Navy's Big Weakness: Our Aircraft Carriers Are (Expensive) Defenseless Sitting Ducks!

This article says many things very straight... raises many questions... Enjoy the show!



By Gary Brecher, eXiled Online



www.alternet.org...(expensive)_defenseless_sitting_ducks/

There are a lot of IFs here. IF the missile works, IF the warhead hits, IF the Aegis misses etc. They're talking about an untested system, that already has about four threads about it on here.

They've never fired the missile in real life, and we already have everyone running in fear. This is like when the Sunburn first came out. The carriers were defenseless sitting ducks that never should have been built then too.

[edit on 4/7/2009 by Zaphod58]

reply to post by Zaphod58

---

This is really a riot
This is like the third thread I've read where the Carriers are doomed.

Can you imagine any admiral just sailing a fleet right into harms way without stopping and thinking about the possible hazards to his fleet.

Come on man.

As much as some hate the US or it's Navy, you cant possibly think they are that stupid.

You can say one or two or three aircraft carriers will be expensive sitting ducks,in a mostly conventional war against a major power, but why would the US choose to commit the additional ten in the same old way or at all until solutions have been found? Obviously things changes with nuclear warheads or in the case of a large scale nuclear exchange but even then how can it be pretended that there are many , or even any navy, that could defeat the USN on the open oceans by sinking a few aircraft carriers?

While i don't think aircraft carriers have much use in a world war three scenario ( they were in my opinion built for what they were used; intimidating and terrorizing the third world) how exactly did the USN become such a completely one dimensional target in so many minds?

Stellar

I love one of the responses to the Post source

"Gary, this is probably the biggest piece of misinformation that has been written on the subject of the vulnerability of large carriers yet.

This argument has been going on since the end of WW2, where by the way not ONE large US carrier of new design (Essex class, was lost! –small carriers on the other hand were very vulnerable).

The one point you, and most people miss, is battle tactics. You assume that there are just a bunch of dumb officers sailing into harms way feeling that nothing can touch them. Nothing can be further from the truth!

As it stands today, the most capable weapon system in any Navy is the US carrier battle group! Notice I said GROUP! Weapons systems work together and project further out from the group itself. It can project like no other weapons system.

So while missiles are a threat to any carrier, and any ship for that matter, they have been since and during WW2. Nothing new. You build technology to counter it!

The real problem is that articles such as these lead people to believe that now that China has a missile, we need to scrap the entire carrier battle group when actually we need to build more, build them more stealthy, and work on that one system that liberals laughed at for years.- anti ballistic missile defence.

What you should be pointing out is that we need more technology $$$ in the defense budget to counter these threats! "

The USN Institute IS being completely alarmist over this issue. For starters, why should they even begin to open their mouths over a potential security vulnerability? I find them at fault for publicly releasing such speculations, and therefore they themselves could end up aiding and abetting our adversaries.

Also, too many people have no idea of just how protected our Carriers are, and how many layers of, and what type of security measures they have in place. I can assure you that no weapon system is unstoppable, and no threat indefensible. We have Security being run on both the Large Blue Water Vessel level, and on the Littoral Warfare level as well.

I could provide an entire listing of the various measures enlisted in the protection of our Carrier Groups, but I rather feel that it would be wiser to remain silent upon the issue.

So was the Empire of Japan a Third World Nation? Carriers are built to project Air power in locales where USAF bases remain out of reach by-in-large.

reply to post by TheAgentNineteen

---

Has anyone considered that the statement by the USNI is a little bit of disinformation designed to bolster chinas opinion of themselsves, thereby putting more effort into a weapon system that has already been countered.

oops matrix glitch
OMG I just the saw same black cat twice,
thats right it my black cat


double post

[edit on 7-4-2009 by punkinworks09]

So what kind of terminal guidance does said missle have anyway.
Ballsitic missles are just that BALLISTIC, their motion is goverend by the laws of physics.
So how does it aquire its target once its in the area?

One of the other threads indicates that it WILL use chinas version of GPS, once it is fully deployed. How will they know where the carrier is?
Or was since it will still take 10 min to get there after launch.
Sattelites?


Do people honestly think that we are going to let the chinese do what they want should there be hostilities.
As soon as hostilities are inevatible every piece of chinese harware in space will be neutralized, and we dont even have to go into space to do it.

Besides if china goes to war with the US you WILL SEE THE 2ND PEOPLES REVOLUTION.
The chinese people have gotten used to their newfound lives of relative luxury, luxury compared to life in the old communist state.
How long would the government last when it loses that which makes it powerful, trade with the west.

Gary Brecher really has no real clue, but for anyone remotely considering what this tard has to say as having any semblance of merit, let me carry his logic a bit further: All naval and commercial ships--to include all airbases and airfields--are "sitting ducks" in the event of war, and therefore, are obsolete. I'm wondering if this tard has even been on a U.S. carrier during sea trials or a live fire naval exercise. What a tard, especially when he continually predicted---incorrectly, I might add---that the Bush Administration would attack Iran. Yeah, like I now would all of a sudden decide to lay down and die to believe his perspective on "sitting ducks."

I think he meant current carriers, which were built way past WWII. WWII was the carriers' prime, and by now it has long passed it.

For whoever mentioned the Sunburn, it still IS a major threat to CVNs, even with numerous AEGIS capable ships around. And there still isn't anything even coming close to a solution against massed missile attacks. Of course the USN won't just sail into harm's way, but that also means they won't be able to sail within 2000km of Chinese shores should a conflict between China and the U.S. breaks out.

Why, because of an untested missile that no one even knows will work or even exists?

I'm sure they have better intelligence than we do. If they're shifting their strategy, it is evidence that the missile poses a credible threat. Also, again, the purpose of this weapon is for deterrence of a regional conflict, not for WWIII. In a WWIII scenario, carriers won't do jack when the nukes start flying.

OK Let's see the source for that one!
I would love to find out how their intelligence is better than ours?

1)There are certainly technical difficulties, which is why no other country has developed such a missile. But if you read the report linked to by the naval site, you'll see explanations of possible solutions.

2)Why do some people believe a friggin carrier is hard to locate?

3)The U.S. isn't the only country with anti-satellite capabilities.

4)They have other trade partners, they'll survive. And you're foolish if you don't think the Chinese haven't been working to prevent that. They've been eroding away at the US's relationships with its allies slowly for a long time now, both diplomatically and economically. One of the key priorities for Obama is to fix this issue. Or else, if such a day comes, you may find the European allies are not quite as willing to give up lucrative trade opportunities when the U.S. calls for it. I mean, what can the U.S. do, stop trading with Europe if they disobey? Who are you gonna trade with then? Canada? Mexico?

reply to post by dingyibvs

---

A carrier IS hard to find, when you are searching millions of square miles of ocean. A long wave radar may pick it up, but not well enough to target, or to pinpoint it. A carrier battlegroup under EMCON is a hole in the ocean. They've snuck them around undetected for quite awhile during RIMPAC before, and they can do it again under real world conditions.

Again, how does an UNTESTED MISSILE become such a deterrent that they won't park a carrier within 2000 km of China? That's like saying that ballistic missiles are useless now because we have the ABL. It hasn't actually fired the laser from the plane yet, but since it's there ballistic missiles are useless.

Compared to the US at the time that is probably not a unfair claim even if that was not the original intent of my claim. The fact that it had a long maritime tradition and were capable of building modern ships and fighters should not be taken to mean that the same fraction of people were experiencing a first world living standard.



Since the advent of the anti ship missile , i would argue, carriers have been built to project power into areas or nations that never had much means to protect themselves in the first place; conventional long range bombers could do much of the same at a fraction of the cost and risk against similarly weak enemies. Perhaps it can best be summed up by stating that the US navy carriers were liabilities that USN could 'afford' when few others could?

Perhaps the most pertinent question is why you have bought into the imperialist logic that the USN should be able to 'reach' so relatively deep into most countries? I suppose if one assumes that the world must be 'controlled' even such concentrations of resources as aircraft carriers seems worth the risk?

As for the second world war that was a different time and a different war where the US did not already have bases in so many places and it still made sense to build them if only to counter those of other carrier operating navies; battleships were not presumed to be up to the task even if that seems to be how history has been interpreted.

Stellar

as has been said - a carrier group is what 30 miles accross - the ocean is a huge ass place and whilst 30 miles sounds big , in reality its very hard - theres more chance of spotting the wake churn than seeing the ships

terminal maneuvering warheads - go read up on the Pershing , that had the feature in the 1970`s.

in the real world , the most direct threat to a carrier is from subs , followed by ASM`s - since both attack methods have been proven as ship killers.

When a radar picks it up, then you're no longer searching millions of square miles of ocean. Also, don't you think the Chinese will send a few subs or UAV's to look? And how effective is a carrier when it's sneaking around? The moment a F-18 gets in the air from the ocean, its location is known. There are so many ways to find a carrier, I don't know why you're even arguing this point.

So you wanna test it? Again, if the navy is reacting, then it must means the threat is credible.