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Subject: Current Carrier design is obsolete & can be easily sunk.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 10:40:56 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.

 

 



Get used to disappointment.
 
Quote    Reply

KlubMarcus       10/15/2007 10:46:45 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 trengths.




 




 





 






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 -




Maybe you should learn to read. I never stated that we were going to take all of china, quite the opposite! Just some bases in the littorals. You're thinking Desert Storm? You're view is totally wrong. Think more like the Battle of Britain where a mainland power unsuccessfully tried to take over an island power. We already have BMD on land and at sea, and even our allies do to. So what if they take out LA and Seattle? They'll kill a bunch of hippies, no biggie. As I stated, we were willing to do more and lose more against the Soviet Bloc. That makes the chicoms CHUMP CHANGE in comparison.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/15/2007 10:48:28 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.

 

 




Get used to disappointment.

I'm more concerned for people I know who are in the USN who might be exposed to people like you.
You're demonstrated a spectacular lack of comprehension of whats required to deploy assets in a timely manner
You've demonstrated no understanding of the logistical implications and delimiters of what the USN actually faces in the real world
You've got no idea of the geographical limitations involved (Hint - your comment about wandering through the Straits demonstrates that you have no idea what is actually underwater there as of today)  The USN wouldn't send a dinghy through the straits let alone a strike force, and yet you vaingloriously trivialise it as though its a potential american pond viv a vis the mantra of the US 5th Fleet in the Cold War
 
Your response has been based on we're better badder stronger and the enemy are incompetent.
 
Perhaps you need to look at some of the USN reports where there is clear concern that the tempo of change is NOT to a USN advantage.  The US is reaching a tipping point.  If the professionals are banging the alarm bells, then I wonder why you are so blase' about it.
 

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

KlubMarcus       10/15/2007 11:00:08 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.



 



 






Get used to disappointment.


I'm more concerned for people I know who are in the USN who might be exposed to people like you.

You're demonstrated a spectacular lack of comprehension of whats required to deploy assets in a timely manner

You've demonstrated no understanding of the logistical implications and delimiters of what the USN actually faces in the real world

You've got no idea of the geographical limitations involved (Hint - your comment about wandering through the Straits demonstrates that you have no idea what is actually underwater there as of today)  The USN wouldn't send a dinghy through the straits let alone a strike force, and yet you vaingloriously trivialise it as though its a potential american pond viv a vis the mantra of the US 5th Fleet in the Cold War

 

Your response has been based on we're better badder stronger and the enemy are incompetent.

 

Perhaps you need to look at some of the USN reports where there is clear concern that the tempo of change is NOT to a USN advantage.  The US is reaching a tipping point.  If the professionals are banging the alarm bells, then I wonder why you are so blase' about it.

 


 

 



The professionals are ringing the alarm bells because they want Congress to hear because Congress controls the budget. I'm nonchalant about it because the chicoms aren't willing to lose Beijing, Shanghai, and other metropolitan areas in exchange for Taiwan. So they aren't going to go nuclear because they know the end result. So it will be conventional, and the US military has the advantage if it stays conventional because the chicoms will have the problem all continental powers have: incompetence in aquiring/holding onto gains across water. Even on land the chicoms are incompetent: India, Russia, and Vietnam gave them SERIOUS headaches in (relatively speaking) limited wars; they could only pacify Tibetan monks. Then there's the factor of a popular uprising from a scared, confused, and angry chinese population if china started the war. Just imagine how much of the chinese military will be tied down holding a billion questioning minds and moving bodies!
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/15/2007 11:08:58 PM


The professionals are ringing the alarm bells because they want Congress to hear because Congress controls the budget.

Thats a lazy and convenient argument.
 
Look at force disposition
Look at force structure
Look at current capability against the emergent threats
Look at current build rates
Look at the relevance of future projects like LCS which in real terms are designed for another war - and not a maritime war against a country that in 15 years time will be a real blue water power.
Look at what advantages that the USN and NATO against the Sovs and Warsaw Pact and then seriously question whether the USN/Allies hold the same advantages against the PLAN now - and in 15 years time.
 
Is the USN the biggest bad boy on the block?  you betcha.  Can he sustain it under current developments? nope.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

KlubMarcus       10/15/2007 11:16:43 PM




The professionals are ringing the alarm bells because they want Congress to hear because Congress controls the budget.


Thats a lazy and convenient argument.

 

Look at force disposition

Look at force structure

Look at current capability against the emergent threats

Look at current build rates

Look at the relevance of future projects like LCS which in real terms are designed for another war - and not a maritime war against a country that in 15 years time will be a real blue water power.

Look at what advantages that the USN and NATO against the Sovs and Warsaw Pact and then seriously question whether the USN/Allies hold the same advantages against the PLAN now - and in 15 years time.

 

Is the USN the biggest bad boy on the block?  you betcha.  Can he sustain it under current developments? nope.

 

 



Then let me hit you with a FACT. The chicoms do not have a SINGLE aircraft carrier. So they are a LONG way to go before becoming a blue water navy. Then once they have a carrier or two, they become vulnerable to all the FEARMONGERING being thrown at the US Navy. Once again I have proven that whatever the PLAN can do, we can counter. Imagine a chinese carrier on fire across her entire lenghth! The chicoms might start smoking opium heavily after that loss, and then we send in the Royal Navy to finish them off.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/15/2007 11:33:58 PM


Then let me hit you with a FACT. The chicoms do not have a SINGLE aircraft carrier. So they are a LONG way to go before becoming a blue water navy. Then once they have a carrier or two, they become vulnerable to all the FEARMONGERING being thrown at the US Navy. Once again I have proven that whatever the PLAN can do, we can counter. Imagine a chinese carrier on fire across her entire lenghth! The chicoms might start smoking opium heavily after that loss, and then we send in the Royal Navy to finish them off.


