4 ms·

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 i

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.
  - greedo 7y ago
    1. If carriers are only good against poor nations, why are most of the worlds navies buying, building and deploying them? China, USA, Britain, France, Japan, S.Korea, Italy, Spain? Just following an outdated fashion? Or perhaps they realize that nothing is more important in modern, high intensity warfare than airpower? 2. SAMs are pretty much useless for the foreseeable future against stealth fighters. Until that's resolved, carriers and airpower will reign supreme. 3. You're vastly overestimating ASBMs, the corresponding targeting systems, and underestimating how the US will handle them.
sailfast 7y ago
Your assumption here is that actual conflict with a modern nation using conventional weaponry is possible, perhaps the majority of conflicts we have and/or the conflict we should prepare for, and will last more than the flight time of Nuclear warheads. I would argue that future conflicts are either proxy conflicts against less equipped forces (see Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, conflicts with limited, focused objectives (Secure a piece of ground that is critical, say the Straits of Hormuz), and existential conflict that results in nuclear war. If it gets to the point that we are in "actual conflict" that is existential (meaning in this case specifically American survival depends on it) with a "modern nation" (I'm assuming you're talking about somebody that has nuclear weapons and a relatively developed nation state - say, China, Russia?) it would be difficult to avoid considering nuclear weapons. As a result, Aircraft Carriers might be the weapon we continue to use most as a practical matter, with our strategic arsenal backstop still in place. Probably doomsaying, but it's difficult to see it shaking out another way. I'm not saying we go straight to warheads, but anything more than testing each side in a way that leads to a negotiation likely escalates quickly.
nradov 7y ago
Which platforms are going to do the targeting and how long does it take for the weapons to arrive? Carriers don't just sit in one spot waiting to get hit.
- ivalm 7y ago
  I mean, lots of nukes with 30 min travel time and 20-30 mile kill radius. Lots of new cruise missiles with mid flight trajectory correction. Dont need to hit a carrier if you can airburst a 1MT nuke 10 miles away to get a kill.
  - nradov 7y ago
    Have you heard of mutual assured destruction?
    - ivalm 7y ago
      I mean, if we're talking about wars where adversaries have capabilities of attacking carriers, then those wars necessarily include nuclear weapons. The best we can hope is that those weapons are not used against too many cities.
- mikece 7y ago
  "Which platforms are going to do the targeting..." These are called "ISR" (intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance) platforms and among the forces afloat these could be the E-2C, SH-60B, "other aircraft," and drones. "How long does it takes for weapons to arrive?" Is mach 3.5 fast enough for you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-174_Standard_ERAM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-174_Standard_ERAM
rumanator 7y ago
> when the carrier is targeted by any number of modern armaments and is quickly relocated to the ocean floor. I assume carriers aren't required to remain operational perpetually. They are instrumental to ensure the attacker has enough air power to support an invasion and once they gain a foothold then air operations are shifted to airfields.

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.
- greedo 7y ago
  1. If carriers are only good against poor nations, why are most of the worlds navies buying, building and deploying them? China, USA, Britain, France, Japan, S.Korea, Italy, Spain? Just following an outdated fashion? Or perhaps they realize that nothing is more important in modern, high intensity warfare than airpower? 2. SAMs are pretty much useless for the foreseeable future against stealth fighters. Until that's resolved, carriers and airpower will reign supreme. 3. You're vastly overestimating ASBMs, the corresponding targeting systems, and underestimating how the US will handle them.

sailfast 7y ago

Your assumption here is that actual conflict with a modern nation using conventional weaponry is possible, perhaps the majority of conflicts we have and/or the conflict we should prepare for, and will last more than the flight time of Nuclear warheads. I would argue that future conflicts are either proxy conflicts against less equipped forces (see Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, conflicts with limited, focused objectives (Secure a piece of ground that is critical, say the Straits of Hormuz), and existential conflict that results in nuclear war. If it gets to the point that we are in "actual conflict" that is existential (meaning in this case specifically American survival depends on it) with a "modern nation" (I'm assuming you're talking about somebody that has nuclear weapons and a relatively developed nation state - say, China, Russia?) it would be difficult to avoid considering nuclear weapons. As a result, Aircraft Carriers might be the weapon we continue to use most as a practical matter, with our strategic arsenal backstop still in place. Probably doomsaying, but it's difficult to see it shaking out another way. I'm not saying we go straight to warheads, but anything more than testing each side in a way that leads to a negotiation likely escalates quickly.

nradov 7y ago

Which platforms are going to do the targeting and how long does it take for the weapons to arrive? Carriers don't just sit in one spot waiting to get hit.

ivalm 7y ago
I mean, lots of nukes with 30 min travel time and 20-30 mile kill radius. Lots of new cruise missiles with mid flight trajectory correction. Dont need to hit a carrier if you can airburst a 1MT nuke 10 miles away to get a kill.
- nradov 7y ago
  Have you heard of mutual assured destruction?
  - ivalm 7y ago
    I mean, if we're talking about wars where adversaries have capabilities of attacking carriers, then those wars necessarily include nuclear weapons. The best we can hope is that those weapons are not used against too many cities.
mikece 7y ago
"Which platforms are going to do the targeting..." These are called "ISR" (intelligence/surveillance/reconnaissance) platforms and among the forces afloat these could be the E-2C, SH-60B, "other aircraft," and drones. "How long does it takes for weapons to arrive?" Is mach 3.5 fast enough for you? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-174_Standard_ERAM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-174_Standard_ERAM

rumanator 7y ago

> when the carrier is targeted by any number of modern armaments and is quickly relocated to the ocean floor. I assume carriers aren't required to remain operational perpetually. They are instrumental to ensure the attacker has enough air power to support an invasion and once they gain a foothold then air operations are shifted to airfields.