4 ms·

I'm not trying to tout battleships. I'm just pointing out the insanity of investing heavily in carriers in this day and age. In a war against a real opponent, t

I'm not trying to tout battleships. I'm just pointing out the insanity of investing heavily in carriers in this day and age. In a war against a real opponent, they're $20 billion target practice. I don't think the decision to continue developing and building them is based primarily on their effectiveness.

imtringued 7y ago
It is based on their effectiveness as a resupply station which you are completely ignoring.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
They still have their place as there's little substitute for 50 aircraft brought to theatre. With increasing missile and sub effectiveness they may need to be kept back until the latter stages of a war, or used judiciously with an equivalent opponent. But that's been a discussion around capital ships that's come and gone ever since HMS Dreadnought brought in the very idea of a capital ship, and continued through WW2.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> In a war against a real opponent, ...defined in a way in which all the opponents we've fought real wars against in the last 7 decades are not “real opponents”... The strategic nuclear triad tends to ensure that the opponents you consider “real opponents” are not our real opponents in the real wars that happen in the real world.
- animal531 7y ago
  He's rather saying that in the asymmetric wars of the last decades the carrier did its job, and will continue to do so. However facing a symmetric opponent, whether its likely to happen or not, means that carriers aren't as useful, at least until you've ensured that you have accounted for all their subs as well as high speed missiles and rockets.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    Facing a symmetric opponent that isn't holding back (e.g., to maintain deniability about their actual involvement), the US’s entire conventional arsenal is irrelevant (and, heck,even the tactical nuclear arsenal is mostly irrelevant.) Of course, the same is true of the symmetric opponent, that is the way symmetry works. I'm rejecting the idea that, for analysis of the utility of US military forces outside of the strategic triad, “real opponents” = “symmetric opponents”, and even casting doubt on the idea that, in the same context, “real opponents” ⊆ “symmetric opponents”.
- DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
  The US hasn't fought any "real opponent" with anything approaching economic parity since WWII. As long as the US is beating up on countries like Iraq, Panama and Libya, its carriers are safe, as are its aircraft, etc. Even against these weak opponents, however, it's still a big question as to why the US needs 10+ carrier fleets. Again, I strongly suspect the answer comes down to bureaucratic inertia and capture of the government by industry lobbies.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Even against these weak opponents, however, it's still a big question as to why the US needs 10+ carrier fleets. Because the Earth is big and ships are slow (and sometimes out of service), and also because deterrence can be necessary in a lot of places in close temporal proximity. (Whether this is the optimal use of resources considering non-military needs is another question, but there is a real purpose to the size of the fleet.)

imtringued 7y ago

It is based on their effectiveness as a resupply station which you are completely ignoring.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

They still have their place as there's little substitute for 50 aircraft brought to theatre. With increasing missile and sub effectiveness they may need to be kept back until the latter stages of a war, or used judiciously with an equivalent opponent. But that's been a discussion around capital ships that's come and gone ever since HMS Dreadnought brought in the very idea of a capital ship, and continued through WW2.

dragonwriter 7y ago

> In a war against a real opponent, ...defined in a way in which all the opponents we've fought real wars against in the last 7 decades are not “real opponents”... The strategic nuclear triad tends to ensure that the opponents you consider “real opponents” are not our real opponents in the real wars that happen in the real world.

animal531 7y ago
He's rather saying that in the asymmetric wars of the last decades the carrier did its job, and will continue to do so. However facing a symmetric opponent, whether its likely to happen or not, means that carriers aren't as useful, at least until you've ensured that you have accounted for all their subs as well as high speed missiles and rockets.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  Facing a symmetric opponent that isn't holding back (e.g., to maintain deniability about their actual involvement), the US’s entire conventional arsenal is irrelevant (and, heck,even the tactical nuclear arsenal is mostly irrelevant.) Of course, the same is true of the symmetric opponent, that is the way symmetry works. I'm rejecting the idea that, for analysis of the utility of US military forces outside of the strategic triad, “real opponents” = “symmetric opponents”, and even casting doubt on the idea that, in the same context, “real opponents” ⊆ “symmetric opponents”.
DiogenesKynikos 7y ago
The US hasn't fought any "real opponent" with anything approaching economic parity since WWII. As long as the US is beating up on countries like Iraq, Panama and Libya, its carriers are safe, as are its aircraft, etc. Even against these weak opponents, however, it's still a big question as to why the US needs 10+ carrier fleets. Again, I strongly suspect the answer comes down to bureaucratic inertia and capture of the government by industry lobbies.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Even against these weak opponents, however, it's still a big question as to why the US needs 10+ carrier fleets. Because the Earth is big and ships are slow (and sometimes out of service), and also because deterrence can be necessary in a lot of places in close temporal proximity. (Whether this is the optimal use of resources considering non-military needs is another question, but there is a real purpose to the size of the fleet.)