Sea Power

[Auteur]

The aircraft carrier, dominent in WW2, and proving to be a wonderful tool for meddling in the third world for decades after, may now be fading into history, with consequences for geopolitical stategy today. The increasing speed and precision of missile systems now puts the carrier at dire risk, in the same sense that aircraft put battleships at unacceptable risk after about 1940 or so.

The DF-21D missile, now being deployed by China, has the capability to destroy carriers up to 1500k away, with defense against these very problematic. Even if these are only moderately effective, the massive investment in large modern warships would likely mean that they could not be risked in an environment where they may come within range.

It's curious to think what changes in policy, and relationships between formerly third world countries such as China, but also others, with the west might become in future years, given this scenerio. How likely would the US be to send carrier task forces to the Persian Gulf, or to Taiwan, if there was a good possibility of loosing them? How important would sea power be, overall, in such and environment?

 

[whitehall]

The fat asses in the Pentagon, often promoted because they go along with prevailing political doctrine, are usually a decade or two behind the times. The "intelligence" jerks who think little old ladies in wheel chairs at airports are the primary terrorist suspects while legitimate warnings by foreign agencies go unheeded, haven't gotten anything right since WW2 but they get a lot of Hollywood fiction and that's all the pop-culture educated Americans seem to rely on.

 

[rightwinger]

China is not going to fire a missile at one of our Carriers

Until that time, carriers are an awesome means of projecting power

 

[SteadyMercury]

An aircraft carrier offers a unique ability to project power, one that very few countries in the world can implement and nobody to the degree the United States can. We can basically establish an airbase off the coast of any country within a week, and this has proved invaluable again and again.

The aircraft carrier, dominent in WW2, and proving to be a wonderful tool for meddling in the third world for decades after, may now be fading into history, with consequences for geopolitical stategy today.

May now be fading? Given there is a new class of aircraft carrier with at least three currently planned (Ford, Kennedy, Enterprise) how would that be defined as fading into history?

The DF-21D missile, now being deployed by China, has the capability to destroy carriers up to 1500k away, with defense against these very problematic.

The dong feng is mostly theoretical, as even with maneuverable MIRVs it would still required the target to be in an assumed area to be effective, certainly not a given with a carrier group and modern ballistic launch detection systems. The huge chain of technology that would be required to pull this off would have to work perfectly, it is debatable whether is it a realistic threat.

It could also trigger a nuclear exchange, so it is questionable whether this thing would even be used in a regional conflict.

 

[whitehall]

Boomer Subs have more capacity for nuclear destruction than conventional Aircraft Carriers and the US is the undisputed leader in Submarine technology. The fat-assed Pentagon as usual is the problem rather than the solution. The US Navy is used as a social experiment with soap-opera intrigues on every American Ship. When a female Sailor becomes pregnant she is excused from duties. American warships are under orders not to shoot at small time pirates or defend themselves from suicide speed boats until they are hit. The world is upside down under radical leftie doctrines.

 

[Auteur]

An aircraft carrier offers a unique ability to project power, one that very few countries in the world can implement and nobody to the degree the United States can. We can basically establish an airbase off the coast of any country within a week, and this has proved invaluable again and again.

May now be fading? Given there is a new class of aircraft carrier with at least three currently planned (Ford, Kennedy, Enterprise) how would that be defined as fading into history?

Is the horse before the cart, or the cart before the horse? Because they are being built does not mean wise planning, or effectiveness in the future necessarily. The US was building battleships in WW2, despite the fact that they were being held back within larger task forces, and out of harm's way, for the most part, because of their new found vulnerability to air power.

The dong feng is mostly theoretical, as even with maneuverable MIRVs it would still required the target to be in an assumed area to be effective, certainly not a given with a carrier group and modern ballistic launch detection systems. The huge chain of technology that would be required to pull this off would have to work perfectly, it is debatable whether is it a realistic threat.

This is so, but the trend is towards ever faster and more accurate missiles. It is a huge chain of technology, but most weapon systems are today- no getting around it. Given the huge investment in ships like carriers, even a modestly effective system would have a great deterrent effect.

It could also trigger a nuclear exchange, so it is questionable whether this thing would even be used in a regional conflict.

Of course, this would be a whole other level. But the entire point of weapon systems is
the presentation of credible force, and the deterrence of conflict if possible, not their actual use. If it came to a nuclear exchange, all would be lost. The stronger the intermediate forces available, the more risk a given government is tempted to take on. We have seen this already with China, which has become much more assertive in the South China Sea recently. It's a question of risk management. Would, for example, the US risk nuclear war over a Chinese invasion of Taiwan? If local conventional forces were overwhelming, there might be temptation to intervene. If said forces were not overwhelming, but at risk enough that events would likely escalate rapidly, what would be the decision then? It sounds a little nutty, but that is the sort of poker game strategists engage in.

 

[numan]

'
Expensive projects like aircraft carriers and overly-fancy jet fighters are not built "to defend America", but rather to fill the bank accounts of war profiteers and keep the Military-Industrial Conspiracy occupied in robbing and impoverishing the American people.

Even after all these decades of highway robbery, people are still taken in by the militaristic bullshit.
.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Boomer Subs have more capacity for nuclear destruction than conventional Aircraft Carriers and the US is the undisputed leader in Submarine technology. The fat-assed Pentagon as usual is the problem rather than the solution. The US Navy is used as a social experiment with soap-opera intrigues on every American Ship. When a female Sailor becomes pregnant she is excused from duties. American warships are under orders not to shoot at small time pirates or defend themselves from suicide speed boats until they are hit. The world is upside down under radical leftie doctrines.

