17 ms·

I'm not sure that a replacement F-14 is thinking big enough here. David Wise's post in War is Boring, "The U.S. Navy’s Big Mistake — Building Tons of Supercarri

I'm not sure that a replacement F-14 is thinking big enough here. David Wise's post in War is Boring, "The U.S. Navy’s Big Mistake — Building Tons of Supercarriers" (https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-navy-s-big-mistake-building-tons-of-supercarriers-79cb42029b8 https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-u-s-navy-s-big-mistake-...) puts forth a strong argument as to why the U.S. Navy needs a paradigm shift from carrier groups to increased funding for drones and submarines. Carriers are an extremely costly asset that are also vulnerable to cruise missiles (and those missiles are getting much more advanced).

devoply 8y ago
When your usual target for a beat down is a third world country that has no real way to defend themselves against your attacks, strategy matters very little as does the ability to simply deploy your weapons quickly and easily.
- godzillabrennus 8y ago
  That sort of thinking dismisses the real threats. We have a maginot line floating at sea.
  - ISL 8y ago
    And a legion of apocalyptic missiles to back it up.
  - kurthr 8y ago
    We (and Russia) each have between 1500 and 8000 strategic nuclear warheads deployed or deployable. That's not a Maginot line, it's just air superiority anywhere it matters. Personally, having F14-like drones would probably be much better at keeping opponents airpower down/out than JSF or F18s, but that's my silly civilian opinion.
    - et2o 8y ago
      Being pedantic, that's not the definition of air superiority or supremacy. You can't shoot down a fighter plane with a nuclear warhead.
      - kurthr 8y ago
        Right, aircraft carriers are about air superiority. If an opponent is sinking them with supersonic (nuclear?) cruise missiles or drones, that's a different strategic issue (with China, Russia)... at least for the next decade or several. The _that's_ I was referring to was in the the preceding comment, which referred to aircraft carriers as a Maginot line floating at sea.
  - adventured 8y ago
    There's only one nation that you can possibly be referring to: China. No other foes have naval force projection at all to threaten all of the US carriers. Even China doesn't have that, they can only do that in part of the Pacific. Maybe in a few decades they'll have a more global projection. China isn't a real threat in the regards you're claiming they are. For 99% of all the scenarios of combat the US is likely to see, carriers make ideal sense. You're saying the 1% scenario, a world war 3 scenario, is a good reason to not have any carriers because they can be sunk. That makes zero sense in the present and for the next two decades. If a lot of carriers get sunk by China in a non-defensive attack, we're at a point of going to nuclear war, hundreds of millions will die. None of the weapons China has will matter then either. The sole scenario worth considering seriously, in naval conflict, is China-Taiwan. There's realistically nothing the US can do to stop China if it decides to invade and take the island. It doesn't matter what tech the US has.
    - jabl 8y ago
      So essentially you're saying that in a real shooting war, carriers are useless. Isn't that essentially what all these carrier criticisms are saying as well? If all they're good for anyway is bombing 3rd world countries into submission, hey, just buy a mothballed supertanker, pave it over and load it up with cheap turboprop planes carrying bombs. Equally good for bombing people armed with AK-47's and RPG's, and you'd save billions! :) And the defensive capability is ultimately the same as a $$$ supercarrier, if the buck in any case stops with "if you touch these, we'll answer with nukes".
      - runarb 8y ago
        > cheap turboprop planes carrying bombs. Equally good for bombing people armed with AK-47's and RPG's, and you'd save billions! :) > As I am understanding it the US is buying such a palne in the Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissa... Many other countries also use planes like the Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano[0] to fight insurgents and other that do not have any anti aircraft capabilities. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano
  - prolikewh0a 8y ago
    >That sort of thinking dismisses the real threats. Does the USA really have any threats that aren't just the USA being on the offense?
    - King-Aaron 8y ago
      China. It would be a folly to dismiss it.
      - lmm 8y ago
        China is massively invested in the US. It's hard to imagine any war scenario being worth the cost.
        FighterMafia 8y ago
        And its decoupling now. See: Trade War.
      - prolikewh0a 8y ago
        How is China a military threat? This again seems to be on offense.
        FighterMafia 8y ago
        There are a million reports like this: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf
        prolikewh0a 8y ago
        The summary provides nothing that wouldn't be USA again on offense. Modernization of Chinese Navy != Threat.
    - mwj 8y ago
      Uhhh Russia?
  - picsao 8y ago
    Is this sarcastic? As in the maginot line was useless in actual battle?
  - benlorenzetti 8y ago
    Perhaps, but an even easier comparison to Maginot line is China's concrete islands
poof131 8y ago
Yep, stupid. Submersible ships that can surface to launch and recover drones should be the focus. Though I would probably keep some carriers out of mothballs in case EMPs disable all the fancy electronic thingys. But we’d also need to keep around older mechanical actuated aircraft for that scenario. But most anything is better than putting all our eggs in the super carrier / joint strike turd basket. Keeping in mind the battle over the electro-magnetic spectrum is important though when fanboying drones.
hyperion2010 8y ago
It only looks stupid if you assume that in the next real war that em based communications will work like they do in peacetime. If you assume that the next war will be fought with continual jamming on all frequencies, then it doesn't look so stupid.

