"The U.S. Navy's Big, Supercarrier Mistake " Topic

""History," it has been written, "does not repeat itself, but it rhymes." Today it's rhyming with Gen. Billy Mitchell. In the 1920s, Mitchell challenged conventional thinking by advocating air power at sea in the face of a naval establishment dominated by battleship proponents.

The hubris of the "battleship Navy" was such that just nine days before Pearl Harbor, the official program for the 1941 Army-Navy game displayed a full page photograph of the battleship USS Arizona with language virtually extolling its invincibility.

Of course, the reason that no one had yet sunk a battleship from the air — in combat — was that no one had yet tried.

In fact, Mitchell sank a captured German battleship, the Ostfriesland, in an aerial demonstration back in 1921, but the Navy said that the test proved nothing. Two of the observers that day were officials from Japan…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Critics of the supercarriers ignore their political, symbolic and deterrent value. A CBG sent to a region represents a show of force, demonstration of our commitment and serves as a deterrent against aggression. And their force projection capability is still valuable.

We can argue about what would happen to CVN's in a war between two equal-capability forces, but the fact is that there hasn't been equality since WW2, when the US surpassed the UK in capability. I believe carriers are the Navy afloat asset most used in combat since WW2. (Marines may have the same claim but their combat isn't at sea.) Looking into your crystal ball to predict the future is important, but you can't ignore present needs either.

Carriers are obsolete at this point. They have been since 1990. We just haven't faced anyone who has a willingness and capability to flood the battle space with cruise missiles. Eventually it will happen.

Clearly the future is to create islands and use them as unsinkable super carriers….

Lots of interesting points for thought there, though if it comes to war, a lot of the "threats" will be eliminated by the carrier's aircraft (which are best suited to do that quickly), or by other forces.

For example, the best way to wipe out all those missile boats is with airpower, especially since they have anemic air defenses, and their SSMs can't threaten the jets. One carrier's aircraft could wipe out their whole missile boat force in short order, before the Chinese could even locate it to attack.

Those ballistic missiles vs. carriers sound very threatening, but I doubt the Chinese have 1,000+ of them, and they have to come up with a way of finding and targeting the carriers too, which will be very difficult, if they stand off at long range.

Smaller vessels, used in penny packets, or individually, are very vulnerable.

I do agree that drones and subs will play a much more important role in the future. I suspect we'll see submersibles carrying surveillance and attack drones, in addition to cruise missiles and ICBMs in the near future.

Time to develop remote controlled, solar or seawater powered, burrowing crabs to destabilize/destroy those artificial islands.

If obsolete means Invincible or Unsinkable or Unmission-Killable, then all the Navies of the world are obsolete and always have been plus all the tanks, all the aircraft, and all the individual folks that man them).

One consideration is that in the event of a protracted war, almost any vessel / aircraft / missile / vehicle that is available at the start of the conflict is superseded by quickly emerging technology and becomes functionally obsolescent. From WWII, both the axis and the allies lost much of their fleets (carriers, BBs, cruisers, destroyers, submarines, on down).

That is not to say that "obsolete or obsolescent" equipment does not remain very dangerous (Naval Air examples include the spectacularly effective Swordfish bi-plane and the famed SBD Dauntless) if allowed to operate on blue water.

To my mind, the combined defenses and power projection capabilities of a USN carrier battle group combining a CVN, SSNs, DDGs, CGs teaming missiles, aircraft, torpedoes, and AEGIS is likely to remain a very daunting foe for any current power for a very long time. Assuming that the USN continues to heavily invest in emerging technologies that expand both the defensive and offensive capability, I suspect that we will continue to have ships built to fight and sail in harm's way.

Last thought, T-rexes are obsolete too, but I sure would hate to have one hunting me.

If it indeed is a big mistake, then China and Russia are committing it also.

Carriers are obsolete at this point. They have been since 1990. We just haven't faced anyone who has a willingness and capability to flood the battle space with cruise missiles. Eventually it will happen.

Uhhh, you are aware that AEGIS was created specifically to deal with Soviet-sized swarms of incoming missiles, aren't you?

When the Soviets would assign multiple Bomber Regiments to attack a single carrier group, with the bombers carrying an average of 6 birds?

>>Carriers are obsolete at this point. They have been since 1990. We just haven't faced anyone who has a willingness and capability to flood the battle space with cruise missiles. Eventually it will happen.

Clearly the future is to create islands and use them as unsinkable super carriers….<<

Maybe. But such islands can only be used as an area denial, defensive weapon in a limited zone. (admittedly like the S. China Sea). While they may deny us access to the S. China Sea, they cannot project Chines power on the West Coast or even the Pacific Islands.

Ever read 1984? One of the weapon systems used by Oceania is the Floating Islands which they use as "unsinkable" aricraft carriers.

That's why they're building gigantic, mobile, barge platforms as well, which can be used as aircraft carriers, supply depots, offensive/defensive bases, etc., too.

Hyper speed anti ship Missiles will be the death of super carriers.

I noticed the mention of Hyperventilating torpedoes and Ballistic missiles. Neither, assuming they exist, can hit anything as they are both unguided. Unless we are talking nuc's, you could launch a thousand of these weapons and only good luck would get you a hit.

That's why they're building gigantic, mobile, barge platforms as well, which can be used as aircraft carriers, supply depots, offensive/defensive bases, etc., too

Which are nearly immobile and every bit as, if not more, vulnerable as a carrier. Except it doesn't have a carrier's AEGIS coverage (which will also squash those hyper speed ASMs).

Clearly the future is to create islands and use them as unsinkable super carriers

Haven't seen many islands actually MOVE…

I have read the the New Jersey once sank an island, using a combination of time delayed shells.

All you need to defeat any enemy are a few thermonuclear weapons, so by that thinking, we could just eliminate everything else.

Which was the thinking of the 60's which lead to all sorts of problems for nations force projection at levels less than MAD.

All I think we could agree on, is that if war broke out in the Pacific perimeter today, we would all have a heck of a lot of surprises in store during the first two weeks.

Carrier survivability is the key question for U.S. Pacific strategy.

@Tuscaloosa: The USS America SINKEX demonstrated that a modern carrier takes an obscene amount of firepower to completely sink.

Hell, the USN put multiple Mk48 torpedoes into her, which are powerful enough to break an Arleigh Burke or Tico in half with a single shot!

But it will not be pretty so see just how effective AEGIS really is.

I suspect that any nation kicking off a fracas in the Pacific will discover what the Imperial Japanese Navy discovered in 1942: The US has a LOT of submarines, and their crews are VERY good. Plus, cargo ships are a lot bigger today than they were back in WW2, so a single sunk merchie will hurt a lot more.