Why Aircraft Carriers Still Rule the Oceans

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


12 carrier battle groups are a waste of money and now that the cold war is over they are not needed. Apart from power projection they are not very useful. Isn't one called the USS George H.W. bush. They are just a waste of money. And the US doesn't have money to spare. 2 or 3 CVBGs is enough the rest should be sold or scrapped.

reply to post by JimTSpock


I disagree. That's a different debate entirely.

an idea.....submergible carriers...

from another thread..


-------------------
submergible carrier-

What if you did not launch conventional air craft and did not launch the way conventional aircraft would. What if you launched like a missile. That technology already exists. A shallow depth launch, but still submerged. The aircraft itself would be role specific. You could have one heavier version for long duration missions /fuel requirements, and a smaller version for fighter interception/ air raid.

Recovery could be land based. Or it could use conventional surface fleet recovery platforms.

A small craft with staged shallow depth launch capabilities that uses the ascribed space for an ICBM already in place in our older subs.

We could retrofit our older subs from ICBM payloads to what I describe here using existing launch technologies and just change the missile, a staged rocket to fighter/ bomber....

The strike capability of a submerged carrier should not be downplayed. If the Japanese succeeded in using theirs during WW2 to hit panama, they would have crippled our shipping lanes and our war effort in the pacific. The sub /carriers they had, which were impressive to say the least, worked brilliantly and could have changed the tides of war. They were studied by our people and found them to be functional and well designed.

If we could have instant and undetected strike capabilities added to our air superiority we would have an advantage other nations would not for a very long time, if ever.

They can see our carriers coming from miles away, and we have to defend them. All we really need is a few aircraft for most missions. If we could use a combo of conventional surface fleet far off and submerged carriers deep in enemy waters we could operate in combat zones while keeping our risks to a minimum. When air craft are exhausted, the sub turns back to port to re arm with the recovered crafts the surface fleet already picked up.

Eliminate recovery and use conventional misile launch technologies and just alter the missile to launch staged air craft instead of nuclear payloads.

the craft would not have to be that special either. You would already be operating within enemy territory when launched so only its escape would need to be well thought out. Make it fast and small.....use smart bombs and just launch more of the air craft. Make them cheap too....If a missile could launch two or more at a time you would have a huge advantage....quick small craft that are role specific for either air defense of a conventional surface fleet, or a bomber version that carried more fuel and heavier payloads....

I really think this idea is not being explored by our military enough. I think China will develop a platform for a submerged carrier of some kind eventually. It is a great advantage that is hard to counter...you could hurt any infrastructure with relatively low risk. One sub and a few air craft that alternately a carrier battle group might cost in terms of risk.

--------------
no, you see, have the missile break apart..ask NASA....

the missile would only be used to get the aircraft out of the water and into an appropriate altitude....then the craft could drop from the thing or break away at the best altitude....


I would have a staged rocket that deployed small air crafts the ship would not recover directly...it's a launch and forget carrier...recovery to be done by land bases or at sea by the conventional fleet.

The missile just houses the craft....it is a deployment system...not the pay load...


EDIT:
Or have a dozen drones break away from the missile.....instead of a single or pair of small aircraft....

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Translation, you have no idea but you WANT them to be easilly sunkable so you're sticking with it. Gotcha. Now show me where I said they are invincible. I have said numerous times they can be sunk by a nuclear strike, although they do have significant defense against that as well. However, the first nuke that was launched would turn China into the worlds largest supplier of glass.

While I don't think that tactical nuclear strikes are the only viable option, I don't think carriers are easily sunk either. Tactical nukes aside it would likely be quite costly in men and material to put one on the bottom, but it's certainly possible, one just needs to be creative; a little cunning can go a long way, as wars are fought between men, not machines. I suppose we're not so far apart in our thinking. Perhaps a more apt title for this thread would be "Why Aircraft Carrier Groups Still Rule the Oceans."

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

12 carrier battle groups are a waste of money and now that the cold war is over they are not needed. Apart from power projection they are not very useful. Isn't one called the USS George H.W. bush. They are just a waste of money. And the US doesn't have money to spare. 2 or 3 CVBGs is enough the rest should be sold or scrapped.

We don't have 12. With the retirement of the Enterprise we will have 10 until the Ford comes on line in 2015. At any given time at least three are non-deployable, three are on station, and three are preparing to go on station. Do the math. We are stretched very thin. Saying all we need is "2 or 3" betrays a lack of understanding. Now that the Cold War is over we need carriers more than ever--at least until we're allowed to develop the vast reserves of oil we have in CONUS that we are prevented from doing now, or until we can convert to another energy source. Like it or not, that's the way it is. We police the oil flow not just for the US, but for the entire world, including China, Japan, and Europe.

Yes, one is called the George H.W. Bush, after the old guy. So what? What does that have to do with anything? Right now 7 active carriers and 2 under construction are named after presidents.

Just FYI, there is no longer any such thing as a "CVBG" That configuration was given up several years ago. The current configuration, which I described above, is a Carrier Strike Group.

This is my own compilation I keep updated on a weekly basis.

US Navy Carrier Strike Group Deployments: 10/03/12

CVN-65 Enterprise is in the 5th fleet AOR. (3/11/12)
CVN-68 Nimitz is in San Diego scheduled port visit. (10/3/12)
CVN-69 Eisenhower in 5th Fleet AOR as of 7/17/12.
CVN-70 Vinson is in home port San Diego, CA (8/1/12)
CVN-71 Roosevelt is at Newport News for RCOH & non-deployable, Avail: late 2012.
CVN-72 Lincoln at home port Norfolk for RCOH & non-deployable, Avail 2016.
CVN-73 Washington is underway in the 7th Fleet AOR (10/3/12)
CVN-74 Stennis left homeport Bremerton for the Middle East on 8/27/12.
CVN-75 Truman is underway in the Atlantic for qualifications (9/27/12)
CVN-76 Reagan is in Bremerton for DPIA & non-deployable until 2013.
CVN-77 Bush is in home port, Norfolk, VA. (7/27/12)
-------
CVN-78 Ford construction at Newport News. Avail 2015, replaces Enterprise.
CVN-79 Kennedy construction at Newport News. Avail 2018, replaces Nimitz
CVN-80 Unnamed, planned, Avail 2024, replaces Eisenhower.

RCOH=Refueling and Complex Overhaul, takes about four years
DPIA=Docked Planned Incremental Availability, takes six months to a year
RIMPAC= Rim of the Pacific. International exercise
COMPUTEX=Composite Unit Training Exercise, pre-deployment Strike Group coordination.

The above are all Carrier Strike Groups that normally travel with about 7-8 support ships including one cruiser, several destroyers (usually a squadron of 4), a fast attack supply ship, some frigates ,and a fast attack submarine or maybe two. The support ships are designed to protect the carrier. A CVN is about 100,000 tons displacement and can carry approximately 85 aircraft. CVNs are nuclear powered and run 25 years between refueling.

Explanation of Areas of Responsibility (AOR)

3rd Fleet AOR – Eastern & Northern Pacific, Alaska, Bering Sea
4th Fleet AOR – Central & South America
5th Fleet AOR - The Middle East, Arabian Gulf, East Africa
6th Fleet AOR – The Mediterranean Sea, Europe
7th Fleet AOR – Asian Pacific. Indian Ocean to International Date Line

Below are the Amphibious Ready Groups/Marine Expeditionary Units. The main ship here is a "baby" carrier that is about half the size or less of a CVN, about 40,000 tons displacement. It is designed to hold helicopters and Harrier VTOL jets. These guys can pull off a minor invasion, if necessary. They usually carry a handful of tanks. Marines, by and large, are light infantry. LHA is a “Landing Helicopter Assault.” LHD is a “Landing Helicopter Dock.”

LHA-5 Pelelieu is underway in the Pacific on WESTPAC (9/17/12)
LHD-1 Wasp is in the Atlantic conducting training (8/29/12)
LHD-2 Essex is in homeport, San Diego (8/15/12)
LHD-3 Kearsarge is in port for emergence rudder repairs (8/29/12)
LHD-4 Boxer is underway in the Pacific for training. (9/27/12)
LHD-5 Bataan is in home port, Norfolk, VA. (10/3/12)
LHD-6 Bonhomme Richard is underway in the 7th fleet AOR (8/15/12)
LHD-7 Iwo Jima is in the 5th Fleet AOR.
LHD-8 Makin Island is underway in the Pacific (10/3/12)
------
LHA-6 America, under construction, Avail. 2014, Northrop Grumann, Pascagoula.
LHA-7 Tripoli, contracted Avail. 2018, HII Ingalls, Pascagoula. $2.3B

Official Status of the Navy: www.navy.mil... (This is not always accurate.)
Carrier Locations: gonavy.jp... (Usually very accurate.)

Recent decommissioned carriers:

CV-59 Forrestal, 1955—1993, Newport, RI, Fate: scrap or sink
CV-60 Saratoga, 1956—1994, Newport, RI, Fate: scrap or sink
CV-61 Ranger, 1957—1993, Bremerton, WA, Fate: scrap or museum
CV-62 Independence, 1959—1998, Bremerton, WA, Fate: scrap or sink
CV-63 Kitty Hawk, 1961—2009, Bremerton; WA, Fate: reserve until 2015
CV-64 Constellation, 1961—2003, Bremerton, Fate: scrap or sink
CV-66 America, 1965—1996, Fate: scuttled in live fire exercise, 2005
CV-67 John F Kennedy, 1968—2007, Philadelphia, Fate: donation hold

Originally posted by Orwells Ghost

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Translation, you have no idea but you WANT them to be easilly sunkable so you're sticking with it. Gotcha. Now show me where I said they are invincible. I have said numerous times they can be sunk by a nuclear strike, although they do have significant defense against that as well. However, the first nuke that was launched would turn China into the worlds largest supplier of glass.

While I don't think that tactical nuclear strikes are the only viable option, I don't think carriers are easily sunk either. Tactical nukes aside it would likely be quite costly in men and material to put one on the bottom, but it's certainly possible, one just needs to be creative; a little cunning can go a long way, as wars are fought between men, not machines. I suppose we're not so far apart in our thinking. Perhaps a more apt title for this thread would be "Why Aircraft Carrier Groups Still Rule the Oceans."

edit on 3-10-2012 by Orwells Ghost because: Spelling

I have admitted from the start they are not invincible, but almost any attack has a small chance or surviving. There are no "good" options, and certainly no "easy" way as was said earlier in the thread. A more likely outcome would be severely damaging a Carrier, with it needing serious repairs. Actually putting one on the bottom of the ocean would be a monumental task without a Nuclear strike. Possible, not probable.

Then you need to consider we have 10 such groups. Let's say we have 7 active, and put 5 on ANY nation. Who has the resources to defend against 5 strike groups while being able to mount an offensive against them? If they pooled all their resources to take on ONE group that leaves 6 more devastating them. You lose the war to win the battle.

reply to post by schuyler


Thank you for another wonderful, detailed post.

reply to post by schuyler


CVBG or CSG. I forgot we don't use that anymore. It's just short for battle group or strike group. I forgot about the LHAs and LHDs. That is just excessive and a waste of money. You don't need all that at all. With 16 trillion in debt that is a ridiculous amount of military spending. But you need it all you say. I say no you don't. Police the shipping lanes but you don't need a whole carrier group to do that, one destroyer can do the the same job. It's not just America I think a lot of countries waste too much money on military hardware that is not needed and will never be used. That is one of the reasons why your 16+ trillion debt is starting to get out of control, too much spending.


USS George H. W. Bush I find amusing and shows how stupid all this is. Like Bush.
We're goin' down there to Iran. Ah it's Iraq sir. Iran, Iraq what's the difference. Just a bit of humor. I hope America doesn't go bankrupt.

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by schuyler

 

CVBG or CSG. I forgot we don't use that anymore. It's just short for battle group or strike group. I forgot about the LHAs and LHDs.

You "forgot" about a lot of stuff. That's why I said "FYI" Not a big deal, just a point.

USS George H. W. Bush I find amusing and shows how stupid all this is. Like Bush.
We're goin' down there to Iran. Ah it's Iraq sir. Iran, Iraq what's the difference. Just a bit of humor. I hope America doesn't go bankrupt.

Which is completely irrelevant. I think I've shown my expertise, and you've shown your lack of it. That's the bottom line here. It would be really nice if you had something relevant to say here, but you do not. Thanks for your input, but your talking your own politics, nothing else. We're discussing survivability of carriers here, and you think we can get by with a couple. That's laughable in the extreme. Sorry, but you are not a credible source of information here.

reply to post by schuyler


You insist the US needs all those carriers which is laughable in the extreme. Other countries manage to survive with no carriers, amazing. You don't know jack except how to copy and paste.
You haven't said anything about actual modern naval combat except to mention the movie 'The Hunt for Red October' which was full of BS.
I've played all the Sonalysts naval sims on the PC, they make sims for the US navy.

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by schuyler

 

You insist the US needs all those carriers which is laughable in the extreme. Other countries manage to survive with no carriers, amazing. You don't know jack except how to copy and paste.
You haven't said anything about actual modern naval combat except to mention the movie 'The Hunt for Red October' which was full of BS.

edit on 4-10-2012 by JimTSpock because: spelling

That's because other countries rely on US Naval superiority. Without those countries we are nothing except yet another country. We are purely a defensive force with ZERO ability to project our forces. When China wants to bully its Asian neighours a Carrier Group sent in the area let's them know the US will protect its interests and its allies. Without Carriers we have no interests. Without carriers we have no allies, as they capitulate under the growing pressure of China.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Nuclear powers will not go to war or engage each other because one side always has the option of using their nukes resulting in MAD. That leaves non nuclear countries which are all much much weaker militarily than any of the nuclear powers. America thinks it is the centre of the world it isn't and is not the world police.

What do you think without America the world would instantly descend into chaos. I don't think so.

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Nuclear powers will not go to war or engage each other because one side always has the option of using their nukes resulting in MAD. That leaves non nuclear countries which are all much much weaker militarily than any of the nuclear powers. America thinks it is the centre of the world it isn't and is not the world police.

What do you think without America the world would instantly descend into chaos. I don't think so.

edit on 4-10-2012 by JimTSpock because: (no reason given)

Nuclear powers will go to war, you will see. They simply will not use Nuclear weapons. As to the world descending into chaos ... yes, it would. Unless every other nation stepped up and spent a LOT more on their military. It's nice of you to not respond to any of my points. If the US doesn't, who protects Taiwan? Who protects South Korea? Who stops China from taking what it wants from its weaker neighbors?

I addressed your points in a general way but maybe you didn't get it. North Korea and Iran are a bit suspect but apart from those two everyone else can take care of themselves. China should not be seen as a threat but a business partner. Israel can take care or Iran. South Korea, Japan, China and/or Russia can take care of North Korea. Taiwan? Maybe the US could help there.
Nuclear powers will go to war? I don't think so. I'll believe it if it ever happens. Most countries don't want war they just want to do business. Diplomacy and communication can go a long way to maintain peaceful relations. Except for Iran and North Korea they are nuts. I just think there can be a better way than all this billion dollar sabre rattling.
Well it's been interesting but now I've got a plane to catch.

reply to post by JimTSpock


China is not a threat? Maybe you should tell that to EVERY SINGLE Asian and Pacific nation. China and Russia love North Korea as they are a destabalizing force against US interests. Israel can take care of Iran, but the backlash from every other Arab nation would likely overwhelm them if not for US allies in the region. You're seriously out of touch with the world we live in my friend.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


I don't believe you are correct about any of that. I think you're being paranoid and seem to think you know what other countries will do when you do not. China and Russia don't hate the US they just want to do business like everyone else.

reply to post by JimTSpock


No. Patently false. They do not hate the US per say, they do hate the power of the US. They wish to cripple the US and replace it as the world's Superpower. If you think otherwise you are delusional. Russia less so, Russia does want to even the playing field although their World Leader aspirations have come and gone, for now.

China is simply biding their time. Maybe you should look into all the hacking attempts on the US originating from China. Or do you hack your best friends? Look at China's posturing over the local islands, and their threats. Do you just ignore the news?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


They wish to cripple the US? Really. China holds a large portion of the 16 trillion US debt. They want the US to keep paying interest and buying more Chinese goods. It would be very bad for the Chinese economy if the US was crippled. You don't want to cripple one of your biggest export markets that is economic stupidity. Of course they hack everything to try to get technology they don't have to pay for or work on themselves, like the US doesn't do the same. A crippled US would be very bad for the global economy no one wants that except maybe some nutters in the Middle East. It is not in China or Russia's economic interest to have a crippled US. You're not a right-wing paranoid war monger watching FOX news are you? Don't worry if China or Russia attack you can always nuke them! You know a bit about military hardware but maybe not as much about the global economy and international trade.
With regard to Israel, they have fought 5 Arab Israeli wars and won them all.

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by schuyler

 

You insist the US needs all those carriers which is laughable in the extreme. Other countries manage to survive with no carriers, amazing. You don't know jack except how to copy and paste.
You haven't said anything about actual modern naval combat except to mention the movie 'The Hunt for Red October' which was full of BS.
I've played all the Sonalysts naval sims on the PC, they make sims for the US navy.

edit on 4-10-2012 by JimTSpock because: spelling

Ever think that many countries do not need carriers because the US is using ours to keep the trade routes open so they do not have to?