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

reply to post by dingyibvs


To send a UAV or sub you have to have a general idea of where they are in the first place. Otherwise you're still searching millions of square miles.

Once an F-18 launches, you have narrowed down the area to search, but you still won't have an exact idea of where it is. Add to that if they launch them out of sight of the Chinese Mainland, and had the package head in on a non-direct heading you still don't know where they are.

The navy is reacting because it CAN BE a valid threat. You don't ignore things that can be valid threats. But it is STILL an untested system that has never even been test fired.

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 :shk:

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.

Large carrier groups are also very protected. Submarines, Aegis missile cruisers, F/A-18 Hornets etc. They also have a pretty new toy called the Phalnax, a counter to Anti-ship missiles. I believe they have multiple jamming and other weapons systems too.

www.youtube.com...

www.fas.org...

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 Zaphod58
reply to post by dingyibvs

 

To send a UAV or sub you have to have a general idea of where they are in the first place. Otherwise you're still searching millions of square miles.

Once an F-18 launches, you have narrowed down the area to search, but you still won't have an exact idea of where it is. Add to that if they launch them out of sight of the Chinese Mainland, and had the package head in on a non-direct heading you still don't know where they are.

The navy is reacting because it CAN BE a valid threat. You don't ignore things that can be valid threats. But it is STILL an untested system that has never even been test fired.

Why take my post apart and answer in pieces? Sending out the UAVs and subs after a F-18 launches makes carriers easy to find.

As for the other posters:

What will the Navy do now? How about scrapping the carriers and build something that is more expendable? Did they upgrade the sword when guns came out?

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? What about satellite guidance?

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

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

reply to post by dingyibvs


you are missing the point
the navys public reaction is just a little "Thou doust protest a little to loudly" for me and smacks of a little bit of dis-information.

By the time that the chinese even get around to testing said missle, we will have added several more layers of protection available to a CBG.
I have read about a refit of a missle frigate, where one the deck guns was removed an replaced with an assembly that goes 3-4? decks down into the ship. Nothing was placed where the gun used to be, as of yet.
But the dimensions of the modifications match those of a proprosed naval laser weapon system.
Another 5 to ten years you will see an array of energy weapons and other ballistic weapon systems, such as metal storm and ultra high velocity guns(rail guns and cold gas guns) being deployed.
One difference about a naval application of an energy weapon as compared to a tactical battlefield energy weapon, is that there is no shortage of available electricity on a modern naval warship.
The metal storm concept of close in weapon system is very very efective.
You can bring millions of rounds a mintue to bear on a target. It would literaly shred any incoming object.

And how is said wonder missle going to aquire, lock and track a moving target in an EM band controlled environment.
The US airforce and navy will have airsuperiority, there wont be any enemy ucav's loitering around targeting warships.
By the time it gets to a shooting war there wont be any chinese satelites left either.

And if you go by some of the threads on this site , the chinese will be fighting against anti-gravity, invisible. super secret aircaraft .
Which they just might be


[edit on 10-4-2009 by punkinworks]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
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.

Funny how you mention RIMPAC, these exercises have shown ust how vulnerable Carriers are, but to conventional submarines. The Australians have managed to close to torpedo range several times and simulated a successful attack. It got so embarassing for the US Navy that the Australian submarine had to report their position before the exercise so they could be tracked. Even after using helicopters rotating over the subs postion using active sonar, they still lost the Australian submarine.

Of course the Chinese have done this as well with one of their Ming subs which surfaced 10km behind a carrier.

Carrier's are becoming a relic, they are only good as floating airfields. The only reason one hasn't been sunk sonce WWII is because you've never gone up against a country with a decent navy.

Originally posted by punkinworks

I have read about a refit of a missle frigate, where one the deck guns was removed an replaced with an assembly that goes 3-4? decks down into the ship. Nothing was placed where the gun used to be, as of yet.
But the dimensions of the modifications match those of a proprosed naval laser weapon system.

What is this supposed Naval Weapons system ? or is this just wild speculation

Lasers and HV guns aren't going to save a carrier from a torpedo.

And how is said wonder missle going to aquire, lock and track a moving target in an EM band controlled environment.
The US airforce and navy will have airsuperiority, there wont be any enemy ucav's loitering around targeting warships.
By the time it gets to a shooting war there wont be any chinese satelites left either.

Ahem and how is the US going to shoot them down ? The chinese have a proven operational ASAT system, the US doesn't.

As well the CHinese have field an OTH-B radar capable of finding surface targets out to 3000km's accurately which would abr the US fleet from coming anywhere near the Chinese coast.

The OTH-B system as currently deployed would permit long-range acquisition of naval vessels. Target identification would be provided by Chinese-produced derivatives of Russia's Kornet EO and radar satellites, the first constellation of which is scheduled to be operational in 2009. This effectively solves the issue of OTH-B resolution, allowing the OTH-B to provide early warning while the space-based assets confirm target identification and provide positioning data for ASBM launch, being cued to potential targets by the OTH-B radar system. The advantage of a long-range ASBM system, cued by OTH-B and space-based assets is such that aircraft carriers could potentially be at risk well before their air wings are within range to strike at the Chinese mainland.

geimint.blogspot.com...

[edit on 10-4-2009 by rogue1]

Thanks from all from very educative discussion in this thread!

What I will raise up is the educative "Battle Of Falklands" as a reminder for us all, what missiles do to warships, and what kind of threat seamissiles are to every modern navy.

I really want you to look this fine documentary from Falklands, and its almost huge catastrophe to UK:s Navy:



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.

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?"

reply to post by rogue1


I hope by ASAT you don't mean Anti-Satellite. We do have a Proven ASAT weapon, the Aegis Missile Cruiser, which like others said before are always in a carrier battle group. Do you not remember them shooting down the aging spy satellite?

reply to post by JanusFIN


The only problem with your example is that the UK navy "AT" that point in history was woefully ill equipped. They even knew it going down there. There was a request for and they received assistance from the US. Sidewinder?
Also those Harriers were subsonic while Argentina had mirage land based jets.

If anything it is a great example of what can happen by not staying current and reacting to newer threats.

In War ships get damaged or sunk. That's the nature of it.

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...

reply to post by SLAYER69


What you say is true, and we cant compare 25 year old situation to these days events. But there still is lessons to remember.

We havent seen a modern missile war to this day, where both sides are armed with equal arms. In Iran war we will see all our greatest fears, and best hopes to match their self... It will be no parade march to world peace.

Maybe the balance of the fear has kept these wars away, and we can only speculate what kind of weight different arm systems provides. Systems battling from success in Iran war will show us the truth...

World War 3 is coming - thats my perspective - and Gaza was the evidence that I ve been waiting for years to come. I see it clearly now, and there is no way back - events from that sad begin of operation Cast Lead - will be remembered as start of a horrible adventure of the human kind.

"Missilewar" is about to come true, because Israel made something what cant be forgiven in minds of Muslim world - 911 Gaza is a terrible memory - Trauma: Lets see what kind of a role carriers have in that human disaster.

the phalanx close quarters weapon system is very impressive and very good at its job. It has been successfully used to intercept MORTARS..!!! Watch the video below and see how it works. Our carrier groups are far from defenseless.

reply to post by Pyros


Starred - thank you! I will try to remember your lessons...

Like I said in the first post, Falklands was "almost a catastrophe" because of the sea missiles - underlining reasons you gave us.

But for US sailors and their families, I hope that you havent fully undermine a threat of sunburns - which I still see a greatest threat for US Navys future.

--- Another lesson from the history ---

Like Nazi Germany had superior U-Boat fleet to engage Britains Navy, they couldnt crash its backbone - So, perhaps Sunburns are no enough to cut a backbone of US Fleets either.

We will see that soon.