The U.S. Navy’s Big Mistake; Building Tons of Supercarriers

War is Boring ^ | May 27, 2015 | David W. Wise

[C19fan]

“History,” it has been written, “does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.” Today it’s rhyming with Gen. Billy Mitchell. In the 1920s, Mitchell challenged conventional thinking by advocating air power at sea in the face of a naval establishment dominated by battleship proponents.

The hubris of the “battleship Navy” was such that just nine days before Pearl Harbor, the official program for the 1941 Army-Navy game displayed a full page photograph of the battleship USS Arizona with language virtually extolling its invincibility.

Of course, the reason that no one had yet sunk a battleship from the air — in combat — was that no one had yet tried.

[Jim Noble]

If an enemy gets a lucky hit and disabled a carrier or destroyed it, how fast could we plug the gap?

At the moment, there is one shipyard that can do the work, and it takes approximately nine years to lay down, build, fit out, trial and commission one.

I agree with those who say these floating bombs are obsolete (in a warfighting sense), and that the upcoming Chinese Pearl Harbor will simultaneously attack and sink 5 or 6 of them.

[Jim Noble]

If watertight doors are all shut it is almost impossible to sink one

Nonsense. One 100kT warhead within 1000 yards will do the job easily.

[Yo-Yo]

I imagine the Navy has some of the STOVAL ones also though, correct?

Only because the Navy owns the Marine Corps. All F-35s for the Navy are F-35C and all F-35s for the Marine Corps are F-35B, and all F-35s for the Air Force are F-35A.

The British Royal Navy are purchasing F-35Bs for both their Air Force and Navy.

[central_va]

How do you maintain air superiority at sea without A/C carriers?

Maybe we could equip subs with paper airplane launchers instead.

[The_Victor]

True, the Navy is purchasing the F-35C, but the requirements were still part of intended operations from smaller vessels, like the assault carriers.

[Jim Noble]

a 70,000 ton merchant ship could be converted to carry 70 or planes in about 9 months

The war with China will be over in nine days.

[central_va]

When either side starts hurling nukes, A/C carriers would be the last of our worries you idiot.

[Little Ray]

Doesn’t work. CVNs need to be large to operate the aircraft. The large air wing is just a side effect.

[central_va]

You get your check from the Chinese propaganda ministry?

[Jim Noble]

Outside of a tactical nuke, it is nearly impossible

Do you not believe that an enemy with tactical nukes that faced an existential threat from CBGs would use them?

I've believed this since various REFORGER exercises presumed air cover from CBGs. The Russians would NEVER allow themselves to be defeated if it could be prevented by tactical nukes at sea - and no President could or would release strategic weapons in response to an attack that killed zero US civilians.

[Drew68]

You can disable an A/C Carrier with one or two torpedoes. But there are 3,000 guys trying to get the damage under control and back operational. If watertight doors are all shut it is almost impossible to sink one. The question is can air wing bingo to the beach while A/C gets back operational.

You don't need to sink a carrier to cripple it. You only need to destroy the flight deck. No DC team of 18-year old seamen will be repairing the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) of the Ford (not to mention the steam cats of Nimitz-class carriers).

Punch some big holes in the flight deck and the next stop is Newport News, VA, --for several months.

What good is an aircraft carrier that can't launch or land aircraft?

[Jim Noble]

When either side starts hurling nukes, A/C carriers would be the last of our worries you idiot

Why do you say that? (not the idiot part, I get that).

Seriously. Five carriers are vaporized in a BOOB attack one day in 2017, followed by a massed amphibious assault on Taiwan. Wargame it for me.

What's your move, and what's the path to victory?

[Jim Noble]

You get your check from the Chinese propaganda ministry?

Unfortunately no.

[tanknetter]

The lots of smaller carriers is an argument that has been made, repeatedly, in the 90 or so years since the USN started building them. And with examples like Ranger (CV-4), Wasp (CV-7) running up through the Sea Control Ship concept (which was the basis for the Euro Harrier Carriers) it’s been proven flawed time and time again.

The purpose of the big USN carriers is to project power on the other side of the planet. You can’t really do that with smaller ships. Even the Brits acknowlege that the primary purpose of their 60,000 ton QE class carriers is to supplement USN CSGs in joint allied actions, and work in conjunction with Euro allies in regional actions (like Libya), with a limited capability to act truly independently outside of regional operations (which would include going South if Falklands II cooks off)

[NorthMountain]

A 600 ship Navy perhaps? I heard that somewhere.

It's what Ronald Reagan wanted, but never quite got.

[central_va]

What good is a sub? By definition it cannot project power on land.

[Drew68]

What people seem to be missing the point on is what an enemy must go through to get to an A/C. The satellite data, technology, logistics.

Easy. You overwhelm the defense systems with sheer numbers. And as anti-ship weapons become more powerful, cheaper, concealable and easier to produce, eventually you'll find yourself on the wrong side of math.

[tanknetter]

The Marines are getting F-35Cs too, to fulfill their commitment to having some squadrons integrated into carrier airwings.

[central_va]

Once nukes start flying around all tactical missions/goals cease to matter- or perhaps exist.

[EQAndyBuzz]

“Do you not believe that an enemy with tactical nukes that faced an existential threat from CBGs would use them?”

I believe anything is possible. I also believe that if we are ever in that situation, something probably happened in the world where global nuclear war is inevitable. If an enemy is ready to launch a nuke, everyone will want in.