Report: U.S. aircraft carriers ‘unchallenged primacy may be coming to a close’

Washington Post ^ | February 22, 2016 | Thomas Gibbons-Neff

[C19fan]

The United States’ aircraft carriers have always been an almost untouchable deterrent, steel behemoths capable of projecting the full weight of the U.S. military wherever they deploy. Yet while many militaries could never hope to match the U.S. carrier fleet in size and strength, countries such as China, Iran and Russia have spent recent years adjusting their forces and fielding equipment designed to counter one of the United States’ greatest military strengths.

[central_va]

Gee I would feel so much safer if only out enemies had aircraft carriers and we had none.

[central_va]

The air craft carrier will become obsolete when the concept of air superiority over huge swaths of ocean becomes obsolete. I.E. NEVER.

[Crusher138]

From a friend of my who worked at Los Alamos and Sandia Labs:

“Think of what science fiction stuff you hope we have. Add a hundred years and you are getting close.”

[sarge83]

Thus the USA being a preeminent industrial power, we had the capacity to stay in a fight by 1945 against a land based air force.

Hit and run raids on airfields, C&C, logistics, dockyards, naval shipping and supply would greatly hamper China’s ability to project power other than on land itself(If I were Vietnam I would be worried). With potential airbases in Vietnam, Okinawa, the Philippines and even Taiwan China would be possibly getting hit from several directions, assuming these bases are options. My question would be is if we hit back hard enough does China drop a nuke on Guam or attempt take out a battle group with a nuke?

The next question is if we get into a shooting war with the Chicoms do we then repudiate any and all debt they hold?

[AFreeBird]

By treaty, you can’t put weapons in space. Supposedly.

[TexasGator]

“Firing a swarm of a 1,000 or even 5,000 supersonic anti-ship missiles all at once is still cheaper than one aircraft carrier.”

uh ... RANGE?

[Trumpinator]

Depends on missiles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-270_Moskit

[Trumpinator]

The Sunburn can deliver a 200-kiloton nuclear payload or a 750-pound conventional warhead, within a range of 100 miles, more than twice the range of the Exocet. The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.1 speed (two times the speed of sound) with a flight pattern that hugs the deck and includes “violent end maneuvers” to elude enemy defenses. The missile was specifically designed to defeat the US Aegis radar defense system. Should a US Navy Phalanx point defense somehow manage to detect an incoming Sunburn missile, the system has only seconds to calculate a fire solution not enough time to take out the intruding missile. The US Phalanx defense employs a six-barreled gun that fires 3,000 depleted-uranium rounds a minute, but the gun must have precise coordinates to destroy an intruder “just in time.”

http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2012/09/the-sunburn-missile-the-weapon-that-could-defeat-the-us-in-the-gulf-2467754.html

[rmlew]

Chinese anti-ship ballistic missiles have never hit a stationary ship, much less a moving one. Paper Dragon.

Anti-ship cruis missiles are another story.

[TexasGator]

I think the carriers can operate effectively outside that range ...

[SampleMan]

I think in an air/sea battle with China our submarines would do far more damage than the carriers.

Well, they wouldn't do much damage in the air. If we are only fighting a Naval engagement with the Chinese, then we don't even have to expose our carriers. We just stand off and wait for them to come out, after we've shut down all of their sea lines of communication.

But if a landing invasion force has to be deterred or engaged in the Straits of Taiwan, an SSN isn't going to be able to do much. Every Chinese DDG will be banging away with active sonar to sanitize the very limited approaches, and even if the SSN got through it could only hope to engage a few high-value targets. The landing craft themselves would be immune from a submarine.

An SSGN could attack overland targets, but it would be out of missiles before it reached the one-day strike capability of a carrier air wing.

[SampleMan]

Using a 100 nm range missile against a CVN is like trying to box Mike Tyson using a 10” reach.

If the Chinese left port at 30 kts headed to launch against the CVN, the CVN would just turn away and launch strikes at its leisure, hoping the silly Chinese would continue out.

The same really applies to 300 nm range missiles.

[Trumpinator]

I am guessing the strategy is based on geography. If no narrow choke point then strategy - by say a China - is to keep the planes and carrier away from shore with a layered anti-ship and surface to air missiles strategy. So basically this leave the aircraft carrier and her aircraft useless.

The Russians think outside the box in crazy unexpected ways sometimes so I don't know how they would war game this.

[FreedomPoster]

Heck, I always thought operating carriers in the Persian Gulf was crazy, let alone your scenarios.

[FreedomPoster]

Pournelle’s Rods from God should have been implemented 30+ years ago.

[Lazamataz]

I always appreciate a rational well-thoughtout post, particularly one that is supported by fact rather than feeling. Thank you.

I hate those kind of posts.

Jeff Head, add another of the kind of posts I hate, here.

[Lazamataz]

From a friend of my who worked at Los Alamos and Sandia Labs: "Think of what science fiction stuff you hope we have. Add a hundred years and you are getting close."

Tell me classified stuff on a public forum please? What EXACTLY do we have? May I have one of them too?

[SampleMan]

Carriers don't need to enter narrow choke points when they can strike from several hundred miles away, and a 100 mile missile requires a 100 mile targeting solution. A 100x100 box is 10,000 square miles of ocean, and the shooter must know the target's position within a very small area of that. The greater the range, the harder the targeting solution. Carriers are completely immune to shore based ASCMs, because they simply won't come within their range. Air launched and submarine launched ASCMs are a threat, but with 4 Aegis platforms and dedicated fighter cap, carrier strike groups are not overly susceptible to air attack. Enemy submarines are an issue, but it is a difficult proposition for a submarine to find a fast carrier, especially with one or more U.S. SSNs sanitizing the water space. And only very large Russian SSGNs carry ASCMs capable of killing a carrier. In a big war, they would likely be tagged coming out of harbor.

But carrier strike groups don't exist because they are awesome at not getting hit. They exist because they are the only naval force capable of projecting power over a large airspace and over land. Sea launched cruise missiles remain precision pin pricks against known high-value targets. They are next to worthless against enemy ground forces.

[Trumpinator]

Then whey are they in the Persian Gulf?

[SampleMan]

Carriers? Because they can be. Its always better to be closer, if you can be.

So what would the plan be if Iran deployed 5000 cruise missiles in the SOH and started a war with us? Well, we wouldn’t enter the Persian Gulf on Day one, that’s for sure. Of course, dumb mines would have the same effect and cost a lot less. We would stand off in the Gulf of Oman with 3-4 carrier strike groups and start reducing the Iranian military. After the identifiable targets were taken out, we would invade Iran using airborne forces to secure a beach perimeter, followed by a Marine/Army assault. Those forces would then move north to clear Iranian side of the SOH. After the SOH were cleared, a carrier or two might then move in to get closer to targets in northern Iran.