Is our Navy losing their dominance? (1 Viewer)

[fantasycurse42]

Interesting read from a retired Navy Captain about our loss of range and how our Aircraft Carriers could be sitting ducks.

There are prob only 2 or 3 users who can really speak to this and I am curious how to interpret the article. Also wondering if this author has some type of hidden agenda here.

Pretty important that we keep our dominance on the water.

I'm sure not to many people are interested in this stuff, but a good read IMO.

 

[Mario Kart]

I'm pretty sure we're a long way from losing any dominance when it comes to the Navy. What kind of red herring is this?

 

[cstu]

If we go to war with China - who has 50-75 ICBMs - the range of the aircraft aboard our carriers are the least of our problems.

 

[James Daulton]

Don't the carriers have smart weapons and things like rail guns to shoot down missiles and such threats?

 

[fantasycurse42]

Alright DD, differences aside, you're prob the forums most knowledgeable on this stuff... I'm sure there are a handful of others interested on this as well.

 

[Fennis]

There are prob only 2 or 3 users who can really speak to this

Yep. you are right. Glad I can help out.

The short answer to your questions is "no."

The longer answer, in spoiler tags so our friends on mobile don't have to scroll so much:

Spoiler

"nope"

 

[Officer Pete Malloy]

There are prob only 2 or 3 users who can really speak to this

Yep. you are right. Glad I can help out.

The short answer to your questions is "no."

The longer answer, in spoiler tags so our friends on mobile don't have to scroll so much:

Spoiler

"nope"

Nope

 

[Vanilla Guerrilla]

Who needs a navy when we can drone the #### out of anyone anywhere on Earth. It's like asking if our horse cavalry is obsolete.

 

[FUBAR]

Who needs a navy when we can drone the #### out of anyone anywhere on Earth. It's like asking if our horse cavalry is obsolete.

The Navy does a lot more than bomb ####.

 

[Fennis]

There are prob only 2 or 3 users who can really speak to this

Yep. you are right. Glad I can help out.

The short answer to your questions is "no."

The longer answer, in spoiler tags so our friends on mobile don't have to scroll so much:

Spoiler

"nope"

Spoiler

Nope

A little known fact is that every naval officer from Annapolis has to have at least 500 hours of battleship experience before they graduate from the Naval Academy. These guys are tough as nails to beat in any kind of tournament play.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Who needs a navy when we can drone the #### out of anyone anywhere on Earth. It's like asking if our horse cavalry is obsolete.

The Navy does a lot more than bomb ####.

If the carriers can only get so close to places and the planes only have so much range, it would seem like a problem. I honestly have no clue and I think 99% of the people in here are just shooting from the hip.

 

[Bucky86]

There's only one way to find out!!!

 

[NCCommish]

Well I'm not the Doctor but I do a bit of reading. First off the place this was written for is known for it's harboring of hawkish Dems and Neo-Cons so keep that in mind.

Now the threat they are trying to work you up over, the DF-21D, has never been properly field tested to our knowledge. China says they are deployed yet we have no proof they work. Further we already are planning on ways to neutralize them just in case. We changed the type of ships we were building to start including ABM ships. We are working on electronic counter measures. And there are plans in place to hit the launch sites with cruise missiles in a first strike if stuff gets real. And the missile isn't just a shoot it and it does it's thing. It takes about 15 minutes to get to target since it's ballistic and actually has to reenter the atmosphere from space to hit anything. So it requires re-targetting as ships move and it is coming in. It either requires human command and control or relies on some sort of sensor array. Both of which are open to disruption by various countermeasures.

Remember how I said it was ballistic? To us it would look like a nuclear launch. We would likely retaliate with a real nuclear launch of our own. Something China is in no way ready to counter much less survive. It would take big balls for them to launch it and see how we responded.

Lastly it's far more likely that the missile is a bluff. Just the thought of losing a carrier may be enough to keep us out of some kind of secondary issue where China is pulling something but it doesn't affect us to the level of going all out. And lots of people in the US have a vested interest in playing up the bluff. Until we see it work it's not worth completely revamping our strategy for dealing with the world we have today. Nor does it make carriers obsolete.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Well I'm not the Doctor but I do a bit of reading. First off the place this was written for is known for it's harboring of hawkish Dems and Neo-Cons so keep that in mind.

Now the threat they are trying to work you up over, the DF-21D, has never been properly field tested to our knowledge. China says they are deployed yet we have no proof they work. Further we already are planning on ways to neutralize them just in case. We changed the type of ships we were building to start including ABM ships. We are working on electronic counter measures. And there are plans in place to hit the launch sites with cruise missiles in a first strike if stuff gets real. And the missile isn't just a shoot it and it does it's thing. It takes about 15 minutes to get to target since it's ballistic and actually has to reenter the atmosphere from space to hit anything. So it requires re-targetting as ships move and it is coming in. It either requires human command and control or relies on some sort of sensor array. Both of which are open to disruption by various countermeasures.

Remember how I said it was ballistic? To us it would look like a nuclear launch. We would likely retaliate with a real nuclear launch of our own. Something China is in no way ready to counter much less survive. It would take big balls for them to launch it and see how we responded.

Lastly it's far more likely that the missile is a bluff. Just the thought of losing a carrier may be enough to keep us out of some kind of secondary issue where China is pulling something but it doesn't affect us to the level of going all out. And lots of people in the US have a vested interest in playing up the bluff. Until we see it work it's not worth completely revamping our strategy for dealing with the world we have today. Nor does it make carriers obsolete.

Is our technology still way out in front or is the gap narrowing quickly?

 

[Aerial Assault]

Every so often some retired military officer - usually one below general officer or flag officer rank as here - writes one of these alarmist pieces.

Carriers don't travel alone. They go in strike groups with at least one AEGIS cruiser, usually two Burke-class destroyers and a couple of frigates that have extensive anti-missile missile capability and CIWS (close-in weapons systems), essentially radar-guided machine guns for shooting down these sorts of anti-ship missiles. China's working on countermeasures, but so are we, constantly. This doesn't even take into account what various Skunk Works projects might be underway.

I doubt any of this will ever become more than hypothetical, but I'll bet on us.

 

[fantasycurse42]

Every so often some retired military officer - usually one below general officer or flag officer rank as here - writes one of these alarmist pieces.

Carriers don't travel alone. They go in strike groups with at least one AEGIS cruiser, usually two Burke-class destroyers and a couple of frigates that have extensive anti-missile missile capability and CIWS (close-in weapons systems), essentially radar-guided machine guns for shooting down these sorts of anti-ship missiles. China's working on countermeasures, but so are we, constantly. This doesn't even take into account what various Skunk Works projects might be underway.

I doubt any of this will ever become more than hypothetical, but I'll bet on us.

IDK, prob not in the next 5-10 years, but who knows what happens in 20, 50, or 100 years

 

[Aerial Assault]

Every so often some retired military officer - usually one below general officer or flag officer rank as here - writes one of these alarmist pieces.

Carriers don't travel alone. They go in strike groups with at least one AEGIS cruiser, usually two Burke-class destroyers and a couple of frigates that have extensive anti-missile missile capability and CIWS (close-in weapons systems), essentially radar-guided machine guns for shooting down these sorts of anti-ship missiles. China's working on countermeasures, but so are we, constantly. This doesn't even take into account what various Skunk Works projects might be underway.

I doubt any of this will ever become more than hypothetical, but I'll bet on us.

IDK, prob not in the next 5-10 years, but who knows what happens in 20, 50, or 100 years

Understood, but I remember reading alarmist pieces like this about 20 years ago (and even longer ago, pre-Internet), discussing how our navy couldn't compete with the Chinese. We're still here. It's a legit topic for discussion for sure, but not really any cause for true concern.

 

[NCCommish]

Well I'm not the Doctor but I do a bit of reading. First off the place this was written for is known for it's harboring of hawkish Dems and Neo-Cons so keep that in mind.

Now the threat they are trying to work you up over, the DF-21D, has never been properly field tested to our knowledge. China says they are deployed yet we have no proof they work. Further we already are planning on ways to neutralize them just in case. We changed the type of ships we were building to start including ABM ships. We are working on electronic counter measures. And there are plans in place to hit the launch sites with cruise missiles in a first strike if stuff gets real. And the missile isn't just a shoot it and it does it's thing. It takes about 15 minutes to get to target since it's ballistic and actually has to reenter the atmosphere from space to hit anything. So it requires re-targetting as ships move and it is coming in. It either requires human command and control or relies on some sort of sensor array. Both of which are open to disruption by various countermeasures.

Remember how I said it was ballistic? To us it would look like a nuclear launch. We would likely retaliate with a real nuclear launch of our own. Something China is in no way ready to counter much less survive. It would take big balls for them to launch it and see how we responded.

Lastly it's far more likely that the missile is a bluff. Just the thought of losing a carrier may be enough to keep us out of some kind of secondary issue where China is pulling something but it doesn't affect us to the level of going all out. And lots of people in the US have a vested interest in playing up the bluff. Until we see it work it's not worth completely revamping our strategy for dealing with the world we have today. Nor does it make carriers obsolete.

Is our technology still way out in front or is the gap narrowing quickly?

Gap is narrowing in some areas not so much in others.

Air Power - we retain a sizable lead both in tech and quantity of aircraft.

Land based systems - pretty much a draw. They have numbers to counter tech but it's probably pretty even overall.

Naval Power- They have one carrier we have 20. We have more subs. And in general we are still considered the primary naval power at this time.

Nuclear missiles- This is all us.

Of course that is a very general list going into detail would take a lot of typing. But I think if you read around you'll find most in agreement with those points generally.

 

[FattyVM]

Every so often some retired military officer - usually one below general officer or flag officer rank as here - writes one of these alarmist pieces.

Carriers don't travel alone. They go in strike groups with at least one AEGIS cruiser, usually two Burke-class destroyers and a couple of frigates that have extensive anti-missile missile capability and CIWS (close-in weapons systems), essentially radar-guided machine guns for shooting down these sorts of anti-ship missiles. China's working on countermeasures, but so are we, constantly. This doesn't even take into account what various Skunk Works projects might be underway.

I doubt any of this will ever become more than hypothetical, but I'll bet on us.

You're also forgetting the SSN contingent.

 

[RCon]

According to this, Navy hasn't lost to Army since 2001. No, they aren't losing their dominance.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Well I'm not the Doctor but I do a bit of reading. First off the place this was written for is known for it's harboring of hawkish Dems and Neo-Cons so keep that in mind.

Now the threat they are trying to work you up over, the DF-21D, has never been properly field tested to our knowledge. China says they are deployed yet we have no proof they work. Further we already are planning on ways to neutralize them just in case. We changed the type of ships we were building to start including ABM ships. We are working on electronic counter measures. And there are plans in place to hit the launch sites with cruise missiles in a first strike if stuff gets real. And the missile isn't just a shoot it and it does it's thing. It takes about 15 minutes to get to target since it's ballistic and actually has to reenter the atmosphere from space to hit anything. So it requires re-targetting as ships move and it is coming in. It either requires human command and control or relies on some sort of sensor array. Both of which are open to disruption by various countermeasures.

Remember how I said it was ballistic? To us it would look like a nuclear launch. We would likely retaliate with a real nuclear launch of our own. Something China is in no way ready to counter much less survive. It would take big balls for them to launch it and see how we responded.

Lastly it's far more likely that the missile is a bluff. Just the thought of losing a carrier may be enough to keep us out of some kind of secondary issue where China is pulling something but it doesn't affect us to the level of going all out. And lots of people in the US have a vested interest in playing up the bluff. Until we see it work it's not worth completely revamping our strategy for dealing with the world we have today. Nor does it make carriers obsolete.

Is our technology still way out in front or is the gap narrowing quickly?

Gap is narrowing in some areas not so much in others.

Air Power - we retain a sizable lead both in tech and quantity of aircraft.

Land based systems - pretty much a draw. They have numbers to counter tech but it's probably pretty even overall.

Naval Power- They have one carrier we have 20. We have more subs. And in general we are still considered the primary naval power at this time.

Nuclear missiles- This is all us.

Of course that is a very general list going into detail would take a lot of typing. But I think if you read around you'll find most in agreement with those points generally.

We don't have 20 aircraft carriers; we have 10, with two under construction and three in "inactive reserve." Also, sheer numbers in terms of manpower (assuming that's what you meant), i.e., however many soldiers the Chinese have in their army, really means little in modern combat scenarios.

Other than that I agree with everything you wrote, particularly the fact that most analysts are of the same mindset.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Every so often some retired military officer - usually one below general officer or flag officer rank as here - writes one of these alarmist pieces.

Carriers don't travel alone. They go in strike groups with at least one AEGIS cruiser, usually two Burke-class destroyers and a couple of frigates that have extensive anti-missile missile capability and CIWS (close-in weapons systems), essentially radar-guided machine guns for shooting down these sorts of anti-ship missiles. China's working on countermeasures, but so are we, constantly. This doesn't even take into account what various Skunk Works projects might be underway.

I doubt any of this will ever become more than hypothetical, but I'll bet on us.

You're also forgetting the SSN contingent.

Oh, no, I didn't forget them, but I think fantasycurse's concern, or that of the article he cited, was land-based anti-ship missiles against which the CSG's surface ships with ABM and CIWS capabilities are the most relevant deterrent. The fast attack subs that are part of the CSGs provide a counter against any sea-based threat, such as from Chinese submarines, absolutely. I just didn't think that was the point of the linked article, but I did only scan it.

In any case you're right. The CSGs are serious forces to be reckoned with.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Every so often some retired military officer - usually one below general officer or flag officer rank as here - writes one of these alarmist pieces.

Yeah and you have to look at what their current job is. A lot of these retired senior officers land in what are called "think tanks" but all they are is defense lobbyists trying to get the average American to get worried about how our current military inventory is inadequate. This Captain writes this for a 501C company

Our Navy is well ahead of the Chinese who probably have the #2 Navy and they really haven't closed the gap as much as people think. The Navy offers maximum defensive and offensive flexibility because you can sit 50 miles off the coast of whatever place worries us, and have long range strike capabilities via Jets, drones, or missiles. Carriers in general probably are not what they used to be in a macro military capability sense, but the requirements of warfare have also changed.

Conventional warfare needs are something generally of the past and the current technology and equipment shift is designed to combat asymmetrical warfare targets on several fronts. If you believe China and Russia are serious conventional warfare threats, meaning they pose a risk not just directly but indirectly in proxy conflicts, then there is some credence in at least understanding our shortfalls. But under sequestration and based on the need for conventional warfare platforms, I find it difficult to believe we are going to build a bunch of new and improved carriers to bolster our current inventories. IMO the current platform works well for what we need but mistakes like paring the Joint Strike Fighter with carrier platforms does raise an eyebrow.

The seedy world of defense contracts on full display again with the F-35, as it is with the new long-range tankers we are building. If you think Wall Street types are scum, work on a major defense contract (actually those two worlds aren't as different as they may seem).

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Every so often some retired military officer - usually one below general officer or flag officer rank as here - writes one of these alarmist pieces.

Carriers don't travel alone. They go in strike groups with at least one AEGIS cruiser, usually two Burke-class destroyers and a couple of frigates that have extensive anti-missile missile capability and CIWS (close-in weapons systems), essentially radar-guided machine guns for shooting down these sorts of anti-ship missiles. China's working on countermeasures, but so are we, constantly. This doesn't even take into account what various Skunk Works projects might be underway.

I doubt any of this will ever become more than hypothetical, but I'll bet on us.

You're also forgetting the SSN contingent.

Oh, no, I didn't forget them, but I think fantasycurse's concern, or that of the article he cited, was land-based anti-ship missiles against which the CSG's surface ships with ABM and CIWS capabilities are the most relevant deterrent. The fast attack subs that are part of the CSGs provide a counter against any sea-based threat, such as from Chinese submarines, absolutely. I just didn't think that was the point of the linked article, but I did only scan it.

In any case you're right. The CSGs are serious forces to be reckoned with.

Interesting. I'm an air power guy and know ground operations some too, but I definitely don't know much about subs. What is the primary operational goal of the Chinese sub program? I would imagine it would be to compete as much with the Russians as it is with us. I know the Russians have always been considered the kings below the surface, not sure how that is all playing out now.

 

[otello]

its dominance. Carry on.

 

[NCCommish]

Well I'm not the Doctor but I do a bit of reading. First off the place this was written for is known for it's harboring of hawkish Dems and Neo-Cons so keep that in mind.

Now the threat they are trying to work you up over, the DF-21D, has never been properly field tested to our knowledge. China says they are deployed yet we have no proof they work. Further we already are planning on ways to neutralize them just in case. We changed the type of ships we were building to start including ABM ships. We are working on electronic counter measures. And there are plans in place to hit the launch sites with cruise missiles in a first strike if stuff gets real. And the missile isn't just a shoot it and it does it's thing. It takes about 15 minutes to get to target since it's ballistic and actually has to reenter the atmosphere from space to hit anything. So it requires re-targetting as ships move and it is coming in. It either requires human command and control or relies on some sort of sensor array. Both of which are open to disruption by various countermeasures.

Remember how I said it was ballistic? To us it would look like a nuclear launch. We would likely retaliate with a real nuclear launch of our own. Something China is in no way ready to counter much less survive. It would take big balls for them to launch it and see how we responded.

Lastly it's far more likely that the missile is a bluff. Just the thought of losing a carrier may be enough to keep us out of some kind of secondary issue where China is pulling something but it doesn't affect us to the level of going all out. And lots of people in the US have a vested interest in playing up the bluff. Until we see it work it's not worth completely revamping our strategy for dealing with the world we have today. Nor does it make carriers obsolete.

Is our technology still way out in front or is the gap narrowing quickly?

Gap is narrowing in some areas not so much in others.

Air Power - we retain a sizable lead both in tech and quantity of aircraft.

Land based systems - pretty much a draw. They have numbers to counter tech but it's probably pretty even overall.

Naval Power- They have one carrier we have 20. We have more subs. And in general we are still considered the primary naval power at this time.

Nuclear missiles- This is all us.

Of course that is a very general list going into detail would take a lot of typing. But I think if you read around you'll find most in agreement with those points generally.

We don't have 20 aircraft carriers; we have 10, with two under construction and three in "inactive reserve." Also, sheer numbers in terms of manpower (assuming that's what you meant), i.e., however many soldiers the Chinese have in their army, really means little in modern combat scenarios.

Other than that I agree with everything you wrote, particularly the fact that most analysts are of the same mindset.

In the United States, we endure the polite fiction that the USN’s 45,000 ton aircraft carriers are not aircraft carriers, but rather some other kind of creature. USS America is roughly the same size as the French Charles De Gaulle and the INS Vikramaditya, although a bit smaller than the RFS Admiral Kuzetsov or her Chinese sister, the Liaoning. America is considerably larger than recent aircraft-carrying ships constructed for the Korean, Japanese, and Australian navies.

This is done for political purposes when it comes time to get budget money. So we have at least 19 ships that in any other navy on earth we would consider carriers.

 

[Joe Summer]

Rarely is the question asked: "Is our Navy losing their dominance?"

 

[Aerial Assault]

Every so often some retired military officer - usually one below general officer or flag officer rank as here - writes one of these alarmist pieces.

Carriers don't travel alone. They go in strike groups with at least one AEGIS cruiser, usually two Burke-class destroyers and a couple of frigates that have extensive anti-missile missile capability and CIWS (close-in weapons systems), essentially radar-guided machine guns for shooting down these sorts of anti-ship missiles. China's working on countermeasures, but so are we, constantly. This doesn't even take into account what various Skunk Works projects might be underway.

I doubt any of this will ever become more than hypothetical, but I'll bet on us.

You're also forgetting the SSN contingent.

Oh, no, I didn't forget them, but I think fantasycurse's concern, or that of the article he cited, was land-based anti-ship missiles against which the CSG's surface ships with ABM and CIWS capabilities are the most relevant deterrent. The fast attack subs that are part of the CSGs provide a counter against any sea-based threat, such as from Chinese submarines, absolutely. I just didn't think that was the point of the linked article, but I did only scan it.

In any case you're right. The CSGs are serious forces to be reckoned with.

Interesting. I'm an air power guy and know ground operations some too, but I definitely don't know much about subs. What is the primary operational goal of the Chinese sub program? I would imagine it would be to compete as much with the Russians as it is with us. I know the Russians have always been considered the kings below the surface, not sure how that is all playing out now.

Honestly? I think it's to play games with us when we're in the South China Sea and make us think they have some credible deterrent to our carrier strike groups. Which,

 

[Aerial Assault]

Well I'm not the Doctor but I do a bit of reading. First off the place this was written for is known for it's harboring of hawkish Dems and Neo-Cons so keep that in mind.

Now the threat they are trying to work you up over, the DF-21D, has never been properly field tested to our knowledge. China says they are deployed yet we have no proof they work. Further we already are planning on ways to neutralize them just in case. We changed the type of ships we were building to start including ABM ships. We are working on electronic counter measures. And there are plans in place to hit the launch sites with cruise missiles in a first strike if stuff gets real. And the missile isn't just a shoot it and it does it's thing. It takes about 15 minutes to get to target since it's ballistic and actually has to reenter the atmosphere from space to hit anything. So it requires re-targetting as ships move and it is coming in. It either requires human command and control or relies on some sort of sensor array. Both of which are open to disruption by various countermeasures.

Remember how I said it was ballistic? To us it would look like a nuclear launch. We would likely retaliate with a real nuclear launch of our own. Something China is in no way ready to counter much less survive. It would take big balls for them to launch it and see how we responded.

Lastly it's far more likely that the missile is a bluff. Just the thought of losing a carrier may be enough to keep us out of some kind of secondary issue where China is pulling something but it doesn't affect us to the level of going all out. And lots of people in the US have a vested interest in playing up the bluff. Until we see it work it's not worth completely revamping our strategy for dealing with the world we have today. Nor does it make carriers obsolete.

Is our technology still way out in front or is the gap narrowing quickly?

Gap is narrowing in some areas not so much in others.

Air Power - we retain a sizable lead both in tech and quantity of aircraft.

Land based systems - pretty much a draw. They have numbers to counter tech but it's probably pretty even overall.

Naval Power- They have one carrier we have 20. We have more subs. And in general we are still considered the primary naval power at this time.

Nuclear missiles- This is all us.

Of course that is a very general list going into detail would take a lot of typing. But I think if you read around you'll find most in agreement with those points generally.

We don't have 20 aircraft carriers; we have 10, with two under construction and three in "inactive reserve." Also, sheer numbers in terms of manpower (assuming that's what you meant), i.e., however many soldiers the Chinese have in their army, really means little in modern combat scenarios.

Other than that I agree with everything you wrote, particularly the fact that most analysts are of the same mindset.

In the United States, we endure the polite fiction that the USN’s 45,000 ton aircraft carriers are not aircraft carriers, but rather some other kind of creature. USS America is roughly the same size as the French Charles De Gaulle and the INS Vikramaditya, although a bit smaller than the RFS Admiral Kuzetsov or her Chinese sister, the Liaoning. America is considerably larger than recent aircraft-carrying ships constructed for the Korean, Japanese, and Australian navies.

This is done for political purposes when it comes time to get budget money. So we have at least 19 ships that in any other navy on earth we would consider carriers.

The America was destroyed in 2005 during a test exercise. We have 10 carriers (all Nimitz-class), three in reserve, and two under construction. Don't take my word for it if you don't want to; check the Navy's website.

 

[Quez]

When have you ever heard anyone in the military say their budget is good & they have plenty funds for everything they want to accomplish?

 

[NCCommish]

Well I'm not the Doctor but I do a bit of reading. First off the place this was written for is known for it's harboring of hawkish Dems and Neo-Cons so keep that in mind.

Now the threat they are trying to work you up over, the DF-21D, has never been properly field tested to our knowledge. China says they are deployed yet we have no proof they work. Further we already are planning on ways to neutralize them just in case. We changed the type of ships we were building to start including ABM ships. We are working on electronic counter measures. And there are plans in place to hit the launch sites with cruise missiles in a first strike if stuff gets real. And the missile isn't just a shoot it and it does it's thing. It takes about 15 minutes to get to target since it's ballistic and actually has to reenter the atmosphere from space to hit anything. So it requires re-targetting as ships move and it is coming in. It either requires human command and control or relies on some sort of sensor array. Both of which are open to disruption by various countermeasures.

Remember how I said it was ballistic? To us it would look like a nuclear launch. We would likely retaliate with a real nuclear launch of our own. Something China is in no way ready to counter much less survive. It would take big balls for them to launch it and see how we responded.

Lastly it's far more likely that the missile is a bluff. Just the thought of losing a carrier may be enough to keep us out of some kind of secondary issue where China is pulling something but it doesn't affect us to the level of going all out. And lots of people in the US have a vested interest in playing up the bluff. Until we see it work it's not worth completely revamping our strategy for dealing with the world we have today. Nor does it make carriers obsolete.

Is our technology still way out in front or is the gap narrowing quickly?

Gap is narrowing in some areas not so much in others.

Air Power - we retain a sizable lead both in tech and quantity of aircraft.

Land based systems - pretty much a draw. They have numbers to counter tech but it's probably pretty even overall.

Naval Power- They have one carrier we have 20. We have more subs. And in general we are still considered the primary naval power at this time.

Nuclear missiles- This is all us.

Of course that is a very general list going into detail would take a lot of typing. But I think if you read around you'll find most in agreement with those points generally.

We don't have 20 aircraft carriers; we have 10, with two under construction and three in "inactive reserve." Also, sheer numbers in terms of manpower (assuming that's what you meant), i.e., however many soldiers the Chinese have in their army, really means little in modern combat scenarios.

Other than that I agree with everything you wrote, particularly the fact that most analysts are of the same mindset.

In the United States, we endure the polite fiction that the USN’s 45,000 ton aircraft carriers are not aircraft carriers, but rather some other kind of creature. USS America is roughly the same size as the French Charles De Gaulle and the INS Vikramaditya, although a bit smaller than the RFS Admiral Kuzetsov or her Chinese sister, the Liaoning. America is considerably larger than recent aircraft-carrying ships constructed for the Korean, Japanese, and Australian navies.

This is done for political purposes when it comes time to get budget money. So we have at least 19 ships that in any other navy on earth we would consider carriers.

The America was destroyed in 2005 during a test exercise. We have 10 carriers (all Nimitz-class), three in reserve, and two under construction. Don't take my word for it if you don't want to; check the Navy's website.

You may want to do some checking:

Sunday, April 13, 2014 USS America and the Role of Amphibious Assault Ships
Last Thursday, the Navy accepted delivery of the USS America, the first of the new America class of amphibious assault ships (AAS). While America is based on the design of USS Makin Island, the last of the Wasp class of AAS's, it departs in crucial ways from the design of earlier ships, having been built to act more like an aircraft carrier than a traditional AAS. These design choices are controversial, and future ships of the America class may deviate from the "Flight 0" design as new thinking evolves.

America, at 45,000 tons, will be the third largest aircraft carrier in the world, not counting the US Navy's nuclear supercarriers. It is more fitting even than with most American AAS's to refer to America as an aircraft carrier--significant compromises were made in terms of the ship's role and flexibility in order to enhance her role as a platform for Marine aviation.

So I will say again the Navy plays games with the numbers for political purposes.

 

[Aerial Assault]

Well I'm not the Doctor but I do a bit of reading. First off the place this was written for is known for it's harboring of hawkish Dems and Neo-Cons so keep that in mind.

Now the threat they are trying to work you up over, the DF-21D, has never been properly field tested to our knowledge. China says they are deployed yet we have no proof they work. Further we already are planning on ways to neutralize them just in case. We changed the type of ships we were building to start including ABM ships. We are working on electronic counter measures. And there are plans in place to hit the launch sites with cruise missiles in a first strike if stuff gets real. And the missile isn't just a shoot it and it does it's thing. It takes about 15 minutes to get to target since it's ballistic and actually has to reenter the atmosphere from space to hit anything. So it requires re-targetting as ships move and it is coming in. It either requires human command and control or relies on some sort of sensor array. Both of which are open to disruption by various countermeasures.

Remember how I said it was ballistic? To us it would look like a nuclear launch. We would likely retaliate with a real nuclear launch of our own. Something China is in no way ready to counter much less survive. It would take big balls for them to launch it and see how we responded.

Lastly it's far more likely that the missile is a bluff. Just the thought of losing a carrier may be enough to keep us out of some kind of secondary issue where China is pulling something but it doesn't affect us to the level of going all out. And lots of people in the US have a vested interest in playing up the bluff. Until we see it work it's not worth completely revamping our strategy for dealing with the world we have today. Nor does it make carriers obsolete.

Is our technology still way out in front or is the gap narrowing quickly?

Gap is narrowing in some areas not so much in others.

Air Power - we retain a sizable lead both in tech and quantity of aircraft.

Land based systems - pretty much a draw. They have numbers to counter tech but it's probably pretty even overall.

Naval Power- They have one carrier we have 20. We have more subs. And in general we are still considered the primary naval power at this time.

Nuclear missiles- This is all us.

Of course that is a very general list going into detail would take a lot of typing. But I think if you read around you'll find most in agreement with those points generally.

We don't have 20 aircraft carriers; we have 10, with two under construction and three in "inactive reserve." Also, sheer numbers in terms of manpower (assuming that's what you meant), i.e., however many soldiers the Chinese have in their army, really means little in modern combat scenarios.

Other than that I agree with everything you wrote, particularly the fact that most analysts are of the same mindset.

In the United States, we endure the polite fiction that the USN’s 45,000 ton aircraft carriers are not aircraft carriers, but rather some other kind of creature. USS America is roughly the same size as the French Charles De Gaulle and the INS Vikramaditya, although a bit smaller than the RFS Admiral Kuzetsov or her Chinese sister, the Liaoning. America is considerably larger than recent aircraft-carrying ships constructed for the Korean, Japanese, and Australian navies.

This is done for political purposes when it comes time to get budget money. So we have at least 19 ships that in any other navy on earth we would consider carriers.

The America was destroyed in 2005 during a test exercise. We have 10 carriers (all Nimitz-class), three in reserve, and two under construction. Don't take my word for it if you don't want to; check the Navy's website.

You may want to do some checking:

Sunday, April 13, 2014 USS America and the Role of Amphibious Assault Ships
Last Thursday, the Navy accepted delivery of the USS America, the first of the new America class of amphibious assault ships (AAS). While America is based on the design of USS Makin Island, the last of the Wasp class of AAS's, it departs in crucial ways from the design of earlier ships, having been built to act more like an aircraft carrier than a traditional AAS. These design choices are controversial, and future ships of the America class may deviate from the "Flight 0" design as new thinking evolves.

America, at 45,000 tons, will be the third largest aircraft carrier in the world, not counting the US Navy's nuclear supercarriers. It is more fitting even than with most American AAS's to refer to America as an aircraft carrier--significant compromises were made in terms of the ship's role and flexibility in order to enhance her role as a platform for Marine aviation.

So I will say again the Navy plays games with the numbers for political purposes.

Huh? Oh, okay - I guess you're pushing some agenda here that I'm not understanding or just arguing for the sake of doing so. The LHA/LHD/LHA( R )s are not aircraft carriers, and they're not the subject of the linked article (which was wringing hands about the range of carrier air wings).

In any case, of the amphibious assault ships you're claiming to be de facto aircraft carriers only the America - the LHA, not the CV that was destroyed ten years ago - carries more than six aircraft. The active LHDs carry six Harriers and a bunch of helos. If you really want to call the America an aircraft carrier, sure, go for it, but most Navy folks I know would, to be nice, not agree. The LHDs aren't even close. We just don't have 19 carriers as you claimed.

 

[NCCommish]

Well I'm not the Doctor but I do a bit of reading. First off the place this was written for is known for it's harboring of hawkish Dems and Neo-Cons so keep that in mind.

Now the threat they are trying to work you up over, the DF-21D, has never been properly field tested to our knowledge. China says they are deployed yet we have no proof they work. Further we already are planning on ways to neutralize them just in case. We changed the type of ships we were building to start including ABM ships. We are working on electronic counter measures. And there are plans in place to hit the launch sites with cruise missiles in a first strike if stuff gets real. And the missile isn't just a shoot it and it does it's thing. It takes about 15 minutes to get to target since it's ballistic and actually has to reenter the atmosphere from space to hit anything. So it requires re-targetting as ships move and it is coming in. It either requires human command and control or relies on some sort of sensor array. Both of which are open to disruption by various countermeasures.

Remember how I said it was ballistic? To us it would look like a nuclear launch. We would likely retaliate with a real nuclear launch of our own. Something China is in no way ready to counter much less survive. It would take big balls for them to launch it and see how we responded.

Lastly it's far more likely that the missile is a bluff. Just the thought of losing a carrier may be enough to keep us out of some kind of secondary issue where China is pulling something but it doesn't affect us to the level of going all out. And lots of people in the US have a vested interest in playing up the bluff. Until we see it work it's not worth completely revamping our strategy for dealing with the world we have today. Nor does it make carriers obsolete.

Is our technology still way out in front or is the gap narrowing quickly?

Gap is narrowing in some areas not so much in others.

Air Power - we retain a sizable lead both in tech and quantity of aircraft.

Land based systems - pretty much a draw. They have numbers to counter tech but it's probably pretty even overall.

Naval Power- They have one carrier we have 20. We have more subs. And in general we are still considered the primary naval power at this time.

Nuclear missiles- This is all us.

Of course that is a very general list going into detail would take a lot of typing. But I think if you read around you'll find most in agreement with those points generally.

We don't have 20 aircraft carriers; we have 10, with two under construction and three in "inactive reserve." Also, sheer numbers in terms of manpower (assuming that's what you meant), i.e., however many soldiers the Chinese have in their army, really means little in modern combat scenarios.

Other than that I agree with everything you wrote, particularly the fact that most analysts are of the same mindset.

In the United States, we endure the polite fiction that the USN’s 45,000 ton aircraft carriers are not aircraft carriers, but rather some other kind of creature. USS America is roughly the same size as the French Charles De Gaulle and the INS Vikramaditya, although a bit smaller than the RFS Admiral Kuzetsov or her Chinese sister, the Liaoning. America is considerably larger than recent aircraft-carrying ships constructed for the Korean, Japanese, and Australian navies.

This is done for political purposes when it comes time to get budget money. So we have at least 19 ships that in any other navy on earth we would consider carriers.

The America was destroyed in 2005 during a test exercise. We have 10 carriers (all Nimitz-class), three in reserve, and two under construction. Don't take my word for it if you don't want to; check the Navy's website.

You may want to do some checking:

Sunday, April 13, 2014 USS America and the Role of Amphibious Assault Ships
Last Thursday, the Navy accepted delivery of the USS America, the first of the new America class of amphibious assault ships (AAS). While America is based on the design of USS Makin Island, the last of the Wasp class of AAS's, it departs in crucial ways from the design of earlier ships, having been built to act more like an aircraft carrier than a traditional AAS. These design choices are controversial, and future ships of the America class may deviate from the "Flight 0" design as new thinking evolves.

America, at 45,000 tons, will be the third largest aircraft carrier in the world, not counting the US Navy's nuclear supercarriers. It is more fitting even than with most American AAS's to refer to America as an aircraft carrier--significant compromises were made in terms of the ship's role and flexibility in order to enhance her role as a platform for Marine aviation.

So I will say again the Navy plays games with the numbers for political purposes.

Huh? Oh, okay - I guess you're pushing some agenda here that I'm not understanding or just arguing for the sake of doing so. The LHA/LHD/LHA( R )s are not aircraft carriers, and they're not the subject of the linked article (which was wringing hands about the range of carrier air wings).

In any case, of the amphibious assault ships you're claiming to be de facto aircraft carriers only the America - the LHA, not the CV that was destroyed ten years ago - carries more than six aircraft. The active LHDs carry six Harriers and a bunch of helos. If you really want to call the America an aircraft carrier, sure, go for it, but most Navy folks I know would, to be nice, not agree. The LHDs aren't even close. We just don't have 19 carriers as you claimed.

First we have kind of dismissed that article for what it was, alarmist silliness.

So does it carry aircraft? Do those aircraft launch and land on it? Then it's an aircraft carrier. No it isn't a super carrier as noted. So we don't have 19 super carriers which is a very fair statement and I don't argue that at all. But it is an aircraft carrier by any definition of that term. Because it carries aircraft. If it were in some other navy we would call it an aircraft carrier, because it is.

Sorry for the tangent and semantic argument to our fellow readers. I think Aerial and I will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Aerial Assault]

First we have kind of dismissed that article for what it was, alarmist silliness.

So does it carry aircraft? Do those aircraft launch and land on it? Then it's an aircraft carrier. No it isn't a super carrier as noted. So we don't have 19 super carriers which is a very fair statement and I don't argue that at all. But it is an aircraft carrier by any definition of that term. Because it carries aircraft. If it were in some other navy we would call it an aircraft carrier, because it is.

Sorry for the tangent and semantic argument to our fellow readers. I think Aerial and I will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Yeah, not really; there's a fairly well-recognized distinction between ships that carry helicopters versus those that carry fixed-wing.

But as to the bolded, that's fine - no damage here.

 

[Christo]

It's okay, we still have the cop, the Indian, the construction worker, the cowboy, and the biker.

 

[NCCommish]

First we have kind of dismissed that article for what it was, alarmist silliness.

So does it carry aircraft? Do those aircraft launch and land on it? Then it's an aircraft carrier. No it isn't a super carrier as noted. So we don't have 19 super carriers which is a very fair statement and I don't argue that at all. But it is an aircraft carrier by any definition of that term. Because it carries aircraft. If it were in some other navy we would call it an aircraft carrier, because it is.

Sorry for the tangent and semantic argument to our fellow readers. I think Aerial and I will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Yeah, not really; there's a fairly well-recognized distinction between ships that carry helicopters versus those that carry fixed-wing.

But as to the bolded, that's fine - no damage here.

For the best.

 

[Christo]

First we have kind of dismissed that article for what it was, alarmist silliness.

So does it carry aircraft? Do those aircraft launch and land on it? Then it's an aircraft carrier. No it isn't a super carrier as noted. So we don't have 19 super carriers which is a very fair statement and I don't argue that at all. But it is an aircraft carrier by any definition of that term. Because it carries aircraft. If it were in some other navy we would call it an aircraft carrier, because it is.

Sorry for the tangent and semantic argument to our fellow readers. I think Aerial and I will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Yeah, not really; there's a fairly well-recognized distinction between ships that carry helicopters versus those that carry fixed-wing.

But as to the bolded, that's fine - no damage here.

America is the first ship of its class, replacing the Tarawa-class of amphibious assault ships. As the next generation "big-deck" amphibious ship, America will be optimized for aviation and capable of supporting current and future aircraft, such as the tilt-rotor MV-22 Osprey and the Joint Strike Fighter.

 

[matuski]

Who needs a navy when we can drone the #### out of anyone anywhere on Earth. It's like asking if our horse cavalry is obsolete.

The Navy does a lot more than bomb ####.

They are also really good swimmers.

 

[Aerial Assault]

First we have kind of dismissed that article for what it was, alarmist silliness.

So does it carry aircraft? Do those aircraft launch and land on it? Then it's an aircraft carrier. No it isn't a super carrier as noted. So we don't have 19 super carriers which is a very fair statement and I don't argue that at all. But it is an aircraft carrier by any definition of that term. Because it carries aircraft. If it were in some other navy we would call it an aircraft carrier, because it is.

Sorry for the tangent and semantic argument to our fellow readers. I think Aerial and I will just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Yeah, not really; there's a fairly well-recognized distinction between ships that carry helicopters versus those that carry fixed-wing.

But as to the bolded, that's fine - no damage here.

America is the first ship of its class, replacing the Tarawa-class of amphibious assault ships. As the next generation "big-deck" amphibious ship, America will be optimized for aviation and capable of supporting current and future aircraft, such as the tilt-rotor MV-22 Osprey and the Joint Strike Fighter.

Read what I wrote about after NCC said we have 20 aircraft carriers. We just simply don't. If you want to call America an aircraft carrier instead of an amphibious assault ship - which is really stretching things and not at all accurate in terms of Navy operations, but I'll cede the point for the sake of argument - then we have 11.

 

[jon_mx]

No one comes close to touching our Navy in capability. Now the threats to our Navy are evolving and there are serious challenges in defending it. But the entire rest of the world combined don't touch it.

 

[beer 30]

I don't recall why I ran across this before but I remember finding it fascinating. It has a thin thread of relevance to this post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country

 

[[icon]]

Subscribed because this is a topic that interests me and there are some knowledgeable folks in here .

 

[Doctor Detroit]

I don't recall why I ran across this before but I remember finding it fascinating. It has a thin thread of relevance to this post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country

India has two carriers? Aren't like 1/3 of their people starving?

 

[timschochet]

According to this, Navy hasn't lost to Army since 2001. No, they aren't losing their dominance.

I know this is a separate topic, but I've always wondered why this was so. Why does the Naval Academy generally field a much better football team than West Point? It's been that way for decades, and the talent pool should theoretically be about the same, I would think.

 

[NCCommish]

The rest of the story:

The U.S. Navy should consider cancelling the Lockheed Martin F-35C Joint Strike Fighter in favor of new long-range strike capabilities the service actually needs, according to a new report from the Center for a New American Security (CNAS).

Analyst Jerry Hendrix made the proposal in a new paper titled “Retreat from Range,” which the powerful Washington, D.C., think-tank is releasing today. He noted that since the 1950s, carrier aviation has consistently dwindled in long-range striking power, but the problem is now so acute, it threatens the relevance of the giant 100,000-ton vessels.

What should we do Jerry:

Hendrix writes: “If the Navy terminated its portion of the F-35 program, it could afford to purchase two squadrons of 12 Super Hornets (in addition to the two Super Hornet squadrons already present) to replace the two squadrons of 10 F-35Cs and purchase six squadrons of UCAVs [unmanned Combat Air Vehicle] with 16 aircraft apiece (12 strikers and four tankers) and still be able to return money to the taxpayers.”

Seems like that could be costly Jerry:

Hendrix acknowledges that there are disadvantages—there would be a price tag for research, development and initial production of a UCAV. Indeed, a long-range unmanned strike aircraft designed to have a combat radius of more than a 1,000 nautical miles will be expensive, Hendrix acknowledged. Such a machine would easily cost at least $175 million per aircraft, but it would offer much better capability than today’s platforms. “It would, however, have two to three times the unrefueled combat radius of manned fighters, several times the mission endurance, and enhanced survivability,” Hendrix wrote.

So we should spend new money to fix a problem that we aren't sure exists. But regardless of that aren't there other concerns with those UCAVs Jerry?

Hendrix acknowledged that a UCAV would have some challenges to overcome. One of those is enemy jamming and cyber attacks. There are also unresolved legal issues with an autonomous UCAV.

So it could be hacked and it isn't legal? Seems like a big issue to me.

I just wonder who wants to get paid to build those things. Just like I wonder who funds the CNAS think tank.

 

[NCCommish]

I don't recall why I ran across this before but I remember finding it fascinating. It has a thin thread of relevance to this post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country

India has two carriers? Aren't like 1/3 of their people starving?

They got them both used I believe.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

I don't recall why I ran across this before but I remember finding it fascinating. It has a thin thread of relevance to this post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country

India has two carriers? Aren't like 1/3 of their people starving?

They got them both used I believe.

UK has 0?

I thought they'd have a couple left just for tradition (and Falklands).

 

[dschuler]

I haven't read any of the comments but did read the article. Sounds like a bitter Captain that might be upset at the way he got separated. Honestly our Navy has never been more dominant than it is today. No one, and I mean no one, has even remotely close to the power we possess with one aircraft carrier. We currently have 10 nuclear powered 100,000 ton Nimitz class aircraft carriers that can fill the sky with planes in a matter of minutes, each having a more power air force than the majority of entire nations. People talk about China and others and I laugh. They are using paddle boats compared to us.

You have the remember the locations at which we are fighting. Our equipment is designed to operate in those regions. Without going into too much detail, some things have changed obviously from designs from the Cold War to operations in the gulf (water temperatures, geographical areas) Almost all of the operations are occurring in the Persian Gulf just past the strait of Hormuz. It's a small grid to operate, which is essentially why we have smaller flight zones. I can assure you that the Navy has smart and dedicated engineers than are on top of these kind of things while still maximizing their budget.

 

[NCCommish]

I don't recall why I ran across this before but I remember finding it fascinating. It has a thin thread of relevance to this post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country

India has two carriers? Aren't like 1/3 of their people starving?

They got them both used I believe.

UK has 0?

I thought they'd have a couple left just for tradition (and Falklands).

They got rid of them a few years ago. Now they are buying new ones. Problem is they are so expensive they have to mothball one as soon as it's finished and they have no aircraft or escort vessels for the one that is already commissioned. And if they do go forward with the current plan they can't afford enough planes to reach full capability anyway. It's a total cluster.

 

[Aerial Assault]

I don't recall why I ran across this before but I remember finding it fascinating. It has a thin thread of relevance to this post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country

India has two carriers? Aren't like 1/3 of their people starving?

They got them both used I believe.

Right, they did - one from the UK (which is ancient, like almost WWII vintage) and one from Russia. They are, however, building two new ones from scratch. I share DD's confusion about this.