Sorry: Aircraft Carriers Won’t Rule the Seas Forever

[rangerrebew]

Sorry: Aircraft Carriers Won’t Rule the Seas Forever

Continued overinvestment would be a major mistake.
 
Here's What You Need to Know: The aircraft carrier will not be the relevant weapon in the second half of the century.

“History,” it has been written, “does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.” Today it’s rhyming with Gen. Billy Mitchell. In the 1920s, Mitchell challenged conventional thinking by advocating air power at sea in the face of a naval establishment dominated by battleship proponents.

The hubris of the “battleship Navy” was such that just nine days before Pearl Harbor, the official program for the 1941 Army-Navy game displayed a full page photograph of the battleship USS Arizona with language virtually extolling its invincibility.

Of course, the reason that no one had yet sunk a battleship from the air — in combat — was that no one had yet tried.

 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/sorry-aircraft-carriers-won%E2%80%99t-rule-seas-forever-194770

[sneakypete]

Carriers became obsolete the instant 3rd world nations acquired nuclear missles.

So did the rest of the Navy,with the exception of the nuke subs.

[PeteS in CA]

Been hearing this line for 50 years. Evidence doesn't support it now any more than it did then.

[GtHawk]

Been hearing this line for 50 years. Evidence doesn't support it now any more than it did then.

Doesn't this pop up at least once a year? Aren't carriers all about projection of force where no land base is available close at hand?

[sneakypete]

Doesn't this pop up at least once a year? Aren't carriers all about projection of force where no land base is available close at hand?

@GtHawk

Yup,but there were no missiles back then.

Now nations that don't even have indoor plumbing for most houses have missles and even nukes.

[GtHawk]

@GtHawk

Yup,but there were no missiles back then.

Now nations that don't even have indoor plumbing for most houses have missles and even nukes.

Well I have no personal experience but it seems to me we had ballistic missiles with nuke warheads in the 60's and 70's but the aircraft carriers came in quite handy in Vietnam from what I read.

[sneakypete]

True,but the North Vietnamese didn't have them.

[Elderberry]

The age of the aircraft carrier

https://www.britannica.com/topic/naval-warfare/The-age-of-the-aircraft-carrier

The age of the guided missile

At the end of World War II the supremacy of the U.S. Navy was as pronounced as that of the Royal Navy in the 19th century. With no enemy battle fleet to fight, it staked out the classic role of dominant navies throughout history—projecting its influence over land. Carrier-based aircraft, nuclear missile-carrying submarines, and amphibious-assault units extended that influence greatly. While the U.S. Navy served to link the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) across the Atlantic, its carrier-centred battle fleet stood ready to deliver sea power over the land. The principal opposing navy, that of the Soviet Union, was configured to challenge NATO’s sea link and to confront U.S. aircraft carriers. The result was a new, asymmetrical tactical environment: a surface fleet facing a “fleet” composed mainly of submarines and land-based aircraft.

On a smaller scale than the U.S.-Soviet naval competition, the Falkland Islands War between the United Kingdom and Argentina in 1982 exhibited the tactical environment of sea-based forces fighting land-based forces in the guided-missile era. In this, the only extended naval campaign after World War II, were observed several modern influences on naval combat. First, submarines were formidable weapons, not only in the sinking of an obsolescent pre-World War II cruiser (the General Belgrano, formerly the USS Phoenix) by a nuclear-powered attack submarine (HMS Conqueror) on May 2 but, less obviously, in the harrying of the whole British fleet by one Argentine diesel-electric submarine. Second, the nature, if not the full extent, of the threat of modern air-launched antiship missiles was seen in two Argentine attacks, first against the destroyer HMS Sheffield (May 4) and then, after penetrating fleet defenses, the supply ship Atlantic Conveyor (May 25). Also, a land-to-sea missile struck and damaged the destroyer HMS Glamorgan (June 12), presaging more strikes from land in future maritime wars. Third, the British relearned lessons of damage control and ship survivability, while the Argentines found that aircraft armed only with unguided bombs were outclassed by ships with surface-to-air missiles. Fourth, and perhaps most fundamental, both sides saw the crippling effect of inadequate scouting, for both were without first-line sea-based air surveillance. Both had to manage with makeshift sources, such as picket submarines and commercial aircraft for conducting reconnaissance.

In response to growing weapon range, the collection and delivery of tactical information continued to grow in importance and consumed more manpower and facilities. Radar and electronic intelligence satellites, over-the-horizon radars, large surveillance aircraft, and electronic signal collectors of utmost sophistication were all manifestations of this trend. These scouting devices had their antitheses in electronic jammers and countermeasures—in effect, antiscouting systems.