Seriously, you need to demonstrate that you're an adult.  You haven't proved anything. You're reinforcing that you actually don't have a clue as to what is really involved when you throw out these simplistic solutions.  Carriers are not the defining tool of power for every country.  You're arguing about warfare between a maritime power and a continental power that is not restricted on issues of resupply.
 
If you cannot understand basic concepts why do you expect any of us to take you seriously?
 
Your above comment immediately demonstrates that you actually know nothing of the current PLAN philosophy of fighting in their EEZ.
 
In addition, there is a very real concern that once the chinese get their guidance systems and targetting systems merged, then any carrier within SLBM/IRBM range will become a meaningful target. 12 months ago we thought it was impossible, now the view is that they could be less than 3-5 years away.
 
Underestimating your enemy and hubris by assoc will kill more US sailors than any contact event.
 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber       10/15/2007 11:39:47 PM
Once again I have proven that whatever the PLAN can do, we can counter
 
GFAust is a bright chap with a little experience in the Chinese arena.  I am always interested in what he says about these topics.
 
Onto Chinese carriers and what we can counter...... The Chinese are building up for a battle in Taiwan and most of the fight will be fought in places like the Lincoln bedroom, not in the Taiwanese straights. The PRC achieved a credible threat against US by buying it from Bill & Hillary with assistance from Ron Brown and Loral. Very Asian.
 
In terms of a military threat they are not going to challenge US in blue water but muddy littorals where our advantage simply does not exist. We have to project from the perimeter while being threatened by subs and counter air. The majority of the worlds military planners are gaming US to be defeated in our free press and in the halls of congress. That is an easier win than trying to kill the giant sword to sword. Very Machiavellian.
 
Back to Chinese carriers, if the PRC dogs are successful in negating the US carriers diplomatically a couple of their own will be quite useful in closing a deal against the Taiwanese. Carriers also make for good saber rattling in case any neighbors get itchy about the new status quo.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim       10/16/2007 9:46:42 AM
In addition, there is a very real concern that once the chinese get their guidance systems and targetting systems merged, then any carrier within SRBM/IRBM range will become a meaningful target. 12 months ago we thought it was impossible, now the view is that they could be less than 3-5 years away.
 
 
Finally, gf admits it in print!  Welcome to the club (which, BTW, was founded more than just 12 months ago).  :-)
 
However, regarding the overall tone of the last dozen posts, I think gf is taking a surprisingly negative tone.  I can only assume that the scenarios that are being envisioned that are the basis for KM's and gf's opinions are significantly different.  I say that because if we're talking about something starting three months from now after we receive one month's worth of strategic warning, I doubt their will be anything PLAN still afloat in the Taiwan Strait after one week of war--as opposed to if we're talking about something starting ten years from now with only 24 hours notice in which case the Chinese may well achieve sufficient gains on Taiwan to cause Taiwanese surrender before we fully deploy to try to kick them off the island.
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       10/16/2007 10:47:23 AM


Finally, gf admits it in print!  Welcome to the club (which, BTW, was founded more than just 12 months ago).  :-)

However, regarding the overall tone of the last dozen posts, I think gf is taking a surprisingly negative tone.  I can only assume that the scenarios that are being envisioned that are the basis for KM's and gf's opinions are significantly different.  I say that because if we're talking about something starting three months from now after we receive one month's worth of strategic warning, I doubt their will be anything PLAN still afloat in the Taiwan Strait after one week of war--as opposed to if we're talking about something starting ten years from now with only 24 hours notice in which case the Chinese may well achieve sufficient gains on Taiwan to cause Taiwanese surrender before we fully deploy to try to kick them off the island.
 

well, I guess I've avoided public comment about PLA potential capability because I didn't want to fan the fires - there's a tendency for the "why worry we will kill em all brigade" to pop their heads up.  On the other hand you know that I am far from being a subscriber to Sids perception of fighting the oriental oligarch....
as you also know, I don't subscribe to the passionate simplistic chess games (which km has been exuberantly espousing as though all is a tactical given).  I also didn't engage in an evolving scenario as to my mind the sophistication of response was already geared to a preferred outcome rather than take a considered approach and be alert to the fact that the enemy is not always a moron and will not behave in the way that you want or expect them to.  China is a good case in point when one considers that as erratic as some of their development has been, they do have a very considered approach to their evolution in military affairs (as opposed to RMA)

IMV what will kill more people on the blue side is hubris rather than tactical incompetency or platform failure, and specifically a failure to understand the mindset of the opposing side.
 
Can the US and allies clean chinas clock?  undoubtedly, - for me thats not the issue though - the issue is to do it with the least amount of self harm inflicted upon our own forces due to sectional tactical misunderstanding that the political will and intent on red forces side will hold some nasty surprises and that we should assume that its a cake walk.
 
like any conflict in history, there will probably be a series of strategic and political precursors that should send warning bells.  one hopes that no one on blue side is asleep at the wheel.
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics