Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Current Carrier design is obsolete & can be easily sunk.
HYPOCENTER    9/28/2007 3:16:22 PM
Guys, here is an eye-opening article on the threats facing the US Navy – it concludes that, with the proliferation of advanced anti-ship missiles and torpedoes, the super carrier has been compromised to such a degree that they simply are no longer viable. Furthermore, the author states a bold prediction: “If the U.S. Navy keeps building gigantic surface aircraft carriers and daring people to sink them, odds are, eventually, someone will take us up on it and do just that. My personal prediction is that this will happen within the next 10-20 years. Within 10-20 years, one of our aircraft carriers will get sent to the bottom by enemy missiles or torpedos (or both)--or possibly even UAVs/UAS. This scenario could even happen within the next five years.” Summary of key judgments: -“….the latest ship-killing unmanned weapon systems like supercavitating torpedoes and supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles being produced and/or developed by other countries that can probably sink the CVN-21, even if it is protected by its own highly-advanced, highly-lethal systems like fighter aircraft (primarily F/A-18s), ASW (Anti-Submarine Warfare i.e. "sub-hunting") aircraft, the Raytheon Ship Self-Defense System (SSDS), Aegis-radar-equipped and highly-weaponized cruisers and destroyers, submarines, etc. That's not to mention unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) a.k.a. unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) being produced and developed by other countries that can also potentially wreak a lot of havoc and destruction on surface ships. And, at the end of the day, that's what the CVN-21 will be, a large, hulking, incredibly expensive (albeit very sexy) surface ship.” -Proliferation of such high-tech anti-ship missiles limits where carrier’s can safely or reasonably operate (thus limiting their effectiveness), “In the tactical shooting a.k.a. defensive shooting world, there's an old saying: "Action beats reaction." In other words, the actor always has the time advantage over the reactor. Time is the reactor's enemy, which means it will be our ships' enemy, if any of the now multiple countries who have supersonic anti-ship missiles and high-speed supercavitating torpedoes decide to launch them on us. Make no mistake, the first ships they'll launch against will be our aircraft carriers, and they'll probably launch a large number of these missiles at one time.” -“Let's give the U.S. Navy the benefit of the doubt, and say that it can stop 90% of the enemy missiles and/or torpedos streaking towards the carrier(s). The result's going to be the same. Understand that if just one of these missiles or torpedos hits the carrier, it's probably done. Even if it doesn't sink, it will most likely be taken out of operation. So, in effect, no more carrier. Let's say it takes two hits to destroy the carrier. All the enemy will have to do is fire at least 20 missiles at once, get its two hits on the carrier, and no more carrier. What if the enemy launches 20 missiles and 20 torpedos at the carrier at the same time? Get the picture? 20 anti-ship missiles and 20 torpedos might read like a big investment, but it's nowhere near the investement of a $5-$13.7 billion aircraft carrier. Not even close.” - Current defense systems are not enough, “I know what you're thinking. You're thinking "So what?" Even if the Iranians get one of those super-duper missiles, the U.S. Navy's got SeaRAM, which can defeat those nasty Mach 2.5 (approx.) anti-ship missiles. The SeaRAM Anti-Ship Missile Defense System can defeat it. It's our salvation. Well, not so fast. Ya' see, that little theory depends on two things: 1) that the enemy missile threat will be detected in time and SeaRAM will have a 100% kill rate, and 2) the 11-missile RAM launcher won't run out of missiles before the enemy does.” -Bottom line, if we get into any kind of serious beef with ANY country that has a decent arsenal of these weapons, our aircraft carriers will most likely be destroyed and sunk within minutes. They're just too big, too slow, and too visible to survive, even with all their onboard and offboard networked defenses. The fact is that high-speed, sophisticated precision anti-ship weapons technology is cheaper and can therefore outpace our ability to protect our big, slow carriers. In the end, war is a financial transaction. Russian helicopters cost a lot more to produce, field and replace than Stinger missiles, and U.S. Aircraft carriers cost A LOT more to produce, field and replace than even the most sophisticated anti-ship weapons. H*tp://www.defensereview.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1048
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
KlubMarcus       10/15/2007 10:09:12 PM
The quantity problem has already been addressed by operating multiple carrier battle groups in unison, plus other assets, plus allied assets. Whatever the enemy can do, especially the PLAN, the USA can do BETTER and in LARGER numbers.
 
