The Briefing Room
General Category => Military/Defense News => Topic started by: rangerrebew on February 19, 2020, 01:24:53 pm
-
February 2, 2020
Are the U.S. Navy's New Aircraft Carriers Worth the Cost? OId Battleships Might Give Us a Clue.
Battleship history casts doubt on the future of über-expensive behemoths like the U.S. Navy’s Ford-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (CVNs). The question isn’t just whether the aircraft carrier is obsolete, a floating target in the missile age. That reduces the question to technology. The question is whether the carrier is worth its cost in strategic and political terms.
by James Holmes
Your humble scribe just reviewed an excellent new history of the Iowa-class fast battleships, castles of steel built for an era of flux in naval warfare not unlike our own. In fact, battleship history casts doubt on the future of über-expensive behemoths like the U.S. Navy’s Ford-class nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (CVNs). The question isn’t just whether the aircraft carrier is obsolete, a floating target in the missile age. That reduces the question to technology. The question is whether the carrier is worth its cost in strategic and political terms. If flattops remain survivable enough to bear the brunt of dueling the Russian Navy or China’s People’s Liberation Army Navy for maritime command, they may remain a worthwhile investment.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/are-us-navys-new-aircraft-carriers-worth-cost-oid-battleships-might-give-us-clue-119656
-
Pundits have been arguing that carriers are obsolete and vulnerable since the 1970s. IRL, carriers since that time have proved valuable assets in multiple wars and conflicts and in one or more natural disasters (IIRC). And in those 40+ years zero carriers have been lost, other than to scrapyards and museums.
Iowa class BBs (and others) usefulness was far exceeded by carrier aircraft decades ago - in range and in weight munitions deliverable. And while modern carriers need to be deployed carefully and with protection, that was true in WW2 as well. So the question as to "worth the cost" should be, what can deliver the same volume of destruction, as far, as flexibly, and for as long as a carrier that carriers could be eliminated? Or even diminished in number and usage the way North Carolina, South Dakota, and Iowa class BBs were after WW2?
1970s pundits had no viable answer (and were proven wrong by events), and the same is true now, IMO.
-
They are useful as floating "show the flat" vehicles,and they are useful as launch platforms for fighter-bombers in small,conventional conflicts.
Other than that,they are mostly useful as targets and underwater tombs if a major war breaks out.
-
Pundits have been arguing that carriers are obsolete and vulnerable since the 1970s. IRL, carriers since that time have proved valuable assets in multiple wars and conflicts and in one or more natural disasters (IIRC). And in those 40+ years zero carriers have been lost, other than to scrapyards and museums.
Iowa class BBs (and others) usefulness was far exceeded by carrier aircraft decades ago - in range and in weight munitions deliverable. And while modern carriers need to be deployed carefully and with protection, that was true in WW2 as well. So the question as to "worth the cost" should be, what can deliver the same volume of destruction, as far, as flexibly, and for as long as a carrier that carriers could be eliminated? Or even diminished in number and usage the way North Carolina, South Dakota, and Iowa class BBs were after WW2?
1970s pundits had no viable answer (and were proven wrong by events), and the same is true now, IMO.
Carriers will be around for decades. However, it would be prudent to explore smaller, cheaper designs that can be fielded in greater numbers and replaced more easily. IMO the supercarriers of today exist almost as much out of political as strategic necessity.
-
Carriers will be around for decades. However, it would be prudent to explore smaller, cheaper designs that can be fielded in greater numbers and replaced more easily. IMO the supercarriers of today exist almost as much out of political as strategic necessity.
Does not the amphibious assault ship meet this role?
MPHIBIOUS ASSAULT SHIPS - LHD/LHA(R)
https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4 (https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assault_ship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assault_ship)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/USS_Wasp_%28LHD_1%29.jpg)
-
Does not the amphibious assault ship meet this role?
MPHIBIOUS ASSAULT SHIPS - LHD/LHA(R)
https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4 (https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assault_ship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assault_ship)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/USS_Wasp_%28LHD_1%29.jpg)
I don't think so - those are strictly for amphibious assault and it's support. Not intended to take on an enemy fleet or reach targets far inland.
-
An aircraft carrier can maintain, arm and launch 40 or aircraft, larger than our modern day permanent air base so if we "dump" carriers and maintain the air strength, where do we put the planes and people.
Given the carrier's capabilities in support of national defense and it's value in national emergencies (floods, earthquakes, hurricanes etc) in on-shore power, bringing search and rescue and medical transport to bear, any talk of eliminating them is very myopic.
-
Does not the amphibious assault ship meet this role?
MPHIBIOUS ASSAULT SHIPS - LHD/LHA(R)
https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4 (https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=400&ct=4)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assault_ship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assault_ship)
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/USS_Wasp_%28LHD_1%29.jpg)
@thackney
Only if your intention is to land troops. The "charm" of the big carriers is their ability to lay FAR offshore and launch some pretty serious fighter/bombers on the enemy before he even suspects he is in trouble. That's a role than can,in all probability,only be taken over my "Smart" missiles with drone overview.
Good luck talking the Navy into THAT one!
-
Carriers will be around for decades. However, it would be prudent to explore smaller, cheaper designs that can be fielded in greater numbers and replaced more easily.
It may be a good idea on paper but the cost of additional manpower to sail more of them could offset any monetary savings in design. :pondering:
-
WW2 CVLs and CVEs were smaller and cheaper. But CVLs carried a smaller air group and were less robust when damaged. And CVEs were slower and also carried smaller air groups. CVLs and CVEs also had smaller magazines and spare parts stowage and maintenance areas.
Two other WW2 CVs illustrate these problems. CV-4, USS Ranger, was slower, much less robust, and not stable enough for substantial upgrade, unlike her Lexington and Yorktown class sisters. Ranger was deemed unsuitable for the Pacific theater until late in the war, when she was kept in Hawaiian waters for training. CV-7, USS Wasp, was less limited than Ranger, but was still insufficiently robust (compared, e.g., to sisters Lexington and Yorktown which sustained enormous damage before finally sinking).
One could compare IJN lighter carriers Hiryu and Soryu to the much more robust Kaga, Shokaku, and Zuikaku. But, as Akagi demonstrated (one hit, one VERY damaging very near miss) the IJN had damage control design and doctrine issues. That said, even with the same issues as Akagi, Kaga was a floating wreck but would not have sunk on her own for some time had the IJN not sunk her. The IJN got it "right" with the very robust Shokaku and Zuikaku, while Hiryu and Soryu were much less robust than their contemporaries.
I'm not knocking the smaller carriers concept, just pointing out that they can also have "issues". And as ranger suggested above, could be less efficient in staffing.