Why Aircraft Carriers Still Rule the Oceans

reply to post by NavyDoc


Open from what? Pirates? Dolphins? Do you really need a whole carrier group to do this or just a destroyer? Or even a smaller coast guard type vessel. Already been over that. Other countries do actually have navies.

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by r2d246
reply to post by travis911

 

Who would win between a a modern aircraft carrier and a nuclear sub? and why?

Carriers aren't lone wolves stalking the sea. They are the primary asset of a Carrier Strike Group that includes about ten ships (more or less, depending). These support ships include at least one destroyer squadron composed of Arleigh Burke class destroyers, at least one Ticonderoga class cruiser, several smaller picket-type ships such as frigates. Oh, and a few fast attack submarines lurking beneath the carrier.

Note that the Burkes aren't your average WW II class destroyer. They are four times larger in terms of displacement (10,000 tons versus 2,500 tons), longer (500 feet versus 350 feet), and much bigger than a WW II class cruiser. Even a Los Angeles class fast attack submarine is twice as big as a WW II destroyer.

While underway these support ships form a defensive shield around the carrier, both physical and electronic. They have a vast array of anti-submarine warfare systems including towed sonar arrays, anti-submarine rockets, and anti-submarine helicopters. If you've seen the movie "Red October," that is a fair representation of how anti-submarine warfare works. Just one homing torpedo dropped from a helicopter can ruin a sub's whole day. Think of this defensive shield as a bubble around the carrier extending into the sky, but also to the ocean floor. The plan is that nothing gets through the bubble.

I don't claim to be able to predict what would happen in an actual hostile encounter between a Carrier Strike group and a submarine, nuclear or not, but there is an extremely good chance that Captain Bart Mancuso of the USS Dallas would blow that sub to Mars. It's not as if the US Navy has never thought about these issues. Given the odds if I had to pick a place to be during a battle like that, I'd want to be on the carrier, not the attacking submarine.

Good to know.

For some of you who wonder about the damage that a carrier can handle, here is a little known fact for you. In 1984-85 the USS Independence deployed out of Norfolk, Virginia across the Atlantic, through the Med, the Suez Canal into the Indian Ocean. She stayed in the IO, on station just South of the Straights of Hormuz for 70 days and then made a 30 knot speed run for a week to Singapore. Spent a week in Singapore and then made ANOTHER 30 knot speed run back to her previous station. Stayed on station another 30 days and then went back to Norfolk the same way. What makes this relevant is that she did all of this with a 100 x 50 foot hole in her outer hull. The hole was repaired when she went in to Philadelphia for her turn at SLEP (Service Life Extension Plan). I saw the hole while she was in dry dock, when we were taking the Forrestal out of SLEP.

By the way, during that deployment, she also had a bent shaft that during that 30 knot run made the back of the ship vibrate like crazy.

After the Baby Boomers die and the Latinos become the majority in a couple years.....I bet one of the first things they do is start selling those aircraft carriers off.

Who do you think will buy them?? My bet is they give them to Saudi Arabia in exchange for oil.

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Open from what? Pirates? Dolphins? Do you really need a whole carrier group to do this or just a destroyer? Or even a smaller coast guard type vessel. Already been over that. Other countries do actually have navies.

Then you don't understand the idea of the concepts of "show of force" or "preemptive presence." You honestly believe a coast guard cutter could keep the straits of Hormuz open if Iran wanted to shut it down? China and the Straits of Mallacca?" Really? What good is a coast guard cutter vs Kilo class subs or Silkworm missiles? I suggest you read Alfred Thayer Mahan's "Influnce of Seapower Upon History" and get back to us with a more educated opinion.

reply to post by NavyDoc


If there was a naval blockade I'm sure it wouldn't last long and the effected countries would do something about it very quickly. No need to try to twist what I've said to suit your own view point, which is clearly what you've tried to do. Are you suggesting the rest of the world would be incapable of resolving a naval blockade without US carriers? I don't agree with that view.


My contention is that the US doesn't need so many carrier groups. It's not an original or very controversial view. Others share this view, see who they are and it might surprise. Get over it.

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

If there was a naval blockade I'm sure it wouldn't last long and the effected countries would do something about it very quickly. No need to try to twist what I've said to suit your own view point, which is clearly what you've tried to do. Are you suggesting the rest of the world would be incapable of resolving a naval blockade without US carriers? I don't agree with that view.

I think that's NavyDoc's whole point about a show of force. You'd be disinclined to even attempt a blockade with the threat of a carrier strike group being rammed down your throat.

reply to post by Orwells Ghost


I'd agree with that. But I don't think that point justifies so many carrier groups. In such an example only 1 would be needed. How about a coalition of units made up of some other countries that could work too, with no carrier at all.
The reason why the US has so many carrier groups is to fight a war on two fronts, one in the Pacific, one in the Atlantic. I think this scenario is highly unlikely so they are not all needed. It is a cold war scenario which is no longer relevant.

reply to post by JimTSpock


That would be that case if the US didn't have military obligations all over the globe. Whatever your feelings on the subject, the US has made promises to Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. That means at least one carrier always on patrol in the South Pacific, and it's relief carrier not too far away. Then there is the "unpleasantness" in the Middle East, which would require at least one in the Gulf, with it's relief close by. Then there is the Mediterranean/North Africa, plus the entire Atlantic and the Indian Oceans; now couple that with the fact that two to three carriers are not ready for deployment at any given time and ten no longer seems that high a number.

That's really what this discussion is about. If even one of these bad boys goes down, it's virtually a ten percent reduction in the US Navy's operational capabilities, which could be all the opportunity needed for a nameless country to seize a nameless island nation or any number of other unpleasant possibilities.

Drones could easily replace the aircraft carriers. They are just for war mongers to make money with. Outdated as the square rigged sailboat. Obsolete for killing farmers and people resisting occupation for oil money.

reply to post by Orwells Ghost


Your points make sense but you are missing something. You don't need to have forces stationed in any particular area of the globe. If anything happens they can then be deployed. There will be a time delay to the response but usually with the UN and diplomacy and politics there will be a delay anyway before any military action is commenced. Look at Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Slow build up then they were obliterated after numerous warnings and a deadline to withdraw. If they think it will draw world wide attention potential adversaries don't even think about doing anything. Except in Africa where usually no one does anything to intervene.

Air craft carriers.
they are necessary like all our efforts are. There is the money side to this, as with all things. You don't get by on your most noble ideals. You can see them as the goal, but the road to their expression in any meaningful way is always paved with compromises. Nothing is pure from inception to destruction.....that is the choice to be made. To cleanse oneself of the impurity of your continued existence and purge who you were to make room for who you will become.

The US will not become a perfect nation without first being at some point its possible devil. Some will argue that time is now.....others that it is to come. I say don't argue, that is futile and better left to the blind that see neither their own devil or their own divine.

Really we are an empire that by our social order has produced the world we now defend in all our varied stances. Instead of barking like dogs at each other for our hungers and fears....lets accept that the hand that has fed us did with its other hand the toil necessary to bring the treats to our mouths.

The "master" as you would have it is not a master of dogs, but a brother of humanity that gives what is to have. Conflict simply is. Understanding it is what allows for peace. Not doing so brings the mad peace of destruction and chaos. Nothing forever.

The eye of the storm is the only place with peace, the only place to ride out the storm you cannot flee from. This world, imperfect like its occupants needs mitigation. Needs order. We naturally would have it, but by our nature would ruin it for a personal ideal, not a species truth, or a fact of our inherent savagery we add to daily.

The issue is not that we have weapons and that we have them to use them. It is that there still exists a need to keep them close, or as close as our enemies are to theirs. Total victory is unattainable, so total control is an illusion. Then as well is total peace an equal illusion.

The only truth that is, is somewhere in between. We must eat and reproduce and learn to do so more effectively so as to be more prosperous. That as well is somewhere in between those truths and illusions.

Without a military, we are a target, and a supple and inviting one at that. We would not surrender our pleasures for the pleasure of a clear conscience. That is a personal choice, not a species truth. We war. That is true for humanity. Since that is true, our personal truth is incompatible with our species.....we are on a road, not waiting at a destination. No matter whom you may be personally.

For all you high ideals, you would need food in your belly to conceive them, and peace on your streets to keep them. Our list of enemies may grow, but only out of their own efforts to make of limited resources a greater portion for themselves. We are the ones to mitigate. We keep the ones from the others. By our reason alone such a venture would be impossible. Our force must be real for our words to carry weight. We must be called to do so. The world has. Either by its cry for help, or by its vow of war.

What is a prophet without the god that empowers him or the believers in his words and that God?
We are the prophets of progress, and to that sermon, our words and ways are meaningless without our god....WAR.

Conflict simply is, and though we may be talented in its resolution, our talent is a response to it and our ability, a trait of survival. These abilities are not a product of greed or pride, though they may secure them and enforce them. They are so because the need, the threat is still present in humanity to tune them and refine them. Our strength is not a curse unless our cursed men are the ones to use them. Equally then they are a blessing when our blessed men use them.Our strength is war and our tools are necessary for its expression.

It is not that we need them, but that we are them and they an extension of our being. When conflict is not, we shall be no more. While conflict is, we shall not go into oblivion without fulfilling our purpose.

Sparta, Rome, ect and all those countries of war before them, were great for their strength and their ability to express it. Not because of the greed and pride they produced while in power. They were great already and secured the means to express their inherent traits.

We make great weapons, not because of our hunger for them or their use. We make them because we are great warriors, and they are an expression of ourselves. They are our art....an art of destruction to those they oppose, but more so , an art of creation as well for those they favor.
They create the peace our society may prosper in.
As old as prostitution, is the art of war. Society calls for it, since by it, society is it secured.

order brings conflict, and by conflict is the warrior born. Chaos is not peace either.....it is the herald of creation....and order the offspring...the cycle never ending....

tools come and go with time....their purpose and their need is part of the cycle. As we need they will be created.

We need our tools since our warriors keep our peace. They would have their tools like a farmer or a statesman his own.

Their purpose is not arguable while the need they meet remains. We have warriors and their tools ready because society yet exists and so secures their purpose.

Air craft carriers....better than bows.

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by Orwells Ghost

 

Your points make sense but you are missing something. You don't need to have forces stationed in any particular area of the globe. If anything happens they can then be deployed. There will be a time delay to the response but usually with the UN and diplomacy and politics there will be a delay anyway before any military action is commenced. Look at Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Slow build up then they were obliterated after numerous warnings and a deadline to withdraw. If they think it will draw world wide attention potential adversaries don't even think about doing anything. Except in Africa where usually no one does anything to intervene.

I think that line of thinking is a mistake. You propose a reactionary military stance; unless you enjoy defeat, that seems ill advised. Again, it comes down to the show of force. One carrier on hand is worth ten in port.

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

If there was a naval blockade I'm sure it wouldn't last long and the effected countries would do something about it very quickly. No need to try to twist what I've said to suit your own view point, which is clearly what you've tried to do. Are you suggesting the rest of the world would be incapable of resolving a naval blockade without US carriers? I don't agree with that view.


My contention is that the US doesn't need so many carrier groups. It's not an original or very controversial view. Others share this view, see who they are and it might surprise. Get over it.

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

How can they stop a blockade if they have let means to stop it go away? How can they stop a blockade that uses shore based systems without the means to project power ashore? You contention that the US does not need so many carrier groups is not based on fact. As clearly explained to you earlier, it takes a total of three groups to have a single group on station full time.

reply to post by earthdude


They could? How? How much ordiance can a drone carry compared to an F18? AA capability? Speed? Where would these amazing drones launch and recover? That's silly. Y'all have bought into the drone hype, they are not the end all be all.

The only thing that might replace our aircraft carriers is something like the Aurora project. If you can launch suborbital aircraft that can strike anyware in the world in a few hours, you no longer need floating airfields on station.

reply to post by Orwells Ghost


Show of force? That isn't required. All the adversary needs to know is you have the force and will be willing to use it. That is enough deterrent in my opinion.

reply to post by NavyDoc


You're not making sense. Why do you feel it's necessary to try to 'explain to me' that my opinion is incorrect? Someone thinks something different to you. Get over it.

Originally posted by JimTSpock
reply to post by Orwells Ghost

 

Show of force? That isn't required. All the adversary needs to know is you have the force and will be willing to use it. That is enough deterrent in my opinion.

That's not necessarily true. Let me ask you this: What would be easier and less costly: preventing China from taking Taiwan, or liberating Taiwan from the Chinese?

reply to post by Orwells Ghost


That's a good point but China wouldn't take Taiwan just because a carrier isn't there, that really doesn't make sense at all. They know there will be a response that's why they are deterred. Where the actual hardware to be used for the response is at the time doesn't make any difference in my opinion. But you think otherwise that's fair enough.
Good talking with you, you've had some good smart points. I'm outa here.

Look. Here's the bottom line. It doesn't matter in the least whether you approve of carriers. If you don't approve of carriers, tough. Get a life. Nobody cares what you think. They're there and will continue to be there whether you like it or not. The Federal government's JOB is to "provide for the common defense." That's what the carriers are for, the main way the US controls the world's oceans. Oh, you don't like that either? It's how Japan and China continue to get oil from the Middle East. Us, too. If they didn't not only would you not be driving, you wouldn't be eating, or surfing the Net. That's not right, I know. If we were energy independent it would be a different story, but as long as we're not allowed to exploit our own resources because of "concerns," it's not going to happen.

Now, this thread is about the survivability of carriers and why they can still carry out their mission. We've had testimony from several people here on the pros and cons of carrier survivability. Many people feel they are vulnerable; Many people feel they are not. I think it is fair to say our collective conclusion is that although they may be vulnerable in an all-out conflict, as long as there isn't one, they are EFFECTIVELY invulnerable. Not that they can't be sunk, but in the world today it is simply unlikely. Claiming that you could throw hundreds of high speed missiles at them at once and they would definitely sink is irrelevant if no one dares to do so. And if you think a fleet of little rubber boats with suicide bombers on board can do the job, you are completely delusional. It's been a very long time since the USS Cole. Gatling guns aboard the destroyers would make it a turkey shoot.

Therefore the carriers remain quite capable of carrying out their mission to be anywhere in the world within a few days with a very potent air force with them that can effectively dominate and control any airspace anywhere within a few hours. They can also perform humanitarian aid. They have fully equipped hospitals with trained personnel, helicopters for evacuation, generators to provide electrical power to a small city, and desalinization equipment that can provide fresh water. If you have a tsunami, and earthquake, or other natural disaster, a carrier can save the lives of thousands.

We now have 11 CVNs, soon to be 10 with the decommissioning of the Enterprise, where we will remain until the Ford comes online in 2015. Those who think this is overkill are being ludicrously naive and living in a fairy tale world. It takes four years just to refuel a CVN. The Lincoln just returned from a Middle East deployment and is about to undergo this and will be out of service until 2017. The Reagan is in a "Docked Planned Incremental Availability" mode in Bremerton, a process that takes about a year. The Roosevelt is nearing the end of its refueling period. On average you have three carriers that are indisposed at any given time.

Once a CVN comes out of drydock it takes about a year to get one ready for deployment. There are all kinds of readiness tests, qualification runs, and exercises that must be completed before a Carrier Strike Group can deploy. They have to train new pilots to land on the carriers. They have to learn to work together with the entire Strike Group. It isn't trivial. And there are the families to take care of. You can't keep sailors on a ship 365 days a year. 5,000 spouses and all the kids make that unreasonable. This is an all-volunteer force. If you do that, the sailors will begin to quit--not a good thing. The USS Stennis, which came back from the Middle East in April is now headed back over there in a very fast turnaround. The reason? No other carrier of the eleven was prepared to go. There were a lot of very unhappy families because of that, but you know what? The US Navy sailor can do it. So let's not entertain the fantasy that 2 or 3 are sufficient. You could keep one afloat for six months if you did that. You'd be able to control the oceans about as well as Argentina can.

The fact is that the nations's carrier fleet is able, available, and willing to work. There's nothing you or I or anyone else can do about that, and that's a VERY good thing.

Now, I think this is about settled. Next we'll be talking more about the false flag Enterprise plot that never happened. But that will be a few weeks from now.