5 ms·

Civil War technologies that persisted to WW2 and beyond: the rifle, trench warfare, howitzers, battlefield surgery. I agree in general with the article (the tl

Civil War technologies that persisted to WW2 and beyond: the rifle, trench warfare, howitzers, battlefield surgery. I agree in general with the article (the tl;dr being that carriers are extremely vulnerable to asymmetrically small threats). It omits the reason the U.S. Navy employs them in the first place: force projection. Without a carrier group, an overseas nation has no credible opportunity to bombard a far away theater, engage in air sorties, land troops, or any other expeditionary action. Defense of carriers is a problem that must be solved, or the U.S. would have to accept a military stalemate for naval warfare. This has serious strategic, diplomatic, and economic consequences. Many countries' posturing depends on the U.S. Navy's implied or explicit protection.

Retric 10y ago
In air refueling lets counties drop bombs on the other side of the planet. Aircraft carriers are cheaper but that assumes they are not sitting ducks and we can't find a friendly airfield somewhere.
- newjersey 10y ago
  > Aircraft carriers are cheaper but that assumes they are not sitting ducks and we can't find a friendly airfield somewhere. This is probably incredibly naïve but wouldn't it help us get a "friendly" airfield if we could say something like "you can allow us to use your airfield or we will move in our ships in N hours anyway". Am I missing something here?
  - Retra 10y ago
    Are you suggesting that it is acceptable to force neutral parties into a war? Or are you trying to negotiate with your enemies for the right to bomb them? I'm not sure I say any reasonable interpretation of that proposal.
    - burfog 10y ago
      It's been done many times. The UK grabbed Iceland in WWII, providing a base for transfer of US aircraft. Germany took a trip through Belgium and got the Swiss to allow trains through. When things get serious, thoughts like "I would never do such a thing!" are quickly cast aside.
      - Wildgoose 10y ago
        Sort of - the Danish Government in exile was in London and at that time Iceland was still controlled by Denmark. But yes, "Needs Must" as the saying goes.
      - elthran 10y ago
        Belgium tried to uphold its neutrality in WWI - Germany invaded and ransacked the country anyway. I definitely feel that played a part in allowing Germany in WW2
  - hackuser 10y ago
    It's not naive at all. The stakes might have to be high before the U.S. engages in that kind of coercion, but even that's not necessarily true and it's hardly unprecedented for the U.S. to throw its weight around. And the U.S. has other means of persuasion such as aid, access to the largest market in the world, the power to facilitate or stop other diplomatic, economic or political priorities, etc. etc. One announced U.S. strategy in the Pacific is to spread forces widely rather than concentrate them, and to utilize bases of friendly nations (who don't need U.S. coercion these days with the Chinese government coercing them right into America's arms). The U.S. recently made such agreements with Australia, The Philippines, Vietnam, and Singapore, and of course has long-standing bases in Japan and South Korea. Indonesia is almost the only major nation left in the region who isn't on board.
- linkregister 10y ago
  Air refueling tankers are likely really easy targets to hit and don't scale for large bombing fleets, close air support, or other applications for naval aviation. Yes, that friendly airfield assumption is one main point of the aircraft carrier.
- kosmic_k 10y ago
  Airfields are the quintessential sitting ducks: high value targets with have a fixed position that could have coordinates recorded long in advance of any action. An carrier on the other hand is a thousand foot runway that can move at 56 km/hr.
  - syngrog66 10y ago
    true and well said however, airfields are also vastly cheaper to build and maintain, and if they do get "destroyed" they can be rebuilt or replaced (possibly elsewhere) pretty quickly. in comparison to hitting a multi-billion dollar carrier so hard it's destroyed or taken out of service. In a hot war between China and the US, I'd bet China could rebuild/replace airfields faster than the US can rebuild/replace their carriers. On a related note, I submit that this very issue is why the US and its allies are so against the Chinese trying to build up those little artificial islands, harbors and airfields, in those disputed waters. Not only does it allow China to project force out to greater ranges, with more overlap, and gives them more options in a shooting war, it also gives them more experience in building them up, and learning how to do it better and faster. And it sends a signal to all the nations in the region, at least as an implied threat. It tells all the nearby nations, and the US, to think very very carefully about whether they want to get in a shooting war with China, whether over Taiwan or Korea, etc. Because while the US might have some very powerful toys in the theater, very modern and sophisticated, they are also very very expensive, and far from home, unlike the Chinese forces, and can easily be outnumbered. They can be attacked from increasingly shorter ranges, and whatever losses the Chinese do take, their losses will be cheaper and faster to replace than the American losses in theater.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Moving is not a major defense if your easy to find, in modern warfare satellites for example are sitting ducks. As the article points out aircraft carriers are like battleships right before WWII. They have been drastically improved, but are untested vs modern weapons. So sure, if the enemy can't easily sink all your aircraft carriers then they are a great option. Sadly, I don't think that's anywhere close to proven.
