Bkmk
So they are beyond fixing because the Chinese might have some weapon.
Drama Llama
I’m thinking some much cheaper and smaller ships with a bunch of relatively cheap drones is the way to go.
Given how a swarm of drones was able to sink one of Russia’s prize ships we need to learn from that.
So they have some cheap Chinese components in them: Do an assessment and yank them out. Don’t consider the whole vessel useless.
Isn’t flying a US flag enough to prevent enemy hypersonic missiles from destroying a carrier? If not, why haven’t we been working to develop defenses, as Russia and China have been doing?
“ When China blockades Taiwan there will be nothing the USN will be able to do about it.”
There are these things called submarines. Maybe you’ve heard of them.
L
The Chinese have 10 large landing ships. Those will die before they are halfway to Taiwan.
And a $13 billion aircraft care was never intended to be used as designed anyway. It’s a $13 billion taxpayer-funded corporate grift and a jobs program.
My take: modern aircraft carriers aren't designed to win wars against nuclear powers. They do, however, have the ability to project power against other nations without us having as many military bases all over the world. Particularly against maritime nations that attack sea traffic. IMHO, it's premature to talk about aircraft carriers like they're the equivalent of battleships in modern warfare.
The next war is fought with drones and swarms of migrants across your border, the next will be space based weapons, aircraft carriers are a thing of the past and the US is years away from catching up.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Weichart four times referred to the Ford class as “boats.”
He’s not a credible source.
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.
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.
So it’s a mistake to only have carriers in our armed forces?
Oh wait, we have other things too.
Whew!
I remember when CBS 60 min did attack messages on the F15 for being too expensive.
SeeBeS