In theory, modern communications have permitted the coordinated delivery of missiles or air strikes at great ranges from vessels in dispersed formations, and the three components of naval combat power—firepower, scouting, and C2—can be highly dispersed. The major navies of the world, however, have continued to build aircraft carriers and cruisers, indicating a reliance on concentrated battle fleets and on strong defenses rather than dispersal to avoid destruction. The tactical value of concentrated as opposed to distributed power will ultimately depend on whether the historical trend observed above—that is, the growing range and lethality of naval weapons—continues. Battleships delivered salvos of gunfire in a continuous stream of destructive power, and the tactical effect was the N-square law of accumulating advantage. An aircraft carrier delivered a pulse of striking power that, if successful, destroyed about its own weight of the enemy. The classic naval tactic of attacking effectively first was vital. The question of the guided-missile age is whether one ship armed with missiles can sink more than one of the enemy, in spite of the enemy’s defenses and ability to absorb punishment. If that is now the case, attacking first will be everything. Missiles that outrange the enemy’s will be valuable, but even more valuable will be a compatible scouting system that detects and tracks the missiles close enough to their moving targets for the missiles’ terminal guidance systems to lock onto them.

[rangerrebew]

Carriers became obsolete the instant 3rd world nations acquired nuclear missles.

So did the rest of the Navy,with the exception of the nuke subs.

You must be a man of great wisdom and insight.  I've been saying the same thing since the mid 70s.  But like so many things in the military the joint chiefs don't seem to agree.  Virtually every ship in the Navy's fleets are target practice in this day and age.  50 years ago the Ruskies had satellites that could pick the position of any ship withing about 7 miles which, when talking about the Pacific Ocean, is a near direct hit.  In 1976 my ship was in Singapore on July 4 to help celebrate America's bicentennial at the request of Americans there.  Now my ship, when tuned up, got 13 1/2 feet per gallon of fuel.  That was an expensive show.  The one thing which must unnerve the Chicoms and Ruskies is having no idea where all the subs are, unlike the surface fleets.

[PeteS in CA]

Doesn't this pop up at least once a year? Aren't carriers all about projection of force where no land base is available close at hand?

I think an article like the one in the OP is posted here on TBR 2 or 3 times a year.

@GtHawk

Yup,but there were no missiles back then.

Now nations that don't even have indoor plumbing for most houses have missles and even nukes.

Anti-ship missiles have been around since the 1970s or earlier. And defenses against anti-ship missiles have been around since the 1970s or earlier. I'll bet submarines and anti-submarine defenses have been around even longer.

[sneakypete]

I think an article like the one in the OP is posted here on TBR 2 or 3 times a year.

Anti-ship missiles have been around since the 1970s or earlier. And defenses against anti-ship missiles have been around since the 1970s or earlier. I'll bet submarines and anti-submarine defenses have been around even longer.

@PeteS in CA

Big whoop.

Anti-ship missles are generally fired by enemy ships and must hit the target to do any damage,and naturally enough,our ships have warning systems that can track and fire back at incoming missiles.

Nukes don't have to be incoming. They can explode miles away and still destroy a fleet. Especially if there are more than one and they bracket the fleet.  Imagine the waves that will hit the fleet after a strike like that.

Naval ships are mostly for show and transportation these days,not defense.

Once again,the boomers are the exception.

[PeteS in CA]

The same is true of the majority of land bases, Army, Navy, and Air Force. Carriers are not uniquely vulnerable to nuclear missiles.

[sneakypete]

The same is true of the majority of land bases, Army, Navy, and Air Force. Carriers are not uniquely vulnerable to nuclear missiles.

@PeteS in CA

True,but nobody pretends any different,and they don't have new ones built every  year.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Aircraft carriers are the cornerstone of the Navy weapons procurement ecosystem.  Without them, the Navy would have less justification for its size, budget, and weapons programs.

Just like the Air Force taking a hit when Space Command was broken out into its own agency.  Space Command has all the new cool space stuff, while the Air Force as to play with Cold War relic technology like strategic bombers.  The ICBM's are no fun because you never get to launch them.

[sneakypete]

Aircraft carriers are the cornerstone of the Navy weapons procurement ecosystem.  Without them, the Navy would have less justification for its size, budget, and weapons programs.

Just like the Air Force taking a hit when Space Command was broken out into its own agency.  Space Command has all the new cool space stuff, while the Air Force as to play with Cold War relic technology like strategic bombers.  The ICBM's are no fun because you never get to launch them.

@DefiantMassRINO

Which is a GOOD thing.

[Elderberry]

Aircraft carriers are the cornerstone of the Navy weapons procurement ecosystem.  Without them, the Navy would have less justification for its size, budget, and weapons programs.

Just like the Air Force taking a hit when Space Command was broken out into its own agency.  Space Command has all the new cool space stuff, while the Air Force as to play with Cold War relic technology like strategic bombers.  The ICBM's are no fun because you never get to launch them.

[/quote]

U.S NAVY TESTS TRIDENT II D-5 MISSILE FROM OHIO CLASS SUBMARINE ! NO NONSENSE MESSAGE TO RIVALS


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mLfuGI85_A


A submarine-launched Tomahawk cruise missile with a conventional warhead. Carrying the nuclear version would
reduce the number of missiles available for conventional strikes