Are aircraft carriers obsolete?

[Jammer]

Good God man...don't let the USMC find out you are referring to them as mere "infantrymen".

 

[vonGarvin]

Good God man...don't let the USMC find out you are referring to them as mere "infantrymen".

LOL.  I saw Full Metal Jacket.  Even Pvt Pyle was selected "O300: infantry" ;D

But the point I forgot to make is that those amphibious assault ships are about the size of some other nations' aircraft carriers. 

 

[aesop081]

Yes, strategic command (is that still a beast?)

What used to be called the "Strategic Air Command" ceased to exist several years ago. Assest and responsabilities were split between several new commands , ACC ( air combat command and AMC (air mobility command) being the principle ones. Very recently, the USAF has created "Global strike command" which now controls all B-2 bombers, B-52 bombers and all land-based ICBMs. The new command has been created as a result of the nuclear security incidents that made the news a few years back.

 

[vonGarvin]

Ah, yes, "Strategic Air Command" with WW2, Korea and Vietnam vet James Stewart (though he had yet to fly over Vietnam yet)

 

[rampage800]

The F22 program is shut down so there are not enough of them to even matter

Jammer, not to derail this thread but I'm not sure that statement is completely accurate. I'm sure there are others on here more in the know on the capes of this a/c than I but I've heard of some pretty high ratios of aggressor force vs the F-22 (singleton) with the F-22 coming away untouched. Obviously numbers matter but you can't hit what you can't see.

For the record, I too think aircraft carrier BGs are still relevant and probably will be at least for the rest of my lifetime. :nod:

 

[Barts]

Anything that a navy can do, strategic airpower can do at for a cheaper cost.

I can see some serious infrastructure issues with this argument.  In 1991, the US flew bombing sorties from North America to attack targets in Iraq.  That part of the concept works fine. The total flying time for that mission? 35 hours.  That's fine in a multi-crew aircraft, where crews can switch out, have meals, sleep, etc.  Single seat aircraft (the 'air superiority' side of this) don't have that capability - they need to be based closer to the area they will be working.  This will require a lot more bases, spread all over the planet, with many of the required assets already in place. Yes, you can argue that 'friendly' nations already provide this, but how 'friendly are they?  Do you want 100% control, or are you fine with diplomatic negotiations each time?

What's the cost of building and maintaining a lot of air bases, keeping them ready, permanently staffed, just in case a war breaks out nearby one of them?  Wouldn't it be cheaper to set up only a few of these "in case" bases, but mount them on something easy to put almost anywhere on earth (like a really big boat, maybe?) I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure it's hard to build an airfield, in a time of conflict, to fight from if you don't have the protection from above afforded by the airfield (since it hasn't been built yet)

When/if one of the current carriers goes under, that is now basically an entire ocean's coast line lost.  In your WW2 comparison, the difference is that until the end of the war nobody could do anything quickly.  Yes aircraft carriers did a lot of damage before they were sunk, but that would not happen today.  If war broke out with a Russia/China-type country, someone is going to press a button somewhere and hundreds of missiles and torpedoes are going to start screaming toward the super-carriers all at once and their future will be decided in a day so they won't have time to have their years worth of usefulness like they did in the past.

Yes this is still theorectically possible with 10 small carriers in place of one large one, but it would be a heck of a lot more unlikely.

So now that one carrier has been replaced with 10, What do you do with them?
Do you disperse them out so that one shot won't take out multiple ships? (how many more escorts will be needed to cover the enlarged footprint?)
Do you keep them really close so as not to require more escorts? (wouldn't this make them little different than one larger ship, from a defence standpoint?)
How many functions will need to be duplucated (x10) now that there are 10x the number of carriers?
How do you effectively control 10 airports all next door to each other?
I don't see any benefit that isn't outweighed by costs involved.

 

[Jammer]

Jammer, not to derail this thread but I'm not sure that statement is completely accurate. I'm sure there are others on here more in the know on the capes of this a/c than I but I've heard of some pretty high ratios of aggressor force vs the F-22 (singleton) with the F-22 coming away untouched. Obviously numbers matter but you can't hit what you can't see.

For the record, I too think aircraft carrier BGs are still relevant and probably will be at least for the rest of my lifetime. :nod:

There are just over one hundred F-22 in service. Most are employed in the defence of US airspace (read: interceptors.)

 

[aesop081]

There are just over one hundred F-22 in service. Most are employed in the defence of US airspace (read: interceptors.)

Final production tally will be 187 unless congress adds more. F-22s have already begun regular operations out of foreign bases. They are not assigned strictly to homeland defence but to expeditionary units. Also, most NOBLE EAGLE flights/alerts are not done by Raptors.

 

[40below]

Lords of War and some other milbloggers are weighing in on the subject and questioning whether carriers are a good use of defence money or have a future at all:

First F-22s, then tanks, now carriers?
03 May 2010

Posted 20:28
In addition to the lamentations over the capping of the F-22 Raptor and the decline of America's armored formations is the concern over the state of the US Navy's carrier fleet. Consisting of 11 nuclear-powered "supercarriers", these ships are facing the ever-expanding navies of Russia and China, each of which have a grand total of...

...one carrier. Both of which are about half the size of a Nimitz-class carrier.

Now I will be the first to admit that aircraft carriers give America an unparalleled advantage in force projection, allowing over a hundred fighters, strike aircraft, helicopters and AWACS planes to operate nearly anywhere in the world. Yet, as surface combatants, they face threats ranging from speedboat swarms, to portable anti-ship missiles, ballistic missiles, submarines, and other asymetric threats. And at a cost of $20 billion to man and equip, there's doubt that a cash-strapped America can afford to purchase more.

http://wingsoveriraq.blogspot.com/2010/05/first-f-22s-then-tanks-now-carriers.html

 

[Good2Golf]

...a number of folks have pointed to the capabilities that make carriers valuable to their respective government, notwithstanding  that there are risks/vulnerabilities involved:


Highly reactive and sustained international projection of national power.


Until aircraft can stay in the sky forever, or large masses of troops can teleport in large quantities to influence other nations, the CBG (or nine of them  ) represents one of the best bangs for the buck for a Nation looking to exert strategic and political influence around the world.  No one said there aren't risks associated with them, but to the nations that maintain such capabilities, the risks are clearly worth it, still today.

Cheers
G2G

VAdm McFadden would be pleased that not all non-Navy types out there are subject to "Maritime Blindness" and that the Navy is appreciated for its sailors and aviators. 

 

[GAP]

I see Gates was speaking on Pentagon cutbacks over the weekend, and the article commented on on the fact he didn't even mention the new carrier under construction......but, everything else was eligible for the cutting block...

 

[MarkOttawa]

What SecDef Gates said:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/08/AR2010050802495.html?wpisrc=nl_cuzhead

...
The Pentagon chief has complained in recent weeks that spending on major weapons is often disconnected from real-world threats. He has noted, for example, that United States maintains 11 aircraft-carrier strike groups at a time when no other country has more than one and questioned whether that huge advantage amounts to overkill.

The Pentagon, however, has no plans to scrap a $10 billion to $15 billion aircraft carrier, despite the vessels' increasing vulnerability to precision weapons. "I may want to change things, but I am not crazy," Gates told reporters. "I am not going to cut a carrier. Okay. But people ought to start thinking about how they are going to use carriers in a time when you have highly accurate cruise and ballistic missiles that can take out a carrier."..

More:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704858104575232481778229418.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird

...
Mr. Gates also criticized the military services for continuing to buy large quantities of expensive, high-end weapons even though the U.S. already has more of those armaments than the rest of the world's militaries combined.

"Does the number of warships we have and are building really put America at risk when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined, 11 of which belong to allies and partners?" he asked. "Is it a dire threat that by 2020 the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China?"..

Plus:

Gates Says U.S. Navy Plans Are Unaffordable
May 4, 2010
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2010/05/04/01.xml&headline=Gates%20Says%20U.S.%20Navy%20Plans%20Are%20Unaffordable

FORT WASHINGTON, Md. — Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said May 3 the U.S. has to ask itself whether it can afford the U.S. Navy’s current plan for billion-dollar destroyers, submarines and carriers.

“The Navy and Marine Corps must be willing to re-examine and question basic assumptions in light of evolving technologies, new threats and budget realities,” he said. “We simply cannot afford to perpetuate a status quo that heaps more and more expensive technologies onto fewer and fewer platforms.” He questioned whether a Navy that “relies on $3 to $6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines and $11 billion carriers” is affordable...

He also took on the Navy’s plan to have 11 carrier strike groups through 2040. “The need to project power across the ocean will never go away,” he acknowledged, “but consider the massive overmatch the U.S. already enjoys. Do we really need 11 carrier strike groups for another 30 years when no other country has more than one?”..

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Good2Golf]

Fair questions to ask (SECDEF re: 11 CBGs, that is) in some ways, but it's also less about tactical overmatch and more about strategic and political projection.  Those CBG's give the U.S. huge power projection anywhere in the world, able to be on-station and operating in less than 24 hours....

 

[a_majoor]

the original poster should have stated that only one answer to the question will be acceptable.

As the original poster, I did not state only one answer was acceptable (and as an infantryman, I have only a theoretical knowledge of how Carrier Battle Groups work so don't even know what the answer might be), but rather put the question up for discussion.

The question may be based on the balance between offense and defense. Carrier Battle Groups have a powerful capacity for offense (as well as other power projection tasks), but with the proliferation of advanced weapons in the hands of smaller nations and potentially sub-national groups does a Carrier Battle Group have the ability to defend itself (or would it be able to defend itself only at the expense of its offensive capabilities?).

The same capabilities that threaten the carrier also have the potential to be used to supplement or replace the carrier's offensive role (hypersonic missiles launched from the United States or weapons launched from submarines), but many of the other capabilities offered by the carrier are not available here.

Secretary Gates makes the other obvious point, the sheer costs associated with this form of power projection strain even the capacities of the United States. Perhaps there are more cost effective means of achieving the same ends, although given separating the various facets of a Carrier Battle Group's capabilities among multiple platforms might consume any theoretical savings eliminating the carrier.

All in all, an interesting conundrum, with no clear answers in sight.

 

[Kirkhill]

But solving the conundrum isn't assisted by people taking positions like this:

.......Roughead insisted that the goal of a 313-ship Navy is not up for debate.
“The floor of 313 is where we remain,” he said. “Right now we’re at 286, the smallest we have been since 1916.” The demands on a smaller fleet are taking a toll, he added. “We’re being pressed quite hard.”.......

Currently a Nimitz Class CVN has something like 3200 sailors on board and about 2400 supernumerary supercargo who spend their time punching holes in the sky.  The USS Arizona, commissioned in 1916 and sunk in 1941, had a crew of 1385.  The Connecticut class that preceeded her had a full complement of 827.  (All numbers per Wikipedia).

The Nimitz crew (including aviators) could have manned 7 of the Connecticuts or 3 of the Arizonas instead of 1 Nimitz.  Its all about allocation of resources. -  Or figuring out how to drive the Nimitz with the crew of the Connecticut and skinnying up the supercargo.

 

[aesop081]

But solving the conundrum isn't assisted by people taking positions like this:

Currently a Nimitz Class CVN has something like 3200 sailors on board and about 2400 supernumerary supercargo who spend their time punching holes in the sky.  The USS Arizona, commissioned in 1916 and sunk in 1941, had a crew of 1385.  The Connecticut class that preceeded her had a full complement of 827.  (All numbers per Wikipedia).

The Nimitz crew (including aviators) could have manned 7 of the Connecticuts or 3 of the Arizonas instead of 1 Nimitz.  Its all about allocation of resources. -  Or figuring out how to drive the Nimitz with the crew of the Connecticut and skinnying up the supercargo.

Apples to baseball bats........

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm afraid I can't agree.

As I mentioned earlier one of the key advantages of a ship of any type is that it is a piece of sovereign territory that is mobile and on which a government can position an Ambassador Afloat.  Unlike an Ambassador Ashore the Ambassador Afloat is only answerable to his own national government and is in a position to enforce his own national laws.  For clarification the Ambassador Afloat is also known as the Captain of the ship.  His government will authorize how big a fighting tail he is going to be issued.

Given that the High Seas are traditionally No Man's Land then the Captain's ability to enforce his jurisdiction only extends as far as he can lob a shot.  A modern carrier can lob a shot a great distance but with the dollars and manpower entailed the government can only afford to disperse 11 Ambassador/Captains around the globe.  In 1916 with the same amount of manpower the government could afford to supply a first class fighting tail for 75 Ambassador/Captains.

Which capability is of greatest value to a government? The tactical strike capability of 11 CVNs  capable of meeting and defeating a single first class enemy or the political presence of 75 Ambassador/Captains equipped to enforce jurisdiction over lesser threats scattered over a broader area?

 

[aesop081]

Given that the High Seas are traditionally No Man's Land then the Captain's ability to enforce his jurisdiction only extends as far as he can lob a shot.

No. It extends as far as he can pose a credible threat. This is not a simple question of distance. Modern CVNs can not only reach-far distant spots on earth but bring a devastating blow with them. Your small carriers can fly the flag but can hardly back it up with more than a sting, and cant do it for very long to make things worse.

or the political presence of 75 Ambassador/Captains equipped to enforce jurisdiction over lesser threats scattered over a broader area?

If those 75 embasadors are too weak to be a threat can they realy influence a determined beligerent ?

I hardly think so.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

A Nimitz class carrier offers an air wing that is more capable them most of the worlds air forces. Do you think the Invincible class has the same?

 

[Kirkhill]

To both Cdn Aviator and Ex-Dragoon:

Short answer - No - 1 Invincible does not equal 1 Nimitz.  Nor for that matter do 7 1906 vintage Connecticuts equal 1 Nimitz.

The question, in my distorted and occasionally feverish brain, is how many places can 1 Nimitz be?

Given a limited budget and two logical absurdities - A single Mega Death Star or a Chris Craft swarm - some place between those two posts there is a workable compromise.

I believe what Gates is asking is would it be worth, in the current operating environment,  trading in a couple of older CVNs for another half-dozen Ticonderogas and a pair of Wasps, or another couple of dozen Burke's or LCS.

Maybe laying up a couple of hulls (mothballing) and redistributing the man-power would make for a more useful tool for the Government. 

And allow Admiral Roughead to have more than his 313 ships he considers his minimum.  I don't question his appreciation.  I have got no grounds for that.  But I do think he was wrong to bring up 1916 hulls as a measure of his current needs.  As somebody said earlier, apples and baseball bats - at least in one sense.  But not in the sense of cost to the nation in manpower and dollars.