Is our Navy losing their dominance? (1 Viewer)

[Chadstroma]

Super Carriers aren't going away for at least the next 65 years. They just spent billions of dollars on a new design. They are currently finishing one (Ford), breaking construction on another (Kennedy), and have a contract to build a third (Enterprise). More will come to follow in the new Ford class. Carriers don't need a lot of defensive weapons as they have ships around them for that purpose. They also have guns designed to shoot incoming objects out of the sky (missiles, planes ) that fire very quickly. With the evolving world, Super Carriers are more important than ever. We don't have to invade a country and build a land strip when you can launch planes from the water, huge plus.

There is no current effective counter to an ASBM.

Says who? First there is no proven effective ASBM. Second its just another missile. We have lots of counters for missiles as have been outlined here several times.

Well, to be more accurate- there is a lot of debate within the military community. Much of it evolves around skepticism that the Chinese could develop an operational ASBM to begin with for many reasons. Some in terms of whether we have current countermeasures.

I do believe that currently the Chinese ASBM is not something that is operational in at least it is suppose to be. There are deficiencies that they most likely have. But obviously they are working on it. So, assuming a fully developed ASBM then the question is- if attacked, could we protect our carriers? Now, it should be noted that during the Cold War there were basically two threats to the carriers from the Soviets- both of which we could assume effective countermeasures. Submarines and airborne ASM's. So, this is a differenet element to the game.

I noted 'effective' in terms of how a ASBM attack would likely be carried out against a CSG. Which would be the deployment of multiples of ASBM likely in conjunction with cruise missiles. The ship borne Aegis system is by far the best thing out there with no equal but it would most likely overwhelmed and the target (carrier) destroyed.

The who says part would be several sources that I have been reading up on in articles that are retired naval officers and Phd's etc. I am not calling myself an expert but this has been something that caught my eye for the last few months and I have actively been seeking sources and reading up on the subject.

 

[Chadstroma]

ASBMs are interesting but only in China. We operate carriers around the world. With it taking up to 15 minutes from launch to target, it seems like a lot of time to not be able to deter a missile. Electrical disturbance technology and anti ballistic technology would be ways to combat ASBM. The fact that China spends so much money and time on carrier defense tells you just how relevant and important they are.

This would be an odd statement to make if discussing the change from battleship to carrier shift previous to and during WWII. A significant amount of time and resources were spent in developing carriers. I would say no one expected the carrier to replace the battleship when we landed the first airplane on a ship around 1910. However, they did. That is the course of military history. A dominant strategy or weapon is used to obtain superior advantage and eventually some new thinking/technology comes along to suplant it. The carrier will find it's end one day- the real question is when and if that day is within the foreseeable future. I think we can start to see that day on the horizon now and it is best to prepare for it rather than blindly accept the Super Carrier as being something that will never be bested (such as people thought of the Battleship only a handful of decades earlier).

 

[Tau837]

ASBMs are interesting but only in China. We operate carriers around the world. With it taking up to 15 minutes from launch to target, it seems like a lot of time to not be able to deter a missile. Electrical disturbance technology and anti ballistic technology would be ways to combat ASBM. The fact that China spends so much money and time on carrier defense tells you just how relevant and important they are.

This would be an odd statement to make if discussing the change from battleship to carrier shift previous to and during WWII. A significant amount of time and resources were spent in developing carriers. I would say no one expected the carrier to replace the battleship when we landed the first airplane on a ship around 1910. However, they did. That is the course of military history. A dominant strategy or weapon is used to obtain superior advantage and eventually some new thinking/technology comes along to suplant it. The carrier will find it's end one day- the real question is when and if that day is within the foreseeable future. I think we can start to see that day on the horizon now and it is best to prepare for it rather than blindly accept the Super Carrier as being something that will never be bested (such as people thought of the Battleship only a handful of decades earlier).

The carrier will not "find its end" until and unless the US military finds an alternative mechanism to provide air superiority almost anywhere around the world.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Not if i have MY way

 

[Aerial Assault]

ASBMs are interesting but only in China. We operate carriers around the world. With it taking up to 15 minutes from launch to target, it seems like a lot of time to not be able to deter a missile. Electrical disturbance technology and anti ballistic technology would be ways to combat ASBM. The fact that China spends so much money and time on carrier defense tells you just how relevant and important they are.

This would be an odd statement to make if discussing the change from battleship to carrier shift previous to and during WWII. A significant amount of time and resources were spent in developing carriers. I would say no one expected the carrier to replace the battleship when we landed the first airplane on a ship around 1910. However, they did. That is the course of military history. A dominant strategy or weapon is used to obtain superior advantage and eventually some new thinking/technology comes along to suplant it. The carrier will find it's end one day- the real question is when and if that day is within the foreseeable future. I think we can start to see that day on the horizon now and it is best to prepare for it rather than blindly accept the Super Carrier as being something that will never be bested (such as people thought of the Battleship only a handful of decades earlier).

I understand your view on this, and you've presented your arguments well, but the two situations you're attempting to analogize to one another are not the same.

First, it's not really completely clear that the BB should have been abandoned. Some naval strategists still think that was precipitous and budget-driven rather than strategic. Indeed, the Ticonderogas and Burkes are really just smaller, faster (I believe as to speed - without checking) versions of battleships; they sail alone from time to time and are just as vulnerable to an airstrike as any surface vessel. Battleships could actually still be useful and it wouldn't surprise me if, in the future, the U.S. decided to build a limited number again.

Second, the ASBM threat is largely hypothetical.

Third, any surface vessel can be destroyed by an ICBM, so to the extent that any potentially hostile country we're talking about has those, and to the extent that you believe that any shooting war with the destruction of a U.S. carrier has the potential to "go nuclear," whether or not an ASBM can destroy a carrier takes on less significance (I'm writing from a purely analytic viewpoint, while recognizing that the loss of life in these scenarios is not something that can or should be dismissed or ignored).

Fourth, ASBMs are not a mystery and the Navy has been working on countermeasures for a loooooong time. They're not going to advertise that for tactical reasons and because they want to keep the defense money flowing. But don't be too surprised if, long before China or anyone else gets a viable ASBM threat in place, the U.S. has already preemptively countered it. This terrifies the Chinese, who finally thought they had a reliable anti-carrier weapon on the way with the Defective-21 (as many military people call it). Hence all of the breastbeating.

Projecting air power is very important. The carrier isn't going away any time soon.

 

[dschuler]

Ran across this earlier.

http://navylive.dodlive.mil/2015/10/20/uss-ross-successfully-intercepts-ballistic-missile-target-during-coalition-test/

 

[cstu]

What is a carrier's defense against a laser cannon?

 

[NCCommish]

What is a carrier's defense against a laser cannon?

Well those are ours and no one else is even close to.that tech. I noticed they said a more powerful version would be deployed next year and specifically mention its use against missiles.

 

[dschuler]

What is a carrier's defense against a laser cannon?

Pretty cool, looks like something to hit small targets. A military grade laser pointer

 

[beer 30]

There is no defense

 

[The Ref]

I think so. If you can't beat Tulane by more than 3 TD your team is in trouble.

 

[top dog]

What is a carrier's defense against a laser cannon?

Pretty cool, looks like something to hit small targets. A military grade laser pointer

That's pretty awesome that the article says it costs about $1 per shot.

 

[BoltBacker]

What is a carrier's defense against a laser cannon?

Ummmm.... a mirror?

 

[jon_mx]

What is a carrier's defense against a laser cannon?

Pretty cool, looks like something to hit small targets. A military grade laser pointer

That's pretty awesome that the article says it costs about $1 per shot.

The first shot costs $40 million. It is beyond silly to call it a military-grade laser pointer. Taking out small targets is a vital part of defending ships.

 

[beer 30]

Soooo this is kinda cool

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/f0/32/57/f032577d014aba204eb7b93a458f0a46.jpg

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Soooo this is kinda cool

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/f0/32/57/f032577d014aba204eb7b93a458f0a46.jpg

POLAND

 

[Chadstroma]

I think there is a significant amount of response to my posts where I get the feeling that the discussion is centered around today or tomorrow or even a few years down the line. What is being talked about and what I am parroting is not a shift in strategic or tactical changes today but rather projecting what the Naval needs will be decades down the road. We are not talking about how technology today will impact an engagement tomorrow but rather how do we prepare for the direction technology is going now in something it will take decades to change.

Further, once more, I am not suggesting the Super Carrier is of no usefulness or even so a few decades from now. The argument is a change of strategy which would also mean a different direction in acquisition.

It also needs to be further noted that we are seeing the beginning of change of the projection of airpower. A shift from manned to drone airpower is something that could dramatically alter how we project airpower and deminish or change the need of sea based airpower.

 

[fasteddie_21]

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.

Which makes me sad as I sailed on her final cruise.

 

[Tau837]

I think there is a significant amount of response to my posts where I get the feeling that the discussion is centered around today or tomorrow or even a few years down the line. What is being talked about and what I am parroting is not a shift in strategic or tactical changes today but rather projecting what the Naval needs will be decades down the road. We are not talking about how technology today will impact an engagement tomorrow but rather how do we prepare for the direction technology is going now in something it will take decades to change.

Further, once more, I am not suggesting the Super Carrier is of no usefulness or even so a few decades from now. The argument is a change of strategy which would also mean a different direction in acquisition.

It also needs to be further noted that we are seeing the beginning of change of the projection of airpower. A shift from manned to drone airpower is something that could dramatically alter how we project airpower and deminish or change the need of sea based airpower.

If technology reaches a point decades down the road that US air power (whether manned or unmanned) can be projected anywhere in the world without carriers, then maybe we won't need them any more. It's hard to see that happening, even decades into the future, so it's hard to see diminishing need for carriers.

Unmanned aircraft is far from being able to replace manned aircraft for most purposes. We are successfully using unmanned aircraft in our current conflicts, but that airspace is uncontested. There are no unmanned aircraft that can operate successfully in contested airspace today, and we are probably decades away from that.

 

[Chadstroma]

The two of you are talking about different USS America's.

The old USS America which was a KittyHawk class was scuttled. There is a new Amphibious Assault USS America now sailing the seas.

If you take into account the Amphibious Assault ships- sometimes called Helicopter Carriers- I believer we are at 19 "carriers".

 

[Chadstroma]

I think there is a significant amount of response to my posts where I get the feeling that the discussion is centered around today or tomorrow or even a few years down the line. What is being talked about and what I am parroting is not a shift in strategic or tactical changes today but rather projecting what the Naval needs will be decades down the road. We are not talking about how technology today will impact an engagement tomorrow but rather how do we prepare for the direction technology is going now in something it will take decades to change.

Further, once more, I am not suggesting the Super Carrier is of no usefulness or even so a few decades from now. The argument is a change of strategy which would also mean a different direction in acquisition.

It also needs to be further noted that we are seeing the beginning of change of the projection of airpower. A shift from manned to drone airpower is something that could dramatically alter how we project airpower and deminish or change the need of sea based airpower.

If technology reaches a point decades down the road that US air power (whether manned or unmanned) can be projected anywhere in the world without carriers, then maybe we won't need them any more. It's hard to see that happening, even decades into the future, so it's hard to see diminishing need for carriers.

Unmanned aircraft is far from being able to replace manned aircraft for most purposes. We are successfully using unmanned aircraft in our current conflicts, but that airspace is uncontested. There are no unmanned aircraft that can operate successfully in contested airspace today, and we are probably decades away from that.

That is the thing- you have to project the direction of technology and not wait for technology. That is my whole point.

 

[Tau837]

I think there is a significant amount of response to my posts where I get the feeling that the discussion is centered around today or tomorrow or even a few years down the line. What is being talked about and what I am parroting is not a shift in strategic or tactical changes today but rather projecting what the Naval needs will be decades down the road. We are not talking about how technology today will impact an engagement tomorrow but rather how do we prepare for the direction technology is going now in something it will take decades to change.

Further, once more, I am not suggesting the Super Carrier is of no usefulness or even so a few decades from now. The argument is a change of strategy which would also mean a different direction in acquisition.

It also needs to be further noted that we are seeing the beginning of change of the projection of airpower. A shift from manned to drone airpower is something that could dramatically alter how we project airpower and deminish or change the need of sea based airpower.

If technology reaches a point decades down the road that US air power (whether manned or unmanned) can be projected anywhere in the world without carriers, then maybe we won't need them any more. It's hard to see that happening, even decades into the future, so it's hard to see diminishing need for carriers.

Unmanned aircraft is far from being able to replace manned aircraft for most purposes. We are successfully using unmanned aircraft in our current conflicts, but that airspace is uncontested. There are no unmanned aircraft that can operate successfully in contested airspace today, and we are probably decades away from that.

That is the thing- you have to project the direction of technology and not wait for technology. That is my whole point.

I understand your point, but I think you are overestimating the pace and nature of change.

 

[Chadstroma]

I think there is a significant amount of response to my posts where I get the feeling that the discussion is centered around today or tomorrow or even a few years down the line. What is being talked about and what I am parroting is not a shift in strategic or tactical changes today but rather projecting what the Naval needs will be decades down the road. We are not talking about how technology today will impact an engagement tomorrow but rather how do we prepare for the direction technology is going now in something it will take decades to change.

Further, once more, I am not suggesting the Super Carrier is of no usefulness or even so a few decades from now. The argument is a change of strategy which would also mean a different direction in acquisition.

It also needs to be further noted that we are seeing the beginning of change of the projection of airpower. A shift from manned to drone airpower is something that could dramatically alter how we project airpower and deminish or change the need of sea based airpower.

If technology reaches a point decades down the road that US air power (whether manned or unmanned) can be projected anywhere in the world without carriers, then maybe we won't need them any more. It's hard to see that happening, even decades into the future, so it's hard to see diminishing need for carriers.

Unmanned aircraft is far from being able to replace manned aircraft for most purposes. We are successfully using unmanned aircraft in our current conflicts, but that airspace is uncontested. There are no unmanned aircraft that can operate successfully in contested airspace today, and we are probably decades away from that.

That is the thing- you have to project the direction of technology and not wait for technology. That is my whole point.

I understand your point, but I think you are overestimating the pace and nature of change.

Not just me.

 

[FattyVM]

No, then. No country has come up with an effective counter measure to our Carriers, and besides stupid operator error (or in the case of the 755, arson) we haven't lost a nuclear sub, questionable circumstances or not, since the 60's.

In the 80's we used to play games by tracking and tagging the soviets which they arguably made a contest out of by returning the favor, but after their fall they simply haven't had the same progression we have. The Seawolf's (well, the one that isn't constantly under repair) and the new virginia classes are pretty much unmatched, the ohio class ssbn's are still practically undetectable, and we still have the S1B coming to replace them soon.

So even if we lost the surface fleet war, and our HALO shot tech Gordon brought up is copied by another nation and used against us, there's still no way that we don't control the seas from below.