8 ms·

During my time in the Navy, there was a paper being passed around the officers concerning removing aircraft carriers from the fleet. Reason being that a single

During my time in the Navy, there was a paper being passed around the officers concerning removing aircraft carriers from the fleet. Reason being that a single shot to the flight deck would render them useless in the aspect of air warfare and defense.

chrisabrams 6y ago
Hard to imagine Top Gun without the carriers... How often would a carrier get shot on the deck? Would the carriers be farther back than other ships?
- alextheparrot 6y ago
  How often was a ship shot from under the waterline before torpedos or in the middle of the deck before dive bombers? If I were taking lessons from history, advances in naval technology have nullified or neutered entire fleets over less. To your actual question, if you look at the Battle of Midway at least the Akagi was fatally struck on the deck — carriers today are significantly more advanced in both technology as well as doctrine than those, though.
  - smogcutter 6y ago
    > at least the Akagi was fatally struck on the deck Along with the Soryu, Hiryu and Kaga! Afaik the “carrier debate” is the argument among navy nerds. I certainly don’t know enough to comment one way or the other. But my take is that if we’re in a real war with someone who can credibly sink a carrier group, a much more important concern is going to be how to restore civilization from the ashes.
    - andrewflnr 6y ago
      Really? Don't you just have to poke some holes in the deck? I mean, getting there is tricky, but you don't need apocalyptic weapons, just ability to dodge missile defense.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - kayodelycaon 6y ago
    None of the carriers in the Battle of Midway had armored flight decks. The Japanese (3 of them) were caught with fuel and bombs being loaded onto planes in the hangar deck on top of already poor damage control. The Yorktown on the other hand, had better construction and excellent damage control.
  - laverya 6y ago
    > in the middle of the deck before dive bombers Commonly enough for people to plan for it before dive bombers became a thing. After the gunnery advancements of the early 20th century, engagement ranges could be long enough for plunging fire. Battleship shells coming down at 40° off vertical aren't that different than an AP bomb. That's not to say that these defences were sufficient. Battleships were designed with an "immunity zone" - a range where incoming fire of the designed caliber (generally the same caliber as the main battery) would be at a high enough angle and low enough velocity to fail to penetrate your belt armor, and shallow enough angle to not defeat the relevant deck armor. 2000lb AP bombs at terminal velocity were very much not within the design specifications. > carriers today are significantly more advanced in both technology as well as doctrine than those, though. For that matter, even other carriers in that same battle show that damage control by a carrier against bomb hits was possible - the Yorktown survived several bomb and aerial torpedo hits before eventually being sunk by a submarine. She was able to make sufficient repairs to launch fighters again after the first set of bomb hits, too. Modern carriers are probably better represented by the Yorktown than the Akagi, but no one will really know for sure until the shooting starts.
    - reducesuffering 6y ago
      > Battleships were designed with an "immunity zone" - a range where incoming fire of the designed caliber (generally the same caliber as the main battery) would be at a high enough angle and low enough velocity to fail to penetrate your belt armor, and shallow enough angle to not defeat the relevant deck armor. Did you accidentally switch belt and deck armor? Isn't deck the one protecting from high angle and low velocity, and belt armor protecting from shallow angles?
      - laverya 6y ago
        I didn't switch it, and you're right - belt armor is most likely to be hit at shallow angles, and deck armor at high angles. That being said, a point-blank shot will still treat belt armor like paper - and a max-range shot will go right through the deck. That's because both the deck armor and belt rely heavily on angling - you get a lot more effectiveness for a given thickness of armor if your opponents are courteous enough to hit it at an angle. Which means that the belt armor is most effective at max range (though also the least likely to be hit) - shells coming in at 45° will bounce right off. And deck armor is best up close - 5° down angle is going to come up against quite a few feet of metal before managing to penetrate the handful of inches of thickness you could fit in a deck. The trick to an immunity zone is to find the balance between the two.
- jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
  The blunt truth is no one knows. The only real naval combat since WW2 was during the Falkland islands conflict. There anti-ship missiles proved to be highly effective. Technology has advanced considerably since then as well. Presumably the major militaries have gamed it out as accurately as possible, but the blunt truth is it's untested thinking.
  - robotnikman 6y ago
    The anti ship missiles deployed there were also used against much smaller ships. If modern carriers have the same quality of damage control as previous ones, they should be able to survive some hits; we can see from WWII how carriers were able to survive hits by kamikaze aircraft carrying a lot more explosives than one of the Exocet missiles used in the Falklands war
Iv 6y ago
The one trillion dollar question (actually possibly even more than that) is the cost of sinking an aircraft carrier in a symmetrical conflict. Aircraft carriers are great if you need to project force into a territory occupied by groups over which you have superiority. Against an enemy with state of the art anti-ship missiles deployed along the coast, modern radar and satellite capabilities, all bets are foo. Some people think in such a conflict, aircraft carriers are overpriced targets that can be disabled or even sunk in the first hours of a conflict for the cost of a few missiles and a few light ships to launch them. IIRC a red team managed to disable most of the US Navy in that fashion in an exercise a few years ago. There are countermeasures deployed, several layers of them, and missiles have counter-counter measures. Only very few are actually deployed and really tested on the field. We know in good conditions, they work, on some missiles. In a real conflict, how many will they stop? 100%? 99%? 50%? 20%? How well can missile decoys fool countermeasures? What hidden tricks have different sides kept in their sleeves in preparation? We will learn it on a very fateful day that could either see the record on tonnage sunk on a single day or a very fast conflict deescalation from the attacking side (assuming US would be the defending one, credible in the case of China)
- dirtyid 6y ago
  I think USN confidence of current abilities is reflected by the fact the Pompeo, as much of aChina hawk he is, no longer sends US carriers through the Taiwan strait. Clinton sent two during the third strait crisis. My understanding is USN is 5+ years out from having credible counters to Chinese AShM right now.
  - Iv 6y ago
    There only so much you can do against ballistic threats.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      With the advent of hypersonic missiles, it's time for the return of flak. A few grams of aluminum do a lot of damage at mach 6.
inawarminister 6y ago
Replaced by drones being launched from cruisers and destroyers? Might as well.
- magicsmoke 6y ago
  A drone that doesn't need a landing pad is a missile.
  - inawarminister 6y ago
    Yeah what's the distinction between a loitering missile and suicide drones anyway? I don't see any difference.
- imtringued 6y ago
  You can't land cargo planes on your cruisers and destroyers. Fighting a war without support from the country you are invading requires a lot of logistics.
spaetzleesser 6y ago
This seems a losing battle in a real war with a capable enemy. The attacker has to be right only once and can try multiple times whereas the defender has to be right every time.
- ALittleLight 6y ago
  The complication is that the defender nukes you when he loses.
- unishark 6y ago
  After the first try the attacker has to defend from multiple attacks too.
  - spaetzleesser 6y ago
    I should have been more specific that my comment was about defending a super expensive asset like an aircraft carrier. I am pretty sure it’s cheaper to destroy an aircraft carrier vs building it. It also takes very long time to replace one. In world war 2 it showed that cheaper mass produced weapons usually were superior to expensive super high tech weapons in the long run.
ashtonkem 6y ago
It's entirely probable that the aircraft carrier will fill the role of the battleship in WW2; after all armies are famous for fighting the prior war. Unfortunately nobody knows what will eventually relegate the aircraft carrier to second tier status.
petre 6y ago
The future of warfare is launching drone swarms from subs and missile destroyers. Carriers are only useful after you have incapacitated the enemy.
hitekker 6y ago
Was the paper you're referring to called "Too big to sink"? https://web.archive.org/web/20200303183928/https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017/may/too-big-sink https://web.archive.org/web/20200303183928/https://www.usni.... Since then, it seems like his warning fell on deaf ears. His most recent article indicates they're still proceeding with building even more aircraft carriers.
- onepointsixC 6y ago
  I would offer a different the opposite view: Any fixed base has little to no chance surviving modern war. As demonstrated by Iran in the Saudi oil field attack, even a country which has been economically isolated for decades can develop accurate cruise missiles which can devastate a known coordinate. At least a carrier can move 50 km/h, meaning that you need a sophisticated kill chain in order to hit it. Where as a fixed coordinate could have been pre-targeted years ago, and just waiting to be destroyed.

