5 ms·

They also have shoddy analysis. As an example, they advocate for construction of battleships [0]. [0]: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/forget-f-35s-or-a

by 0az 7y ago

They also have shoddy analysis. As an example, they advocate for construction of battleships [0]. [0]: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/forget-f-35s-or-aircraft-carriers-trump-needs-battleships-if-war-china-starts-70441 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/forget-f-35s-or-aircr...

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
Probably smarter than building aircraft carriers. My interpretation of why the US still builds aircraft carriers is that it's some combination of bureaucratic inertia (so many careers invested in them) and industry lobbying. They are useful for projecting force against third-world countries, but against a country with a modern military, they'd probably be underwater in the first hour of any conflict.
- Spooky23 7y ago
  In that kind of conflict the carriers wouldn’t be in action. You might have some submarine and aerial stuff, but something that escalated that far would go nuclear.
- git-pull 7y ago
  Look up Yamato battleship on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYrj3gzXgeA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYrj3gzXgeA, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato) The interpretation I've found is after these battles (with US Carriers vs Japanese battleships in WW2) the tendency was to favor aircraft carriers and phase out battleships. One big reason is how versatile and integral a carrier is in to a fleet. Carriers can send out scouts, attack, defend from hundreds of miles away from the carrier (where the ship is beyond the horizon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_horizon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_horizon). The weakness of a battleship is the target has to be tracked, and I think the best way to do that would be aerial recon. Battleships like Yamato then had pontoon type scout planes, but nothing like a carrier. Without a carrier accompanying it, Yamato wouldn't be able to create a defensive perimeter of fighters to ward off dive bombers. I don't think it'd be able to effectively counter a fleet with carrier in the end. More on Yamato: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ten-Go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ten-Go Anyone here know more about this and can link some vids/resources on naval stuff?
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    They were certainly an extremely important platform in WWII. But since then, there have been enormous developments in rocketry which make aircraft carriers highly vulnerable. I've seen the arguments that anti-missile defenses will protect them, but I just don't buy it. This is today's version of "The bomber will always get through."
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  The battleship has no remaining role. Blanket heavy shore bombardment really isn't needed much. Every other capability - over the horizon engagement, force projection, command of the high sea could be handled better by the carrier. Thanks to the surface and underwater defence provided by the carrier group, a carrier is not yet as vulnerable as the battleship of old. If the carrier within a group becomes too vulnerable, it sure as heck won't be replaced by battleships, vulnerable and increasingly obsolete since the 1930s. Just as certain to be underwater as any newly vulnerable carrier, even with a full scale carrier-like protection group. What unique capability do you see they could bring?
  - Arbalest 7y ago
    What's the difference between a Battleship and a Destroyer? Are these defined per Country? Here in Australia we have the "Air Warfare Destroyer" but what exactly does that mean? Is it actually any different, or just a fancy name to obscure the fact that nothing has actually changed?
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      At its simplest, displacement. A WW2 battleship was only a little less than a modern carrier at around 4-5x the displacement of a destroyer, and around 10x the displacement of a frigate, with even larger multiples of crew complement. The least manoeuvrable ship of the fleet, typically the flagship of the pre-WW2 battle group with escort of destroyers sometimes also cruisers, frigates and support depending on what it was up to. A role that has been with the carrier in the post-WW2, increasingly missile world. I don't think any navy now retains any battleships, though most kept them around decades past their sell-by date. The battleship (group) was the power that was used to project, and could be sent to far flung locations to bombard an inland target 25 or 30 miles away from the ship, conduct a naval battle or blockade a port well over the horizon. This is the doctrine of the late Victorian era and lapsed in the inter-war years. WW2 and Pearl Harbor very clearly put power projection with the carrier group. The job of the dozen 16" (18" in WW1, and Japanese WW2) and dozen or more 6" guns has been replaced post-war by air, and increasingly cruise and anti-ship missiles in the arsenal. A modern destroyer gets just 1-4 6" pea shooters with range only around 10 miles, but a decent selection of missiles, submarine and air defence that more than makes up for lack of gunnery. Heavy shore bombardment is far cheaper by 16" capital guns than by missile, the last real instance being Desert Storm. In this role a battleship has no peer, it's less accurate than missile whilst flinging an awful lot more weight, but more accurate than heavy bombing. The modern era prefers precision by very expensive munitions. :)
- imtringued 7y ago
  So would be any other water based vehicle.
  - DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
    Yes, but a large fleet of smaller ships is much more resilient than a small fleet of large ships. A carrier is a single, massively expensive and important target.
- seansmccullough 7y ago
  We should be building more submarines instead of aircraft carriers.

by 0az 7y ago

DiogenesKynikos 7y ago

Probably smarter than building aircraft carriers. My interpretation of why the US still builds aircraft carriers is that it's some combination of bureaucratic inertia (so many careers invested in them) and industry lobbying. They are useful for projecting force against third-world countries, but against a country with a modern military, they'd probably be underwater in the first hour of any conflict.

