Article

2008-05-03 Home Front: WoT

Flattop Follies: Navy Cuts Back on Carriers

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve White 2008-05-03 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views ] Top

#1 WIth the advent of reliabel UAVs and the long range of teh B1 and B2 and the forthcoming KC-Airbust (OK, so i slipped a snark in) i really have to believe the CV is a dinosaur. When the Navy gave up the deep strike mission to the USAF they essentially began digging the grave for the flattop. The development of the supersonic cruise missles that can hug the surface makes defense a real problem; consider the PR nightmare when (not if) a silkworm takes out a CV and the associated loss of life. at least with precision munitions and stealth technology, a B2 can drop a sh!tload of ordnance where its needed and only expose a 3 man crew to danger rather than 5,000. Any CAS the navy could provide the USMC can do it now. Yes this is a mistake in some scenarios but this is the twilight for the CV. (never thought i would write these words)

Posted by USN,Ret. 2008-05-03 01:30|| 2008-05-03 01:30|| Front Page Top

#2 Here on Guam, it has been reported in local news that that USMC facilities in Hawaii are being budgeted for renovation or improvement in lieu of Units from Okinawa being sent to Hawaii instead of reloc to Guam as anticipated.

OTHER > Vari local personages have argued that USMC will only be on Guam for a short time being reloc again back to the CONUS, or that the USMC reloca and s0-called "buildup" is actually consistent and on par wid a planned PHASED CLOSURE of the USG-USDOD here on Guam bwtn 2015-2040 - Guam's Big Navy may be closed down NLT 2020, Andersen AFB allegedly 10 years after or so, while the USA may offer Guam formal unilater INDPENDENCE anytime after 2015.

THE ABOVE AS PER GUAM IS BASED ON US BELIEF THAT, AT LEAST THRU 2050, NO MAJOR WAR WILL OCCUR AGAIN AMONG THE MAJOR NATIONS, THAT RADICAL ISLAM WILL BE MOSTLY DEFEATED OR ISOLATED, AND THAT THE US WILL PREVAIL IN THE WOT AND POST-WOT FACE ONLY MINOR SECTARIAN CONFLICTS = "POLICE ACTIONS" vv UNO???

2008-2012/13 > decisive timeframe for both budding US-led/centric OWG-NWO, as well as for OWG Jihad-saving Radical Islam, PLUS ANYONE ELSE FOR THAT MATTER.

Posted by JosephMendiola 2008-05-03 01:32|| 2008-05-03 01:32|| Front Page Top

#3 The aircraft carrier is a useless anachronism. Come on, there hasn't been a real shooting war in the ocean since WWII, and that's when carriers date from. In this age of supersonic missiles, an aircraft carrier is just a huge target with 5000 casualties waiting to happen.

As long as we have this phony peace, though, carriers will still be 'useful'.

Posted by gromky 2008-05-03 03:24|| 2008-05-03 03:24|| Front Page Top

#4 Actually, against any country lacking a major navy, carriers are quite useful. The US Navy smashed the Iraqi Navy using carrier aircraft at the beginning of the Iraq War; the Iranians don't seem to be eager to take on a Carrier Battle Group in the Persian Gulf; and a CBG steaming off the coast of South America has backed down many of that region's loud talkers.
Also, this article is only counting super carriers as aircraft carriers : none of the Marine Corps Gators are included in the total, even though in most of the world, a Marine Gator-style ship is the ONLY carrier those countries have.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2008-05-03 03:34|| 2008-05-03 03:34|| Front Page Top

#5 I got a better idea:

Let's dismantle the Corporation for Public Broadcasting instead.

Talk about useless anachronisms, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is it.

Posted by badanov 2008-05-03 04:38|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2008-05-03 04:38|| Front Page Top

#6 Joe, I can't help but believe that developers dreaming of the land that US base closures would make available are deluding themselves. While closing big Navy would free up lots of land for development in Agana and Apra harbor and remove the annoying presence of US military personnel for the Japanese tourists, Guam is an irreplaceable strategic asset for projecting power in the Pacific. With the bases in the Philippines gone and the bases in Korea and Japan politically tenuous, Anderson and Big Navy aren't going anywhere for the foreseeable future. Hafa adai!

Posted by RWV 2008-05-03 08:06|| 2008-05-03 08:06|| Front Page Top

#7 Come on, there hasn't been a real shooting war in the ocean since WWII, and that's when carriers date from.

Which is why stamp collectors treasure their Malvinas postage and Argentina expects to reap a windfall from south Atlantic oil and gas.

Posted by Excalibur 2008-05-03 08:12|| 2008-05-03 08:12|| Front Page Top

#8 2008: I fear for the Carriers. Too many fine men and women are at an unnecessary risk serving in these multi-Billion dollar Cities afloat.

Posted by RD">RD 2008-05-03 08:56|| 2008-05-03 08:56|| Front Page Top

#9 I read all these lines in the 80s. Didn't happen then, won't happen now. As for usefulness, everyone ranting seems to forget the air capability that was used in the first Gulf War and the initial air support during the start of the Afghan campaign. Too many forget in those early days, there were no friendly bases for American aircraft to operate from other than the long range bomber force, not the ideal source of flexible close tactical support. Technology is evolving but its not there completely yet and won't be for a while.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-05-03 09:27|| 2008-05-03 09:27|| Front Page Top

#10 Come on, there hasn't been a real shooting war in the ocean since WWII,
--------------------------------------------------------------
I chalk it up to fear of SilkWorms

Posted by George Smiley 2008-05-03 09:31|| 2008-05-03 09:31|| Front Page Top

#11 No wait, it was the Law of the Sea...
AKA Rule Britinia/My Country Tis of Thee
AKA Get the fuck off my Ocean

Hope this clarifies things a bit.

Posted by George Smiley 2008-05-03 09:33|| 2008-05-03 09:33|| Front Page Top

#12 This sounds to me like the old rationale that we don't need ground troops. Just the AF and all the super duper missles and bombs. And the old wheeze about not needing guns on fighters cause missles made guns obsolete.

I think of a Carrier as not only an incredible force projection system but as a visible reminder of the limits of diplomacy.

If carriers are so unnecessary why are there so many sorties flown from them? What is the psychological effect on friends of neutras when one (plus its friends) stops by for a visit?

Posted by AlanC 2008-05-03 11:12|| 2008-05-03 11:12|| Front Page Top

#13 Submarines launched the rockets that took out the HVT in Somalia. Nothing like a Tomahawk to reach out and touch someone. Carriers are targets that require protection and a huge logistical train.

The USN is demonstrating its complete procurement incompetence in the DDG1000 and LCS programs. And CVN21 won't be far behind. The LPH, LSD, and LPD are the surface fleet of tomorrow. Perhaps they'll need some sort of UCAV carrier, but not a mini-city. They should protect those ships and do everything else underwater.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-05-03 11:13|| 2008-05-03 11:13|| Front Page Top

#14 Navy retire CVN-65 Enterprise

Now I feel old. I was there at her christening - still have the medallion.

Posted by Glenmore">Glenmore 2008-05-03 12:08|| 2008-05-03 12:08|| Front Page Top

#15 I think the question is how you destroy another country's air force - if you don't have any bases nearby - without carriers. The invasion of Okinawa would have been horrendously costly without carriers. The problem is operating tempo. Without floating airfields nearby, the round trip takes too long, giving your adversary time to regain his balance to prepare for the next air attack.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2008-05-03 15:13|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2008-05-03 15:13|| Front Page Top

#16 You can build a lot of UAVs for the price of a CSG.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-05-03 15:19|| 2008-05-03 15:19|| Front Page Top

#17 But then, you would need a Command and Control ship to carry and launch the UAVs, fleet protection ships, and anti-submarine assets : so basically a CBG oriented to UAVs. Probably the best way to approach this would be to slowly integrate the UAVs as strike elements into the existing CBGs and then retain some manned aircraft for Combat Air Patrols and sub hunting.

Posted by Shieldwolf 2008-05-03 16:31|| 2008-05-03 16:31|| Front Page Top

#18 Unlike a battleship with big guns, not missiles, where having just one would be enough for anything the US wants to do, aircraft carriers biggest value is in *peacetime* force projection. It is gunboat diplomacy at the worldwide level.

Practically speaking, you have to have enough for at least three major operations at the same time. And double that number for rotations. With new carriers entering service and old ones leaving, 10 to 11 carriers is about right.

Now sure, a sneaky enemy might be able to take out *a* carrier. But they would know that its brothers would wreak a world of hurt on it, and they would not be so easy to sneak attack.

First of all a carrier is not a ship, it is a group of ships. And surrounding it, more or less, can be an exclusion zone of 200 or more miles.

The biggest threat against them is not ballistic, but submarine. And I'm sure the USN is aware of both that, and that if they turn our submariners loose, they will smite every enemy ship, on top of and underneath the water with a ferocity not seen since the days of the Wolf Pack.

So what does the future hold? The #1 threat is the Chinese, and they are doing anything they can to create an aircraft carrier fleet themselves. It is a 50/50 proposition who they will eventually fight, however, the US or India.

Posted by Anonymoose 2008-05-03 16:41|| 2008-05-03 16:41|| Front Page Top

#19 In addition to UAVs there is the upcoming Falcon.

Posted by lotp 2008-05-03 17:52|| 2008-05-03 17:52|| Front Page Top

#20 NS: You can build a lot of UAVs for the price of a CSG.

UAV's are great for fighting counter-insurgency wars. The kind of war we will be fighting with carriers has nothing to do with counter-insurgency. In the major combat phase of the Iraqi campaign, we sent in fighter bombers, not UAV's, to knock the other guy's interceptors and air defense systems out. I think there's a tendency, when people talk about abolishing carriers, to assume air supremacy. In real life, air supremacy is earned, not simply taken for granted.

Posted by Zhang Fei">Zhang Fei 2008-05-03 22:34|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2008-05-03 22:34|| Front Page Top

23:43 trailing wife
23:36 Rambler in California
23:05 trailing wife
22:57 trailing wife
22:46 trailing wife
22:43 trailing wife
22:34 Zhang Fei
22:28 trailing wife
21:56 Omoque Pelosi8695
21:26 SteveS
21:16 Anonymoose
21:12 Frank G
21:06 rjschwarz
21:03 Frank G
20:55 Fred
20:53 crosspatch
20:42 KBK
20:07 ed
20:04 ed
19:58 Darrell
19:49 Oldcat
19:29 Sheang Henbane2687
19:28 Sheang Henbane2687
19:27 Redneck Jim