Posted on 05/29/2024 4:17:43 AM PDT by hardspunned
The U.S. Navy's Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers, intended to replace the aging Nimitz-class, are the largest and most expensive warships ever built, costing $13.3 billion each.
Despite advanced technology and automation reducing crew requirements, these carriers face challenges due to anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) systems deployed by potential adversaries like China.
The new carrier's high cost and potential vulnerability to cheaper A2/AD systems raise concerns about its effectiveness in future conflicts.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalinterest.org ...
The article brings up valid points regarding systems issues. It then pivots to how carriers have been made obsolete by A2AD systems. The argument presented is to print A2AD over and over again. I followed the link to get a better idea of what A2AD is, and how it would obsolete carriers. The link to a different article was simply more repetition with no rationale.
I did some digging and based on what I read, A2AD is nothing but a new name for long existent strategies. If there is information that sheds light on this, particularly if it is contradictory, please lmk.
Considering what appears to be a deliberate misrepresentation of A2AD as a carrier cancelling threat, I cannot help but wonder if the systems claims are overstated.
A) Iran and Russia and NK haven't yet shared all their missile tech with the small fries. Perhaps when that day comes, then you'll be right that aircraft carriers will be obsolete.
B) The recent failed missile attack by Iran on Israel with hundreds of missiles tells us that Iran's missile tech is a bit underwhelming. The 12th imam is probably hanging his head in shame.
“This carrier was designed to fight yesterday’s wars with tomorrow’s technologies.”
Just too cute and too often cited in this article. The Navy is developing countermeasures.
“$13Billion obsolete targets. When China blockades Taiwan there will be nothing the USN will be able to do about it.”
Why did he not mention that he same technology that is supposed to sink carriers can also be used against the Chinese ships riding the seas as they attempt a blockade. Ships trying to blockade are the sitting ducks.
The Chinese are also building aircraft carriers.
You have no idea how many hypersonic missiles the Chicoms have. I assume they have enough in spades to sink any ship that relies on the Aegis or any other system a U.S. carrier group would have. Of course the vast majority of ships you speak of could be sank with lesser missiles and drones. How many American carriers would the Chinese need to sink before you’d realize surface ships are obsolete? Hell, the Houthis shut down the Suez Canal and there wasn’t a thing the combined Euroweenie and U.S. Navies could do about it.
Again, the Chinese have no intention of invading. At most, they will blockade Taiwan into submission. Needlessly invading is the kind of dipsh!t move the morons in the Pentagon would make.
Perhaps you understand the A2/AD issue better than the article author — I don’t.
Are they simply saying the ships can’t stave off land based defenses meant to keep them away from coastal channels? Well, duh.
Tofu dreg
A few incredibly expensive chess pieces will always be defeated by hundreds of cheap, easily replaceable, and imaginary counters on paper.
13.3 billion per Carrier. Quite a lot of money. With the interest alone on the National debt over a Trillion dollars a year that could have bought 75 of these expensive carriers.
Could have floated probably 15 carriers with the money pi$$ed away on Uke corruption.
1) they say this about every single new system. (”the tech doesn’t work right [F-22, F-18, Osprey, Trident]”, “too expensive,” “will be too vulnerable”).
2) Of course, just like B-29s in WW II, every system has vulnerabilities and every “better” system is expensive. But it all depends on doctrine.
3) I am just spit-balling, but before I continue I’d remind everyone that in 1984, with absolutely NO secret clearance, Doug Dalgleish and I wrote a history/future speculation of the Trident Submarine Program. It turns out everything we predicted except (so far) using the hulls for SDI purposes came to pass. So, with that in mind:
My guess is that once the lipstick-wearing officers are purged, the Navy’s doctrine (as best I can tell from OTHER ships they are bulding) is to use carriers as a “second strike” weapon. That is, the first in will be diesel, robotic subs that are mass drone carriers. These are not JUST “offensive” drones, but as h/k anti drone swarm weapons with ESW and large scale aerial explosions designed to eliminate thousands of drones at a time. Multiply this by dozens of these vessels. THEN, our own drone swarms would engage the ChiCom fleet. Remember despite their #s, most of the ChiCom ships are the equivalent of Jefferson’s “gunboats,” or what we used to call destroyer escorts. They are NOT capable of ship-to-ship combat in the least. Finally, after those waves & some cruise missiles, THEN the carriers would go in.
All of this takes place in addition to the powerful but small defenses of Taiwan, the Philippines, Japan (which has the second largest F-35 fleet of aircraft in the world), Malaya, Australia, etc. Now, I fully understand coordination between such powers historically has been tough. Therefore, note one of the key additions of the FORD was interoperability with allied vessels. I think probably 1/3 of the ChiCom fleet that survived the drones wouldn’t survive the allies.
But I guess we’ll see. Hope not.
That certainly is an interesting take. Completely wrong and ridiculous, but interesting nonetheless. They have us by the balls. They have 100000 agents in this country ready to shoot up malls and schools, destroy all power plants and poison every drop of water , and obama and his controllers are encouraging it. They know every military installation, bill kkklinton allowed Cisco to build routers in china, and the chicoms installed a chip in them that was able to steal the data of any computer to which it was connected— like the pentagon. Their children are 10-20 points higher than our fat faggoty mongrel race of mouth breathers. They steal AND innovate and have weapons we apparently can’t figure out how to make. And then they have bioweapons and are not afraid to use them. Unless we have the demonic alien weapons at our disposal, we are finished. And who is to say if real, the alien demons aren’t helping china?
Weichart four times referred to the Ford class as “boats.”
He’s not a credible source.
You don’t need a source for this one. Look at the Russian Black Sea Fleet, look at the USN humiliation at the hands of the Houthis, look at the U.S. helplessness against hypersonic missiles. Be your own source. It’s not hard to figure out. Regardless, he’s right.
An aircraft carrier is a formidable force against an enemy that does not have sophisticated anti ship missiles. Against a sophisticated enemy it is dead meat as are theirs.
Are you talking about the Chinese DF-21D Carrier Killer?
Yep...my guess is that the best defense against drone swarms is pure distance, and this might prove difficult in regions where the USN wants to project its air power.
MK48’s, harpoons, Tomahawks can do a lot of damage.
A carrier half the size of the Ford class, conventional power, fast and a formidable AA and anti-missile system. Twenty of these vs. 9 Ford class. And excess funds can go toward the real threat of the chicoms US attack subs. Further, using large cargo planes with hypersonic missiles that can be deployed from them at greater distances gives you even more punch back.
Yes
A CVN has two principal roles, for which it is ideally suited.
Power projection against a country which is not near-peer.
And, control of the blue water sea lanes.
In the event of a war at sea against the Chinese and over Taiwan, the CVNs will be between 500 and 1000 miles away.
This article shows a lot of dumbassery.
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.