak USN basically encourages China (and many other nations) to push not just the US but other regional powers that rely on a strong US military and especially Navy.
Politifact article doesn’t answer or even take a stab at the tonnage question. The Navy could be a 2000 ship force, or it could have 10 ultra-mega ships that have the same total tonnage and each one would be bristling with anti missile, anti torpedo, thick armor, guns, aircraft launching ramps, etc etc etc. One gigantic ultra-ship would have some advantages albeit greater disadvantages.
I’m curious about this–if it came time to push all the big red buttons and dish out as much damage as possible, how much destruction could an entire carrier group dish out? The carrier’s weaponry is mostly short-range defensive, and its air groups seem to be small strike aircraft. The heavy hitters are elsewhere, such as destroyers carrying Tomahawks.
What would you rather have, a pontoon boat with a few modern surface to surface missiles or the USS Monitor? No matter which raw number you pick, you can come up with a scenario that proves its pointless. Mass is no more useful than number.
You gotta broaden your image of destruction. Take out the enemy’s navy and then blockade all their sea ports. Good way to test a nation’s petroleum reserves.
There are 85-90 aircraft on a modern US carrier. This includes CAP air superiority fighters, attack air craft, in air refueling aircraft, surveillance aircraft and even helicopters. They aren’t all that short ranged, and they aren’t that small…they are very modern air craft and pack a pretty big punch. And since the carrier moves you are moving what is essentially an air base all around the region you are projecting power into. In addition, there are other assets with the carrier group, as you noted, that also have capabilities to attack.
No, a single carrier group couldn’t take down Iran all by itself. That’s not it’s role. It’s role is to project power, keep the trade lanes open and free for trade and keep the Iran’s of the world from doing anything stupid, especially on the water.
The era of naval warfare (as in ship to ship, fleet to fleet battles) is probably behind us. No one living may see more than single-ship battles over straits, piracy etc.
So our 273 ships are largely concentrated in carrier groups, which all of the above discussion makes clear are the essential part of our current navy, as floating extensions to US military presence and force. That’s most of the Navy’s job these days.
And as we have 11 carrier groups to the rest of the world’s 1 each (or is China building a second now?)… I don’t think the USN is exactly an abandoned stepchild.
[QUOTE=Amateur Barbarian]
And as we have 11 carrier groups to the rest of the world’s 1 each (or is China building a second now?)… I don’t think the USN is exactly an abandoned stepchild.
[/QUOTE]
Same basic apples to orangutans comparison as we always get. The US has global commitments, so comparing what we have to what other countries who don’t have those commitments is silly. The key is do we have enough to do the mission? And the answer is no. We are running our carrier groups too long and hard without the backup and not giving them to down time needed to maintain them properly. That’s why we will be uncovering the ME for something like 4 months later this year…we simply don’t have the assets to back fill.
I’m not trying to argue the necessity for more or fewer groups. But if our commitments are spread so thin that literally 11 times the sea forces of any other nation aren’t enough - and the Middle East, of all places, is going to go wanting - then I’d want to look a little deeper into our commitment policies.
What purpose does a carrier in the middle East actually serve? It does mean that within a few hours, some bombers could do some damage and blow something up. That doesn’t sound like the kind of thing that is going to solve any of the intractable problems.
Regarding the sea lanes : US ships all fly “flags of convenience” and don’t pay taxes to fund the U.S. Navy. Free trade laws make the tariffs minimal. So the Navy is being funded by borrowed money and isn’t earning money for the protection it provides. This sounds like a terrible way to run it.
Okay, I may have overmisestimated there. But a group is six or more ships, making 66-70 ships basic components of the carrier groups. I assume that many more are effectively committed to supply and support even if not formally committed to any one group. By tonnage alone, that’s a pretty significant chunk of our bathtub floaties.
11 Carrier groups does not mean they are all out to see. There is massive amount of maintenance and upkeep on the ships that has to occur. A number of them are in port for this. The other day I see in the news the Eisenhower was out for sea trials after a 2 year long overhaul.
Not sure of the ratio, but of 11 carrier groups how many would be out to see at one time ? I would guess 6 at most, but do not know.
You might want to consider the fact that something like a quarter of the worlds trade goes through this disputed region…well over a trillion dollars a year. And how the lack of a firm US presence has gotten us to what might be a tipping point there, unless Obama’s swing to the Pacific thingy works out (doesn’t seem to be so far, but maybe)…and that a very large percentage of the worlds trade travels on that water stuff, getting from place to place.
But a group is six or more ships, making 66-70 ships basic components of the carrier groups. I assume that many more are effectively committed to supply and support even if not formally committed to any one group. By tonnage alone, that’s a pretty significant chunk of our bathtub floaties.