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Subject: Current Carrier design is obsolete & can be easily sunk.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
Yimmy       9/28/2007 5:56:18 PM
You mean our carriers aren't utterly invulnerable to enemy action? 

....Damn, I guess we best get rid of them all.

Come to think of it, our soldiers aren't invulnerable to enemy action either are they?

....Perhaps we should get rid of them too?

Hell, maybe we should just call a "time out" and let the enemy have it all.

 
Quote    Reply

HYPOCENTER       9/28/2007 7:17:29 PM

Alright, I’m not advocating we “junk” them….. that's an extreme position to take. What I am saying is that, the current doctrine of Super Carriers might not be the smartest way to go. With the next generation of super carriers preparing to be built soon…. now would be the time to change direction.

The author mentions a submersible carrier concept, but I believe that is simply beyond the realm of possibility and more science fiction that reality.

The best solution, I think, would be to build many small carriers. Doing so will accomplish several things: (1) it allows us to be in more places at once, thus expanding overall capability,  (2) smaller carrier means easier to defend, increasing survivability and (3) reduces the strategic/tactical impact if one is sunk…. In short, by not placing all of our eggs in one basket we risk less.

In this asymmetrical world, an asymmetrical carrier is what’s needed. Giant super carriers are just giant super targets in this day and age…..

 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       9/28/2007 7:23:22 PM

 Giant super carriers are just giant super targets in this day and age…..


Which is why we have picket ships surrounding them in the form of destroyers and frigates, who's role it is to act as sacrificial lambs for the carrier (and so did HMS Sheffield and many others in the past).  If all your eggs are in one basket, you only have the one basket to protect.  Of course if you fail to protect your basket you are lost, however had we lost one of our two baskets in the Falklands we would have still lost, and it is easier to protect the one.  All a matter of chosen doctrine at the end of the day, but big carriers have other advantages, such as the ability to carry bigger aircraft.

The RN has moved from a navy operating both large and small carriers, to one operating three small carriers (through political constraint), and is now heading to having two large carriers.  I think this is a matter of "lesson learned".

 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       9/28/2007 7:34:04 PM
An invulnerable super weapons have never existed.Neither the Hood nor the Bismarck.
Of course some nations can achieve an hit on one or even several US carriers.
But how much? Less than ten nations for sure.
The only debate should be if it is better to have 12 *100 000 tons carrier or 18 *55 000 tons and spread assets in more numerous hulls, and what are tactics and systems to limit vulnerability.
 
Quote    Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan       9/28/2007 9:07:42 PM
Why even go to the effort of sinking the carrier when it would take even fewer missiles to knock out the flight deck and a couple of torpedoes to knock out the propulsion.  The carrier is as good as dead and even better propaganda as  $10 billion USD driftwood.
 
Quote    Reply

hybrid       9/28/2007 9:26:22 PM

Why even go to the effort of sinking the carrier when it would take even fewer missiles to knock out the flight deck and a couple of torpedoes to knock out the propulsion.  The carrier is as good as dead and even better propaganda as  $10 billion USD driftwood.


Because CBGs are and were designed to handle Soviet Union style multiple swarm missile attacks? Seriously even in this day and age you're still talking about chucking hundreds of missiles at a CBG all the while hoping your attack group doesn't get swatted outta the sky or that your hunter subs dont get blown outta the water. From what I understand the threat level hasn't gone up since then, but rather down in the sense that no one has even the capacity to reach what the former Soviet Union was planning to do to hit a CBG.
 
So that being said unless someone feels like chucking a few hundred ballistic missiles at a CBG and watch all hell break loose at the potential backlash I don't think CBGs and the carriers themselves are in very much danger.
 
Quote    Reply

FJV       9/29/2007 7:10:45 AM
You have to have vunerable carriers, because there is no other type of ship that can do the carrier's job.








 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       9/29/2007 7:21:35 AM

An invulnerable super weapons have never existed.Neither the Hood nor the Bismarck.

Of course some nations can achieve an hit on one or even several US carriers.

But how much? Less than ten nations for sure.

The only debate should be if it is better to have 12 *100 000 tons carrier or 18 *55 000 tons and spread assets in more numerous hulls, and what are tactics and systems to limit vulnerability.


Only five nations can mount a serious threat.
And you as usual don't know what the HELL you write. SIZE and POWER matters, cretin.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Herald1234       9/29/2007 9:37:30 AM

Alright, I’m not advocating we “junk” them….. that's an extreme position to take. What I am
saying is that, the current doctrine of Super Carriers might not be the
smartest way to go. With the next generation of super carriers preparing to be built soon….
now would be the time to change direction.


The author mentions a submersible carrier concept, but I believe
that is simply beyond the realm of possibility and more science fiction that
reality.


The best solution, I think, would be to build many small
carriers. Doing so will accomplish several things: (1) it allows us to be in
more places at once, thus expanding overall capability,  (2) smaller carrier
means easier to defend, increasing survivability and (3) reduces the strategic/tactical impact if one is
sunk…. In short, by not placing all of our eggs in one basket we risk less.


In this asymmetrical world, an asymmetrical carrier is what’s
needed. Giant super carriers are just giant super targets in this day and age…..


And that didn't clue you in that he was a bozo?
He at least makes more sense than French Stratege, but that isn't saying much.
 
At the very least think about how hard it is to peel an onion defense and engage an enemy with electronic countermeasures and DEW weapons.
 
Also remember that these ships were designed and are designed to survive near misses by ATOMIC BOMBs.
 
Once again; SIZE matters.
 
Herald 

 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       9/29/2007 10:00:37 AM
Herald
Nations who have skill and numbers to sink at least one USA carrier (mainly with competent crews and good subs):
Russia, UK, France, Greece, China, India, Japan, Australia, probably Sweden or Germany...
I think that you look as a cretin now...
I has already told you: check and think before posting!
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics