3 ms·

Aircraft carriers are more than just a floating airport though. They symbolise American might, a physical manifestation of big stick diplomacy. There's no sure

Aircraft carriers are more than just a floating airport though. They symbolise American might, a physical manifestation of big stick diplomacy. There's no surer way to get a tinpot dictatorship to start dancing to your fiddle than to park a carrier battle group outside their territorial waters. As Bill Clinton said: > When word of a crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident that the first question that comes to everyone's lips is 'Where's the nearest carrier?' Most of the time, a submarine or destroyer with Tomahawk cruise missiles will get the job done. But parking a nuclear submarine off the coast doesn't have the same diplomatic effect.

TheForumTroll 8y ago
The problem is that in a real war (as in not a war with jets versus people in caves) the carriers will be lost in days. Look how easy targets they are to even old diesel subs. They get sunk in pretty much all realistic training against any foe with a sub. Otherwise it only takes one ballistic anti-ship missile per carrier. They need to go the way of the battleships.
- foldr 8y ago
  I don't think that's necessarily inevitable. None of the British carriers was sunk during the Falklands war, despite the Argentines having diesel subs and exocet missiles.
  - gaius 8y ago
    None of the British carriers was sunk during the Falklands war Yes and no. The Atlantic Conveyor, a makeshift helicopter carrier, was sunk, taking the UK’s Chinooks with it, leading to the famous “yomp” across the island. But you are right that both of the Harrier carriers were OK.
    - foldr 8y ago
      Ah, yes, fair enough, but of course the Atlantic Conveyor neither didn't have the defenses of a modern carrier, and wouldn't have been as much of a defense priority.
      - daddylonglegs 8y ago
        Note that the Argentinians started the war with only five air-launched Exocet missiles in stock and with those they took out an air defence destroyer and a very important supply ship. The Argentinians deployed two submarines. The Royal Navy caught the WWII surplus Santa Fe. The more up to date San Luis evaded the RN and it's attacks were only foiled by poor maintenance of it's weapon systems. The British submarines drove the Argentinian surface ships (including their carrier) into port. The RN of the time was as good as any at anti-submarine warfare and had quite modern air defences. I think the Falklands war showed how effective air-launched missiles and submarines were (are).
- manigandham 8y ago
  Would they? Why do people think carriers are so easy to sink? They are massive nuclear powered machines with entire fleets protecting them. I doubt any submarine would get close enough to launch anything without being obliterated.
  - carrier_hmmm 8y ago
    Reasonable survey of the criticism and vulnerabilities: https://warisboring.com/the-u-s-navy-s-big-mistake-building-tons-of-supercarriers/ https://warisboring.com/the-u-s-navy-s-big-mistake-building-...
  - dmoy 8y ago
    Late reply so you might not see, but in all the realistic simulations, carriers get completely destroyed in the early hours of any actual conflict. (All the big boats do, but carriers are especially juicy targets) See, for example, MC02.

TheForumTroll 8y ago

The problem is that in a real war (as in not a war with jets versus people in caves) the carriers will be lost in days. Look how easy targets they are to even old diesel subs. They get sunk in pretty much all realistic training against any foe with a sub. Otherwise it only takes one ballistic anti-ship missile per carrier. They need to go the way of the battleships.

foldr 8y ago
I don't think that's necessarily inevitable. None of the British carriers was sunk during the Falklands war, despite the Argentines having diesel subs and exocet missiles.
- gaius 8y ago
  None of the British carriers was sunk during the Falklands war Yes and no. The Atlantic Conveyor, a makeshift helicopter carrier, was sunk, taking the UK’s Chinooks with it, leading to the famous “yomp” across the island. But you are right that both of the Harrier carriers were OK.
  - foldr 8y ago
    Ah, yes, fair enough, but of course the Atlantic Conveyor neither didn't have the defenses of a modern carrier, and wouldn't have been as much of a defense priority.
    - daddylonglegs 8y ago
      Note that the Argentinians started the war with only five air-launched Exocet missiles in stock and with those they took out an air defence destroyer and a very important supply ship. The Argentinians deployed two submarines. The Royal Navy caught the WWII surplus Santa Fe. The more up to date San Luis evaded the RN and it's attacks were only foiled by poor maintenance of it's weapon systems. The British submarines drove the Argentinian surface ships (including their carrier) into port. The RN of the time was as good as any at anti-submarine warfare and had quite modern air defences. I think the Falklands war showed how effective air-launched missiles and submarines were (are).
manigandham 8y ago
Would they? Why do people think carriers are so easy to sink? They are massive nuclear powered machines with entire fleets protecting them. I doubt any submarine would get close enough to launch anything without being obliterated.
- carrier_hmmm 8y ago
  Reasonable survey of the criticism and vulnerabilities: https://warisboring.com/the-u-s-navy-s-big-mistake-building-tons-of-supercarriers/ https://warisboring.com/the-u-s-navy-s-big-mistake-building-...
- dmoy 8y ago
  Late reply so you might not see, but in all the realistic simulations, carriers get completely destroyed in the early hours of any actual conflict. (All the big boats do, but carriers are especially juicy targets) See, for example, MC02.