USS Ford in danger of delay due to AAG

originally posted by: Brother Stormhammer
a reply to: intrptr

So the collective military establishments of the US, Russia, India, China, France, the United Kingdom, Spain, Brazil, Italy, and Japan know less about military needs than you? Holy Halsey, I thought *my* ego was over-sized.

Personal commentary aside, since you seem convinced that only the US is using our carriers as offensive weapons, can you cite any historical case where carriers were used in a defensive role and were successful? That's not a 'snark' question, I'm honestly curious, because I can't think of a single one. As Zaphod points out, *all* aircraft carriers are offensive platforms...any 'defensive' strength they exercise is gained by virtue of counter-threat (for example, the USN's 'defense' of Midway).

Falklands war!!

It was a late defensive play ;-)

a reply to: Brother Stormhammer

can you cite any historical case where carriers were used in a defensive role and were successful?

Thats my point.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
The new system is being tested at Lakehurst NJ...

Not sure if you have ever been to Lakehurst, Zap, but I have been able to watch them do touch and goes and simulated carrier landings and takeoffs on runway 30 which has catapults and painted markings on the asphalt that resemble the carrier deck. I was down there a few weeks ago and there was a good deal of activity around that section of the base.

a reply to: intrptr

I'm so glad we have you to explain things to us.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Awww, you can't fool me. Thats not what you really think.

a reply to: intrptr

Well you apparently know more than everyone including military planners when it comes to carriers. ....

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Brother Stormhammer

can you cite any historical case where carriers were used in a defensive role and were successful?

Thats my point.

No, it isn't your point. Allow me to remind you what you posted earlier in this thread, if I might.

Like I said, not many Carriers. The ones they do are truly defensive, unless you can tell me where China, India and Russai for instance, are using them to bomb nations far from home? The rest are mostly smaller transport for helicopter and VTOl operations, again mostly defensive, except maybe in NATO.

Your point (at least originally) was that the US had "offensive" (and therefore bad, evil, and obsolete) carriers, while other nations had "defensive" carriers. My point was that *any* carrier is, by definition, an offensive weapon whose only defensive ability comes from its ability to hold an enemy at risk.

I'd strongly recommend reading Norman Friedman's "US Aircraft Carriers", "Navies in the Nuclear Age", and "Network-Centric Warfare", and Normon Polmar's "Aircraft Carriers - A History of Carrier Aviation and its Impact on World Events" Volumes 1 &2 (all available on Amazon, or through the USNI Press) before proclaiming the aircraft carrier obsolete as a type, or before trying to make judgements about their use in combat and / or diplomacy.

a reply to: intrptr

So....how else are we supposed to get our fixed wing fighters into theater quickly? We can't always have bases that can accommodate any situation nearby...

a reply to: Brother Stormhammer

Actually you misunderstood me again, bit thats beside the point for proponents of US military doctrine. I don't happen to agree with it. So what? I know you aren't trying to convince me of anything.

originally posted by: Snarl
a reply to: Zaphod58

Good grief. A two year setback?? Can GA survive that? Oh ... there's a bailout materializing in my crystal ball.

aahhh yes....the mandatory "cost overrun"....this crap should have already been figured out on a computer sim. something stinks

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Brother Stormhammer

Actually you misunderstood me again, bit thats beside the point for proponents of US military doctrine. I don't happen to agree with it. So what? I know you aren't trying to convince me of anything.

What did I misunderstand? I'm looking at your words, and doing my dead-level best to make no assumptions beyond what's written. As for me being a proponent of US military doctrine, I'm actually not...but I am a firm believer in power projection as a tool of policy.

As for trying to 'convince' you of something, that's not necessarily my goal either. I'm trying to a) understand your point, and b) provide you with information that you seem to lack regarding carrier doctrine (thus the book list).

a reply to: Brother Stormhammer

As for me being a proponent of US military doctrine, I'm actually not…but I am a firm believer in power projection as a tool of policy.

Big difference…

Carriers do their work fine. So far they haven't been tested in a modern arena.

Large slow targets bobbing on the ocean.

Thanks for the reading list.

Heres one for you.

And another,in depth.

a reply to: intrptr

Thanks for the list, but I'm not terribly impressed with Rense.com in general The specific exercises and hypothetical scenarios referenced at your links got a ton of discussion at the US Naval Institute, and were the subject of at least three presentations at the US Naval War College, and those discussions were a lot more interesting (and a lot less sensational) than the presentations you referenced.

One thing that both scenarios seem to take for granted is that the USN will blindly sit back and allow an opposing force to prepare very complex attacks on multiple axes while doing nothing at all (for example, positioning and preparing several hundred mobile missiles for launch, then coordinating all of those widely dispersed assets). Any fight is easy to win if you assume the other side is snacking on high-lead chips with thalydomide salsa. .

Don't take me wrong...I'm not saying that a CVBG is some invincible, unstoppable Juggernaut. I am saying that taking one out of action isn't simple, cheap, or easy. If nothing else, it's going to require sufficient resources to push any conflict well past the 'nuclear use' threshold, even if the attacker doesn't have to use nuclear weapons in the attack.

If you really want to stop a CVBG, my best guess on how to do it (based on open-source data) would be to wage an attrition battle against the air group, and leave that "big floating target" the **** alone. If nothing else, you're much less likely to trigger a massive retaliation over the deaths of 50 or so aircrew than you are over the deaths of 5,000+ naval personnel.

a reply to: Brother Stormhammer

If you really want to stop a CVBG, my best guess on how to do it (based on open-source data) would be to wage an attrition battle against the air group, and leave that "big floating target" the **** alone.

They are the prize.

In WWII at Okinawa Japanese Kamikazis got through and wreaked havoc with the carrier groups. These were prop driven slow movers. Despite radar, (knowing they were coming) fighter interception, CAP and filling the skies with lead, they still got through.

In the Gulf Pond, there is less forewarning, and many more advanced, hi tech weapons arrayed against the same 80 year old Carrier doctrine.

I know they say they can outlast the arrows thrown agains their flanks, but really, as yet, untested in the modern arena.

a reply to: intrptr

Carrier doctrine isn't 80 years old...that's why I suggested Friedman's book in net-centric warfare.

Citing Kamikaze attacks isn't really a proof of point. The only US carriers lost to Kamikaze attacks (as far as my admittedly imperfect memory can recall) were the USS St. Lo (CVE-63) and USS Bismark Sea (CVE-95). Both were escort carriers, meaning that they were smaller, less robust ships. It's true that Kamikaze aircraft did ugly, ugly things to the ships that were escorting the USN's carriers, but to be blunt, that's what escorts are for...to shield the carrier from attack, regardless of the cost to the escort.

Bringing this forward a bit, there are crucial differences between the mass kamikaze attacks of World War 2 and the modern air-defense battlefield. The biggest is defensive depth. It's true that the threats (jet aircraft and surface to surface missiles) are moving faster, but the defensive systems can see, and more importantly, engage, at much longer distances. The 5"/38 cal DP mount was the USN's heavy AA weapon during the second world war. It could reach about 17,000 yards range, and about 37,000 feet altitude. Modern SAM can reach much farther, a bit higher, and get there faster, with a higher probability of a kill. That leaves more time for a follow-up shot if it's needed.

The defenders also have a lot more tricks up their sleeve than they did in world war 2. ECM doesn't work on a kamikaze, but it does work on radar guidance. IR deception measures are another option. While these things haven't been tested in combat, they have been tested with live ammo...so they aren't complete vaporware.

Even if the defensive systems fail to stop everything, relatively modern carriers have been tested on at least two occasions. Both Enterprise and Forrestal survived massive fires and explosions...in the Enterprise's case, fairly deep within the hull. If nothing else, those incidents prove that even if you can hit them, are ****ing hard to actually sink.

a reply to: Brother Stormhammer

It's true that Kamikaze aircraft did ugly, ugly things to the ships that were escorting the USN's carriers, but to be blunt, that's what escorts are for…to shield the carrier from attack, regardless of the cost to the escort.

Yes, low and slow prop, driven aircraft. Hardly a challenge at a time when the Japanese Navy was all but defeated and their air force depleted to scraping the barrel. Pilots were in short supply and under trained. Depseration ruled the nest. Here have some saki and a headband, Cherry blossom.

Falklands, HMS Sheffield, Exocet--

a reply to: intrptr

I;d also include some on USS Stark but that is limited. That ship was hit by two Exocets fired from Iranian jets in the Persian Gulf. Lessons not lost on them I'm sure.

Todays arsenal makes those missiles pale in comparison. Just like the Carriers in that same Gulf.

a reply to: intrptr

Right, because defensive weapons haven't improved at all in that time.

a reply to: Zaphod58

They thought they were invincible at the time, too.