"The Most Expensive Warship Ever Built Might Already..." Topic

… Be Close to Obsolete.

"The U.S. Navy's latest and greatest aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald Ford, when completed, will join the ranks of the world's most advanced warships ever put to sea. It will carry an air wing with firepower second to none. It will be defended by some of the most powerful naval vessels on the planet. And yet, coming in at an astounding $15 USD billion dollars—the most expensive naval vessel ever—its time as the symbol of U.S. power projection and military dominance may be over.

Notice I used the words may be over. The simple fact is this: no one really knows for sure, but the trends all point to dangerous times ahead. We do know one thing with certainty—the mighty aircraft carrier is under siege, and without major changes to its capabilities, investing billions of scarce defense dollars seems a disastrous idea.

Several recent articles, from popular Web sites to more academically themed publications, all point to the same problem set. Countries with the technological means, specifically great powers like China and Russia—nations the Pentagon considers as the next big challenge for the U.S. military—are developing missile platforms that can strike from long-range and en masse from multiple domains. Such weapons (and this is where that tinge of doubt comes into play)—if accurate, using highly trained crews combined with the means to find their target on the vast open oceans—could turn America's supercarriers into multi-billion dollar graveyards for thousands of U.S. sailors. While many of these weapons have never been fired in anger—some never even tested against a non-cooperative maritime target—the sheer proliferation of such weapons coming online all point to a crisis for America's flattops…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

It should be noted that both China and Russia are in the process of building new big carriers. That seems a bit silly if they are the ones that have proven the carrier obsolete.

Just because carriers are vulnerable against near-peer adversaries with robust A2AD defenses doesn't mean we shouldn't have them.

I'm sure Russia and China aren't under any delusions that their carriers will survive if they were to try to project power near Hawaii or th CONUS.

Everything is vulnerable to a certain degree – the important points are how useful they are in the meantime, and how well they can cope with their vulnerabilities.

Key phrase in the discussion is "highly trained crews"

I don't think that the Chinese or Russians are there, yet.

While preparing for changes to possible enemy capabilities is wise, these carrier-sinking wonder weapons have yet to actually demonstrate they will perform as advertised.

-Will

While preparing for changes to possible enemy capabilities is wise, these carrier-sinking wonder weapons have yet to actually demonstrate they will perform as advertised.

During the Falklands War the British lost six ships to the Argentinian air force, not exactly a military powerhouse. Four of the six were warships (destroyers and frigates). Analysts say losses would have been much worse if not for the many UXBs dropped by the Argentinians. Other ships were damaged.

The losses and threat of further losses forced the British navy to alter its operations in such a way that it was unable to provide its full support to ground operations.

If a third rate power like Argentine can pull that off I would think that someone like China, with its greater resources, could pose a serious threat to US carriers.

Besides, you don't need to sink a carrier to render it combat ineffective. Heck, dropping a crate of nuts and bolts on the deck would render it inoperable for quite a while as the crew is forced to walk the deck to clear the debris before air ops can resume! :-) In the case of China, they could also attack our navy by simply not funding it or supplying it.

Our military is extremely powerful in that it is lethal against asymmetric adversaries, but also extremely fragile, inefficient, and it lacks durability.

Strategic materials and resources (e.g. raw materials for gear and the cash to sustain it) are provided by potential adversaries such as China. We Americans love our big, expensive military but we're not willing to pay for it.

We have fought two major wars over the last decade resulting in two strategic defeats against guys with nothing more advanced than home made bombs, AK-47s, and RPGs, weapons which were essentially in use at the end of WWII. They lacked advanced missiles, MBTs, APCs, warships, or any other serious, heavy military gear.

Iran controls Iraq and Afghanistan is controlled by drug lords in the central government and the Taliban in the hinterlands. That happened despite our soldiers and marines winning every tactical fight.

The reasons for our inefficient and fragile military is a bipartisan issue that wanders into Blue Fez territory.

One of the key issues that rarely seems to be mentioned re the Chinese carrier-killer missiles is that they are ballistic missiles… Just what do they think is going to be the response of a nuclear power when they suddenly see a volley of ballistic missile launches?