Quote    Reply

randomjester       10/15/2007 10:12:42 PM

The quantity problem has already been addressed by operating multiple carrier battle groups in unison, plus other assets, plus allied assets. Whatever the enemy can do, especially the PLAN, the USA can do BETTER and in LARGER numbers.


Maybe so, but feel free to cruise a CBG down the Formosa Strait during a war and see how much comes out the other end.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/15/2007 10:18:45 PM

The quantity problem has already been addressed by operating multiple carrier battle groups in unison, plus other assets, plus allied assets. Whatever the enemy can do, especially the PLAN, the USA can do BETTER and in LARGER numbers.

Absolute rubbish. The USN doesn't think so.  You do understand how long it takes to get multiple strike forces together?  You do realise the area of ocean that this implies?  You do understand that this effects reach of defending aircraft?
You need to read Proceedings and see what some in the USN actually do think about the status and condition of the service.
 
Seeing that you want to trivialise the issue of logistics, explain to everyone why the USN doesn't want to go too close into the northern part of the south china sea, explain how long it would take to get all strike forces into the same location from their current nominal homports (without alerting an enemy) and how the mainland chinese have a land based advantage that is not easy to neutralise.
 
the USN has an advantage if they can fight on their own terms (and thats not going to be north of the south china sea) - and the chinese aren't stupid, they won't be fighting to US strengths.
 
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

KlubMarcus       10/15/2007 10:21:07 PM



The quantity problem has already been addressed by operating multiple carrier battle groups in unison, plus other assets, plus allied assets. Whatever the enemy can do, especially the PLAN, the USA can do BETTER and in LARGER numbers.



Maybe so, but feel free to cruise a CBG down the Formosa Strait during a war and see how much comes out the other end.


Solution, let the PLAN cruise the Formosa Strait, let's see how many of them make it to the other side. After all, they have to be the attackers. We can just sit back and wait. Whatever the PLAN can do, the US can do BETTER, LARGER, and SMARTER to boot! There isn't anything the chicoms can do that we don't have an easy solution to. Seriously, they just can't win. China might as well ask to join Taiwan. That would be the smart thing to do. There would be a unified China, they'd tap into Taiwan's success on China's scale, and the US would be happy to join in and partake in the overall success.
 
Quote    Reply

randomjester       10/15/2007 10:31:01 PM





The quantity problem has already been addressed by operating multiple carrier battle groups in unison, plus other assets, plus allied assets. Whatever the enemy can do, especially the PLAN, the USA can do BETTER and in LARGER numbers.



Maybe so, but feel free to cruise a CBG down the Formosa Strait during a war and see how much comes out the other end.



Solution, let the PLAN cruise the Formosa Strait, let's see how many of them make it to the other side. After all, they have to be the attackers. We can just sit back and wait. Whatever the PLAN can do, the US can do BETTER, LARGER, and SMARTER to boot! There isn't anything the chicoms can do that we don't have an easy solution to. Seriously, they just can't win.

China might as well ask to join Taiwan. That would be the smart thing to do. There would be a unified China, they'd tap into Taiwan's success on China's scale, and the US would be happy to join in and partake in the overall success.