American warships shouldn't be getting their orders from the U.N. Maybe we need to take a closer look at to why we are following faux international law instead of our own. Then we can suggest the rest of the world turn in their memberships and say farewell to the U.N. Before they start WWIII in the Middle East pressuring USA to do their dirty work in Syria.

-J

 

[whitehall]

It's interesting to reflect that the Russians had boomer Subs with nuclear capability all over the Atlantic coast within striking distance of major US cities but JFK brought the US to Devcon 2 in a showdown over missiles on Cuba.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

True and it is also interesting that there was no change in alert when an Akula Class II Russian attack submarine was photographed off the coast of Texas last July. Add to this 2 more sightings of Russian nuclear attack submarines off eastern seaboard and the one that took shelter in Jacksonville, Fla within listening distance to our Kings Ga Submarine base. Arfe we stupid or what?

The only person who took note of this was a journalist. Imagine that.

- Jeri

 

[whitehall]

True and it is also interesting that there was no change in alert when an Akula Class II Russian attack submarine was photographed off the coast of Texas last July. Add to this 2 more sightings of Russian nuclear attack submarines off eastern seaboard and the one that took shelter in Jacksonville, Fla within listening distance to our Kings Ga Submarine base. Arfe we stupid or what?

The only person who took note of this was a journalist. Imagine that.

- Jeri

Wow, we have Admirals and Generals lobbying Congress to fund toys for big boys when a US warship couldn't defend itself against a bunch of rag tag terrorists in a plywood cabin cruiser for fear of creating an international incident. The Navy says it needs lasers when it can't even get permission to fire .50 ca. machine guns at teenage "pirates". Now we have Russian subs in the Gulf of Mexico and they are killing our Ambassadors in the freaking country we helped liberate.

 

[namvet]

the china man might but he won't. he's know's its there and he can't find it.

 

[namvet]

It's interesting to reflect that the Russians had boomer Subs with nuclear capability all over the Atlantic coast within striking distance of major US cities but JFK brought the US to Devcon 2 in a showdown over missiles on Cuba.

we had Sosus (Sound Surveillance System) russians couldn't take dump without us hearing it

 

[SteadyMercury]

Is the horse before the cart, or the cart before the horse? Because they are being built does not mean wise planning, or effectiveness in the future necessarily.

Maybe so, but at this point in time the US as world's primary builder of aircraft carriers has three more supercarriers in the pipe, Great Britain is building two new QE class carriers that are larger than any they've put to sea, China/India/Turkey all trying to get into the game. It does't help an argument that are fading as a weapon platform.

 

[SteadyMercury]

when an Akula Class II Russian attack submarine was photographed off the coast of Texas last July.

I see this referenced every once in awhile, but never see any of the photographs.

Does anyone have one?

 

[Auteur]

Is the horse before the cart, or the cart before the horse? Because they are being built does not mean wise planning, or effectiveness in the future necessarily.

Maybe so, but at this point in time the US as world's primary builder of aircraft carriers has three more supercarriers in the pipe, Great Britain is building two new QE class carriers that are larger than any they've put to sea, China/India/Turkey all trying to get into the game. It does't help an argument that are fading as a weapon platform.

This is often the way things go historically. When Robert Fulton offered Napolean the concept of steamships, at the begining of the 19th century, he replied that he 'failed to see how lighting bonfires beneath the decks of his warships could be of any advantage'.....Old attitudes die hard. Mindsets can lag technology by a considerable pace.

Actually today only the US is investing heavily in aircraft carriers. Britain has postponed one carrier, France cancelled a second planned carrier, and others are re-thinking. Some, such as rising nations like China or India will probably acquire two or three, as they do fulfill certain needs, and present a certain symbolism, especially to countries previously downtroden, and hungry for symbols.


China?s new anti-ship missile: a Pacific nightmare for the US? | East Asia Forum

China?s Anti-Carrier Missile Now Opposite Taiwan, Flynn Says - Bloomberg

 

[idb]

Is the horse before the cart, or the cart before the horse? Because they are being built does not mean wise planning, or effectiveness in the future necessarily.

Maybe so, but at this point in time the US as world's primary builder of aircraft carriers has three more supercarriers in the pipe, Great Britain is building two new QE class carriers that are larger than any they've put to sea, China/India/Turkey all trying to get into the game. It does't help an argument that are fading as a weapon platform.

They're probably still building tanks as well.

 

[whitehall]

It's interesting to reflect that the Russians had boomer Subs with nuclear capability all over the Atlantic coast within striking distance of major US cities but JFK brought the US to Devcon 2 in a showdown over missiles on Cuba.

we had Sosus (Sound Surveillance System) russians couldn't take dump without us hearing it

Taking a dump wasn't the problem. Russians had nuclear missile Subs closer than Cuba. The Kennedy brothers had a sick fascination with Cuba and the Bay of Pigs debacle indicated that the brothers were incapable of making a rational decision. When the Russians took advantage of a seemingly dilettante president we suddenly found ourselves at Defcon#2 because JFK's pride was hurt.

 

[Serioususername]

So what exactly is going to replace the Aircraft Carriers ability to project power? There's always something that can blow up your assets, that's why you have countermeasures, that's why you have CIWS when speaking particularly on Carriers, Carriers never travel alone- ever, EVER.

 

[jwoodie]

Major powers would not risk war with the US by attacking our carriers, but rogue nations might. The trick is to keep sophisticated weapons systems out of their hands.