Posted on 12/13/2013 11:57:25 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Past fears that carriers were vulnerable to new technologies weren’t proven right… nor were they proven wrong.
Over at The National Interest this week, former Naval Diplomat shipmate — U.S. Marines say there are no former Marines, just Marines; are there former shipmates? — Bryan McGrath wades into the debate over Tom Ricks’s Washington Post column urging the U.S. military to get smaller to get better.
Let me wade in as well; the water’s fine. Ricks takes aim at the U.S. Navy’s fleet of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in particular. He cites the expense of CVNs, but Bryan zeroes in mainly on the question of flattops’ vulnerability in a threat environment populated by exotic armaments such as anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles, stealth tactical aircraft, and so forth.
Bryan mocks Ricks’ observation that CVNs look much like their distant ancestors. But the point is that carriers have enormous radar cross-sections. They don’t have that sleek, angular, unearthly appearance that typifies stealth aircraft and ships. Radar essentially shouts and listens for the echo. A bulky hull featuring lots of flat surfaces, sharp edges, and protuberances is bound to reflect electromagnetic radiation — the shout — returning that echo to the adversary’s radar set and thence to his fire-control system and anti-ship weaponry. In that sense, the look of a ship does matter, as Ricks observes.
The game’s afoot once the ship is detected. To delay detection and targeting, shipbuilders have incorporated gee-whiz measures into the design of the Gerald R. Ford, the U.S. Navy’s latest supercarrier. Cutting down on its RCS helps. Still, short of conducting a true-to-life Philadelphia Experiment on a grand scale, there’s only so much you can do to disguise a 100,000-ton behemoth. While it represents the vanguard of carrier
(Excerpt) Read more at thediplomat.com ...
I was worried about this if the carrier got too big.
Like the Battleships before them
What a pointless article.
I noticed this guy never gave an alternative method of putting a LOT of military power somewhere in a hurry. Not to mention the occasional humanitarian missions.
It would be a difficult proposition to take out a carrier and will continue to be so for some time.
I don’t know what replaces the carrier. The carrier is U. S. soil projected around the world. At any given time we can move the resources to hot spots and put them down.
Without them, we simply do not project in any meaningful manner.
It would seem there could be a way to defeat the new class of killer anti-ship missiles.
That’s what I would be working on feverishly.
Project Habakkuk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Habakkuk
I was always worried we weren’t building up the support for the big ships and combat. Do we have the cargo ship tonnage needed to move massive amounts of equipment and supplies if a war broke out?
That carrier would not be alone. Not just the ship based planes but Air Force attacking plus missiles firing from all the other surface ships. Sub killers looking to kill other subs.
If we had a competent man as president he would let loose the military telling them to get back to him when the enemy is dead.
The only reason the enemy does not fear us as much is he knows the democrats will support them over the United States. They can count on the democrats hobbling the military and getting many people killed.
Perhaps, but getting your take on why would be eminently more valuable, and infinitely less puerile.
For example, Long range stealthy drones armed with either missiles or bombs could make an attack on a carrier more interesting.
Most missiles, once you understand how they operate, can be countered somehow.
Drones may be to naval warfare what tanks were to ground warfare. More specifically, you can produce a large number of more inexpensive drones or a smaller number of more expensive and sophisticated drones.
No matter what, your risk to the ‘meat in the seat’ decreases. The need for skills behind a stick doesn’t go away either.
It’s an interesting question. Can you make a smaller naval craft dedicated to drone-based combat that would be smaller, have fewer crew, be better armed, and ultimately project power and protect national interests better than a carrier can?
Personally, that makes the effort and cash the Chinese may be wasting on a carrier more satisfying to watch.
If we don’t have a dedicated ‘drone carrier’, or even a modified helicopter carrier, on the drawing board, then we are potentially guilty of fighting the last war.
That’s because most calls for this (make it smaller to be better with respect to the Military) are merely thinly disguised attempts to free up money for more political handouts to the least common denominator classes...
> I don’t know what replaces the carrier.
Smaller ships with smaller crews with a bunch of drones, where the drones carry surveillance packages, smaller sub-drones with surveillance packages, or ordnance.
Or perhaps Chinese carriers.
Or Chinese carriers and Russian carriers.
Lasers and rail guns, and they’re already getting mounted on ships, I believe...
There will still be pilot controlled fighter aircraft but they will become the exception rather than the rule.
When a Fighter goes down you got to rescue the pilot if you can. When a drone goes down you can blow it up remotely or scorch it with another drone and forget about it.
It would be interesting to see if we start building many small drone carriers instead of a few large ones.
No.
Worse, we don’t ven have the industrial ability to build the industrial capacity to BEGIN building the shipyards and armories and factories to BUILD that military.
In WWII, it took a buildup starting (slowly!) in 1938-39-40-41 to BEGIN the growth using Depression-era empty factories, steel mills, and mines and foundries! - to have airplanes and rifles and cannons and ships delivered in 1943 and 1944 and 1945.
I think its where we are heading. I've a BIL who is a pilot (flies gulf streams and such) and he told me if you eliminate the pilot and all his support mechanisms you increase the payload capabilities of the same aircraft by about 40%.
There are fewer and fewer countries in the world where the United States can stage a military response to the growing threats to US security worldwide.
We need more and bigger Carriers not fewer..
You can also push the G-force envelop out somewhat if you are not worried about whether the pilot is going to pass out.
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.