Semi OT..Are carriers obsolete?

[Lecivius]

I found this

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/03/politics/ ... index.html

There is a lot in here that is true. Russia has been trying to match carrier air power for some time, as a land power. China is developing a ballistic missile threat to carriers.

Thoughts?

[Jorge_Stanbury]

I would say no,
As long as air power rules warfare, carriers will be very relevant. That doesn't mean they are invincible and all-powerful. If the fighting is against a major power, it might be better to keep them farther away from enemy lands than usual.. at least until the enemy's capabilities have been softened significantly

And China's ballistic anti-ship missile looks like a paper tiger; they will need very good luck to hit such a small, manouvering target at ballistic speeds.

[Feltan]

Interesting, but somewhat shortsighted, article. My thoughts:

1. Aircraft carriers will continue to rule the waves for some time to come. However, like all military tools, they will eventually become obsolete.

2. The article's contention that aircraft have too limited a range for deep strikes ignores the fact that many types of ordnance have that deep strike capability. A SLCM can deliver a payload at over 1000 miles -- why would you plan to put pilots & a/c in harms way when a precision strike is possible without the risk?

3. Drones and unmanned aircraft will take on an increasing importance at sea. Aircraft carriers fifty years from now may well be much smaller affairs without the risk of a national calamity if one is lost in action. This technology will also allow many other countries to field aircraft carriers that are essentially drone platforms.

4. Like the battle that has sea-sawed between tanks and anti-tank weapons, the balance is starting to slowly shift toward anti-carrier weapons. The U.S. has not lost a carrier in action in over 70 years; that may well change. The assumption that they are invulnerable to enemy action will die hard, and I suppose unfortunately tragically.

Regards,
Feltan

[geofflambert]

Agreed, their safe zones to operate are getting smaller. The Strait of Hormuz gives me the willies when one goes into or out of the Gulf. I hope they are working on smaller ships with smaller crews that would operate combat drones for strictly combat missions. The CVNs will still be extremely valuable.

[geofflambert]

Also, in operating drones we may soon be able to communicate with them instantly at any distance through quantum entanglement. Such communications would be impossible to intercept or otherwise interfere with or block. This would make pilots obsolete except in their armchairs wherever. Those communications would also not require encryption. Someday, but not soon, those transatlantic cables the Russkies are thinking about messing with would become obsolete or at least we could have backup methods for emergency communications including business communication and the like. It could also make hacking over the internet much more difficult if not impossible. I say someday because the sheer volume of traffic is daunting with the technologies we have today. Hopefully advances will follow the same sort of curve that has applied to the miniaturization of memory storage. Some people hate that word "hopefully" [:D] maybe I should say "we can hope that".

Edwin Newman was one of the haters. After retiring from the news business he took a professorship somewhere, and over the door to his office a motto was displayed "Abandon all Hopefully, Ye who enter here". [:D]

[HansBolter]

All we are seeing is a renewed hype about warships in general being made obsolete by anti-ship missile technology.

This is completely driven by the development of a 'new' missile technology by an adversary.

Time to dust off the old argument and start ballyhooing the hype that anti-ship missile technology makes warships obsolete.

The death knell of warships has been heralded since the early 80's after the Argentinians savaged a few British ships with Excocets.

Had a lot of fun playing the '80s Victory Games Fleet series.

[geofflambert]

Still, if they could make drone carriers that were submersible, that would be way cool.

[Lecivius]

Exocet did show vulnerabilities in warships. That vulnerability took several years to overcome. I can see that happening again with a new generation of weapon platforms. The idea of a carrier going down while folks say " I didn't think of THAT!" has driven folks in that business nuts for decades.

I don't think drones will be the answer in a high capacity battle either, other than in a support capacity.

I have a bunch of opinions on this, but no real blue water experience. So I am curious as to others ideas and thoughts.

[Big B]

OMG, that's from the Clinton News Network - I wouldn't believe them if they told me that it was daylight until I checked for myself, I have more faith in Pravda than them. (by the way - that was NOT pointed at you Lecivius)

No, carriers are no-where near being obsolete.... period.

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: Big B
that was NOT pointed at you Lecivius)

Don't point that thing at me! It might go off!! [:D]

[btd64]

"other than a support capacity"
They said that about TANKS too. That's not pointed at you, Lecivius.[:D][:D][:D]

Sub Carriers. SSCVN. That would be COOL.[8D]....GP

[geofflambert]

One of the lessons learned in the Falklands was don't build your ships out of aluminum. Aluminum (or for the illiterates across the pond [:'(] aluminium) is a component of thermite and will most definitely burn.

This reminds me, though it's slightly OT here, some kids once started a fire that consumed my garage. I don't assume any intent because it was fall and there was a pile of leaves next to the garage. Anyway my car was in it and it had "mag" wheels. Beautiful wheels but they contained magnesium. The magnesium burned up and there wasn't any trace of the wheels left.

Oh, and a neighbor who witnessed it said of the fire "It looked like the Hood going up".

[spence]

The death knell of warships has been heralded since the early 80's after the Argentinians savaged a few British ships with Excocets.

Seems to me Gen. Billy Mitchell said something along those lines after sinking the X-SMS Ostriesland about 60 years before that.

[Big B]

Yeah... I've hit a few friendlies with fragments in the past! [:D]

But just wanted to be clear - I try very hard not to antagonize anyone here. (...it's much more fun to watch their faces turn red in person [:'(])
But seriously - I never mean to get anyone going.

B

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

ORIGINAL: Big B
that was NOT pointed at you Lecivius)

Don't point that thing at me! It might go off!! [:D]

[Big B]

Now, THAT was a lesson VERY CLEARLY learned from the Falklands Naval War.
It's incredible it had to be learned at all - but what can you say about know-it-all's that make modern military hardware?
Something else that the RN learned in the Falklands, to quote: "We went to quickly and too completely into the all-missle age". It was found that the pitifully few automatic AA weapons on board RN ships were actually their best defense against Argy' jet bombers - simply because the stream of tracer was a very good deterrent against the pilots pressing home their attacks (as opposed to actual shoot-downs).
That came from Battle for the Falklands from Max Hastings.

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

One of the lessons learned in the Falklands was don't build your ships out of aluminum. Aluminum (or for the illiterates across the pond [:'(] aluminium) is a component of thermite and will most definitely burn.
....

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

One of the lessons learned in the Falklands was don't build your ships out of aluminum. Aluminum (or for the illiterates across the pond [:'(] aluminium) is a component of thermite and will most definitely burn.

This reminds me, though it's slightly OT here, some kids once started a fire that consumed my garage. I don't assume any intent because it was fall and there was a pile of leaves next to the garage. Anyway my car was in it and it had "mag" wheels. Beautiful wheels but they contained magnesium. The magnesium burned up and there wasn't any trace of the wheels left.

Oh, and a neighbor who witnessed it said of the fire "It looked like the Hood going up".

I was actually on the team designing the first Agis CG at the time of the Falklands war, CG 47. It was originally planned to be a DDG but they decided to make it a CG instead due to extra weigh from all the new systems that were on it. But to have to CV speed capable, the USN decided to have all the superstructure made out of Aluminum. Since any fire could still be contained with proper damage control.

Needless to say the war had a major impact on its final design [:)]. We quickly had to redo all the superstructure with good old steel plating. Which meant an almost total redesign of the entire ship due to the increased weight demands. The final design cut back on the armor levels all over the ship in order to keep her from being too top heavy and to still have CVN speeds.

It was really fun to run the weapons simulations against the data model. As one direct hit from almost any weapon would reduce the ship to around 70% effectiveness, two hits to about 40%, and three made it completely useless except as a target. It took a lot more to actually sink her, but pretty easy to take her out of commission.

The joys of naval design [:)] Speed versus protection debate is still ongoing [:D]

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Big B

Now, THAT was a lesson VERY CLEARLY learned from the Falklands Naval War.
It's incredible it had to be learned at all - but what can you say about know-it-all's that make modern military hardware?
Something else that the RN learned in the Falklands, to quote: "We went to quickly and too completely into the all-missle age". It was found that the pitifully few automatic AA weapons on board RN ships were actually their best defense against Argy' jet bombers - simply because the stream of tracer was a very good deterrent against the pilots pressing home their attacks (as opposed to actual shoot-downs).
That came from Battle for the Falklands from Max Hastings.

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

One of the lessons learned in the Falklands was don't build your ships out of aluminum. Aluminum (or for the illiterates across the pond [:'(] aluminium) is a component of thermite and will most definitely burn.
....

Yes, and who was the genius that thought F-4 Phantoms didn't need guns?

[Big B]

EXACTLY ....

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

ORIGINAL: Big B

Now, THAT was a lesson VERY CLEARLY learned from the Falklands Naval War.
It's incredible it had to be learned at all - but what can you say about know-it-all's that make modern military hardware?
Something else that the RN learned in the Falklands, to quote: "We went to quickly and too completely into the all-missle age". It was found that the pitifully few automatic AA weapons on board RN ships were actually their best defense against Argy' jet bombers - simply because the stream of tracer was a very good deterrent against the pilots pressing home their attacks (as opposed to actual shoot-downs).
That came from Battle for the Falklands from Max Hastings.

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

One of the lessons learned in the Falklands was don't build your ships out of aluminum. Aluminum (or for the illiterates across the pond [:'(] aluminium) is a component of thermite and will most definitely burn.
....

Yes, and who was the genius that thought F-4 Phantoms didn't need guns?

[geofflambert]

I'm just checking, I think Big B seems like Professor Turgeson in "Back to School" and I'm the Rodney Dangerfield character. What should I do? [:D]

[geofflambert]

Here's an example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uqjznmTp80