See other World News Articles
Title: Face It, The Mighty US Aircraft Carrier Is Finished
Source:
[None]
URL Source: http://russia-insider.com/en/face-i ... craft-carrier-finished/ri21769
Published: Nov 30, 2017
Author: Harry J. Kazianis
Post Date: 2017-11-30 10:58:28 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 130
Comments: 22
"In the next great powers war, or perhaps even in a conflict with a mid-tier power like Iran, at least one of our aircraft carriers will sink to the bottom of the sea." The U.S. Navy (and to be frank, the whole U.S. military) is living in a state of total denial. In the next great powers war, or perhaps even in a conflict with a mid-tier power like Iran, at least one of our aircraft carriers will sink to the bottom of the sea. That means thousands of lives could be lost—and there would be very little we could do to stop it. We need to get used to a very simple reality: the decades-old age of the aircraft carrier, that great symbol of U.S. power projection, has now passed. We can deny the evidence that is right before our eyes, but innovations in anti-ship missiles over many decades—combined with advanced but short-range carrier-based U.S. fighter aircraft and missile defenses that can be easily defeated—have conspired to doom one of the most powerful weapons ever devised. If the aircraft carrier is a symbol, an expression of U.S. military dominance stretching from World War II to today, then there’s another symbol that perfectly encapsulates its demise: China’s DF-21D, which many experts describe as a “carrier-killer” ballistic missile. How the missile works is key to understanding what modern-day U.S. aircraft carriers face. The missile is mobile and can travel anywhere via a truck, making its detection difficult. When launched, the weapon is guided using over-the-horizon radars, new satellite networks, and possibly even drones or commercial vessels being used as scouts. The system also has a maneuverable warhead to help defeat missile-defense systems. When it does find its target, it can descend from the sky and strike at speeds approaching Mach 12. Worst of all, the missile has a range of 1,000 miles. A Pentagon source tells me that Beijing has already deployed “many of them—perhaps in the hundreds,” and is “fully operational and ready for action.” advertisement With one report claiming China could build 1,227 DF-21Ds for every carrier the U.S. military sends to sea, Beijing and other nations will have ample budgetary room to challenge our mighty carriers for decades to come. Now, to be fair, many nations already have various types of missile platforms that could attack carriers and do damage—even send them to the bottom of the sea. The solution seems obvious: Why not park your carriers out of range and attack from afar? Great idea—except we can’t. Right now, if we tried to strike targets in, say, China or Russia, we would be unable to do it safely because, thanks to our short-range aircraft, we would have to be parked right in-range of those countries’ own powerful missile batteries. Despite all their amazing capabilities, the latest generation of attack planes onboard U.S. aircraft carriers, the F/A-18 and soon-to-be F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, are not long-range strike aircraft, as they’re only able to fly 500 and 550 nautical miles respectively. In a stand-off with a nation like China, this would put our most expensive weapon of war—and, more importantly, thousands of sailors, airmen, and marines—in harm’s way. Since American aircraft carriers sail in large groupings of ships, there exists the possibility of multiple U.S. naval vessels meeting fiery deaths, as they would have to travel close to the shores of other nations that have similar weapons. Those who continue to defend the aircraft carrier have an obvious solution: missile defenses can stop any incoming attacks and keep the carrier relevant for decades. That seems like a reasonable argument, except for one very basic problem: first-grade math tells us it’s flat-out wrong. As I have said on several occasions, U.S. naval planners in the future will face large missile forces aimed at their ships that could very well overwhelm their missile defense platforms. A great example comes from a 2011 report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis, which shows it wouldn’t take much strategic sophistication to beat U.S. missile defenses—just some basic math: Iran could deploy its land-based ASCMs (anti-ship cruise missiles) from camouflaged and hardened sites to firing positions along its coastline and on Iranian-occupied islands in the Strait of Hormuz, while placing decoys at false firing positions to complicate U.S. counterstrikes. Hundreds of ASCMs may cover the Strait, awaiting target cueing data from coastal radars, UAVs, surface vessels, and submarines. Salvo and multiple axis attacks could enable these ASCMs to saturate U.S. defenses…salvos of less capable ASCMs might be used to exhaust U.S. defenses, paving the way for attacks by more advanced missiles. Taking the above example to its logical extreme, could China, Russia, Iran, or even one day North Korea simply build enough missiles on the cheap and launch them close enough to exhaust the defenses of a U.S. aircraft carrier strike group? Considering that we are currently unable to reload such defenses with ease at sea, our forces would face an unpleasant choice if their missile interceptors were exhausted: withdraw or face down enemy missiles with no defenses. This is a problem that will only get worse with time. And considering China is already in the process of developing an even longer-range anti-ship weapon—the DF-26, with a range that could attack our carriers as far out as Guam—simple logic suggests the problem will only get worse. The best way to begin solving a problem is to admit that you have one. And let there be no doubt that if steps are not taken to redefine what an aircraft carrier does—essentially take bombs and attack enemies at long ranges—then the next war America fights against a formidable foe will truly be historic, and for all of the wrong reasons.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
I've been calling this for a while. What aircraft did to the battleship at Pearl Harbor, anti-ship missiles will do to the aircraft carrier, not to mention entire accompanying task forces in an inevitable future conflict. Mighty naval forces are obsolete.