Spooky23 7y ago
In that kind of conflict the carriers wouldn’t be in action. You might have some submarine and aerial stuff, but something that escalated that far would go nuclear.
git-pull 7y ago
Look up Yamato battleship on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYrj3gzXgeA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYrj3gzXgeA, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_battleship_Yamato) The interpretation I've found is after these battles (with US Carriers vs Japanese battleships in WW2) the tendency was to favor aircraft carriers and phase out battleships. One big reason is how versatile and integral a carrier is in to a fleet. Carriers can send out scouts, attack, defend from hundreds of miles away from the carrier (where the ship is beyond the horizon, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_horizon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_horizon). The weakness of a battleship is the target has to be tracked, and I think the best way to do that would be aerial recon. Battleships like Yamato then had pontoon type scout planes, but nothing like a carrier. Without a carrier accompanying it, Yamato wouldn't be able to create a defensive perimeter of fighters to ward off dive bombers. I don't think it'd be able to effectively counter a fleet with carrier in the end. More on Yamato: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ten-Go https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ten-Go Anyone here know more about this and can link some vids/resources on naval stuff?
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  They were certainly an extremely important platform in WWII. But since then, there have been enormous developments in rocketry which make aircraft carriers highly vulnerable. I've seen the arguments that anti-missile defenses will protect them, but I just don't buy it. This is today's version of "The bomber will always get through."
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
The battleship has no remaining role. Blanket heavy shore bombardment really isn't needed much. Every other capability - over the horizon engagement, force projection, command of the high sea could be handled better by the carrier. Thanks to the surface and underwater defence provided by the carrier group, a carrier is not yet as vulnerable as the battleship of old. If the carrier within a group becomes too vulnerable, it sure as heck won't be replaced by battleships, vulnerable and increasingly obsolete since the 1930s. Just as certain to be underwater as any newly vulnerable carrier, even with a full scale carrier-like protection group. What unique capability do you see they could bring?
- Arbalest 7y ago
  What's the difference between a Battleship and a Destroyer? Are these defined per Country? Here in Australia we have the "Air Warfare Destroyer" but what exactly does that mean? Is it actually any different, or just a fancy name to obscure the fact that nothing has actually changed?
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    At its simplest, displacement. A WW2 battleship was only a little less than a modern carrier at around 4-5x the displacement of a destroyer, and around 10x the displacement of a frigate, with even larger multiples of crew complement. The least manoeuvrable ship of the fleet, typically the flagship of the pre-WW2 battle group with escort of destroyers sometimes also cruisers, frigates and support depending on what it was up to. A role that has been with the carrier in the post-WW2, increasingly missile world. I don't think any navy now retains any battleships, though most kept them around decades past their sell-by date. The battleship (group) was the power that was used to project, and could be sent to far flung locations to bombard an inland target 25 or 30 miles away from the ship, conduct a naval battle or blockade a port well over the horizon. This is the doctrine of the late Victorian era and lapsed in the inter-war years. WW2 and Pearl Harbor very clearly put power projection with the carrier group. The job of the dozen 16" (18" in WW1, and Japanese WW2) and dozen or more 6" guns has been replaced post-war by air, and increasingly cruise and anti-ship missiles in the arsenal. A modern destroyer gets just 1-4 6" pea shooters with range only around 10 miles, but a decent selection of missiles, submarine and air defence that more than makes up for lack of gunnery. Heavy shore bombardment is far cheaper by 16" capital guns than by missile, the last real instance being Desert Storm. In this role a battleship has no peer, it's less accurate than missile whilst flinging an awful lot more weight, but more accurate than heavy bombing. The modern era prefers precision by very expensive munitions. :)
imtringued 7y ago
So would be any other water based vehicle.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  Yes, but a large fleet of smaller ships is much more resilient than a small fleet of large ships. A carrier is a single, massively expensive and important target.
seansmccullough 7y ago
We should be building more submarines instead of aircraft carriers.