    - 10y ago
- rosser 10y ago
  In-air refueling for intercontinental missions really only works for bombers. Having a fighter jock in-cockpit from the mainland US to Afghanistan is a complete non-starter, in terms of time, fuel cost, and amount of force projected over time or fuel-cost.
  - burfog 10y ago
    Much of the flight cost is inspections, and that is based on flight hours. There is also having a sore butt, sore back, and no place to poo. Other than that, a "drone mode" would mostly work. Sleep would be pretty uncomfortable, but might work OK enough.
    - rosser 10y ago
      The plane:payload ratio for a fighter is deplorably small, relative to a bomber. And you'd be dealing with a pilot that's probably slept like crap en-route, and suffering the consequences of that in terms of reaction speed and cognitive deficits when he gets on-station. Just no.
      - burfog 10y ago
        Yep. I'm saying it's mostly a bad idea, and that we really should have carriers. That said, the capability ought to exist. Even if never used in war, the mere threat of the capability is beneficial. It's also usable to move aircraft around, for aircraft sales and to move aircraft closer to an expected future battle.
    - Roritharr 10y ago
      "drone mode" sounds interesting, are there already systems that let planes that otherwise require humans be flown on autopilot to the next airbase? I imagine that would make deployments much easier.
    - nikdaheratik 10y ago
      The other issue is tactical air support. Bombers make sense if you are talking about a preplanned target up to 12 hours, or whatever, in advance. If you have to plan an airstrike 12 hours ahead, and you're on the ground getting beat up right now it turns into a big problem.
hackuser 10y ago
> Without a carrier group, an overseas nation has no credible opportunity to bombard a far away theater, engage in air sorties, land troops, or any other expeditionary action. ... Defense of carriers is a problem that must be solved, or the U.S. would have to accept a military stalemate for naval warfare. That might be lacking in vision. The aircraft carrier is the current means, but nations have engaged in overseas expeditionary actions before and without aircraft carriers. Just because the current solution might no longer be available doesn't mean there is no solution. Arial bombardment is tougher without carriers, of course, but the U.S. bombed Iraq and Afghan targets using planes that took off and landed in the U.S. And the most likely solution there is missiles, which have become exceptionally accurate and which many think will dominate future battlefields. Finally, whether or not we feel the carriers are essential, if they are ineffective on the battlefield then another solution will need to be found. Necessity is the mother of invention.
- metaphor 10y ago
  > Arial bombardment is tougher without carriers, of course, but the U.S. bombed Iraq and Afghan targets using planes that took off and landed in the U.S. [citation needed]
  - slapshot 10y ago
    Here's a B-2 that bombed Libya on a round-trip from Missouri. [1] Of course, doing it this way requires airborne refueling. Lots of airborne refueling. And if you thought the military paid a lot for jet fuel on the ground, wait until you see the markup for providing it in the air. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368337/Libya-crisis-B2-stealth-bombers-25-hour-flight-Missouri-Tripoli.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368337/Libya-crisis...
  - burfog 10y ago
    The B-2 bomber flew from Missouri, bombed the targets, landed on a British island in the Indian Ocean (Diego Garcia) to swap out pilots with the engines still running, then flew home. I'm sure it did aerial refueling along the way too. Basically, the only limit is sleepy pilots with sore butts. At least one of the times, it visted an airshow along the way WHILE LOADED WITH BOMBS. This was the Air and Sea show, viewed from the beach in Fort Lauderdale, FL. I was there. For such a huge plane, it really is stunningly quiet. Most spectators didn't even notice until the plane was almost in front of the beach.
sologoub 10y ago
Gatling-gun? It essentially ushered in machine gun era, not to mention the current generation of multi-barrel systems like the Phalanx. http://www.history.com/topics/gatling-gun http://www.history.com/topics/gatling-gun https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS
LoSboccacc 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002#Exercise_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002#Exer... ^ last time war games were exercised in asymmetrical warfare they got beaten so badly they transformed everything in a scriped farce

