U.S. Navy only has 273 boats...

[marshmallow]

@XT

Cite? There have been SOME war games, usually those that put carriers at some disadvantage or use a surprise tactic (such as fast rubber gun boats) that have managed to kill a carrier, but most war games?

I don’t know about most. I imagine most of them are classified.

[Millennium Challenge 2002](Millennium Challenge 2002 - Wikipedia 2002) - this is the one I remember sounding rigged.

French sub Saphir sinks USS Theodore Roosevelt

TIME article - mostly the diesel electric section, lists a bunch of war games against allied nations. Even podunk nations like Chile and Sweden sunk carriers with old subs.

@XT

People have been saying that literally for half a century.

The U.S. has been fighting light weights for half a century. During the Cold War there were many instances on both sides where subs would shadow carrier groups and the other side didn’t know they were there. There was also that 2006 incident with the Kitty Hawk and the Chinese sub.

And, of course, they are still being built and developed, and countries with supposed sooper dooper carrier killer missiles or torpedoes are, ironically, building and developing them as well, despite the fact that they would know they are obsolete ‘floating graveyards’ and such. Wonder why that is?

Prestige, jobs, always fighting the last war (a seeming constant throughout military history), and to fight their own brushfire wars in the future. Carriers are definitely useful if you want to pound some unruly peasants halfway around the world.

Bringing it back to the OP, every once in awhile the U.S. navy gets cute and sails some carriers into a trouble spot as a “show of force.” What happens if the other side sinks or disables them? All out war? Limited bombing retaliation? Try to sink some of the other guy’s ships? Seems pretty awkward all around. Like the old “I’m not touching you!” game.

[XT]

[QUOTE=marshmallow]
Prestige, jobs, always fighting the last war (a seeming constant throughout military history), and to fight their own brushfire wars in the future. Carriers are definitely useful if you want to pound some unruly peasants halfway around the world.
[/QUOTE]

Or, could be that they are more useful and less vulnerable than you think they are.

Bringing it back to the OP, every once in awhile the U.S. navy gets cute and sails some carriers into a trouble spot as a “show of force.” What happens if the other side sinks or disables them? All out war? Limited bombing retaliation? Try to sink some of the other guy’s ships? Seems pretty awkward all around. Like the old “I’m not touching you!” game.

It would be an act of war, similar to sinking or shooting down any countries naval or air units. If, say, China sank one of our carriers then it would be war, plain and simple. If they sank one of our subs would be pretty much the same thing. I suppose we might talk reparations or something like that instead of all out war, but I doubt it.

The U.S. has been fighting light weights for half a century. During the Cold War there were many instances on both sides where subs would shadow carrier groups and the other side didn’t know they were there. There was also that 2006 incident with the Kitty Hawk and the Chinese sub.

True…but what we don’t know is if there were US attack subs shadowing that Chinese sub, ready to take it out. Basically, this was a stunt. In real life, unless we are talking about a country basically using this as the first act in a war, it wouldn’t happen. In peace time you can get away with stunts like this because we are at peace and we don’t want to cause an incident (see above…if the US sank said Chinese sub THAT would be an act of war as well, and could spark a huge conflict).

I don’t know about most. I imagine most of them are classified.

Millennium Challenge 2002 - this is the one I remember sounding rigged.

French sub Saphir sinks USS Theodore Roosevelt

TIME article - mostly the diesel electric section, lists a bunch of war games against allied nations. Even podunk nations like Chile and Sweden sunk carriers with old subs.

Well, you were the one who said ‘most non-rigged war games’. None of these seem ‘rigged’ to me, though, as I said, war games aren’t always set up to be ‘fair’, but to test specific things. That’s why tricks and stunts are tested and sometimes they work. Doesn’t mean they would work in a real life combat situations, but they do war games so that they can train and see how folks react, and if they can deal with situations outside of the box.

