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Subject: Current Carrier design is obsolete & can be easily sunk.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: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT
caltrop    Over / Under   9/28/2007 3:46:17 PM
I'd set the Over / Under before FS posts at 2 hours.  I'll put $10 on the under.
 
 
Yep, the demise is of the Carrier is any day now.  Wait, the phone is ringing......
 
 
1948 called and the Strategic Air Command says stop using using their doctrine.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    You mean this IDIOT?   9/28/2007 3:49:49 PM
 
David M. Crane is a professor of law at Syracuse University. He previously served in the United States government for more than 30 years. Past key legal positions include director of the Office of Intelligence Review, Department of Defense Inspector General; assistant general counsel for the Defense Intelligence Agency; and Waldemar A. Solf Professor of International Law at the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's School. From 2002 to 2005 Crane served as chief prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, an international war crimes tribunal.
 
Crredibility in matters defense, ZERO. He's a frakking lawyer for crying out loud and not a very good one as the people of Sierra leone will attest.
 
For him to pontificate about mattewrs naval is LUDRICROUS.
 
He can't even work the vectors out, nor does he know the actual technology in play and I'm supposed tom take him seriously?
 
Do much better.
 
Herald
http://insct.syr.edu/Academic_Programs/Executive_Education/Exec_Ed_Images/DCrane.jpg" width=83 border=0>
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    You mean this IDIOT?   9/28/2007 3:49:53 PM
 
David M. Crane is a professor of law at Syracuse University. He previously served in the United States government for more than 30 years. Past key legal positions include director of the Office of Intelligence Review, Department of Defense Inspector General; assistant general counsel for the Defense Intelligence Agency; and Waldemar A. Solf Professor of International Law at the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's School. From 2002 to 2005 Crane served as chief prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, an international war crimes tribunal.
 
Crredibility in matters defense, ZERO. He's a frakking lawyer for crying out loud and not a very good one as the people of Sierra leone will attest.
 
For him to pontificate about mattewrs naval is LUDRICROUS.
 
He can't even work the vectors out, nor does he know the actual technology in play and I'm supposed tom take him seriously?
 
Do much better.
 
Herald
http://insct.syr.edu/Academic_Programs/Executive_Education/Exec_Ed_Images/DCrane.jpg" width=83 border=0>
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    You mean this IDIOT?   9/28/2007 3:50:00 PM
 
David M. Crane is a professor of law at Syracuse University. He previously served in the United States government for more than 30 years. Past key legal positions include director of the Office of Intelligence Review, Department of Defense Inspector General; assistant general counsel for the Defense Intelligence Agency; and Waldemar A. Solf Professor of International Law at the U.S. Army Judge Advocate General's School. From 2002 to 2005 Crane served as chief prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, an international war crimes tribunal.
 
Crredibility in matters defense, ZERO. He's a frakking lawyer for crying out loud and not a very good one as the people of Sierra leone will attest.
 
For him to pontificate about mattewrs naval is LUDRICROUS.
 
He can't even work the vectors out, nor does he know the actual technology in play and I'm supposed tom take him seriously?
 
Do much better.
 
Herald
http://insct.syr.edu/Academic_Programs/Executive_Education/Exec_Ed_Images/DCrane.jpg" width=83 border=0>
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234    O hate this buggy boards software!   9/28/2007 3:59:27 PM
I just brushed the damned button!
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

caltrop       9/28/2007 4:04:36 PM

I just brushed the damned button!

 

Herald



I just thought you were trying to make your point. :)
 
Thanks, I was wondering what the cred of the author.
 
Quote    Reply

HYPOCENTER       9/28/2007 4:30:12 PM

Herald1234, the author aside -- what do you think of his points? I'm not exactly an Admiral or anything-- truthfully I'm not as well versed as most in naval matters, but my observation is that the author’s overall point about carrier vulnerability is in fact true.

As I see it, proliferation of high-tech anti ship missiles will make it incredibly difficult for Super Carriers to operate by limiting their area of operation, thus devaluing their effectiveness.

