Posted on 07/25/2016 11:38:32 AM PDT by Java4Jay
When was the present day carrier sunk?
Well said.
Another way to look at this...
We could have been very happy in the 80’s and 90’s with our F15, F16, F18, knowing we had complete air superiority over our enemies and no one even came close to us. No need to waste money designing newer more expensive aircraft, just built more F15’s.
The problem is, if we had done that then, today we would be seeing other aircraft hit the global scene that can challenge our best planes, and eventually our air superiority would be in question.
Instead, we wisely invested the money to design the F22 and F35 and we can look forward to at least another 20 years of total air superiority, which means we won’t have to fight a war against Russia or China because they both know they can’t win. A relatively small investment to avoid the possibility of a very, very expensive war.
Chevy Chase?
“It’s too easy to sink an aircraft carrier by hailing missiles on it ...”
Modern carrier groups have very sophisticated defense capabilities.
“Aircraft carrier in 2016 is obsolete, just like battleship was obsolete by 1939. It’s too easy to sink an aircraft carrier by hailing missiles on it just like you can destroy a battleship in 1939 by launching torpedoes from a submarine.”
Agree that carriers are more vulnerable today than they used to be. From what I’ve read, one of the major improvements in the Ford class is stealthiness so it is more difficult to find and/or lock on to.
Regardless, carriers are still our primary means of projecting force around the globe and are absolutely necessary so even with the elevated risk, we need them. The challenge is to make them harder to find and more survivable.
“This carrier class is brand new and uses electro-magnetic launch and recovery systems instead of steam.”
And many other entirely new systems, as well. It’s the first new carrier design in over 40 years, so there are going to be glitches. They can and will be fixed.
“Modern carrier groups have very sophisticated defense capabilities.”
Yes they do, but they have limits to those capabilities. The “hailing missiles” in the previous post refers to a missile swarm attack by an advanced opponent that has developed a weapon system for just such a use. The modern carrier force can stop such an attack.....until it can’t. There is a limit after which the defense is no longer 99.9999% effective.
I remember when an MSM journalist was finding fault with the shuttle during its operational tests.
I thought to myself, “This guy is either biased or stupid or simply doesn’t understand the complexity of such programs OR some combination of the above.”
They haven’t changed their stance since the shuttle.
“We could have three new fully-operational Nimitz-class carriers, and a total of 12, instead of 8 fully-operational Nimitz-class carriers.”
The Nimitz-class design is more than 40 years old. How would you like to have to continually retrofit a 1970 Chevy Nova, for example?
How else are you going to project power internationally to the extent a carrier group can? The recent events in Turkey reveal how vulnerable land-based assets are, even in countries that are NATO “allies.”
No, you might have funding for three fully operational Nimits-class carriers but you might have one done, one on the ways, and one in planning. And you would be short two air wings.
Every technology reaches the end of its useful life. Not much demand for buggywhips today, so how does one make the horse go?
“Projecting power” with carriers is dated, that concept must evolve.
For those who don’t recognize him, that is a very young Pele with the President.
I agree we need to push the tech. They just need to hold off on retiring carriers at the rate they’re doing it.
I’m surprised CNN wouldn’t be happy that a WARship was having problems.
Maybe they just like to criticize the military, whether they do something well or not.
I agree that the carriers seem to be fighting the last major war. Maybe with the advent of high powered lasers, defense against an incoming missle swarm might be viable.
You are correct about the air wings. There would be enough money for three Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, one with its air wing; but, not enough money for two additional air wings. But, if you used F-18s, instead of F-35s, you might have enough money for three air-wings, and you’d have planes with a range that would give the carriers stand-off.
For many years, we maintained 12 Nimitz-class aircraft carriers, moth-balling or scrapping the old, while constructing the new, and making and retrofitting incremental improvements in equipment. This pace maintained, I think, two ship-yards.
With Gerald R. Ford-class carriers, the pace is slowed-down. We’ll eventually be down to 8 super carriers, each with air wings that require the ships get relatively close to their target; and, only one ship-yard. The strategic implications of the new configuration are enormous.
Being able to maintain a presence in distant waters while providing a quality of life to our sailors and Marines, will be compromised; and, we will be hard-pressed to deal with the lose of even one super carrier.
Agreed.
What is your preferred concept for projecting power that is feasible and affordable today?
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.