8 ms·

Pentagon to Retire USS Truman Early, Shrinking Carrier Fleet to 10

34 points by smacktoward 8y ago

WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
I wonder how that law would be interpreted if China sunk one of our carriers in a cruise missile fight. On that one hand, the loss of life would be ridiculous but would we need to immediately start building a new one to be 'compliant'
- makerofspoons 8y ago
  I would imagine if the US got into a cruise missile fight with China the US would be building ships and other equipment at a scale unseen since WW2 and compliance would probably not be the chief concern over winning the war.
- JanSolo 8y ago
  If the US got into a hot war with China, we are all screwed. Recall that the US succeeded in WW1 and WW2 by out-producing their opponents. They simply built more guns and tanks and munitions than everyone else. US munitions were lower quality than what was produced in Europe, but they were cheaper and available in large numbers. That's what mattered. However, that's a strategy that won't work against China. The Chinese are the undisputed kings of building things fast and cheap. They would out-produce the US easily AND they have a much larger population to conscript into their armies. US military chiefs must know that a land-war against China has almost no chance of success. China is too big and their army too numerous. So if the war were to go badly (which it almost certainly would) they would be likely to consider the nuclear option... and once we go there, there's no going back. China would retaliate; Russia would likely get involved; article 5 would be invoked.... game over.
  - panzagl 8y ago
    US munitions being lower quality is debatable- US munitions and equipment were more generally more reliable than German equivalents. There were some doctrinal differences that led to some unfortunate design decisions, but what was made was well-executed.
    - philwelch 8y ago
      This is true. Large volume, simple design, and loose tolerances were the Soviet production strategy, but not ours. We cut some corners in terms of e.g. not replacing the Sherman tank with something newer, which meant the Sherman was immediately outclassed by the Tiger and Panther, but that didn't matter because most of the Wehrmacht was still using Panzer IV's.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    A land war would be completely unnecessary. China could be blockaded long enough to cripple their export-based economy. (Hence the importance of naval power in particular.)
  - goatsi 8y ago
    How well could China sustain that production with zero imports via sea? They have relied on imported coal for power production since 2007, and are now the world's largest importer of oil, 43% of it coming from the gulf in big slow tankers. US Carrier groups thousands of miles away from China could cripple it's imports with a few radio messages.
    - simonblack 8y ago
      "the world's largest importer of oil, 43% of it coming from the gulf in big slow tankers." The Middle-East's oil and the factories in China are all on the same land-mass. They don't need sea transport, that's just more convenient/cheaper for China at present.
      - goatsi 8y ago
        China has only a single land fueled pipeline that doesn't lead to Russia, and it comes from Kazakhstan. It can carry 120 thousand barrels per day. China used over 13 million barrels per day in 2017, and I can only imagine it has increased since then. There is a pipeline that leads from Myanmar to China, but it is supplied by tankers docking in Myanmar. I assume the US Navy would put a stop to that pretty quickly. After pipelines the next best way to move oil over land is by train. Huge trains of tanker cars are extremely visible to surveillance. Since they have to follow the train tracks and are slow moving, they make perfect targets as well, and you only need one missile to get through.
        ardy42 8y ago
        Also, in any kind of hot war, all kinds of overland transportation infrastructure are going to be high-priority targets. The are probably more than a few bridges between the Middle East and China.
  - auntienomen 8y ago
    China needs access to natural resources to run those production lines, and China itself is relatively resource poor. In the event of open war with the US, they'd be mostly trying keep their supply lines open. Such a war would take place all over the world, rather than in China itself. We're more likely to see a nuclear conflict involving China if the Chinese leaders feel that resource needs make it necessary to seize Russian territory.
    - WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
      China and Russia go to war... what would the US do? You don't want Russia or China losing, but you want both of them to have losses because it would improve your economic position.
- gpm 8y ago
  In the event that one of the 11 (or 10) biggest most expensive billion dollar things the US military owns is destroyed, I think congress can get together and amend the law at the time.
AWildC182 8y ago
This seems like a good case for why congress needs less influence on military line items (distinct from the budget as a whole). They'll complain that it makes the US less safe but in reality they just want the jobs at the expense of defense capabilities. They know x carrier part will be built in their district as opposed to the billions used on other more relevant priorities as determined by people who are trained and paid to develop strategies. I don't think the people complaining are experts in military strategy and defense technology. Now, all this said, to spite what most news outlets are babbling about, the carriers are very much still relevant and important and will remain so for at least a few decades. They just need to be balanced with developing future systems and demanding that we always have 11 carriers doesn't really provide the flexibility to handle emerging threats.
- nickthemagicman 8y ago
  Are they? It seems like a billion dollar asset that can be destroyed with a few million dollar missile is a little outdated?
  - vpribish 8y ago
    they are very useful outside of a full-on war with a major power.
    - smacktoward 8y ago
      Of course, in those scenarios a much smaller, less expensive carrier would be just as useful. The difference between a full-on supercarrier and something more modest, like the America-class assault ships (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_assault_ship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_assau...), is kind of moot when the OPFOR is a bunch of guys in Toyota trucks. And a smaller carrier would allow the Navy to field more of them at the same cost, which would mean being able to "show the flag" in more places simultaneously without having to run a few ships ragged trying to cover them all at once.
      - 8y ago
dontbenebby 8y ago
Is the idea of a hot, but non nuclear war with China realistic? I have a hard time picturing scenarios where China is sinking carriers which don't quickly escalate to full blown nuclear war. As a practical matter, perhaps carriers are just not going to be as important in the future? Drones can be launched from a much wider variety of places / ship decks. The future of war may be a giant swarm of small ships and drones rather than one large flagship ringed by layers of destroyers etc to protect it.
- sitharus 8y ago
  China has a "no first use" policy with nuclear weapons, so it's entirely possible for a conventional war to be fought. They do have a large range of conventionally-armed missiles though, so I have no idea how the escalation path would go.
  - XorNot 8y ago
    The problem is a conventional ballistic missile launch of the type you use to sink a carrier is indistinguishable to a nuclear ballistic launch and you can't really vector trajectories very far in advance of losing counterstrike capability. They're effectively not usable.
    - tomatotomato37 8y ago
      That's only for some of the cold war tech; modern missiles don't use a ballestic trajectory but instead actively fly a path optimized for avoiding point-defense
- lainga 8y ago
  IMO the world is heading towards a hot war where each side is confident in their ballistic defence capabilities against nuclear attack. We have to hope it isn't overconfidence.
  - vpribish 8y ago
    no one is remotely confident in their BMD, where do you get that idea?
sgt101 8y ago
Does the delivery of HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales have any bearing on this - they aren't super carriers, but they are pretty close. Does the pentagon calculate that there's some flex as a result?
- AWildC182 8y ago
  Almost certainly. Friendly nations' capabilities are in many ways just as important as your own. While the obvious reason for pushing the F-35 on everyone is because we get to make money for LM, it also means there are more F-35s out there that can be used in the event something happens.
  - dTal 8y ago
    For the UK, the F-35 procurement deal has utterly crippled their force projection ability. For some inexplicable reason, the decision was made in 2011 to "sell" all 72 of the UK's (newly refurbished at great expense) Harrier jump jets to the US Marine Corps, for the tiny sum of 180 million dollars. This left them completely without carrier-capable aircraft for many years, despite investing billions in a new aircraft carrier. As of this moment, the UK has a grand total of... 9 ops ready F-35 lightnings. So forgive me if I doubt that allied readiness is in any way a priority for the F-35 program.
    - AWildC182 8y ago
      Maybe the F-35 wasn't the best example. There was intent, and then there was execution and I guess we can both agree that the execution was...lacking?
      - dTal 8y ago
        As I understand it, a major reason for the F-35's existence in the first place was that the F-22 was considered too good to export; the F-35 is deliberately inferior. So I'm still not convinced about the intent.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
JanSolo 8y ago
I wonder why the US is so determined to have a large carrier fleet? With the advent of anti-ship cruise missiles, carriers have lost the decisive edge that they had during WW2. It seems like few nations are willing to bear the development and maintenance costs of modern carriers. Yet the US continues to build carriers as if they were at war! Furthermore, there is a huge uproar (along with legal challenges!) whenever anyone dares to suggest even slowing down the rate of carrier deployment. Why is the US so set on a policy that every other developed nation has eschewed? It makes no sense to me.
- krapp 8y ago
  >It makes no sense to me. It makes perfect sense if instead of ships of war you think of them as big, expensive metal penises being waved at the rest of the world.
  - VectorLock 8y ago
    As crudely as you put it thats effectively what carriers are. They're a projection of power.
- wil421 8y ago
  Did Afghanistan, Iraq, Isis, Syria, or even Serbia have the capability to launch cruise missles at aircraft carriers? What about Vietnam or Korea? I think your underestimating what aircraft carriers are actually used for. The Navy has been dropping bombs off aircraft carriers since WW2. I doubt we will ever see another world war in our lifetime. They may sell it to Congress one way and use it another way.
  - JanSolo 8y ago
    I agree with you; guns are great when you're fighting enemies armed only with sharp sticks... The first time the US has to deal with Anti-Ship cruise-missiles might be a bad day for them.
    - wil421 8y ago
dustinmoorenet 8y ago
We should give it to Taiwan. That would piss China off nicely. /sarcasm
alexhutcheson 8y ago
The Naval Gazing blog has a four-part series called "Why the Carriers Are Not Doomed" in which he makes the case: "Claims that US carriers are very vulnerable to missile attack, and will be sunk immediately in any upcoming war, are quite common. They’re also wrong. The carriers are surprisingly survivable, and the prowess of missiles is usually grossly exaggerated." I don't have the expertise to fully evaluate the arguments, but it's worth a read before you fully swallow the "carriers are pointless because of anti-ship missiles" line. https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-1 https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-1 https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-2 https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-2 https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-3 https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-3 https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-4 https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-4
- 1stcity3rdcoast 8y ago
  Following on with a generic upvote for the Naval Gazing blog, which got its start in the comments section of another blog and has become a source of very interesting pieces and research on its own.
- dogma1138 8y ago
  These claims also completely ignore the fact that carriers and other high value assets aren't going to be thrown into the fray, they aren't stationary and aren't unprotected. In a case of a war with say China the US isn't going to park it's carrier fleet in the littoral waters and yell come at me bro the risks to the carrier are well known and understood and there are plenty of things the US can do to mitigate against those and very much effectively so. The US has a very long history of naval warfare and the longest effective history in carrier operations a US carrier in the south china sea is still likely the most safe airwing you can have in the area since the US bases in the area are a much easier target for potential Chinese strikes. I don't think people understand how hard it is to find a carrier battle group in the middle of the seas even within it's combat effective range not to mention guide and hit a moving target with very capable air defenses. This holds true especially for the so called carrier killer "hypersonic" weapons which while might be able to pass through the missile defense shield of the strike group and the carrier itself have very poor terminal maneuvering and while a carrier is slow hitting a target evading your at 30 without very excellent terminal guidance isn't likely.

34 points by smacktoward 8y ago

I wonder how that law would be interpreted if China sunk one of our carriers in a cruise missile fight. On that one hand, the loss of life would be ridiculous but would we need to immediately start building a new one to be 'compliant'

makerofspoons 8y ago
I would imagine if the US got into a cruise missile fight with China the US would be building ships and other equipment at a scale unseen since WW2 and compliance would probably not be the chief concern over winning the war.
JanSolo 8y ago
If the US got into a hot war with China, we are all screwed. Recall that the US succeeded in WW1 and WW2 by out-producing their opponents. They simply built more guns and tanks and munitions than everyone else. US munitions were lower quality than what was produced in Europe, but they were cheaper and available in large numbers. That's what mattered. However, that's a strategy that won't work against China. The Chinese are the undisputed kings of building things fast and cheap. They would out-produce the US easily AND they have a much larger population to conscript into their armies. US military chiefs must know that a land-war against China has almost no chance of success. China is too big and their army too numerous. So if the war were to go badly (which it almost certainly would) they would be likely to consider the nuclear option... and once we go there, there's no going back. China would retaliate; Russia would likely get involved; article 5 would be invoked.... game over.
- panzagl 8y ago
  US munitions being lower quality is debatable- US munitions and equipment were more generally more reliable than German equivalents. There were some doctrinal differences that led to some unfortunate design decisions, but what was made was well-executed.
  - philwelch 8y ago
    This is true. Large volume, simple design, and loose tolerances were the Soviet production strategy, but not ours. We cut some corners in terms of e.g. not replacing the Sherman tank with something newer, which meant the Sherman was immediately outclassed by the Tiger and Panther, but that didn't matter because most of the Wehrmacht was still using Panzer IV's.
- philwelch 8y ago
  A land war would be completely unnecessary. China could be blockaded long enough to cripple their export-based economy. (Hence the importance of naval power in particular.)
- goatsi 8y ago
  How well could China sustain that production with zero imports via sea? They have relied on imported coal for power production since 2007, and are now the world's largest importer of oil, 43% of it coming from the gulf in big slow tankers. US Carrier groups thousands of miles away from China could cripple it's imports with a few radio messages.
  - simonblack 8y ago
    "the world's largest importer of oil, 43% of it coming from the gulf in big slow tankers." The Middle-East's oil and the factories in China are all on the same land-mass. They don't need sea transport, that's just more convenient/cheaper for China at present.
    - goatsi 8y ago
      China has only a single land fueled pipeline that doesn't lead to Russia, and it comes from Kazakhstan. It can carry 120 thousand barrels per day. China used over 13 million barrels per day in 2017, and I can only imagine it has increased since then. There is a pipeline that leads from Myanmar to China, but it is supplied by tankers docking in Myanmar. I assume the US Navy would put a stop to that pretty quickly. After pipelines the next best way to move oil over land is by train. Huge trains of tanker cars are extremely visible to surveillance. Since they have to follow the train tracks and are slow moving, they make perfect targets as well, and you only need one missile to get through.
      - ardy42 8y ago
        Also, in any kind of hot war, all kinds of overland transportation infrastructure are going to be high-priority targets. The are probably more than a few bridges between the Middle East and China.
- auntienomen 8y ago
  China needs access to natural resources to run those production lines, and China itself is relatively resource poor. In the event of open war with the US, they'd be mostly trying keep their supply lines open. Such a war would take place all over the world, rather than in China itself. We're more likely to see a nuclear conflict involving China if the Chinese leaders feel that resource needs make it necessary to seize Russian territory.
  - WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
    China and Russia go to war... what would the US do? You don't want Russia or China losing, but you want both of them to have losses because it would improve your economic position.
gpm 8y ago
In the event that one of the 11 (or 10) biggest most expensive billion dollar things the US military owns is destroyed, I think congress can get together and amend the law at the time.

AWildC182 8y ago

This seems like a good case for why congress needs less influence on military line items (distinct from the budget as a whole). They'll complain that it makes the US less safe but in reality they just want the jobs at the expense of defense capabilities. They know x carrier part will be built in their district as opposed to the billions used on other more relevant priorities as determined by people who are trained and paid to develop strategies. I don't think the people complaining are experts in military strategy and defense technology. Now, all this said, to spite what most news outlets are babbling about, the carriers are very much still relevant and important and will remain so for at least a few decades. They just need to be balanced with developing future systems and demanding that we always have 11 carriers doesn't really provide the flexibility to handle emerging threats.

nickthemagicman 8y ago
Are they? It seems like a billion dollar asset that can be destroyed with a few million dollar missile is a little outdated?
- vpribish 8y ago
  they are very useful outside of a full-on war with a major power.
  - smacktoward 8y ago
    Of course, in those scenarios a much smaller, less expensive carrier would be just as useful. The difference between a full-on supercarrier and something more modest, like the America-class assault ships (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_assault_ship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_assau...), is kind of moot when the OPFOR is a bunch of guys in Toyota trucks. And a smaller carrier would allow the Navy to field more of them at the same cost, which would mean being able to "show the flag" in more places simultaneously without having to run a few ships ragged trying to cover them all at once.
    - 8y ago

dontbenebby 8y ago

Is the idea of a hot, but non nuclear war with China realistic? I have a hard time picturing scenarios where China is sinking carriers which don't quickly escalate to full blown nuclear war. As a practical matter, perhaps carriers are just not going to be as important in the future? Drones can be launched from a much wider variety of places / ship decks. The future of war may be a giant swarm of small ships and drones rather than one large flagship ringed by layers of destroyers etc to protect it.

sitharus 8y ago
China has a "no first use" policy with nuclear weapons, so it's entirely possible for a conventional war to be fought. They do have a large range of conventionally-armed missiles though, so I have no idea how the escalation path would go.
- XorNot 8y ago
  The problem is a conventional ballistic missile launch of the type you use to sink a carrier is indistinguishable to a nuclear ballistic launch and you can't really vector trajectories very far in advance of losing counterstrike capability. They're effectively not usable.
  - tomatotomato37 8y ago
    That's only for some of the cold war tech; modern missiles don't use a ballestic trajectory but instead actively fly a path optimized for avoiding point-defense
lainga 8y ago
IMO the world is heading towards a hot war where each side is confident in their ballistic defence capabilities against nuclear attack. We have to hope it isn't overconfidence.
- vpribish 8y ago
  no one is remotely confident in their BMD, where do you get that idea?

sgt101 8y ago

Does the delivery of HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales have any bearing on this - they aren't super carriers, but they are pretty close. Does the pentagon calculate that there's some flex as a result?

AWildC182 8y ago
Almost certainly. Friendly nations' capabilities are in many ways just as important as your own. While the obvious reason for pushing the F-35 on everyone is because we get to make money for LM, it also means there are more F-35s out there that can be used in the event something happens.
- dTal 8y ago
  For the UK, the F-35 procurement deal has utterly crippled their force projection ability. For some inexplicable reason, the decision was made in 2011 to "sell" all 72 of the UK's (newly refurbished at great expense) Harrier jump jets to the US Marine Corps, for the tiny sum of 180 million dollars. This left them completely without carrier-capable aircraft for many years, despite investing billions in a new aircraft carrier. As of this moment, the UK has a grand total of... 9 ops ready F-35 lightnings. So forgive me if I doubt that allied readiness is in any way a priority for the F-35 program.
  - AWildC182 8y ago
    Maybe the F-35 wasn't the best example. There was intent, and then there was execution and I guess we can both agree that the execution was...lacking?
    - dTal 8y ago
      As I understand it, a major reason for the F-35's existence in the first place was that the F-22 was considered too good to export; the F-35 is deliberately inferior. So I'm still not convinced about the intent.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago

JanSolo 8y ago

I wonder why the US is so determined to have a large carrier fleet? With the advent of anti-ship cruise missiles, carriers have lost the decisive edge that they had during WW2. It seems like few nations are willing to bear the development and maintenance costs of modern carriers. Yet the US continues to build carriers as if they were at war! Furthermore, there is a huge uproar (along with legal challenges!) whenever anyone dares to suggest even slowing down the rate of carrier deployment. Why is the US so set on a policy that every other developed nation has eschewed? It makes no sense to me.

krapp 8y ago
>It makes no sense to me. It makes perfect sense if instead of ships of war you think of them as big, expensive metal penises being waved at the rest of the world.
- VectorLock 8y ago
  As crudely as you put it thats effectively what carriers are. They're a projection of power.
wil421 8y ago
Did Afghanistan, Iraq, Isis, Syria, or even Serbia have the capability to launch cruise missles at aircraft carriers? What about Vietnam or Korea? I think your underestimating what aircraft carriers are actually used for. The Navy has been dropping bombs off aircraft carriers since WW2. I doubt we will ever see another world war in our lifetime. They may sell it to Congress one way and use it another way.
- JanSolo 8y ago
  I agree with you; guns are great when you're fighting enemies armed only with sharp sticks... The first time the US has to deal with Anti-Ship cruise-missiles might be a bad day for them.
  - wil421 8y ago

dustinmoorenet 8y ago

We should give it to Taiwan. That would piss China off nicely. /sarcasm

alexhutcheson 8y ago

The Naval Gazing blog has a four-part series called "Why the Carriers Are Not Doomed" in which he makes the case: "Claims that US carriers are very vulnerable to missile attack, and will be sunk immediately in any upcoming war, are quite common. They’re also wrong. The carriers are surprisingly survivable, and the prowess of missiles is usually grossly exaggerated." I don't have the expertise to fully evaluate the arguments, but it's worth a read before you fully swallow the "carriers are pointless because of anti-ship missiles" line. https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-1 https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-1 https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-2 https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-2 https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-3 https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-3 https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-4 https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-4

1stcity3rdcoast 8y ago
Following on with a generic upvote for the Naval Gazing blog, which got its start in the comments section of another blog and has become a source of very interesting pieces and research on its own.
dogma1138 8y ago
These claims also completely ignore the fact that carriers and other high value assets aren't going to be thrown into the fray, they aren't stationary and aren't unprotected. In a case of a war with say China the US isn't going to park it's carrier fleet in the littoral waters and yell come at me bro the risks to the carrier are well known and understood and there are plenty of things the US can do to mitigate against those and very much effectively so. The US has a very long history of naval warfare and the longest effective history in carrier operations a US carrier in the south china sea is still likely the most safe airwing you can have in the area since the US bases in the area are a much easier target for potential Chinese strikes. I don't think people understand how hard it is to find a carrier battle group in the middle of the seas even within it's combat effective range not to mention guide and hit a moving target with very capable air defenses. This holds true especially for the so called carrier killer "hypersonic" weapons which while might be able to pass through the missile defense shield of the strike group and the carrier itself have very poor terminal maneuvering and while a carrier is slow hitting a target evading your at 30 without very excellent terminal guidance isn't likely.