Retric 10y ago

In air refueling lets counties drop bombs on the other side of the planet. Aircraft carriers are cheaper but that assumes they are not sitting ducks and we can't find a friendly airfield somewhere.

newjersey 10y ago
> Aircraft carriers are cheaper but that assumes they are not sitting ducks and we can't find a friendly airfield somewhere. This is probably incredibly naïve but wouldn't it help us get a "friendly" airfield if we could say something like "you can allow us to use your airfield or we will move in our ships in N hours anyway". Am I missing something here?
- Retra 10y ago
  Are you suggesting that it is acceptable to force neutral parties into a war? Or are you trying to negotiate with your enemies for the right to bomb them? I'm not sure I say any reasonable interpretation of that proposal.
  - burfog 10y ago
    It's been done many times. The UK grabbed Iceland in WWII, providing a base for transfer of US aircraft. Germany took a trip through Belgium and got the Swiss to allow trains through. When things get serious, thoughts like "I would never do such a thing!" are quickly cast aside.
    - Wildgoose 10y ago
      Sort of - the Danish Government in exile was in London and at that time Iceland was still controlled by Denmark. But yes, "Needs Must" as the saying goes.
    - elthran 10y ago
      Belgium tried to uphold its neutrality in WWI - Germany invaded and ransacked the country anyway. I definitely feel that played a part in allowing Germany in WW2
- hackuser 10y ago
  It's not naive at all. The stakes might have to be high before the U.S. engages in that kind of coercion, but even that's not necessarily true and it's hardly unprecedented for the U.S. to throw its weight around. And the U.S. has other means of persuasion such as aid, access to the largest market in the world, the power to facilitate or stop other diplomatic, economic or political priorities, etc. etc. One announced U.S. strategy in the Pacific is to spread forces widely rather than concentrate them, and to utilize bases of friendly nations (who don't need U.S. coercion these days with the Chinese government coercing them right into America's arms). The U.S. recently made such agreements with Australia, The Philippines, Vietnam, and Singapore, and of course has long-standing bases in Japan and South Korea. Indonesia is almost the only major nation left in the region who isn't on board.
linkregister 10y ago
Air refueling tankers are likely really easy targets to hit and don't scale for large bombing fleets, close air support, or other applications for naval aviation. Yes, that friendly airfield assumption is one main point of the aircraft carrier.
kosmic_k 10y ago
Airfields are the quintessential sitting ducks: high value targets with have a fixed position that could have coordinates recorded long in advance of any action. An carrier on the other hand is a thousand foot runway that can move at 56 km/hr.
- syngrog66 10y ago
  true and well said however, airfields are also vastly cheaper to build and maintain, and if they do get "destroyed" they can be rebuilt or replaced (possibly elsewhere) pretty quickly. in comparison to hitting a multi-billion dollar carrier so hard it's destroyed or taken out of service. In a hot war between China and the US, I'd bet China could rebuild/replace airfields faster than the US can rebuild/replace their carriers. On a related note, I submit that this very issue is why the US and its allies are so against the Chinese trying to build up those little artificial islands, harbors and airfields, in those disputed waters. Not only does it allow China to project force out to greater ranges, with more overlap, and gives them more options in a shooting war, it also gives them more experience in building them up, and learning how to do it better and faster. And it sends a signal to all the nations in the region, at least as an implied threat. It tells all the nearby nations, and the US, to think very very carefully about whether they want to get in a shooting war with China, whether over Taiwan or Korea, etc. Because while the US might have some very powerful toys in the theater, very modern and sophisticated, they are also very very expensive, and far from home, unlike the Chinese forces, and can easily be outnumbered. They can be attacked from increasingly shorter ranges, and whatever losses the Chinese do take, their losses will be cheaper and faster to replace than the American losses in theater.
- Retric 10y ago
  Moving is not a major defense if your easy to find, in modern warfare satellites for example are sitting ducks. As the article points out aircraft carriers are like battleships right before WWII. They have been drastically improved, but are untested vs modern weapons. So sure, if the enemy can't easily sink all your aircraft carriers then they are a great option. Sadly, I don't think that's anywhere close to proven.
  - 10y ago
rosser 10y ago
In-air refueling for intercontinental missions really only works for bombers. Having a fighter jock in-cockpit from the mainland US to Afghanistan is a complete non-starter, in terms of time, fuel cost, and amount of force projected over time or fuel-cost.
- burfog 10y ago
  Much of the flight cost is inspections, and that is based on flight hours. There is also having a sore butt, sore back, and no place to poo. Other than that, a "drone mode" would mostly work. Sleep would be pretty uncomfortable, but might work OK enough.
  - rosser 10y ago
    The plane:payload ratio for a fighter is deplorably small, relative to a bomber. And you'd be dealing with a pilot that's probably slept like crap en-route, and suffering the consequences of that in terms of reaction speed and cognitive deficits when he gets on-station. Just no.
    - burfog 10y ago
      Yep. I'm saying it's mostly a bad idea, and that we really should have carriers. That said, the capability ought to exist. Even if never used in war, the mere threat of the capability is beneficial. It's also usable to move aircraft around, for aircraft sales and to move aircraft closer to an expected future battle.
  - Roritharr 10y ago
    "drone mode" sounds interesting, are there already systems that let planes that otherwise require humans be flown on autopilot to the next airbase? I imagine that would make deployments much easier.
  - nikdaheratik 10y ago
    The other issue is tactical air support. Bombers make sense if you are talking about a preplanned target up to 12 hours, or whatever, in advance. If you have to plan an airstrike 12 hours ahead, and you're on the ground getting beat up right now it turns into a big problem.

hackuser 10y ago

> Without a carrier group, an overseas nation has no credible opportunity to bombard a far away theater, engage in air sorties, land troops, or any other expeditionary action. ... Defense of carriers is a problem that must be solved, or the U.S. would have to accept a military stalemate for naval warfare. That might be lacking in vision. The aircraft carrier is the current means, but nations have engaged in overseas expeditionary actions before and without aircraft carriers. Just because the current solution might no longer be available doesn't mean there is no solution. Arial bombardment is tougher without carriers, of course, but the U.S. bombed Iraq and Afghan targets using planes that took off and landed in the U.S. And the most likely solution there is missiles, which have become exceptionally accurate and which many think will dominate future battlefields. Finally, whether or not we feel the carriers are essential, if they are ineffective on the battlefield then another solution will need to be found. Necessity is the mother of invention.

metaphor 10y ago
> Arial bombardment is tougher without carriers, of course, but the U.S. bombed Iraq and Afghan targets using planes that took off and landed in the U.S. [citation needed]
- slapshot 10y ago
  Here's a B-2 that bombed Libya on a round-trip from Missouri. [1] Of course, doing it this way requires airborne refueling. Lots of airborne refueling. And if you thought the military paid a lot for jet fuel on the ground, wait until you see the markup for providing it in the air. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368337/Libya-crisis-B2-stealth-bombers-25-hour-flight-Missouri-Tripoli.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368337/Libya-crisis...
- burfog 10y ago
  The B-2 bomber flew from Missouri, bombed the targets, landed on a British island in the Indian Ocean (Diego Garcia) to swap out pilots with the engines still running, then flew home. I'm sure it did aerial refueling along the way too. Basically, the only limit is sleepy pilots with sore butts. At least one of the times, it visted an airshow along the way WHILE LOADED WITH BOMBS. This was the Air and Sea show, viewed from the beach in Fort Lauderdale, FL. I was there. For such a huge plane, it really is stunningly quiet. Most spectators didn't even notice until the plane was almost in front of the beach.

sologoub 10y ago

Gatling-gun? It essentially ushered in machine gun era, not to mention the current generation of multi-barrel systems like the Phalanx. http://www.history.com/topics/gatling-gun http://www.history.com/topics/gatling-gun https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanx_CIWS

LoSboccacc 10y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002#Exercise_action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002#Exer... ^ last time war games were exercised in asymmetrical warfare they got beaten so badly they transformed everything in a scriped farce