Posted on 09/14/2017 6:34:49 PM PDT by BBell
Commissioned by the Japanese in December of 1941, just over a week after their surprise attack on Pearl Harbor, the Yamato was the largest, most powerful battleship that had ever existed a title that it still holds to this day, over 75 years later. With its nine 18.1-inch guns, it could fire 3,000 pound shells up to 26 miles away so far that it required spotter aircraft to identify targets over the horizon. In comparison, the heaviest guns on U.S. battleships were 16 inches and limited to a maximum range of 20 miles. To paraphrase President Trump, it was truly a ship to make its enemies shake with fear.
While the Yamato was the pinnacle of the battleship era, the recently commissioned USS Gerald Ford represents the state of the art of what came next the era of naval aviation and, crucially, the aircraft carrier. At 1,100 feet long and displacing over 100,000 tons, the Ford is a massive ship. However, while what distinguished the Yamato from its peers was the size of the ship and its cannons, what distinguishes the Ford are its technological improvements. Of roughly similar size and speed as the previous Nimitz class of supercarriers, Fords advantage comes, in part, from its increased efficiency. Advances in design allow it to launch 25 percent more sorties per day, greatly increasing its striking power. It also operates with at least 20 percent fewer crew members due to improved automation.
The Ford is adding to an existing fleet of 10 Nimitz class supercarriers. These are joined by an additional nine amphibious assault ships that, while much smaller and with more limited capabilities, are still capable of launching a range of helicopters and vertical takeoff and landing fixed wing aircraft. By comparison, the rest of the worlds major navies
(Excerpt) Read more at foreignpolicy.com ...
Oh God the anti carrier crowd is back.
For the cost of the carrier (not including its escort ships and planes — several billions more) we could have had
several nuclear attack submarines
multiple times that non-nuclear but silent submarines
over 100 small silent submarines
etc. etc.
Which would be easier for a potential enemy to defeat — one huge target, or many multiple targets with varying capabilities?
I think the Yamato and Musahsi would both have been deadly if the Japanese still had enough air power to protect it from air attack.
I think North Korea should fear the undersea responders they can’t see instead of the carriers they can see.
What the Yamato did not have was the backing of the world’s #1 superpower, with virtually unlimited assets and technological know-how.
The USS Gerald Ford DOES.
Which means that the USN’s techniques for disrupting/destroying/intercepting all of the low tech “bogey-man” weapons that the author arrays against it will continue to be well ahead of any such weapons, allowing for the carrier to be able to carry out her mission.
To continue the analogy, had the Yamato such a backing force behind it, no US planes could have gotten through to attack it, and she could have just parked off of the target zone while raining hellfire on her enemies ... just like the Iowa-class battleships were, in fact, able to do, at the same time.
So ... to sum up ... a nice attention-grabbing article for the author, but as an indictment of the Nimitz-class carrier capabilities ... not very accurate.
Any questions?
You can't take land, conduct amphibious operations or keep sea lanes of communication SLOC open without air superiority at sea. CVNs will be the cornerstone of the US Navy and will always be here as long as the USA wants to maintain an offensive approach to Naval warfare.
If the USA back down form fixed wing deep water operations other nations will fill the void.
BTW, an excellent history of the Yamato-class, including every single surviving photo of these battleships, and many action photos from her final mission, taken by the USN planes bombing her, can be seen at:
http://www.battleshipyamato.com
I tend to agree with #1 and #3.
I remember when Ronald Reagan was president, Senator Gary Hart of Colorado wanted the Navy to build small aircraft carriers.
Secretary of the Navy John Lehman derisively called those proposed ships, “Gary Hart carriers.”
But, can the USS Gerald Ford defend itself against being rammed by a slow-moving freighter?
If you replace all of the pieces on the back row of the chessboard with pawns, you get a lot of standardization and in the right circumstances, a pawn can take out a queen.
But, oh, how you limit your options.
What I just posted would have been true before the USA foolishly de industrialized. There is just ONE shipyard with a drydock that can build/repair a CVN. ONE.
The anti carrier crowd thinks one cruise missile hit would “destroy” an A/C carrier. They are crazy.
I have not read a lot about the Yamato etc. but do think they are fascinating.
One thing I remember is the Yamato was hit by a single torpedo from and American submarine and almost sunk. The Japanese realized there was a weakness in it’s armor and I think it took something around six months in dry dock to correct the problem.
I’m with you on that. I also think the B-2 Spirit is a big waste of money.
I dunno. Null sec ratting with a Thanatos or a Chimera is pretty profitable.
The “Sea Control Ships” were an experiments started under Carter. They used LHA’s embarking Harriers to simulate the concept. It was the WW2 escort carrier warmed-over.
See the South Korean missile test. Fired from 300 miles away and they hit a bullseye. Now replace the target and make it any navy ship. One missile will not be the only one fired at the ship.
Technically the Yamato didn’t sink. She bored herself under water going 20 knots.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.