None of this proves anything, or backs up your seeming contention that carriers are simply obsolete prestige projects that are ‘floating graveyards’, however. No one is contending that they are invulnerable fortresses that can’t be touched. They are warships, and while they are the most protect warships in the fleet, with literally entire task forces dedicated to protecting them (in the US), that doesn’t mean they can’t be hurt, that the enemy can’t get lucky, etc etc. But the fact that they are vulnerable doesn’t make them obsolete OR ‘floating graveyards’ either.

[Stoneburg]

@marshmallow

… Even podunk nations like Chile and Sweden sunk carriers with old subs …

Don’t be a sore loser.

[CarnalK]

@XT

None of this proves anything, or backs up your seeming contention that carriers are simply obsolete prestige projects that are ‘floating graveyards’, however. No one is contending that they are invulnerable fortresses that can’t be touched. They are warships, and while they are the most protect warships in the fleet, with literally entire task forces dedicated to protecting them (in the US), that doesn’t mean they can’t be hurt

That TIME article contends that they are fairly vulnerable despite their massive escort not that they aren’t invulnerable.

[CarnalK]

From that article, for reference:

The analytically conservative Congressional Budget Office was alarmed enough to officially report that “some analysts argue that the Navy is not very good at locating diesel-electric submarines, especially in noisy, shallower waters near coastal areas. Exercises with allied navies that use diesel-electric submarines confirm that problem…[For example,] Israeli diesel-electric submarines, which until recently were relatively old, are said to always ‘sink’ some of the large and powerful warships of the U.S. Sixth Fleet in exercises. And most recently, an Australian Collins-class submarine penetrated a U.S. carrier battlegroup and was in a position to sink an aircraft carrier during exercises off Hawaii in May 2000.”

[Habeed]

One major flaw in the U.S. Navy’s defense net is there are no anti-torpedo weapons. If someone launches a torpedo at an aircraft carrier, a target that has a gigantic signature, it’s going to hit unless the torpedo firmware designers and electrical engineers were incompetent. There’s no armor down there, either. I’m uncertain how many torpedoes it takes to disable a carrier but it’s probably just one.

That means the logical thing to do for an adversary nation is to develop a kind of drone submarine. You can’t afford enough diesel electric subs to hide them in the path of a carrier group, but if you had a drone submarine, spaced 10 miles apart or so, you could create a “wall” of these things in the path of a carrier task force.

That’s one counter. The other counter is what China is doing - a high end ballistic missile. I think the calculus is that China’s factories can probably produce each missile for a mere ~10 million each in equivalent currency (just an educated guess) - each carrier is 10 billion each.

So if you fire 100 missiles at every carrier for a guaranteed kill, you have spend a billion bucks per kill. You’d use a fleet of spy drones to find the carriers.

What’s the point of all this? America can remain the most powerful nature on earth by investing in technology, manufacturing, and military prototyping. We don’t need vast forces using yesterday’s tech, and we need to be funneling most of our wealth into “end game” technologies.

Artificial intelligence or molecular manufacturing is the end of the game. If a rival nation gets it first, and gets a year or 2 to build up, it’s over. It won’t matter what forces America has now if they are against an enemy that grows exponentially.

[Ravenman]

@Habeed

One major flaw in the U.S. Navy’s defense net is there are no anti-torpedo weapons.

http://news.usni.org/2013/06/20/navy-develops-torpedo-killing-torpedo

What’s the point of all this? America can remain the most powerful nature on earth by investing in technology, manufacturing, and military prototyping. We don’t need vast forces using yesterday’s tech, and we need to be funneling most of our wealth into “end game” technologies.

Actually, virtually every major weapons acquisition failure in recent years was a result of the Bush/Rumsfeld idea that the U.S. could skip a generation of technology and acquire futuristic weapons a decade or more earlier than planned. The flops include the CG(X) cruiser, Army Future Combat Systems, the Joint Tactical Radio Systems, Transformational Satellite, Future Imagery Architecture, VH-XX Presidential Helicopter, and more. I have no idea how many billions were wasted on exciting but unobtainable technology.

