A former Navy captain just identified the biggest flaw in the US carrier strategy

[Betonov]

I'm thinking small fast cruisers with a dedicated drone bay and anti missile destroyer escort.

[August]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

It's the same pattern, generals and admirals are always embedding too much faith in the last war's weapons and strategies...until they learn better the hard way.

Trouble is that's what they are familiar with and they have trained with. Trying to build a winning military force using only untested strategies and equipment is a nearly impossible task.

[Rockstar]

I would imagine that yes carrier days are numbered. But rather prepare for the next war by developing things which were best suited for the previous war.






We're going hypersonic baby! Who knows what else DARPA and NASA got their sleeve.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Onkel Neal

Oh yeah, that's out there.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...hlight=carrier


I'm certain that carriers are obsolete for most of their duties, vulnerable and so expensive, they are sucking up huge resources that could be used in more modern platforms and tactics. Sure, nothing beats a carrier for showing the flag to primitive 3rd world countries, but China would be able to turn them into submarines.

It's the same pattern, generals and admirals are always embedding too much faith in the last war's weapons and strategies...until they learn better the hard way.

AS already demonstrated by second-rate admiral (not his fault) Yamamoto who failed to gain a useful political victory at Pearl Harbor-essentially a copycat Taranto style attack with six carriers; and then lost four carriers at Midway. Shoho, a light carrier had already been sunk at Coral Sea; Shokaku was damaged resulting in her absence along with sistership, Zuikaku which decisively turned the tide at Midway: four carriers instead of six the following month. REQUIRED READING:http://ffhiker.tripod.com/index-7.html reflects nothing new here. The vulnerability factor is unchanged and the firepower(guided Chinese missiles) has improved...considerably.

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by August

Trouble is that's what they are familiar with and they have trained with. Trying to build a winning military force using only untested strategies and equipment is a nearly impossible task.

True, I won't argue, it is difficult. War games and planning should help develop new tactics and platforms, though.

I also don't claim to know all the capabilities of carrier groups. But, as we have seen over and over in the past, things change. In WWI someone suggested we strap a machine gun onto a bi-plane (let's do WHAT?)

Yamamoto showed us how significant the battleship was in WWII (it wasn't).

Doenitz was wedded to the Type VII U-boat, when more effort should have been directed at the new Type XXI.

One thing for sure, when the shooting starts, they seem to be really adept at developing new equipment and strategies! It comes at a cost and is an action of desperation.

[Captain Jeff]

We're the United States. Our focus is on air power. I don't see us getting rid of aircraft carriers any time soon.

I'm guessing that in a major war the aircraft carrier would be used a little different than it is these conflicts with tiny countries. When fighting a tiny country the carrier provides an effective strike force and can intimidate them by showing them we can build things that they don't have. If we were in a major war I think the carrier's main job would be to provide over water fighter escort for the wave after wave after wave of bombers emanating from our home soil.

We like our planes. And we keep a huge strategic oil reserve. In a major conflict, we won't use the nukes right away; we'll use our firebombs.

[em2nought]

If the USN wasn't too busy "paying" Fat Leonard for pumping 100,000 gallons of sewage out of a ship with a 12,000 gallon tank they could afford more toys. http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/inv...7/fat-leonard/

Treason seems like a charge that needs to make a comeback. Why give Arnold all the blame?