The Navy Sunk Japan's Top Secret Aircraft Carrier (And She Was Massive)

a reply to: biggilo

At the height of the Cold War the CCCP which was a peer state adversary would have had a hell of a time targeting the carriers and if you look at how much of thier naval $$$$$ went towards striking a CBG at sea its staggering from SSGN's to supersonic backfire bombers.

China will at some point be a peer level adversary and we should not underestimate their A2/AD capabilities but again unless that CBG has to move in close and defend Taiwan (which is a likely scenario) this is what the Chi Coms will face

1) Carrier Battle Group with multiple Burke and Ticonderoga class cans WITH ABM capabilities in some of the ships to deal with the DF-21 (which has acquired some kind of mythological status) plus the added burden of hitting a ship that is maneuvering at sea and is actively avoiding satellites. Now if its trolling off the coast of China you may be able to saturate the defenses but not say if its taking up station behind Taiwan

2) The CBG's CAP which with the new drone tanker and the Pegasus will be able to push things much further out thus giving the carrier more time to maneuver

3) The USAF is not going be sitting around drinking a Mai Tai on Guam. You will Raptors, E-3's, F-35's< BONES and BUFF's out in force. The B-1 can carry 24 AGM-158C LRASM. The BUFF loadout should be similar. Your talking alot of stealthy anti ship missiles plus air support

4) Subs. You can bet there will be alot of SSN's keeping an eye on things.

5) Experience. You can hack your way into some fancy new weapons systems but its not just the machine but the man. No one has more experience in carrier ops, sub ops, anti sub ops the the USN.

a reply to: biggilo

You mention all those fancy weapons that will pose a risk to a CBG stooging off Taiwan. All true enough...however, you seem to be thinking that the Navy, for some odd reason, will remain static, and not upgrade all manner of systems.

That simply will not be the case.

A modern carrier costs $5-6billion?

The Navy wishes. It's actually double that~right at, or just over 12 billion dollars.

a reply to: JIMC5499

The problem is all the things that will make the CVBG more survivable turn it into a sea control force and stop it from being a force projector. Sea control is still a vital role for modern navies, but the entire justification for a CVBG for decades has been as a force projector.

I think there is a conversation to be had about the utility and opportunity cost of our current force structure.

a reply to: RadioRobert

I'll go along with that. That should be the only thing a CBG does--project force as necessary.

Controlling the sea is the job for other groups. My humble opinion, of course.

originally posted by: TonyS
a reply to: grey580

You know.............there's a message in that story for the US Navy and its forces moving against Iran at the moment.

I've been seeing several articles of late to the effect that the US Navy's Leadership is, in pursuing this Air Craft Carrier based attack groups is pursuing yesterday's strategy and that because of technological advances, missles and new long range torpedoes and tactical nuclear missile capabilities, Air Craft Carriers are as obsolete today as Battle Ships were after the invention and development of the Airplane after WWI.

Of course, because of the awesome sums of wealth generated by way of kick-backs from Naval contractors and the MIC, the Navy won't wise up until there's a catastrophe that embarrasses them into the dark ages.

according to the way you seem to think (and a lot of other people), the entire NAVY is obsolete. as is the entire air force, and things like tanks and artillery. all can be destroyed by things like missiles, long range anti-ship weapons, long range anti-aircraft missiles, long range torpedoes, smart bombs, artillery, tactical nuclear missiles, etc. and in many cases it only takes a single hit to destroy almost any vehicle, ship or aircraft. forget about all the obsolete ground pounders who are vert vulnerable to even much less powerful weapons. guess we should just shut down the military because it is obsolete since every part of it is vulnerable to other weapons.

a reply to: seagull

I mentioned possible new technologies which will improve the survivability of a carrier and help stave off the new threats, but most of those look to still be quite far off. Present technologies and defences no longer look like they're up to snuff.
The new technologies plus a move towards smaller carriers but in larger numbers could well be the answer.

FredT raises some valid points. But longer flights and extra refuelling proves my point though. The effectiveness of the carrier will be significantly reduced. It also raises the issue surrounding the vulnerability of tankers and planes being refuelled; I am uncomfortable with placing too much reliance on stealth (has the stealth tanker even been agreed upon?)

But I am talking about the situation involving the defence of Taiwan. I don't envisage an attack on Guam. Realistically we are all going to wake up some Christmas morning (they celebrate Christmas on a different day to us) and Russia will have closed the Suwalki gap, NATO countries will throw their focus towards this and China will take the opportunity to move on Taiwan. Is the US prepared to lose a carrier over this?
And once Taiwan has fallen it's over.

Will there be anything we can do to prevent any of this?

And as someone already mentioned, carrier purchases are now more often political decisions rather than based on what military strategists or Admirals actually want.

a reply to: RadioRobert

I'll have to give that point to you. The Navy screwed up when it went all in on the F/A-18's. I wonder how many of the clowns that made that decision have a cushy job with Boeing? They also fouled up when they retired the S-3 Vikings. They lost outer zone ASW capability, anti-ship capability and a large capacity tanker.

My Nephew who was a helo pilot and got out a few years ago told me a joke. "How do you get 2 F/A-18's over a target 500 miles away? Send 8. Two strike aircraft and 6 tankers.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Yep, on both points. They had S-3's with ASW gear who also played tanker and bomb truck. Now they are burning hours off of Shornets to tank and bomb caves and technicals, and have no fixed-wing onboard ASW available. They haven't had long-range projection since they retired the A-6, so 22 years. And now the Navy is actually saying, "we don't need range, we'll get better stand-off weaponry and penetrating missions can go to the USAF"!I

Very hard to justify the enormous expense of a CVBG if it's only role is sea-control and stand-off strikes. Give me a bunch of Aegis cruisers and some tankers and B-21's for that money.

a reply to: RadioRobert

Look at the refurbished Ohio class ballistic missile subs that have been turned into SSGN's. All kinds of standoff there.

At this point I'm more worried about Subs than "whiz bang Chinese or Russian carrier killer missiles". The Navy has gotten away from serious ASW. Even the carrier helo squadrons are more into SEAL support and ground combat. Don't even get me started on the P-8. They really screwed up when they let Boeing talk them out of a MAD system. They have yet to have a successful torpedo launch from altitude. That problem might be fixed though. I've hear rumors about a lightweight torpedo that can receive targeting info from a P-8 and be dropped from an Osprey.

a reply to: JIMC5499

To me it's about opportunity costs. If I don't build 3 new Fords, I can build 3 more America-class for sea control, peacetime projection/support, and/or MEU-role, 3 more Virgina-class SSN's, and 4 more Burkes, and have enough for two full-time maritime-tasked B-21 squadrons (24 aircraft).

That's just acquisition costs of three empty Fords! The price of the air-wing, thousands of seamen, the tied up escorts, tankers, and their costs, plus staggering operational costs would all be saved or diverted to other operations, and that's where the money adds up.

I think you do more with three groups centered around Americas instead of Fords when we factor the extra SSN's and Burkes (more VLS at sea-- can't be reloaded at sea) and strategic -air assets.

I'm not suggesting we get rid of all of our nuclear carriers, or that they are "completely obsolete" , but as in the case for the Iowas, the business case for their usefulness vs cost is increasingly looking poor. The sooner we shift the paradigm, the better, imo. We need to recap almost everything floating, and we cannot do that if we're determined to also field more than a dozen CVBG's and buying new Fords at accelerated paces.

a reply to: JIMC5499

My Nephew who was a helo pilot and got out a few years ago told me a joke. "How do you get 2 F/A-18's over a target 500 miles away? Send 8. Two strike aircraft and 6 tankers.

That decision was questionable at best. I'd be curious to find out the fate of the people that made that particular decision...

a reply to: biggilo

He did raise some good points.

CBG's should not be used to cover static targets, if it can be avoided. That's not their intended function. They are for power projection. Nothing does that better than a big ol' carriers sitting out beyond where you can easily reach, but they can reach you...though with those damned shortlegged F/A-18's that's not as easy as it once was. That can, and I'm sure has, make one sit up and start rethinking things a bit.

I don't like the idea of carriers being used that way, either. In case I hadn't made that clear...

Sea control can be done with the forces that RadioRobert posits above this post...that way the carriers can be doing what they're so good at. Making people think twice.

a reply to: seagull

CVBG has to operate from blue water to make use of speed and open space in addition to being out of range of most threats and sensors. You have to figure out how to strike from there to wherever the enemy is generating enough result at the other end to justify it's existence as anything other than a peacetime airfield and wartime sea control force.

And the bad news is the Navy just said they're content with short -range aircraft and long-range munitions for their aircraft component.

Not looking good.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: JIMC5499

My Nephew who was a helo pilot and got out a few years ago told me a joke. "How do you get 2 F/A-18's over a target 500 miles away? Send 8. Two strike aircraft and 6 tankers.

That decision was questionable at best. I'd be curious to find out the fate of the people that made that particular decision...

They probably enjoy lucrative positions at Boeing now.

Damn! Looks like we all agree. That doesn't happen often.

a reply to: JIMC5499

I'll start a #-stirring thread this weekend. Not just to stir the #, but I'd love to hear people flesh out their ideas a bit.

a reply to: grey580 Great find. My God, she displaced at 72000 tons. That's 5000 tons more than the UK's QE2 class. She was a biiiiig girl.