chrisabrams 6y ago

Hard to imagine Top Gun without the carriers... How often would a carrier get shot on the deck? Would the carriers be farther back than other ships?

alextheparrot 6y ago
How often was a ship shot from under the waterline before torpedos or in the middle of the deck before dive bombers? If I were taking lessons from history, advances in naval technology have nullified or neutered entire fleets over less. To your actual question, if you look at the Battle of Midway at least the Akagi was fatally struck on the deck — carriers today are significantly more advanced in both technology as well as doctrine than those, though.
- smogcutter 6y ago
  > at least the Akagi was fatally struck on the deck Along with the Soryu, Hiryu and Kaga! Afaik the “carrier debate” is the argument among navy nerds. I certainly don’t know enough to comment one way or the other. But my take is that if we’re in a real war with someone who can credibly sink a carrier group, a much more important concern is going to be how to restore civilization from the ashes.
  - andrewflnr 6y ago
    Really? Don't you just have to poke some holes in the deck? I mean, getting there is tricky, but you don't need apocalyptic weapons, just ability to dodge missile defense.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- kayodelycaon 6y ago
  None of the carriers in the Battle of Midway had armored flight decks. The Japanese (3 of them) were caught with fuel and bombs being loaded onto planes in the hangar deck on top of already poor damage control. The Yorktown on the other hand, had better construction and excellent damage control.
- laverya 6y ago
  > in the middle of the deck before dive bombers Commonly enough for people to plan for it before dive bombers became a thing. After the gunnery advancements of the early 20th century, engagement ranges could be long enough for plunging fire. Battleship shells coming down at 40° off vertical aren't that different than an AP bomb. That's not to say that these defences were sufficient. Battleships were designed with an "immunity zone" - a range where incoming fire of the designed caliber (generally the same caliber as the main battery) would be at a high enough angle and low enough velocity to fail to penetrate your belt armor, and shallow enough angle to not defeat the relevant deck armor. 2000lb AP bombs at terminal velocity were very much not within the design specifications. > carriers today are significantly more advanced in both technology as well as doctrine than those, though. For that matter, even other carriers in that same battle show that damage control by a carrier against bomb hits was possible - the Yorktown survived several bomb and aerial torpedo hits before eventually being sunk by a submarine. She was able to make sufficient repairs to launch fighters again after the first set of bomb hits, too. Modern carriers are probably better represented by the Yorktown than the Akagi, but no one will really know for sure until the shooting starts.
  - reducesuffering 6y ago
    > Battleships were designed with an "immunity zone" - a range where incoming fire of the designed caliber (generally the same caliber as the main battery) would be at a high enough angle and low enough velocity to fail to penetrate your belt armor, and shallow enough angle to not defeat the relevant deck armor. Did you accidentally switch belt and deck armor? Isn't deck the one protecting from high angle and low velocity, and belt armor protecting from shallow angles?
    - laverya 6y ago
      I didn't switch it, and you're right - belt armor is most likely to be hit at shallow angles, and deck armor at high angles. That being said, a point-blank shot will still treat belt armor like paper - and a max-range shot will go right through the deck. That's because both the deck armor and belt rely heavily on angling - you get a lot more effectiveness for a given thickness of armor if your opponents are courteous enough to hit it at an angle. Which means that the belt armor is most effective at max range (though also the least likely to be hit) - shells coming in at 45° will bounce right off. And deck armor is best up close - 5° down angle is going to come up against quite a few feet of metal before managing to penetrate the handful of inches of thickness you could fit in a deck. The trick to an immunity zone is to find the balance between the two.
jasonwatkinspdx 6y ago
The blunt truth is no one knows. The only real naval combat since WW2 was during the Falkland islands conflict. There anti-ship missiles proved to be highly effective. Technology has advanced considerably since then as well. Presumably the major militaries have gamed it out as accurately as possible, but the blunt truth is it's untested thinking.
- robotnikman 6y ago
  The anti ship missiles deployed there were also used against much smaller ships. If modern carriers have the same quality of damage control as previous ones, they should be able to survive some hits; we can see from WWII how carriers were able to survive hits by kamikaze aircraft carrying a lot more explosives than one of the Exocet missiles used in the Falklands war

Iv 6y ago

The one trillion dollar question (actually possibly even more than that) is the cost of sinking an aircraft carrier in a symmetrical conflict. Aircraft carriers are great if you need to project force into a territory occupied by groups over which you have superiority. Against an enemy with state of the art anti-ship missiles deployed along the coast, modern radar and satellite capabilities, all bets are foo. Some people think in such a conflict, aircraft carriers are overpriced targets that can be disabled or even sunk in the first hours of a conflict for the cost of a few missiles and a few light ships to launch them. IIRC a red team managed to disable most of the US Navy in that fashion in an exercise a few years ago. There are countermeasures deployed, several layers of them, and missiles have counter-counter measures. Only very few are actually deployed and really tested on the field. We know in good conditions, they work, on some missiles. In a real conflict, how many will they stop? 100%? 99%? 50%? 20%? How well can missile decoys fool countermeasures? What hidden tricks have different sides kept in their sleeves in preparation? We will learn it on a very fateful day that could either see the record on tonnage sunk on a single day or a very fast conflict deescalation from the attacking side (assuming US would be the defending one, credible in the case of China)

dirtyid 6y ago
I think USN confidence of current abilities is reflected by the fact the Pompeo, as much of aChina hawk he is, no longer sends US carriers through the Taiwan strait. Clinton sent two during the third strait crisis. My understanding is USN is 5+ years out from having credible counters to Chinese AShM right now.
- Iv 6y ago
  There only so much you can do against ballistic threats.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    With the advent of hypersonic missiles, it's time for the return of flak. A few grams of aluminum do a lot of damage at mach 6.

inawarminister 6y ago

Replaced by drones being launched from cruisers and destroyers? Might as well.

magicsmoke 6y ago
A drone that doesn't need a landing pad is a missile.
- inawarminister 6y ago
  Yeah what's the distinction between a loitering missile and suicide drones anyway? I don't see any difference.
imtringued 6y ago
You can't land cargo planes on your cruisers and destroyers. Fighting a war without support from the country you are invading requires a lot of logistics.

spaetzleesser 6y ago

This seems a losing battle in a real war with a capable enemy. The attacker has to be right only once and can try multiple times whereas the defender has to be right every time.

ALittleLight 6y ago
The complication is that the defender nukes you when he loses.
unishark 6y ago
After the first try the attacker has to defend from multiple attacks too.
- spaetzleesser 6y ago
  I should have been more specific that my comment was about defending a super expensive asset like an aircraft carrier. I am pretty sure it’s cheaper to destroy an aircraft carrier vs building it. It also takes very long time to replace one. In world war 2 it showed that cheaper mass produced weapons usually were superior to expensive super high tech weapons in the long run.

ashtonkem 6y ago

It's entirely probable that the aircraft carrier will fill the role of the battleship in WW2; after all armies are famous for fighting the prior war. Unfortunately nobody knows what will eventually relegate the aircraft carrier to second tier status.

petre 6y ago

The future of warfare is launching drone swarms from subs and missile destroyers. Carriers are only useful after you have incapacitated the enemy.

hitekker 6y ago

Was the paper you're referring to called "Too big to sink"? https://web.archive.org/web/20200303183928/https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2017/may/too-big-sink https://web.archive.org/web/20200303183928/https://www.usni.... Since then, it seems like his warning fell on deaf ears. His most recent article indicates they're still proceeding with building even more aircraft carriers.

onepointsixC 6y ago
I would offer a different the opposite view: Any fixed base has little to no chance surviving modern war. As demonstrated by Iran in the Saudi oil field attack, even a country which has been economically isolated for decades can develop accurate cruise missiles which can devastate a known coordinate. At least a carrier can move 50 km/h, meaning that you need a sophisticated kill chain in order to hit it. Where as a fixed coordinate could have been pre-targeted years ago, and just waiting to be destroyed.