Sit back and wait??? Sure, just hand the enemy the initiative in a major shooting war. Thats a surefire strategy for losing sailors and ships:
There's a couple of Kilo's surging out of mainland naval bases? Kill em now? Nah, lets wait for a bit, let them get in close, we can always find them later. Yeah, thats a great decision that is. You are right in this hypothetical situation, the Chinese would be the attackers. That means they get to decide when and where to hit you. Im sure I'd get my @ass kicked by a black belt karate practicioner, but I just might be able to break his jaw if I can hit him first. Kinda takes the shine of the victory.
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

KlubMarcus       10/15/2007 10:33:12 PM



The quantity problem has already been addressed by operating multiple carrier battle groups in unison, plus other assets, plus allied assets. Whatever the enemy can do, especially the PLAN, the USA can do BETTER and in LARGER numbers.


Absolute rubbish. The USN doesn't think so.  You do understand how long it takes to get multiple strike forces together?  You do realise the area of ocean that this implies?  You do understand that this effects reach of defending aircraft?

You need to read Proceedings and see what some in the USN actually do think about the status and condition of the service.

 

Seeing that you want to trivialise the issue of logistics, explain to everyone why the USN doesn't want to go too close into the northern part of the south china sea, explain how long it would take to get all strike forces into the same location from their current nominal homports (without alerting an enemy) and how the mainland chinese have a land based advantage that is not easy to neutralise.

 

the USN has an advantage if they can fight on their own terms (and thats not going to be north of the south china sea) - and the chinese aren't stupid, they won't be fighting to US strengths.

 

 


 



Yes, I understand how long and how much real estate it requires. That's why it is to our advantage. The chicoms don't have the time nor the capability to control that much. You should look into the status and condition of all the services combined plus all the allies we would have in the region combined. Then you will see how that favors the USA because china has to attack and then hold on. We simply have to maintain the status quo. The USN doesn't want to get too close to the the northern part of the South China Sea because they would be at a disadvantage there. Which is why you will see them there, the best part is that the chicoms won't know if it's just a distraction or the real thing. The chicoms will see that we are coming, so they have to sortie their "home field advantage" to meet us before they are destroyed on land. That is EXACTLY what we want them to do. Nope, we expect the chicoms to fight well. But it won't be enough because we'll pay off the Russians to attack them, or at least allow us to attack china from Russian territory. We can also cut off china's oil far from china's shores while forcing them to expend fuel just on defensive patrols. And we can always drop a few thousand nuclear warheads on the chicoms, we were willing to do it to Russia and the chicoms have less territory and a denser population. Whatever the PLAN can do we can do BETTER, in LARGER numbers, SMARTER, and LONGER.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/15/2007 10:37:10 PM
 
I hope to god you're not currently in the US military - if you are you're going to get people unnecessarily killed through your arrogance and a complete failure to look at the macro picture.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       10/15/2007 10:38:38 PM
Klub, you seem to be under the impression that naval battles all look like Jutland.  Enemy surface fleets was never a problem with the Soviets and it isn't one now with the Chinese.  The danger facing our carriers is in aircraft launched missiles, land launched missiles, and submarine launched missiles/torpedos.
 
Look at the damage done to the RN during the Falklands War by a handful of Argentinain Exocets.  We know there were various reasons for losses such as HMS Sheffield (in this case the use of the sat-phone meant the ECM was turned off, I believe) however we can only assume that such fluke occuraces will happen in any conflict.
 
Had the USSR had engaged us, say in 1985, (a few years later than the Falklands), one of their Oscar class submarines could have fired anywhere up to 24 SS-N-19 supersonic anti-ship missiles from anywhere.  This one asset is vastly more capable than the entire Argentinian armoury.  Now consider the sheer number of Soviet submarines, and their masses of naval aviation. 
 
China is not in the same league, however they are not to be underestimated as a threat.
 
 
Quote    Reply

KlubMarcus       10/15/2007 10:39:34 PM









The quantity problem has already been addressed by operating multiple carrier battle groups in unison, plus other assets, plus allied assets. Whatever the enemy can do, especially the PLAN, the USA can do BETTER and in LARGER numbers.




Maybe so, but feel free to cruise a CBG down the Formosa Strait during a war and see how much comes out the other end.