[Habeed]

@Ravenman

http://news.usni.org/2013/06/20/navy-develops-torpedo-killing-torpedo
Actually, virtually every major weapons acquisition failure in recent years was a result of the Bush/Rumsfeld idea that the U.S. could skip a generation of technology and acquire futuristic weapons a decade or more earlier than planned. The flops include the CG(X) cruiser, Army Future Combat Systems, the Joint Tactical Radio Systems, Transformational Satellite, Future Imagery Architecture, VH-XX Presidential Helicopter, and more. I have no idea how many billions were wasted on exciting but unobtainable technology.

I’m not saying to spend the billions on pie in the sky defense projects. I’m saying the USA as a nation needs a heck of a lot less hot button voting rednecks and a heck of a lot more robotics engineers and researchers. That’s what I’m saying. And those people need to be doing useful things, like making machines that make manufactured goods.

[Ravenman]

Sure, more engineers are great. But I’m pretty sure you actually called for the military to obtain artificial intelligence and molecular manufacturing instead of buying current technology. If that’s not a call to invest in pie in the sky weapons, then your post makes no sense.

And also, the idea that there are two undefeatbale military technologies sounds like you think war is based on the Civ V game engine. So in your mind, after a country obtains AI and molecule engineering, do we jut work on “Future Tech I, II, III, IV…” until we reach Alpha Centauri?

[mlees]

@Habeed

I’m not saying to spend the billions on pie in the sky defense projects. I’m saying the USA as a nation needs a heck of a lot less hot button voting rednecks and a heck of a lot more robotics engineers and researchers. That’s what I’m saying. And those people need to be doing useful things, like making machines that make manufactured goods.

Ahhhh… if only we all put down our swords, utopia would break out. Do you really think only mouth breathing rednecks are responsible for the Military Industrial Complex?

Not pie in the sky: AN/SLQ-25 Nixie - Wikipedia (Old tech)

Not pie in the sky: DCL Technology Demonstrator programme - Wikipedia (New, but passed initial testing)

[msmith537]

I just discovered something shocking!

According to this link, apparently there have been a fairly large number of aircraft carriers that were sunk during wartime due to enemy action.

So it turns out, the aircraft carrier has NEVER been an indestructible floating fortress.

[CarnalK]

You bumped the thread to fight a strawman?

[XT]

@CarnalK

You bumped the thread to fight a strawman?

It’s not really a strawman. Though it’s funny that you bumped it to point this out. As for it being a strawman, just scroll up 6 posts and you will see what msmith537 was responding too. Every time the subject of carriers come up folks start babbling about how they are vulnerable and could be sunk. Well duh! :smack: They are warships…of COURSE they can/could be sunk. That doesn’t make them obsolete or a waste of money or any of the other BS that’s brought up about them in threads like this. Generally it comes down to a discussion where people who don’t like the military, think the military is a waste and who don’t actually understand the role of the military decide they are experts and use what they think they know from a quick Google search to ‘prove’ that carriers are obsolete and useless and that the US is stupid for having the things. Point out that other countries who wish to interact on a global scale ALSO have the things or are trying to get them and you basically get handwaving and excuses that boil down to those countries being stupid too. Point out that the US has and continues to effectively use the things for over half a century now and you get hogwash about how we only fight lightweights, as if the other major powers are holding back or something because reasons. And then there are the perennial sooper dooper carrier ciller cavitating linear torpedoes of doom along with the randy rocket carrier ciller cruise missiles from hell that have totally rendered carriers obsolete, even though none of them have been demonstrated effective against anything as yet. I mean, China and Russia claim they work, so that should be good enough for us…let’s scrap those mother fucking carriers and put up the white flag now!

[CarnalK]

He responded after it was idle for days, that’s bumping the thread. With a rather lame response at that.

If my posts are what you want me to scroll up to, I do indeed think it’s a strawman to characterize them as “omg they’re not invulnerable”.