devoply 8y ago

When your usual target for a beat down is a third world country that has no real way to defend themselves against your attacks, strategy matters very little as does the ability to simply deploy your weapons quickly and easily.

godzillabrennus 8y ago
That sort of thinking dismisses the real threats. We have a maginot line floating at sea.
- ISL 8y ago
  And a legion of apocalyptic missiles to back it up.
- kurthr 8y ago
  We (and Russia) each have between 1500 and 8000 strategic nuclear warheads deployed or deployable. That's not a Maginot line, it's just air superiority anywhere it matters. Personally, having F14-like drones would probably be much better at keeping opponents airpower down/out than JSF or F18s, but that's my silly civilian opinion.
  - et2o 8y ago
    Being pedantic, that's not the definition of air superiority or supremacy. You can't shoot down a fighter plane with a nuclear warhead.
    - kurthr 8y ago
      Right, aircraft carriers are about air superiority. If an opponent is sinking them with supersonic (nuclear?) cruise missiles or drones, that's a different strategic issue (with China, Russia)... at least for the next decade or several. The _that's_ I was referring to was in the the preceding comment, which referred to aircraft carriers as a Maginot line floating at sea.
- adventured 8y ago
  There's only one nation that you can possibly be referring to: China. No other foes have naval force projection at all to threaten all of the US carriers. Even China doesn't have that, they can only do that in part of the Pacific. Maybe in a few decades they'll have a more global projection. China isn't a real threat in the regards you're claiming they are. For 99% of all the scenarios of combat the US is likely to see, carriers make ideal sense. You're saying the 1% scenario, a world war 3 scenario, is a good reason to not have any carriers because they can be sunk. That makes zero sense in the present and for the next two decades. If a lot of carriers get sunk by China in a non-defensive attack, we're at a point of going to nuclear war, hundreds of millions will die. None of the weapons China has will matter then either. The sole scenario worth considering seriously, in naval conflict, is China-Taiwan. There's realistically nothing the US can do to stop China if it decides to invade and take the island. It doesn't matter what tech the US has.
  - jabl 8y ago
    So essentially you're saying that in a real shooting war, carriers are useless. Isn't that essentially what all these carrier criticisms are saying as well? If all they're good for anyway is bombing 3rd world countries into submission, hey, just buy a mothballed supertanker, pave it over and load it up with cheap turboprop planes carrying bombs. Equally good for bombing people armed with AK-47's and RPG's, and you'd save billions! :) And the defensive capability is ultimately the same as a $$$ supercarrier, if the buck in any case stops with "if you touch these, we'll answer with nukes".
    - runarb 8y ago
      > cheap turboprop planes carrying bombs. Equally good for bombing people armed with AK-47's and RPG's, and you'd save billions! :) > As I am understanding it the US is buying such a palne in the Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance program: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Attack/Armed_Reconnaissa... Many other countries also use planes like the Embraer EMB 314 Super Tucano[0] to fight insurgents and other that do not have any anti aircraft capabilities. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano
- prolikewh0a 8y ago
  >That sort of thinking dismisses the real threats. Does the USA really have any threats that aren't just the USA being on the offense?
  - King-Aaron 8y ago
    China. It would be a folly to dismiss it.
    - lmm 8y ago
      China is massively invested in the US. It's hard to imagine any war scenario being worth the cost.
      - FighterMafia 8y ago
        And its decoupling now. See: Trade War.
    - prolikewh0a 8y ago
      How is China a military threat? This again seems to be on offense.
      - FighterMafia 8y ago
        There are a million reports like this: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33153.pdf
        prolikewh0a 8y ago
        The summary provides nothing that wouldn't be USA again on offense. Modernization of Chinese Navy != Threat.
  - mwj 8y ago
    Uhhh Russia?
- picsao 8y ago
  Is this sarcastic? As in the maginot line was useless in actual battle?
- benlorenzetti 8y ago
  Perhaps, but an even easier comparison to Maginot line is China's concrete islands

poof131 8y ago

Yep, stupid. Submersible ships that can surface to launch and recover drones should be the focus. Though I would probably keep some carriers out of mothballs in case EMPs disable all the fancy electronic thingys. But we’d also need to keep around older mechanical actuated aircraft for that scenario. But most anything is better than putting all our eggs in the super carrier / joint strike turd basket. Keeping in mind the battle over the electro-magnetic spectrum is important though when fanboying drones.

hyperion2010 8y ago

It only looks stupid if you assume that in the next real war that em based communications will work like they do in peacetime. If you assume that the next war will be fought with continual jamming on all frequencies, then it doesn't look so stupid.