Solution, let the PLAN cruise the Formosa Strait, let's see how many of them make it to the other side. After all, they have to be the attackers. We can just sit back and wait. Whatever the PLAN can do, the US can do BETTER, LARGER, and SMARTER to boot! There isn't anything the chicoms can do that we don't have an easy solution to. Seriously, they just can't win.

China might as well ask to join Taiwan. That would be the smart thing to do. There would be a unified China, they'd tap into Taiwan's success on China's scale, and the US would be happy to join in and partake in the overall success.


Sit back and wait??? Sure, just hand the enemy the initiative in a major shooting war. Thats a surefire strategy for losing sailors and ships:

There's a couple of Kilo's surging out of mainland naval bases? Kill em now? Nah, lets wait for a bit, let them get in close, we can always find them later. Yeah, thats a great decision that is. You are right in this hypothetical situation, the Chinese would be the attackers. That means they get to decide when and where to hit you. Im sure I'd get my @ass kicked by a black belt karate practicioner, but I just might be able to break his jaw if I can hit him first. Kinda takes the shine of the victory.

 


 



See, you think we SHOULDN'T hold back. You think we should RUSH in. That's probably a sign for the guys in charge to do something else. There you go again, thinking about ONE black belt practitioner. It's just fools thinking about sinking ONE aircraft carrier. Keep looking at the big picture. The USA isn't china's only problem, it's everybody else who will side with the USA in one degree or another. You never know, we might get the north koreans to attack china (the chicoms don't trust that regime much as it is).
 
Quote    Reply

randomjester       10/15/2007 10:40:52 PM





The quantity problem has already been addressed by operating multiple carrier battle groups in unison, plus other assets, plus allied assets. Whatever the enemy can do, especially the PLAN, the USA can do BETTER and in LARGER numbers.



Absolute rubbish. The USN doesn't think so.  You do understand how long it takes to get multiple strike forces together?  You do realise the area of ocean that this implies?  You do understand that this effects reach of defending aircraft?


You need to read Proceedings and see what some in the USN actually do think about the status and condition of the service.


 


Seeing that you want to trivialise the issue of logistics, explain to everyone why the USN doesn't want to go too close into the northern part of the south china sea, explain how long it would take to get all strike forces into the same location from their current nominal homports (without alerting an enemy) and how the mainland chinese have a land based advantage that is not easy to neutralise.


 


the USN has an advantage if they can fight on their own terms (and thats not going to be north of the south china sea) - and the chinese aren't stupid, they won't be fighting to US strengths.


 


 



 




Yes, I understand how long and how much real estate it requires. That's why it is to our advantage. The chicoms don't have the time nor the capability to control that much. You should look into the status and condition of all the services combined plus all the allies we would have in the region combined. Then you will see how that favors the USA because china has to attack and then hold on. We simply have to maintain the status quo.

The USN doesn't want to get too close to the the northern part of the South China Sea because they would be at a disadvantage there. Which is why you will see them there, the best part is that the chicoms won't know if it's just a distraction or the real thing. The chicoms will see that we are coming, so they have to sortie their "home field advantage" to meet us before they are destroyed on land. That is EXACTLY what we want them to do.

Nope, we expect the chicoms to fight well. But it won't be enough because we'll pay off the Russians to attack them, or at least allow us to attack china from Russian territory. We can also cut off china's oil far from china's shores while forcing them to expend fuel just on defensive patrols. And we can always drop a few thousand nuclear warheads on the chicoms, we were willing to do it to Russia and the chicoms have less territory and a denser population.

Whatever the PLAN can do we can do BETTER, in LARGER numbers, SMARTER, and LONGER.
Invade China?? Im glad for the US forces you arent in charge. How in the hell are you going to get the troops, tanks, and more importantly the logistics in place? This would be Desert Storm, and that build up took months, with perfectly safe supply lines. Just drop a few nukes hey? Sure, maybe you keep saying that after they drop a couple on Seattle and LA -

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics