Great deterrents make great targets.

An aircraft carrier is like a beehive. You would not call a beehive defenseless. Sure the hive cannot defend itself, but the bees sure can!

And the aircraft carrier has a fleet of very nasty escorts, along with any long range air support, ground based missiles, etc.

You should lookup the Aegis system and consider the nature of modern warfare before coming to a conclusion like that. In full scale naval warfare, the carrier has served it's purpose once the planes launch.

Say a prayer for the ones who sink one, they are unlikely to be recovered for a formal ceremony.

[edit on 9-4-2009 by Cyberbian]

Originally posted by dingyibvs

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

There are always going to be a threat to a carrier battle group. OK so this one is from China do you honestly believe and think that the US navy doesn't know about this threat? Whats the navy to do? Hide it's head in the sand and hope the Chinese decide to scrap the weapon system?

And can you honestly sit there and say they wouldn't work on some sort of counter measure? This is the way military's throughout history have always been.

Measure-Counter measure

Measure-Counter measure

It has always been and will be a giant game of one upsmenship!








[edit on 10-4-2009 by SLAYER69]

OH MY GOD Hypothetical weapon A has doomed the carrier yet again

1) As Zaphod points out a carrier at sea is a moving target. Even IF you used a RORSAT they can still hide. Lets say the ChiComs use UAV's and subs, you making an assumption that they are going to be simply allowed unmolested to loiter around a CBG?

2) Defence in depth. A CBG and more to the point AEGIS was designed to go up to the Bering Sea and play with the Soviets near thier main naval bases. This means a combined attack with subs, planes, and surface ships.

3) People also seem to forget that the USAF will also be up in the air as well.

4) See above, unless they can map it with SAR, the F-18 could simply be an F-15. Even if they conform the F-18 its still 1000 of square miles to search AND as noted above yep that carrier is mobile.

Originally posted by SLAYER69

Originally posted by dingyibvs


I'm sure they have better intelligence than we do.

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

Dude, you don't think the frgging USN gets better intelligence than us messageborders?

Originally posted by dingyibvs


Dude, you don't think the frgging USN gets better intelligence than us messageborders?

Wha?

Wait what?

Did I misunderstand the statement?
Wasnt he stating that the Chinese have better intel than the US?

Originally posted by dingyibvs
Why take my post apart and answer in pieces?

It's a 'efficient' way to deal with each issue independently? Have you not seen that when people respond in paragraphs of their own making they just repeat their original points or talk about why they believe what they do?

Sending out the UAVs and subs after a F-18 launches makes carriers easy to find.

I don't see why you think it's that simple. Do you know how how much effort can go into scouting with regular aircraft even if the weather happens to be good? If you use radar and other active means of detection does that not alert the enemy to your presence as well? Would your communications from the scout platform be able to relay the information in a timely fashion or will it be destroyed or it's communications jammed?

As for the other posters:

What will the Navy do now? How about scrapping the carriers and build something that is more expendable?

The US navy have a relative abundance of 'expendable' platforms which escorts aircraft carriers and also forces that can operate without carriers alltogether. Carriers are however a relatively efficient way to intimidate and fight third world enemies and certainly not a threat that the vast majority of first world nations could ignore or presume 'easy' to deal with.

Other than the Russians, especially two decades ago, there really isn't navy's that have the power projection means to take on US task forces in the mid Atlantic or in other blue water areas.

Did they upgrade the sword when guns came out?

Actually cannons came very long before 'guns'( presuming you mean rifle's) and swords, bows and crossbows were in most areas of the world still far more efficient even when rudimentary musket type weapons made their appearance. The progression of weaponry isn't anything as linear as you seem to be suggesting.

Of course the US won't just let subs and UAVs loitering around, but can you detect them and destroy all of them down in 12 minutes?

Perhaps they could not all be destroyed but could they relay data at all or will it be sufficiently good to make a ballistic attack with at a conventional warhead very useful? In fact i think it's clear that the Chinese will be using nuclear tipped ballistic warheads as they well understand that any shooting war with the US would escalate and that they do not have the means to fight a conventional naval war either way.

What about satellite guidance?

There are no medium range conventional ballistic missiles with a CEP small enough to threaten a moving carrier sized target; at least there aren't in open sources. It really does not matter if you use GPS or not and GPS jammers are beyond cheap.

For all you opponents of shutting down the carriers, let me ask you a question.

The Pentagon can not really afford carriers but since balancing budgets doesn't seem to be important carriers are important assets that were only 'inefficient' ( perhaps obsolete but they sure had many of them) in the context of a naval war with the USSR circa 1980 or 85. With the decline , even if it not as serious as oft presumed, of Russian naval power carriers are a threat to one and all and very few air forces or navies in the world would consider taking on a carrier battle group in any way simplistic.

Say China invades Taiwan and announces they'll shoot all foreign warships within 200km of Taiwan, what would you do? Do you send in the carriers knowing that they could possibly be sunk by 1 missile per?

At 200 km's carrier air groups can provide efficient fire support or even CAP so that wont help any. The Chinese absolutely MUST keep the US out of the active participation completely and drawing lines in the ocean wont cut it. China wont dream of attacking Taiwan openly ( why bother when economic means suffices?) as long as the USN is in the shape it still is in and even then never without Russian assurances that they would provide strategic nuclear deterrent that will allow China to use nuclear weaponry against US naval assets in the area.

The threat isn't China, have not been China and wont soon become China. The Chinese navy and air force is a few decades from matching current Russian naval and aviation assets.

Stellar

Originally posted by JanusFIN
After the Falklands War it has been widely regonized, and at least Ive been read and heard in tens of conclusions, that next great war will be fought and won by sea missiles - and I clearly understand that as a fact.

Hardly a fact. The Falklands War demonstrated the effectiveness of ASCMs against a force that A) had not established local air dominance, and B) was equipped with surface warships that were outfitted with little or no effective EW and point defense systems.

More telling is the difference that the role of tactical air dominance plays if a theater, once established. Once the Brits established air dominance, it was over for the Argentinians. Still, had the Argentinian Aviators used better bombs with better fuses, the Brits probably would have lost, considering the sheer number of direct bomb hits to British ships that failed to explode. Again, it wasn't the AM39's that were the greater threat in this conflict - it was the A-4 Skyhawks, equipped with iron bombs and pilots with iron nerves. All-in-all, it was probably a good thing, however, that the Argentinians only had a limited supply of AM39s.

Originally posted by JanusFIN
Irans "Sunburns" are great defenders of Persia. NK and naturally Russia and China has same capability to defend their coastlines... I think that Iran war, when its going to broke loose, will be a great mess to US Navy - and many ships and thousands of brave mans will be washed to the bottom of the sea, before counter measures are up to date.

- "Carriers just sitting ducks? Possibly not - perhaps more like those eager beefarms - but can those defend against human sticks and stones?"

Despite your infatuation with ASCM, and your view that they are the quick and easy solution to a CVBG, most students of naval warfare will tell you that major modern naval engagements will be determined by two factors:

1. Theater and tactical air dominance. Allows the Theater commander to establish a zone of control for dedicated ASW, ASUW, and AAW. The carrier is the centerpiece of this concept that allows for this kind of force protection and zone of control.

2. Undersea dominance by submarines. Advanced employment of SSN's will neutralize any significant surface threats.

The fact that many nations invest heavily in ASCMs is not a surprise. They are cheap and easy to operate. They require no special crews or pilots. They are difficult to engage. However...........they are a 2nd class replacement for airpower and submarines. And they are very, very hard to employ in denied sea areas where launch platforms are at high risk and targeting information is spotty at best. Don't even talk about fixed land sites. Those are the first to go, usually.

Simply put, the biggest threat to an aircraft carrier is a submarine. Which is why a CVBG in a hot op area always has 2-3 SSN's riding shotgun...