| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Are aircraft carriers becoming less important? |
| 2015-11-04 |
|
| Posted by:ryuge |
| #11 As per #8, the PH + Veitnam migt as well say good bye to any + all of thier SCS claims. As long as Anti-US US OWG Globalist POTUS Obama keeps the USN outside of China's desired 12-mile NM limit in the SCS, China will keep on building up the islands + ultimately its full control of the SCS + Straits of Malaccas trade routes. NEXT UP - RECOVERY OF TAIWAN, + EAST CHINA SEA = JAPAN. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2015-11-04 23:10 |
| #10 Darth: battleships sunkat Pearl were not due to obsolescence but rather all in port. carriers were the target but they were at sea. |
| Posted by: USN, Ret. 2015-11-04 21:36 |
| #9 There is certainly a need for aircraft carriers. There may not be a need for more than a few 80,000 ton Ford-class carriers. A mid-sized carrier (40,000 tons) with Harriers, Ospreys and attack helicopters might be a very useful thing to have, and a lot cheaper to build and maintain. There may also be a use for drone-class carriers -- not carrying the over-sized XB-47, but smaller drones. In that case a 20,000 ton ship with several dozen drones with different tasks and capabilities might be very nice. As pointed out above, any carrier needs to be part of a package -- that package is just as expensive and as important as the carrier itself. That won't change much even if we distribute the load to smaller carriers. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2015-11-04 19:35 |
| #8 I saw this: Chinese Submarine Stalked U.S. Aircraft Carrier You can bet that a US nuclear attack submarine in the carrier's battle group had it in its sights with a firing solution at all time. Carrier groups are packages. There is one cruiser (Aegis Combat System) and a couple of destroyers as well as that attack submarine. If you attack one it is WWIII. Most countries want to still exist tomorrow. |
| Posted by: Sven the pelter 2015-11-04 17:00 |
| #7 In peacetime they excel at disaster relief (floating hospital that can generate excess clean water, etc). Nothing better to show the flag and impress the locals. During wartime the intimidation factor alone probably has prevented a large number of wars from breaking out. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2015-11-04 13:24 |
| #6 Yes and no. It is a fair question to ask and it needs to be asked, just like is there still a need to design a new and large MBT? Or another Manned Fighter? As drones and automation with shared cloud AI develops we may very well see the end of a "carrier" in the traditional sense. Now something like it will be there to project power and political will, but it may be in the form of several smaller drone ships that can send out swarms of thousands of drones to attack targets. Personally I see the carrier with manned planes at the same spot the battleship was during the 1915-1925 area. People saw the advantage of the new technology of the airplane and demonstrated that it could sink capital ships at Panama, but the technology wasn't mature enough to really bring into full mating with a capital ship hull. By WW2 however, the technology was ready and mature and political ignorance and short shortsightedness kept the battleships at a false level of of importance right up until that fantasy was shattered at Pearl Harbor. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2015-11-04 12:29 |
| #5 Having had some experience with them, I've always been a bit suspect of tax-exempt 'nonprofit' organizations. Especially those headquartered within the beltway. Claims of 'non-partisanship' are ridiculous considering their funding sources. Vegans don't generally operate cattle ranches. These organizations are little more than shadowy extensions of big government. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2015-11-04 09:06 |
| #4 Other ships are as important as carriers, IMHO, and it's a shame we're politically incapable of building (for instance) a decent Frigate instead of pretending the LCS is worth a warm pitcher of spit. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2015-11-04 08:40 |
| #3 Reading further, follows is a sample of Center for a New American Security's thinking. Be sure to note the graphic used: Iran’s Economic Reintegration: Sanctions Relief, Energy, and Economic Growth Under a Nuclear Agreement with Iran Senior Fellow Elizabeth Rosenberg and Dr. Sara Vakhshouri, president of SVB Energy International, LLC, lay out how the removal of international sanctions on Iran is likely to proceed and what this will mean for Iran's economic prospects - most notably, Iran's energy sector. The report offers recommendations to policymakers on how to clarify and direct the sanctions removal to enhance the credibility of a nuclear deal and give Iran the right incentives to maintain its end of the bargain. Link |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2015-11-04 08:36 |
| #2 With one or two exceptions, the executive makeup of the 'Center for New American Security' gives me very little hope. Giving even less hope is CNN, the publisher of this article. No one doubted the need for carriers following December 7th, 1941. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2015-11-04 08:27 |
| #1 Good grief, I've been hearing this drek from the same people for 25 years. There will probably come a time when carriers are not important and given the Traitor-in-chief it could be tomorrow. The main argument is almost purely political; What do we want the ability to do? Projection of political power is more important than projection of military power, though they go hand in hand. I would like to ask the authors of this type of thinking what they envision as the alternative to parking a carrier in the Red Sea as a way of saying "Don't forget what you're dealing with". |
| Posted by: AlanC 2015-11-04 08:03 |