Mothball the USS Harry S. Truman? Proposal has many scratching their heads.

Virginian Pilot ^ | March 25 2019 | Hugh Lessig

[RitchieAprile]

Two years ago, President Trump made a dramatic entrance at Newport News Shipbuilding and promised to expand the aircraft carrier fleet. It was his biggest applause line. That promise appeared to bear fruit in January, when the shipyard signed a two-carrier contract with the Navy. It was the first bulk-buy of the nuclear-powered behemoths since the Reagan administration. Now, the Pentagon

[FLT-bird]

I admit, I do wonder if Aircraft Carriers have not become like Battleships in WWII - hugely expensive prestige items which would have limited effectiveness in a war against a major power due to their vulnerability. I freely concede I’m no expert but with all major powers now having satellites - thus stripping Aircraft Carriers of their ability to suddenly show up and surprise an enemy like they could generations ago - and with the development of ever more sophisticated long range high speed anti-ship missiles which cost a tiny fraction of a modern aircraft carrier, I wonder if we would not be better served investing more of our resources in other platforms.

[laplata]

👍

[Darteaus94025]

How the Navy works the procurement system for more money!

[microgood]

Is that the “version” that has catapults that don't work and guns that the ammunition is too expensive to buy?

Yep. They are sitting around on piers waiting for a weapon system. And they were so expensive they built 3 instead of the 30 or so planned.

[Reno89519]

Ignore the LOCAL political hacks, what is best for the Navy and out national security? Maybe there are other reasons for moth-balling an over-priced floating target?

[Reno89519]

Aircraft can be there in hours, a carrier in days or weeks. Totally obsolete.

[Tallguy]

The Truman is scheduled for a mid-life overhaul which isn’t cheap & involved re-coring her nuclear reactors. She’ll be off-line for 3 years from what I’ve read. Being as there are 2 new carriers coming online shortly thereafter, do you spend the bucks?

[volunbeer]

I think like you do.

Carriers are very capable platforms at power projection in a conventional setting against a weaker foe with no air power or navy. Carriers are a very vulnerable platform against a foe with better capabilities such as China or Russia.

The future is drones, stealth aircraft, and AI. Seed the ocean floor with robotic torpedoes and drone submarines and it only takes one to break the back of a carrier. Hypersonic missiles from aircraft or land platforms present a huge threat. Submarines still present a significant threat to carriers. The immediate future of warfare is drones and AI with a larger presence in space (hat tip to Trump for recognizing the importance of space) and all of these things make a carrier very vulnerable.

The advantages of stealth are dominant now, but given that they are only “invisible” to most current radar systems and may not be invisible to newer satellites above we may be back to the same problems against more capable foes with that technology. This is why space is so important in future warfare and it is very difficult to predict. Ground based lasers can target platforms in space just as space based platforms will likely be able to target ground targets. Put most of your eggs in one basket like a carrier and a single technology (likely at little comparative cost) can erase the largest military investment in the blink of an eye.

The future of power projection will be far different than what we currently imagine. We can be certain of this and the traditional carrier as we imagine it now is the main target all of our foes are focused on because we are so dependent upon them.

[central_va]

Carriers will be obsolete when air superiority over huge swaths of ocean becomes obsolete, so the answer is NEVER.

[central_va]

Would all of you anti carrier bathtub admirals want to go on record here and now and state that the USN would be much better off with no CVN carriers? A simple yes or no will do.

[central_va]

Which is why they( our enemies ) are desperate to develop fixed wing naval aviation.

[mewzilla]

What’s the purpose of a carrier?

[ClearCase_guy]

Hey, my comment stated that I loved carriers. I’m sure they still have a place. I have no idea if current naval doctrine is trying to lessen their role for the future. I leave that sort of thing to real experts. I merely opine that it’s a dangerous world and maybe someone in the know has concerns about survivability. I do not consider myself in the know.

[RinaseaofDs]

I tend to agree.

Some of these programs have become federal job programs for Congressional districts.

There’s only one maker of Abrams tanks any more. Only one program that does nuclear refueling.

See a pattern?

Carriers are great, but if a bunch of hajis can put their hands on a game changing ship killer like the Exocet was during the Falkland Islands War, why keep building targets?

[minnesota_bound]

I think this is a ploy for more money.

[AFret.]

“Scratch one flattop!”

(Naval Aviator Robert Dixon, Battle of the Coral Sea).

[central_va]

Yes or no admiral.

[mewzilla]

First let’s see if we agree on why they are out there. And then I will answer your question.

What’s the purpose of a carrier?

[mewzilla]

And I’m talking strategic, not tactical.

[Justa]

Can an aircraft carrier deliver more ordinance onto a target than a battleship? No. Then why were battleships replaced by aircraft carriers? Because the new aircraft carriers’ weapons systems had a greater range, were faster and were less vulunerable than the existing weapons platform of battleships.

Same case exists today for aircraft carriers. Newer missile systems have further ranges, are faster and are less vulnerable than aircraft carriers and their aircraft. They also have less maintenance and operating costs so there’s more of them.