5 ms·

I don't know if the Boeing's MQ-25 gets to use any of the guidance/navigation systems of Northrup's X-47B but I recall they had to program in some randomness to

by mikece 7y ago

I don't know if the Boeing's MQ-25 gets to use any of the guidance/navigation systems of Northrup's X-47B but I recall they had to program in some randomness to the plane's landing program because the X-47B was hitting the exact same spot on the deck on every single landing (which was causing concerns about deck maintenance and durability), unlike human pilots which sometimes miss all four wires. Makes me wonder if the form-factor of a carrier can be shrunk since drones can reliably hit much smaller landing spots reliably. Why invest in the massive size and expense of a super carrier when something much smaller can launch and recover fixed wing UAVs to handle ISR? After all, the revolution of aircraft carriers in WW2 was over-the-horizon visual location and attack of enemy shipping; we can do the latter quite easily with guided missiles and UAVs do the former quite nicely.

RankingMember 7y ago
I feel like the age of carriers may be over entirely. They're basically sitting ducks for advanced weaponry and cost a ton of money in manpower and cash to operate. Their role can be supplanted by modern long-range missiles. The only reason to keep them operating in my opinion is for what I call "bravado missions" where we float around contested areas just to show we can.
- rumanator 7y ago
  Carriers are important because they provide the ability to launch and resupply aircraft, which is critical to seize and maintain control of the enemy's airspace. Long-range missiles do nothing to control airspace. They let you hit enemies far away but do nothing to stop enemies from hitting your guys or cut your supply lines.
  - RankingMember 7y ago
    I understand what you're saying, but in an actual conflict with a modern nation I'd argue that the role you describe would be hard to fulfill when the carrier is targeted by any number of modern armaments and is quickly relocated to the ocean floor.
    - jacoblambda 7y ago
      While that is correct, I'd argue that the military value lies more in force projection than actual force itself. Sure it's predicted that if the US were to enter into a proper engagement with either China or Russia that every carrier on the seven seas would be under water within a few hours. Within those few hours however those carrier groups could deal a good bit of damage. That threat of force is an effective tool in maintaining the peace and keeping the world stage from getting too exciting. This tool is even more applicable with regard to organisations or states that lack the capacity to effectively engage the US Navy with even a slim chance of standing their ground.
      - nordsieck 7y ago
        > While that is correct, I'd argue that the military value lies more in force projection than actual force itself. Sure it's predicted that if the US were to enter into a proper engagement with either China or Russia that every carrier on the seven seas would be under water within a few hours. > Within those few hours however those carrier groups could deal a good bit of damage. I just don't buy this argument. 1. As you admit, carriers are really only good against poor nations. But lots of ships are good against poor nations: patrol boats, destroyers, etc. These other ships are _way_ less expensive to build and operate. Ultimately, air power just isn't very useful against most of the US's modern adversaries. Yes - air power can destroy targets, but that just doesn't seem to have much of a long term positive political effect. 2. I'm not convinced that carriers can do much damage in a suicide strike. Non-NATO countries have been very busy over the last few decades creating really good SAMs. The S-400 is a great example of this - much more effective than the patriot. Russia has been pretty aggressive about giving their military systems a chance to be tested in combat zones. I'm sure someone will talk about 5th gen fighters and how great their stealth is. Maybe. But the SAMs are getting much better at penetrating that stealth by using sophisticated integrated anti-air systems, and by using a broad spectrum of radar. They may not be there yet, but in 10-15 years? It's at least an open question. 3. I don't think they'd get even 1 hour. The modern space race has widely dispersed the technology for creating ballistic missiles. There is no effective defense against them.
- jbay808 7y ago
  Maybe drones will let aircraft carriers shrink enough for submarine aircraft carriers to be practical? They won't have to worry as much about missiles...
- sailfast 7y ago
  Floating, remote operating bases that can move to provide persistent support are still pretty important if you want to hold territory. Long-range missiles can hit an objective, but I'm not sure we really have long-loiter-capable assets to just go around in a circle and provide a similar capability to a carrier. Furthermore, I can't imagine the cost of some future-whatever RAMjet craziness that would get closer to carrier-level strike times, but I'm just an armchair strategist. A cost comparison would certainly be interesting!
- alexhutcheson 7y 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
  - nookyular 7y ago
    Gee, that's pretty great, but a serious adversary armed with anti-ship missiles is going to use nuclear tipped warheads. When I say serious, I mean countries with proven nuclear capabilities. Not "limited war" with lesser proxy state dictator adversaries, already bludgeoned by economic sanctions. And, when I say nuclear tipped warheads, I mean as many as it takes to kill the vessel. Any sane military strategist is going to hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit the carrier either until it sinks or until everyone onboard and within ten miles is dead. Even if it takes a solid month of nuclear attacks to starve the crew to death, and melt the deck into slag. There aren't enough Nimitz class aircraft carriers in the world, NOT to use such tactics. EDIT: reading the articles, no mention is made of nuclear tipped anti-ship missiles. Probably because it's the article wouldn't be worth writing, if they openly acknowledged that angle, and thus would not generate ad revenue.
    - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
      If someone attacks with nuclear missiles or torpedoes that's going to be the end of the world, and we are going to attack back with same. I don't think there will be 20 waves. I think there will be massive destruction and then just a few big ships left. But hopefully we'll never find out.
- jonathanhd 7y ago
  I feel that you're really overselling the vulnerability of what is fundamentally a spec on a featureless ocean that can move at 50 km/h in any direction indefinitely. There's a pretty comprehensive summary of anti-carrier strategies in this series https://www.navalgazing.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-1 https://www.navalgazing.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-1
- csours 7y ago
  Big ole 747s in the sky. Bunch of air launched drones.
rumanator 7y ago
> Makes me wonder if the form-factor of a carrier can be shrunk since drones can reliably hit much smaller landing spots reliably. As unmanned aircraft don't need to meet requirements regarding G-force limits on takeoff and landing, I'm sure it would be possible to shrink carriers.
- mikece 7y ago
  Catapult-launch and arrested recovery will still require significant force handling ability whether there's a human meat bag at the controls or not, but not having a human on board allows for a much more efficient aircraft design (though that designed efficiency would lead to variable designs depending on the mission: endurance/ISR, high-speed/high-G attack, or heavy-lift/cargo/tanker, etc).
  - a3n 7y ago
    Catapult launch could probably be much more forceful and frequent without a mounted H1-A Human.
    - toomuchtodo 7y ago
      True, with newer catapult systems linear motor driven instead of steam driven.
    - alexhutcheson 7y ago
      The human tolerance has never really been a limiting factor. As catapult technology and jet technology has gotten better, we've used the additional thrust to launch heavier, more capable aircraft, rather than increasing the initial launch speed.

by mikece 7y ago

RankingMember 7y ago

I feel like the age of carriers may be over entirely. They're basically sitting ducks for advanced weaponry and cost a ton of money in manpower and cash to operate. Their role can be supplanted by modern long-range missiles. The only reason to keep them operating in my opinion is for what I call "bravado missions" where we float around contested areas just to show we can.

rumanator 7y ago
Carriers are important because they provide the ability to launch and resupply aircraft, which is critical to seize and maintain control of the enemy's airspace. Long-range missiles do nothing to control airspace. They let you hit enemies far away but do nothing to stop enemies from hitting your guys or cut your supply lines.
- RankingMember 7y ago
  I understand what you're saying, but in an actual conflict with a modern nation I'd argue that the role you describe would be hard to fulfill when the carrier is targeted by any number of modern armaments and is quickly relocated to the ocean floor.
  - jacoblambda 7y ago
    While that is correct, I'd argue that the military value lies more in force projection than actual force itself. Sure it's predicted that if the US were to enter into a proper engagement with either China or Russia that every carrier on the seven seas would be under water within a few hours. Within those few hours however those carrier groups could deal a good bit of damage. That threat of force is an effective tool in maintaining the peace and keeping the world stage from getting too exciting. This tool is even more applicable with regard to organisations or states that lack the capacity to effectively engage the US Navy with even a slim chance of standing their ground.
    - nordsieck 7y ago
      > While that is correct, I'd argue that the military value lies more in force projection than actual force itself. Sure it's predicted that if the US were to enter into a proper engagement with either China or Russia that every carrier on the seven seas would be under water within a few hours. > Within those few hours however those carrier groups could deal a good bit of damage. I just don't buy this argument. 1. As you admit, carriers are really only good against poor nations. But lots of ships are good against poor nations: patrol boats, destroyers, etc. These other ships are _way_ less expensive to build and operate. Ultimately, air power just isn't very useful against most of the US's modern adversaries. Yes - air power can destroy targets, but that just doesn't seem to have much of a long term positive political effect. 2. I'm not convinced that carriers can do much damage in a suicide strike. Non-NATO countries have been very busy over the last few decades creating really good SAMs. The S-400 is a great example of this - much more effective than the patriot. Russia has been pretty aggressive about giving their military systems a chance to be tested in combat zones. I'm sure someone will talk about 5th gen fighters and how great their stealth is. Maybe. But the SAMs are getting much better at penetrating that stealth by using sophisticated integrated anti-air systems, and by using a broad spectrum of radar. They may not be there yet, but in 10-15 years? It's at least an open question. 3. I don't think they'd get even 1 hour. The modern space race has widely dispersed the technology for creating ballistic missiles. There is no effective defense against them.
jbay808 7y ago
Maybe drones will let aircraft carriers shrink enough for submarine aircraft carriers to be practical? They won't have to worry as much about missiles...
sailfast 7y ago
Floating, remote operating bases that can move to provide persistent support are still pretty important if you want to hold territory. Long-range missiles can hit an objective, but I'm not sure we really have long-loiter-capable assets to just go around in a circle and provide a similar capability to a carrier. Furthermore, I can't imagine the cost of some future-whatever RAMjet craziness that would get closer to carrier-level strike times, but I'm just an armchair strategist. A cost comparison would certainly be interesting!
alexhutcheson 7y 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
- nookyular 7y ago
  Gee, that's pretty great, but a serious adversary armed with anti-ship missiles is going to use nuclear tipped warheads. When I say serious, I mean countries with proven nuclear capabilities. Not "limited war" with lesser proxy state dictator adversaries, already bludgeoned by economic sanctions. And, when I say nuclear tipped warheads, I mean as many as it takes to kill the vessel. Any sane military strategist is going to hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit, and hit the carrier either until it sinks or until everyone onboard and within ten miles is dead. Even if it takes a solid month of nuclear attacks to starve the crew to death, and melt the deck into slag. There aren't enough Nimitz class aircraft carriers in the world, NOT to use such tactics. EDIT: reading the articles, no mention is made of nuclear tipped anti-ship missiles. Probably because it's the article wouldn't be worth writing, if they openly acknowledged that angle, and thus would not generate ad revenue.
  - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
    If someone attacks with nuclear missiles or torpedoes that's going to be the end of the world, and we are going to attack back with same. I don't think there will be 20 waves. I think there will be massive destruction and then just a few big ships left. But hopefully we'll never find out.
jonathanhd 7y ago
I feel that you're really overselling the vulnerability of what is fundamentally a spec on a featureless ocean that can move at 50 km/h in any direction indefinitely. There's a pretty comprehensive summary of anti-carrier strategies in this series https://www.navalgazing.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-1 https://www.navalgazing.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-1
csours 7y ago
Big ole 747s in the sky. Bunch of air launched drones.

rumanator 7y ago

> Makes me wonder if the form-factor of a carrier can be shrunk since drones can reliably hit much smaller landing spots reliably. As unmanned aircraft don't need to meet requirements regarding G-force limits on takeoff and landing, I'm sure it would be possible to shrink carriers.

mikece 7y ago
Catapult-launch and arrested recovery will still require significant force handling ability whether there's a human meat bag at the controls or not, but not having a human on board allows for a much more efficient aircraft design (though that designed efficiency would lead to variable designs depending on the mission: endurance/ISR, high-speed/high-G attack, or heavy-lift/cargo/tanker, etc).
- a3n 7y ago
  Catapult launch could probably be much more forceful and frequent without a mounted H1-A Human.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    True, with newer catapult systems linear motor driven instead of steam driven.
  - alexhutcheson 7y ago
    The human tolerance has never really been a limiting factor. As catapult technology and jet technology has gotten better, we've used the additional thrust to launch heavier, more capable aircraft, rather than increasing the initial launch speed.