And I do not see a way around 20-100 or more anti-ship missiles being fired at once on a carrier. Like the author says, there really isn't a counter for this.... it's improbable that the fleet will be able to stop/intercept 20-100 anti-ship missiles. The best way to get past the fleets current defense systems is by simply overwhelming them, and every nation knows it. It's a simple equation really; nation y lobs more missiles than fleet x has countermeasures for and it’s game over. And remember; only ONE has to get through for the Carrier to be lost. And in all likely-hood, at least one will.

What say you?

 
Quote    Reply

caltrop       9/28/2007 5:06:40 PM
And I do not see a way around 20-100 or more anti-ship missiles being fired at
once on a carrier. Like the author says, there really isn't a counter for
this.... it's improbable that the fleet will be able to stop/intercept 20-100
anti-ship missiles. The best way to get past the fleets current defense systems
is by simply overwhelming them, and every nation knows it. It's a simple
equation really; nation y lobs more missiles than fleet x has countermeasures for
and it’s game over. And remember; only ONE has to get through for the Carrier
to be lost. And in all likely-hood, at least one will.



What say you?

This assumes that anti-missile defenses won't continue to evolve.
For a country like Iran, don't they have to know pretty precisely where the carrier is?  He cites a faked UAV surveliiance?
 
To get one or more through, would the attacker not have to concentrate the missiles and coordinate the launches to saturate the carrier's defenses?
 
In the event that hostilities commence, are not the missiles themselves subject to attack?
 
Seems a bit of a biased argument. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

HYPOCENTER       9/28/2007 5:26:00 PM

I agree --- that the author’s reference to the purported “UAV” going undetected and breaking through the carrier group’s defenses is weird, as I thought it was commonly known that the source (iran) is widely unbelievable. It hurts his argument for sure.  

But back to the other point: Anyone who was going to use anti-ship missiles in such numbers would no doubt go through great lengths to hide them….It should be assumed that they would be used “unconventionally”. Think counter-insurgency warfare on the high seas…. I doubt all could be found. Especially considering that they would more than likely be dispersed onto small boats scattered around the coast. If Millennium Challenge 02 is any indication as to how this would play out then the outcome should be clear.   

And other threats exist too…. such as a Shkvul-type weapon. And how about how several incidences where diesel subs were able to get near Brittan’s and USA’s carriers?

 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       9/28/2007 5:46:12 PM

Herald1234, the author aside -- what do you think of his
points? I'm not exactly an Admiral or anything-- truthfully I'm not as well versed
as most in naval matters, but my observation is that the author’s overall point
about carrier vulnerability is in fact true.



As I see it, proliferation of high-tech anti ship missiles will make it
incredibly difficult for Super Carriers to operate by limiting their area of
operation, thus devaluing their effectiveness.



And I do not see a way around 20-100 or more anti-ship missiles being fired at
once on a carrier. Like the author says, there really isn't a counter for
this.... it's improbable that the fleet will be able to stop/intercept 20-100
anti-ship missiles. The best way to get past the fleets current defense systems
is by simply overwhelming them, and every nation knows it. It's a simple
equation really; nation y lobs more missiles than fleet x has countermeasures for
and it’s game over. And remember; only ONE has to get through for the Carrier
to be lost. And in all likely-hood, at least one will.



What say you?

AShM...............defending aircraft/rockets/electronic countermeasures/lasers. Manageable-probably defeatable.
Torpedoes ................................bodyguard subs and other measures. Submarines are the only thing that frighten me and the only subs that frighten me; if we adopt correct tactics are FAST silent subs that can pace our task forces.
 
Supercavitating torpedoes are a crockful of BS that you can easily dodge.
 
Its the fast track lead updating wakehoming quiet pumpjet torpedoes with the really good acoustic discriminators and magnetic fusing that terrify me.  
That is for what you have to watch out, but it'll take more torpedoes than a standard sub can salvo launch to even hit a carrier much less sink her. Ever hear of USN Banzai tactics? That is where in the last extremity the close air defense body  guard ship in trail astern of the carrier, if it has too, eats the torpedo salvo rather than let the carrier be hit. That is of course if it looks like the torpedo defensive measures fail. There are at least four things the US could try if the fish are detected, provided you have time to set up, but naturally I'm not goingn to talk about it here.
 
Still when all is said and done, submarines scare the hell out of me, if I'm a carrier captain.
 
Herald.    
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics