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

[Onkel Neal]

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

The actual strategic value of aircraft carriers, which are incredibly expensive to build and maintain, has been a recurring debate among military thinkers.

Now a retired Navy captain has offered one of the fullest arguments yet that the US needs to radically rethink its naval strategy and shift away from its focus on aircraft carriers.

Writing in the National Review, retired Navy Capt. Jerry Hendrix makes the case that aircraft carriers are simply not suited to the future of naval warfare.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/navy-...#ixzz3YKEOaz00

[Onkel Neal]

Here's the article in National Review mentioned above.



The U.S. Navy Needs to Radically Reassess How It Projects Power

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-jerry-hendrix

In short: It needs to stop building aircraft carriers.

This might seem like a radical change. After all, the aircraft carrier has been the dominant naval platform and the center of the Navy’s force structure for the past 70 years — an era marked by unprecedented peace on the oceans. In the past generation, aircraft have flown thousands of sorties from the decks of American carriers in support of the nation’s wars. For the first 54 days of the current round of airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq, the USS George H. W. Bush was the sole source of air power. But the economic, technological, and strategic developments of recent years indicate that the day of the carrier is over and, in fact, might have already passed a generation ago — a fact that has been obscured by the preponderance of U.S. power on the seas.

The carrier has been operating in low-threat, permissive environments almost continuously since World War II. At no time since 1946 has a carrier had to fend off attacks by enemy aircraft, surface ships, or submarines. No carrier has had to establish a sanctuary for operations and then defend it. More often than not, carriers have recently found themselves operating unmolested closer to enemy shores than previous Cold War–era doctrine permitted, secure in the knowledge that the chance of an attack ranged between unlikely and impossible.

[Torplexed]

It is a viewpoint you increasingly hear and is certainly a legitimate one. However, you can make the argument that however expensive, obsolete or vulnerable they may be, U.S. carriers have proven infinitely more fungible than the array of missile boats, short range submarines, and advanced missiles that other nations juggle with to counter them. A U.S. carrier can show the flag outside the Strait of Hormuz, support relief operations in Haiti, or kinetic military operations in Libya, while an armada of powerful anti-ship missiles can do little but sit and wait to play their one designated role.

This is probably why states continue to build and invest aircraft carriers even at great trouble and expense. A carrier may never run the risk of an anti-ship missile during its long lifespan, but it will likely contribute to the national interest in some fashion. I guess until such time as a major conflict breaks out and one of these levithans succumbs to a pack of cheap missiles or torpedoes that's how it will be.

[Onkel Neal]

Yes, as long as the carrier is used to cow Haiti or Somalia, it's still a useful platform. But, like the article says, when the Navy spends huge sums to keep the carrier viable, when it could use those funds to engineer better attack solutuons that are disposable and pose little risk to Navy personnel, it looks a lot like people holding on to outdated thinking.

the U.S. Navy has invested billions of dollars in anti-A2AD capabilities — such as electronic-spectrum jamming, directed-energy weapons, electromagnetic rail guns, and ballistic-missile defenses — in a vain attempt to defend the carrier. An objective outside observer can easily identify who is imposing costs on whom in this competition. The same outside observer would also discern where the difficulty with the carrier design lies.

It's a pattern that everyone seems to recognize when studying history, but few are able to apply to the present...until the bitter pill is forced down the throat. If we were to engage China in naval combat, could we afford to lose three or four carriers?

[Torplexed]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

It's a pattern that everyone seems to recognize when studying history, but few are able to apply to the present...until the bitter pill is forced down the throat. If we were to engage China in naval combat, could we afford to lose three or four carriers?

Yes an old pattern, like bayonet charges, horsed cavalry and the battleship. It's tough to give up what you know and trust until the shock sets in.

[Aktungbby]

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf Of particular interest is the Chinese development and testing in the Gobi desert ot the (Dong-Feng/ East Wind) DF21 D ASBM missile designed to takeout ships at sea within a considerable range of 2000 miles. Clearly, as with the Kaiser's Imperial fleet development prior to WWI, a specific 'potential' enemy, the U.S. and its allies is the intended target.
"An apparent test of the missile was made against a carrier target in the Gobi desert in January" 2013.http://www.military.com/video/forces/military-foreign-forces/china-sinks-us-carrier-df-21d-missile-test/3161588772001/
"A Russian Military Analysis report of the DF-21D has concluded that the only way to successfully counter it would be through electronic counter measures. Conventional interceptions of high-speed objectives have worked in the past, with the Russian report citing the 2008 interception of a malfunctioning satellite by a U.S. cruiser, but in that situation the warship had extensive knowledge of its location and trajectory. Against an attack from the Mach 10 DF-21D without knowing the missile's launch point, the U.S. Navy's only way to evade it would be through electronic countermeasures.
The emergence of the DF-21D has some analysts claiming that the "carrier killer" missiles have rendered the American use of aircraft carriers obsolete, as they are too vulnerable in the face of the new weapon and not worth the expense. Military leaders in the U.S. Navy and Air Force, however, do not see it as a "game changer" to completely count carriers out. Firstly, there are questions on whether it has even entered operational service. Chinese publications said it was deployed in 2010 and U.S. officials reported it reached IOC that same year. Even so, being deployed does not mean it is combat-ready, and the Xinhua News Agency reported that the DF-21D was “still in the research stage” and not yet operational as of July 2011. Secondly, the missile may not be able to single-handedly destroy its target. The warhead is believed to be enough to inflict a "mission kill" to make a carrier unable to conduct flight operations, while other missiles would follow to actually destroy the ship. Thirdly, there is the problem of finding its target. The DF-21D has a range estimated between 1,035 to 1,726 miles-Since upgraded-so a carrier battle group would need to be located through other means before launching. Over the horizon radars could detect ships, but their exact locations could be off by miles. Chinese recon satellites would be able to look for and locate a battle group. Recon aircraft and submarines could also look for them, but they are vulnerable to the carrier's defenses. Finally, the missile may have a hard time hitting its target. To hit ships moving at 34 mph (30 kn), the DF-21D has radar and optical sensors for tracking. These are supposed to make it accurate, but the missile has not yet been tested against a moving target, let alone ones at sea against clutter and countermeasures. The "kill chain" of the missile requires processing and constantly updating data of a carrier's location, preparing the launch, programming information, and then firing it. How often this is trained is not known, and the U.S. military's Air-Sea Battle concept involves disrupting an enemy's kill chain. Some U.S. analysts believe that the DF-21D doesn't fly any faster than Mach 5." In an offset war such as the two submarine based world wars waged against superior naval forces (England), the cheap solution to an expensive problem is always paramount-as with the Stinger against the Hind helicopter etc. The Chinese, lacking the number of marine 'platforms' of their 'potential' RIMPAC opponent(s), are embracing the cheap $olution...time to quit kidding ourselves(and helping!); the clock is ticking. from satellite image"a common line from China's national defense doctrine before the country acquired an aircraft carrier of its own — namely that carriers are an offensive weapon while anti-ship missiles are defensive. "It can be used like a stick to hit the dog intruding on our backyard, but it can never be used to attack the house where the dog comes from," You're supposed to "walk softly with a big stick"...and that ain't happenin'

[Hawk66]

Interesting discussion but essentially it is an updated version of 'Backfires vs carriers' in the 80's. This time it's not the Backfire but Chinese ASMs

I think the author mentions some valid points, e.g. vulnerability but the conclusion is wrong. A carrier is not (only) like in WWII a war machine but a means of intellegince gathering and claiming a considerable space in the ocean.

I would not know of any platform delivering such tactical advantages in blue sea operations.

This article describes some interesting insights about interoperability of NATO fleets to lower costs of carrier operations. I think this is the key...

[raymond6751]

Air power is the key. Without carriers as bases supporting friendly ground forces, interdicting enemy movement, delivering all kinds of support and intel would require land bases in the area.

The build up to both Iraq wars, Afghanistan, and Bosnia conflicts took time while bases to operate from were negotiated. Those efforts would have taken longer if carriers were not available to fully support ground forces and threaten enemy (and would-be enemies) from interfering.

Carriers are mobile air bases that exist to support and defend other units. They can provide air cover from a distance to prevent enemy air power from attacking friendly assets. They remain out of range to those air threats.

[UglyMowgli]

If you want to make a carrier useless at war why not just sink the auxilliary ship like those carring the jet fuel, usually they are not well protected while they are not with the carrier battle group (transiting from/to the port).

[Aktungbby]

UglyMowgli! after a bit of a silent run!

[speed150mph]

Yes aircraft carriers are big and expensive to build, operate, and maintain, but seriously they are still one of the most versatile and effective weapons platform in a modern navy. It also pretty much the only true platform that has really proven itself since ww2, where they dominated in an era formerly ruled by the battleship.


Nuclear submarines, both ballistic and attack, have never been used in their intended role. Lets face it, ballistic missile subs have never been used besides their scheduled readiness tests, the advanced attack subs that are supposed to be used to kills other subs have only seen use as cruise missile launchers or taxi's for special forces.


To my knowledge, besides war games and shore operations, the surface fleets only naval combat has been interdiction of weapons smugglers and anti-piracy operations. Until you get to the carriers...


The U.S navy's Carriers are their go to weapon when a crisis arises, what ever the nature. They are the mobile base of operations for any operation, anywhere. Force projection at its finest. Think about how Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm or any other foreign war would have gone if the United States would not have had the carriers.


The point is, the role for a carrier hasn't changed, and the need for it hasn't been eliminated. You look at the number one fear of any country that faces war with the United States, it is the carrier. And to my best knowledge, only Russia and China have any meaningful defense. it is the ultimate weapon, always has been, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.

[Mr Quatro]

One carrier is on the way now in the water at Newport News shipbuilding yard, CVN 78 USS Gerald R Ford, due to be finished and operational next year if they get the new magnetic plane launcher to work that is.

Another carrier due five years from now is the USS John F Kennedy CVN 79.

The only planned super carrier after that one is the USS Enterprise CVN 80 planned for 2025.

By then Russia and China will have enough quality silent submarines to stay with 60 miles of any carrier group to attack as ordered by their high command.

The US Navy is even considering a super submarine carrier, but are worried that years from now they won't be considered undetectable.

I say down size to save money and save ships and save embarrassing losses (in a no one wins) real time war the nuclear warheads will be flying.

No one wants to see 5,500 men and women jumping off of a burning aircraft carrier.

The money could be better spent on homeland defense of our own shores to make sure no adversary could ever approach or attack American soil from the air or the sea.

These new drone submarines look promising for that ... and I've even heard of drone submarines that be attached to underwater buoys and released when needed.

Big navy, big government, big decisions

[Onkel Neal]

http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...an-have-a.aspx

You Can Have an Aircraft Carrier. Or You Can Have a Navy. Pick One.

Hendrix explained, a 94,000-ton Nimitz-class carrier (as pictured above) costs $5 billion to build. That's about a third of the Navy's annual shipbuilding budget. But the new 100,000-ton Gerald R. Ford-class carriers will cost $14 billion each -- nearly one full year's worth of shipbuilding dollars.

That same money, if differently deployed, could buy the Navy "seven missile-laden destroyers, or seven submarines, or 28 frigates, or 100 joint high-speed vessels," according to Hendrix. Or the Navy could mix and match, and build an entire war fleet for the cost of just one new aircraft carrier.

Hendrix's most damning critique of today's aircraft carriers is that they might not be as useful as we think. As he pointed out, "Americans are willing to risk their lives for important reasons, but they have also become increasingly averse to casualties." Each Ford-class aircraft carrier carries a crew of 4,800, yet is vulnerable to just one lucky strike by an opposing force.

In illustration of which, a recent Navy war game pitted U.S. Carrier Strike Group 12, including the USS Theodore Roosevelt and its several escorting cruisers, destroyers, and submarines, against a French navy Saphir-class submarine. In the course of the exercise, the French submarine simulated an attack on the group, successfully "eliminating" first the aircraft carrier, then most of its escort.

[cdrsubron7]

Interesting article.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-a...-an-end-2016-5

[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.