4 ms·

For anybody interested in geopolitics: the new canal is big enough for Nimitz and Ford class carriers. Cutting travel time from NY to LA from 17 days to 7 days.

by vlehto 10y ago

For anybody interested in geopolitics: the new canal is big enough for Nimitz and Ford class carriers. Cutting travel time from NY to LA from 17 days to 7 days. NY to Taiwan strait is now only ~14 days, previously ~20 days and LA Taiwan strait remains ~8 days. LA - Israel travel times from 18 days to 11, from NY about 7 days. This has relatively little to do with "power projection" as carrier battle group is lot more likely to use the Suez canal in such situations. But for U.S. defense this is significant. Now nobody can start crossing the pacific with evil thoughts without taking into account every carrier battle group in Pacific and Atlantic. And if you embark from Barents sea, you have to take into account anything floating around Hawaii or closer.

relix 10y ago
Is it easy to sabotage the canal while the battle groups are traversing it, effectively trapping them inside? Would they take that risk?
- vlehto 10y ago
  The alternative is not that much better, Drake passage at the tip of south America is stormy and "only" 1000km across and very stormy. This makes it very difficult for carrier to safely operate aircraft. Which makes it difficult to out range threats. So they pass though stairs of Magellan. Which in turn makes surprise attack with container missile more of a threat. You could fire it from container parked at Punta Arenas. http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/club-k-container-missile-system-26146327.jpg http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/club-k-container-missile-syst... Here is Nimitz at suez channel: http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/military_service/Carrier%20in%20Suez%20Canal.jpg http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/military_service/Carrier%20in%2... and here in Magellan strait: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_040621-N-6536T-066_The_Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier_USS_Ronald_Reagan_(CVN_76)_cruises_through_the_Straits_of_Magellan.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_040621-N-653... Edit: added the word "stormy". Drake passage is mean business.https://cnet4.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2008/03/04/e9944d14-f4d6-11e2-8c7c-d4ae52e62bcc/resize/570xauto/df581edfcc2b8edf0d0248c45f1cc62f/3t_global_wind.jpg https://cnet4.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2008/03/04/e9944d14-f4d...
  - relix 10y ago
    Interesting, thanks.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    Do the really go through the straits of Magellan that often? They did it for the first time only in 2004. http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=13939 http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=13939
tomjen3 10y ago
But while the carriers are sailing through the canal, aren't they sitting ducks for just about everything?
- vlehto 10y ago
  DoD is not to actually going to do it often. It's preferable to have carriers based on both sides of continent anyhow. In defense in general, it's often lot more important to have capabilities and possibilities. Those alone can act as deterrence or threat. Which is often enough to gain the underlying political goal. In naval defensive context, the doctrine is historically called "fleet in being". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being

by vlehto 10y ago

relix 10y ago

Is it easy to sabotage the canal while the battle groups are traversing it, effectively trapping them inside? Would they take that risk?

vlehto 10y ago
The alternative is not that much better, Drake passage at the tip of south America is stormy and "only" 1000km across and very stormy. This makes it very difficult for carrier to safely operate aircraft. Which makes it difficult to out range threats. So they pass though stairs of Magellan. Which in turn makes surprise attack with container missile more of a threat. You could fire it from container parked at Punta Arenas. http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/club-k-container-missile-system-26146327.jpg http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/club-k-container-missile-syst... Here is Nimitz at suez channel: http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/military_service/Carrier%20in%20Suez%20Canal.jpg http://web.mst.edu/~rogersda/military_service/Carrier%20in%2... and here in Magellan strait: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_040621-N-6536T-066_The_Nimitz-class_aircraft_carrier_USS_Ronald_Reagan_(CVN_76)_cruises_through_the_Straits_of_Magellan.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Navy_040621-N-653... Edit: added the word "stormy". Drake passage is mean business.https://cnet4.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2008/03/04/e9944d14-f4d6-11e2-8c7c-d4ae52e62bcc/resize/570xauto/df581edfcc2b8edf0d0248c45f1cc62f/3t_global_wind.jpg https://cnet4.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2008/03/04/e9944d14-f4d...
- relix 10y ago
  Interesting, thanks.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  Do the really go through the straits of Magellan that often? They did it for the first time only in 2004. http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=13939 http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=13939

tomjen3 10y ago

But while the carriers are sailing through the canal, aren't they sitting ducks for just about everything?

vlehto 10y ago
DoD is not to actually going to do it often. It's preferable to have carriers based on both sides of continent anyhow. In defense in general, it's often lot more important to have capabilities and possibilities. Those alone can act as deterrence or threat. Which is often enough to gain the underlying political goal. In naval defensive context, the doctrine is historically called "fleet in being". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet_in_being