We Need More Carriers and More Marines

National Security Online ^ | 12/6/2002 | Christopher W. Holton

[Spandau]

All your carrier are belong to us.

The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.5 speed with a very low-level flight pattern that uses violent end maneuvers to throw off defenses. After detecting the Sunburn, the U.S. Navy Phalanx point defense system may have only 2.5 seconds to calculate a fire solution - not enough time before the devastating impact of a 750 lb. warhead. Besides Russia, the PRC and Iran are known to posess Sunburn.

[Spandau]

The above courtesy of Richard D. Fisher, a defense analyst.

[Oztrich Boy]

The Corsair could allow the Navy to operate in coastal waters, within range of shore-base anti-shipping cruise missiles, according to proponents of the concept.

Mike, are you sure these guys are on *our* side?

Build a ship sized so that a single missile hit will be totally crippling. Pack it with expensive aircraft, so overloaded that there will be very little tonnage to devote to fire control and point defence. Give it a crew so small that damage control capability will be non-existant. Send it into harms way of shore-based missile systems.

Yep, that's a plan.

[Polybius]

Mike, are you sure these guys are on *our* side? Build a ship sized so that a single missile hit will be totally crippling. Pack it with expensive aircraft, so overloaded that there will be very little tonnage to devote to fire control and point defence. Give it a crew so small that damage control capability will be non-existant. Send it into harms way of shore-based missile systems. Yep, that's a plan.

During World War II, Escort Carriers were designated CVE's. They included the Casablanca Class at 6,730 tons which carried 28 aircraft and the Commencement Bay Class at 12,000 tons which carried 34 aircraft.

The CVE crews joked that what "CVE" really stood for was "Combustible, Vulnerable and Expendable".

[Poohbah]

If you can't fight 2 wars simultaniously, you cannot afford to fight any war, since you will be vulnerable.

And you can't afford to fight two wars simultaneously because you will be vulnerable, unless you can fight THREE wars simultaneously...but then you might have to fight three, so you'd better have enough forces to fight four...no, five...

Are you beginning to see that we have a wee bit of a problem with your theory?

The "two-war strategy" was far less about actually the military being able to perform its mission in the post-Cold War era and far more about protecting its budgetary turf. And in the name of protecting its budget, the Army allowed itself to be used as an international meals-on-wheels force.

[Poohbah]

It also wouldn't be as vulnerable to nukes as surface ships, provided we could get it to go a little deeper, no?

Only in shallow water--the Van Dorn effect. But you'd have to FIND the sucker first, and that is nontrivial.

[Poohbah]

The Sunburn combines a Mach 2.5 speed with a very low-level flight pattern that uses violent end maneuvers to throw off defenses. After detecting the Sunburn, the U.S. Navy Phalanx point defense system may have only 2.5 seconds to calculate a fire solution - not enough time before the devastating impact of a 750 lb. warhead. Besides Russia, the PRC and Iran are known to posess Sunburn.

Gosh, in a non-CEC world, that's a formidable weapon.

In a CEC world, that thing's dead before it clears the launch rail.

[hchutch]

While the JDAM has lessened the acuteness of the need for battleships, I have yet to see an aircraft that can remain on station for a long period of time, and take the abuse a battleship can - and then still accomplish its mission.

As Sergei Gorshkov put it: "You Americans do not realize what formidable warships you have in these four battleships. We have concluded after careful analysis that these magnificent ships are in fact the most to be feared in your entire naval arsenal. When engaged in combat we could throw everything we have at those ships and all our firepower would bounce off or be of little effect. Then when we are exhausted, we will detect you coming over the horizon and then you will sink us."

[hchutch]

The Iranians have the "Aegis-killer" missile?

[Poohbah]

As Sergei Gorshkov put it: "You Americans do not realize what formidable warships you have in these four battleships. We have concluded after careful analysis that these magnificent ships are in fact the most to be feared in your entire naval arsenal. When engaged in combat we could throw everything we have at those ships and all our firepower would bounce off or be of little effect. Then when we are exhausted, we will detect you coming over the horizon and then you will sink us."

First, I sincerely doubt Gorshkov ever said that. The capital ship of the Soviet Navy was the submarine, and (a) submarines are not vulnerable to being sunk by a battleship, and (b) the Soviet Navy could very well sink a battleship without unduly straining themselves. 4 Type 65 wake-homing torpedoes would be enough to mission-kill a battleship--one nuclear torpedo would be enough to sink it outright.

Second, the battleship is simply not logistically supportable in this day and age, and reconstituting the logisitic support infrastructure would probably cost less than providing same for a new-build fire support vessel with the latest technology.

[Spandau]

According to what I've read, the Iranians have Sunburn, which they acquired from the Chinese. Sunburn can be launched from land, small patrol boats, or larger 'wessels. When the US Navy sails through the Stait of Hormuz, the Iranians like to move their stuff south in response and watch. As crazy as those mullahs are over there, I'm sure no-one underestimates the danger. Remember how deadly the subsonic Exocets were in the 80s? If Sunburn has a range of 80 miles, you can probably counter it by making sure nothing survives within that radius. You would have to strike first, which raises the stakes politically.