[turner]

Another problem is the quality. We build a lot of good ships, but some of the ships (24) we count as combat vessels–littoral combat ships are literally designed to run when the shooting starts. We’re not talking USNS or merchant marines. There are reasons for that re: cost, versatility, ability to disperse your force to cover down on global sea lanes, but in a shooting war, that’s almost 10% of your force you can’t count on. How many naval battles we’ll have in the future is anybody’s guess, but what happens when we can’t cover major shipping lanes and have presence is the emboldenment of other nations to fill the gap and take advantage.

[CarnalK]

Philippines may invite US back to Subic Bay
Thought I’d put this here rather than start another thread. Seems the Philippines was thinking about starting to use the old base that they’d kicked the US out of back in 92 but now they are getting nervous enough to debate letting the US navy back in. (Apparently there’s already some limited American use of the port already since 2012).

[Ravenman]

If the Philippines propose to pay for the substantial majority of US base costs, as the Japanese do, this may be an interesting development.

If it is an offer of, “Hey, remember when we were a crappy landlord? Well, the Chinese convinced us of how wrong that was. Do you want your old base back? We’ll charge you the same as in 1992, adjusted for interest of course, just like nothing eeeeeever happened!” then I think we can all see how that would be taken.

[XT]

@CarnalK

Philippines may invite US back to Subic Bay
Thought I’d put this here rather than start another thread. Seems the Philippines was thinking about starting to use the old base that they’d kicked the US out of back in 92 but now they are getting nervous enough to debate letting the US navy back in. (Apparently there’s already some limited American use of the port already since 2012).

It would be huge if it gets through the Philippines legal system. Subic Bay is a great port facility, and it would give the US a base basically very close to the South China Sea. It would also strengthen our alliance with the Philippines in a tangible way that China couldn’t ignore.

The harder China pushes, the more the other powers in the region search for a counter balance. Japan is right now in the throes of reinterpreting it’s constitution and, for the first time since the end of WWII considering having a more proactive military that supports its allies outside of Japan. That’s huge…and it’s, again, because of what China is doing (well, and the other side of the coin that all these powers have to be wondering…what will the US do, or not do?). I wonder if Vietnam will be next to approach the US with the possibility of a formal mutual defense treaty? Man, wouldn’t THAT be ironic?? Nearly as ironic as the Philippines formally asking for the US to come back into it’s country and allow us to station troops, ships and use the facilities there.

[CarnalK]

@Ravenman

If the Philippines propose to pay for the substantial majority of US base costs, as the Japanese do, this may be an interesting development.

If it is an offer of, “Hey, remember when we were a crappy landlord? Well, the Chinese convinced us of how wrong that was. Do you want your old base back? We’ll charge you the same as in 1992, adjusted for interest of course, just like nothing eeeeeever happened!” then I think we can all see how that would be taken.

That’s kind of ridiculous. Firstly, the Philippines are in no way as capable as the Japanese to pay for all that. And maybe the US would want certain guarantees but crying about them being a “bad landlord” 20 years ago is silly. Whether the US wants that base back in operation is a strategic decision that shouldn’t be derailed for spiteful reasons.

[Ravenman]

@CarnalK

That’s kind of ridiculous. Firstly, the Philippines are in no way as capable as the Japanese to pay for all that. And maybe the US would want certain guarantees but crying about them being a “bad landlord” 20 years ago is silly. Whether the US wants that base back in operation is a strategic decision that shouldn’t be derailed for spiteful reasons.

There is no damn way that the US is going to pay full freight on reestablishing a base in the Philippines when: a) DoD doesn’t have the money to throw several hundred million dollars toward such a base when each of the services are on the razor’s edge of making severe force structure cuts and b) especially not in a country that told the US to take a hike 20 years ago.

If the shoe were on another foot, and Germany kicked the US out in 1993, I’m certain the US would hesitate to restart any bases there in light of the current Russian aggression.