Tango01 | 13 Aug 2014 9:24 p.m. PST |
…Too Big To Fail?. "Various defense pundits, scholars, and journalists have spent a considerable amount of digital ink debating the various threats to America's carrier fleet while avoiding a more central question. In the cliché phrase of our time: Are carriers too big to fail? Clausewitz tells us, "war is the continuation of politics by other means." Is there any political situation of such gravity that losing a carrier would be deemed an acceptable risk? In other words, how expendable are carriers? The answer to this question has large implications for the tactical and strategic options available to U.S. policymakers. Total security from all risk is impossible. The aircraft carrier is not invulnerable to attack. The new U.S. Ford-class aircraft carrier will be a floating home to over 4,000 sailors and comes in at the hefty price tag of around $12 USD billion dollars. In light of the development and proliferation of anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) weaponry, does this enormous investment of human resources narrow U.S. tactical and strategic options? What are the implications of the sinking of a U.S. carrier? Over 4,000 American soldiers died during the recent eight and a half year Iraq war. These casualties played a large role in the extensive domestic opposition to the conflict. Imagine for a moment that a similar number of sailors perish in less than an hour. Such an event would be a national catastrophe and would likely create enormous political pressure to end combat operations. Such a catastrophic scenario is characteristic of naval warfare. In his book Seapower, Naval strategist Geoffrey Till tells us that:…" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
Lion in the Stars | 13 Aug 2014 10:37 p.m. PST |
The other catch is that sending a carrier means that the US is willing to go to war over this issue. Someone who attacks another nation's warship in such a way as to overwhelm the defenses has just declared war with whatever nation owns said warship. One missile is potentially an 'oops', the US has had a few of those happen (and I'm not talking about the Iranian Airlines shootdown). But not a swarm attack that can saturate 2-3 Aegis ships. That is a blatantly deliberate attack. There is a very good reason why there hasn't been a military attack attempted with weapons actually launched on a US carrier since 1975. Anyone launching missiles at a US ship has had the launcher blown out of the water with extreme prejudice. Last time it happened, the tally was 5 Standard Missiles to burn the hull to the waterline, a single Harpoon missile that missed, and then closing in to finish the job with 3" and 5" guns! The problem with all these discussions is that carriers have gotten to be the size they are because that's a function of how big the planes they carry are. You can't land an F18 on an 800ft WW2 carrier, even if the arresting gear was up to the task of stopping an airplane 5x the weight of the WW2 torpedo bombers. Even the British Queen Elizabeth-class carriers are bigger than anything less than a supercarrier. |
basileus66 | 14 Aug 2014 6:55 a.m. PST |
I am not convinced by the analysis. It is assuming that: a) the only threat that the Red team has to assess is a single carrier group; b) it is presuming that the platforms of Anti-Ship missiles have been not previously attacked by long range strikes with cruiser missiles; c) finally, they are asuming that the scenario would be akin to WWII, i.e with carriers being the main weapons platform that would project power, instead of being just one part in battle that would integrate dozen of other systems, from submarine based cruiser missiles, land based aircraft, ecc. |
Tango01 | 14 Aug 2014 10:57 a.m. PST |
Agree with you Antonio. By the way, hope you and your family are doing well!. (smile) Amicalement Armand |
Bobgnar | 14 Aug 2014 11:01 a.m. PST |
One lucky suicide bomber in a plane, hijacked or not, could make serious damage to one of those big carriers. Or a dozen. Kamikaze methods are come again. |
Lion in the Stars | 14 Aug 2014 4:59 p.m. PST |
Serious damage? Yes. Actually sink one? Not likely, according to the results of the USS America SINKEX. |
doug redshirt | 15 Aug 2014 9:12 a.m. PST |
Carriers are nice, but the Pacific war was won by land based air. You control the surrounding seas by patrolling from land based air. There was a reason that certain battles took place where they did. Name a carrier air battle that occurred that wasn't tied to a land mass. Looking at the area where our carriers would be threatened by China what do you see? It is surrounded by countries friendly to the US. I see lots of friendly land bases for US planes to operate from. So the key is having the planes and material to support them ready to go. The USAF is very good at moving their planes and people to where they can operate on short notice. |
EJNashIII | 15 Aug 2014 3:46 p.m. PST |
Modern carriers main advantage is that you don't have an available nearby land base, you can still bring a world of hurt. Yes modern land base bombers have near unlimited range, but the flight time to and from home base means the target can move before it gets there. |
Charlie 12 | 16 Aug 2014 12:08 a.m. PST |
"Carriers are nice, but the Pacific war was won by land based air. You control the surrounding seas by patrolling from land based air. There was a reason that certain battles took place where they did. Name a carrier air battle that occurred that wasn't tied to a land mass." Really?? Tell that to the Japanese at Leyte, Midway, Philippine Sea… |
Mako11 | 16 Aug 2014 4:33 p.m. PST |
Even if they are, but based on historical precedent, they'll just be another taxpayer bailout, so not really a huge concern. |
basileus66 | 17 Aug 2014 4:15 a.m. PST |
"Really?? Tell that to the Japanese at Leyte, Midway, Philippine Sea…" Leyte and Philippine Sea were linked to the invasion of the Philippines (land masses), and Midway was an operation to capture a position (land mass, although tiny!) on the Central Pacific to threaten the Hawaii Islands. |
PHGamer | 19 Aug 2014 1:44 p.m. PST |
And the land based aircraft stationed on Midway failed to deter the Japanese at Midway, nor did the land based aircraft stationed on Guam, Tinian, and Saipan prevent TF 58 from dominating the Battle of the Philippine Sea. Carriers are needed for when the land based air isn't available. Like when those friendly countries around China don't want a couple of hundred missiles lobbed their way. |
basileus66 | 19 Aug 2014 3:37 p.m. PST |
PHGamer You are right, and I agree completely with you. I misinterpreted Coastal2's answer to Doug. I was under the impression that he was saying that carrier operations in WWII weren't linked to the control of sea areas around land masses, while he was contesting Doug's proposition that in the Pacific war land-based aircraft were more important to the control of the seas than carrier-based aircraft. Reading both posts again, I realize that I was wrong. My mistake. Best |
desert war | 20 Aug 2014 7:32 p.m. PST |
because a USN carrier can put four squadrons of F-18s plus supporting aircraft almost anywhere in the world without having to ask any other country for permission first. |