Horseshit..... Why is China building carriers at a fast pace???? If we are stupid, what does that make the Chinks????
The Japs were minutes away from Pearl Harbor not days thanks to aircraft carriers. How many of their carriers did we sink on that day??? None. Next time such an episode, the carriers will go down, however the damage will be done.
Aircraft carriers make a certain amount of sense for China as it needs to keep its shipping lanes open.
Who would close routes and recall, one little missile and down goes the aircraft carriers?
Pirates, for instance, do not carry missiles but they do hijack tankers.
Pirates???? I dont think so. Reading Asian papers we find India is also building carriers...wonder why? Carriers are used to PROJECT power far from home. Japan was worlds leader 100 years ago, building worlds first carrier fleet. Older people here recall the result of that.
I dont think so. Don't think there are pirates? Sure there are and are just one of the things China wants to guard against. China anti-piracy mission and the global maritime commons China is now a maritime trading nations and carriers are a sensible way to protect its shipping lanes. These carriers are not intended to challenge the 7th fleet.
One would have to be delusional to believe the US or China are afraid of pirates without carriers. Carriers project power into other countries back yards.
China considers itself a maritime trading nation and has to protect its shipping lanes. The US not so much. Did you read the linked article? China has 2 previously-owned carries at the moment plus one they built themselves. They have one or two more on the drawing board. They are not going to challenge another country's navy with that. As it said, it makes some sense for China to have carriers to protect its shipping lanes but no sense as an attack force.
Shipping lanes don't need aircraft carriers to police pirates in little boats, a destroyer accomplishes that purpose. Aircraft carriers are made for one purpose: all-out war with another nation.
“With the exception of Whites, the rule among the peoples of the world, whether residing in their homelands or settled in Western democracies, is ethnocentrism and moral particularism: they stick together and good means what is good for their ethnic group." Of course not... I read the heading and here it is. """Face It, The Mighty US Aircraft Carrier Is Finished""" That is pure horseshit and anyone with a sense of history, military strategy and ounce of common sense would realize it.
Wait til China sails aircraft carrier off NY Harbor or off Lost Angeles. Those people will weep wail and gnash their teeth, demanding the government do something.
Don't we have to let other navies dock in our ports in peacetime? Wouldn't that be a hoot to see Chi-Com carrier Chairman Mao steam up to New York City and offload 2,000 chinkernese sailors to overrun Times Square??
“With the exception of Whites, the rule among the peoples of the world, whether residing in their homelands or settled in Western democracies, is ethnocentrism and moral particularism: they stick together and good means what is good for their ethnic group." If carriers were of no value, worthless, useless, out dated, sitting ducks for a kid with a slingshot, why in hell would China and India be building something they have never had???? With three carriers offshore of Korea, we can be anywhere in the country within minutes with over 300 aircraft. Kim goes for it, North Korea will no longer exist. Truman is not in charge this time.
And one missile could take out all the aircraft on a carrier PLUS the carrier itself. 3 missiles would take out all three. Of course not.. Then I guess I gotta print out the first 3 paragraphs for you: Chinese Anti-Piracy and the Global Maritime Commons As Chinese maritime influence grows, it raises questions for the commercial maritime community. By Matthew G. Minot-Scheuermann February 25, 2016 For perhaps only the second time in its long history, China’s military and economic future seems to point towards the sea. Its transformation in the early twenty-first century from a land to a sea power has not only reshaped the global community’s view of China as an ascending power on the world stage, it has also forced a reconsideration of China’s contribution to both global economic development and the safety and security of the global maritime commons. This expanded global presence and increased dependence on the economy as an agent of stability has forced a reevaluation among Chinese strategic planners. As China’s economy has become increasingly dependent on the sea lines of communication (SLOC) for the basic free flow of goods and commodities, especially oil, it has also increasingly viewed the traditional security structure of the global maritime commons as both a national security liability and an economic albatross. The reason for China’s dissatisfaction is obvious. The United States, as the central and historically unchallenged guarantor of the security and stability of the global maritime commons, is increasingly typecast as both China’s regional and global strategic revival, always at the ready to contain and curtail its economic growth and put a bit of stick about. However, rather than simply reacting and directly challenging this reality by trying to usurp the status quo, China has adopted an innovative agenda for securing its SLOCs, deploying naval assets, and conducting anti-piracy operations in conjunction with the U.S. and its NATO, EU and coalition allies where it best suits Chinese interests on the one hand, while increasingly acting in a unilateral capacity, specifically at perhaps its most strategic choke point, the Horn of Africa, on the other. China’s development and implementation of a bident security structure for the global maritime commons has raised some important questions for the commercial maritime community. Will increased Chinese participation lead to greater stability? Will Chinese anti-piracy efforts off the Horn of Africa be driven by common interests and goals or by national ones and will the commercial maritime community be pressured into an either/or position when it comes to anti-piracy efforts and security of the SLOCs – and more generally the global maritime commons? In other words, should the community uphold the traditional status quo of a United States, NATO, EU and coalition partners-led effort, or should it side with Chinese unilateralism and all that entails? The answers to these questions aren’t simple nor are they immediate, yet one thing remains clear. China’s drive to the sea has changed the security structure for the global maritime commons in significant and irreversible ways and the commercial maritime community needs to factor China into every equation about anti-piracy, the security of the SLOCs and the overall safety and security of the global maritime commons.
China is the major maritime nation and they are dealing with pirates. Makes some sense to use aircraft carriers in areas where they don't have military bases.
Yes, but we all know that the U.S. uses its aircraft carriers to project its military might overseas and has done so successfully since the days of WW II. So why not the Chinese doing the same? ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
Not a wise use of resources.
War never is. However there are bad people in this world.
We have met the enemy and they are us.
#2. To: Ada (#0)
#3. To: Pinguinite (#1)
#4. To: Cynicom (#2)
If we are stupid, what does that make the Chinks????
#5. To: Ada (#4)
Aircraft carriers make a certain amount of sense for China as it needs to keep its shipping lanes open.
#6. To: Cynicom (#5)
Who would close routes and recall, one little missile and down goes the aircraft carriers?
#7. To: Ada (#6)
Pirates, for instance, do not carry missiles but they do hijack tankers.
#8. To: Cynicom (#7)
Pirates????
#9. To: Ada (#8)
#10. To: Cynicom (#9)
One would have to be delusional to believe the US or China are afraid of pirates without carriers.
#11. To: Ada (#10)
-Alex Kurtagic
#12. To: Ada (#10)
Did you read the linked article?
#13. To: X-15 (#11)
#14. To: Cynicom (#13)
-Alex Kurtagic
#15. To: X-15 (#14)
#16. To: Cynicom (#15)
(Edited)
With three carriers offshore of Korea, we can be anywhere in the country within minutes with over 300 aircraft.
"After tomorrow those SOB's will never embarrass me again. That’s not a threat. That’s a promise.” – LBJ to his mistress Madeleine Brown on the eve of JFK assassination 
#17. To: Cynicom (#12)
Did you read the linked article?
#18. To: X-15 (#11)
Shipping lanes don't need aircraft carriers to police pirates in little boats, a destroyer accomplishes that purpose. Aircraft carriers are made for one purpose: all-out war with another nation.
#19. To: Ada (#18)
Makes some sense to use aircraft carriers in areas where they don't have military bases.
#20. To: BTP Holdings (#19)
So why not the Chinese doing the same? ;)
#21. To: Ada (#20)
Not a wise use of resources.
#22. To: Cynicom (#21)
However there are bad people in this world.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest