As a FYI, the recent proposed Defense Dept budget zeroed out research for long range strike drones.
There are areas aircraft carriers can operate, and areas they should not go. This has been the case since 1941. Aircraft carriers are intended to project power against inferior land opponents or to secure the vast ocean areas.
The idea that one U.S. Navy carrier group, or even several of of them, can operate long in close proximity of a major land power like China or Russia is military suicide.
Time for the USAF to step up, and dominate from space.
While Obama and his Marxist Muslims fiddle the world burns
From the Report:
“Operating the carrier in the face of increasingly lethal and precise munitions will thus require the United States to expose a multi-billion dollar asset to high levels of risk in the event of a conflict,” the report says. “An adversary with A2/AD capabilities would likely launch a saturation attack against the carrier from a variety of platforms and directions. Such an attack would be difficult - if not impossible - to defend against.”
The United States “must re-examine the relevance of the carrier and its air wing and explore innovative options for future operations and force structure,” the report concludes. “If the United States is to maintain its military superiority well into the future, it cannot afford to do otherwise.”
Seems wide to plan for the next era of battlefield supremacy. We’ve been using Carriers for nearly a century. At some point the current concept becomes a horse and buggy scenario.
When will a fighting ship of the line be named the U.S.S. Barack Hussein Obama?
1. Aircraft carriers have never had unchallenged primacy. Never. That is why the Navy has SSNs, DDGs, and CGs, and why we still have overlapping capabilities with the USAF.
2. Most people on Earth live withing striking distance of a CVNs airgroup. Aircraft are still important in winning wars and the USAF cannot adequately support our interests from the land bases we have access to.
3. If we didn’t think that losing a CVN was a real possibility in a big war, we wouldn’t have so many of them.
4. In the hey day of carrier warfare, CVs could not just sail straight to Japan, even at the beginning of 1945. War against an able aggressor requires a series of strokes to before you can place your forces at the threshold of the final targets.
5. The best force mix is always moving target. Going forward, we may need a larger number of smaller CVs.
We continue to give or allow others to steal our technology everyday in the name of diversity and coexist, not to mention we subsidize most of the rest of the works military spending via our trade policy and globalization.
They better think about the Ohio class subs before they mess with our flattops, especially if Trump has the code.
Good morning, Tehran!!!
Anti-ship cruis missiles are another story.
