7 ms·

The one trillion dollar question (actually possibly even more than that) is the cost of sinking an aircraft carrier in a symmetrical conflict. Aircraft carrier

by 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.
    - evilos 6y ago
      You'd have to hit the incoming pretty far out, or you're just gonna get hit by hypersonic buckshot.
  - xster 6y ago
    Apparently it can even change course mid-flight. So it's even less likely the type of thing this countermeasure's meant to respond to. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25904/china-wants-u-s-to-know-its-ships-in-s-china-sea-can-be-targeted-by-long-range-ballistic-missiles https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25904/china-wants-u-s-...
  - baybal2 6y ago
    They do not need a ballistic threat. Very regular modern antiship missiles have very good chance overwhelming the carrier formation defences.
- oh_sigh 6y ago
  I don't think Pompeo's reasoning for not doing that is because he thinks China is going to start a hot war with the US by taking down two of its many aircraft carriers. A true war hawk would be salivating at the thought of China stupidly killing a few thousand Americans.
- discordance 6y ago
  Doesn't help that they seem to collide into one another
decafninja 6y ago
I have no military background, but from an armchair general (admiral?)'s perspective, it really sounds like the US investing too much further into aircraft carriers is a dumb plan for a peer conflict. The Russian strategy of arming every little corvette with a shitload of powerful missiles seems like a smarter idea for the 21st century. Like you said - maybe anti-missile countermeasures can deter a missile. Or two. Or a dozen. But what if you have flotilla of cheap corvettes and frigates slinging swarms of hypersonic missiles at your valuable CBG?
- fuoqi 6y ago
  Hopefully the idea is that any serious military clash with China or Russia will inevitably lead to a massive nuclear exchange ("hopefully" because it significantly reduces probability of such clash). In such war carriers will be effectively useless and the biggest role will be played by strategic nuclear weapons. Meanwhile carriers are useful for projecting force, protecting trade routes and fighting with weaker enemies, i.e. for all other scenarios except a full-blown nuclear war.
  - decafninja 6y ago
    It doesn't necessarily have to be with a peer state like China or Russia though. It's not hard to imagine an otherwise weaker state (say, Iran, or North Korea) also being able to utilize a similar strategy at some point in the future. The Kalibr and Oniks missiles are already available for sale if I'm not mistaken, and there is intention to sell the hypersonic Zirkon too.
    - fuoqi 6y ago
      Carriers don't act in vacuum. In both cases the US has enough ground bases and allies around those countries to suppress anti-ship capabilities first and then move carriers in. Of course in a surprise attack a carrier could be sunk using those weapons (esp. in the Gulf), but it's a one time opportunity only.
  - onepointsixC 6y ago
nazgulnarsil 6y ago
I would assume that the actual state of the art in missile defense would be kept under wraps in terms of capability testing, but the US military is such a leaky boat that who knows.
ixacto 6y ago
We already saw the US navy get dominated by unconventional warfare in the Millennium Challenge "After the war game was restarted, its participants were forced to follow a script drafted to ensure a Blue Force victory. Among other rules imposed by this script, Red Force was ordered to turn on their anti-aircraft radar in order for them to be destroyed, and was not allowed to shoot down any of the aircraft bringing Blue Force troops ashore." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 So yeah lots of the big ships might not be that useful in a present-day conflict if they can get destroyed by suicide-attack boats. Of course that puts the whole need for the amount of military funding/pork into question and that makes the military-industrial-congressional complex very nervous.
- dx87 6y ago
  I honestly wouldn't put too much stock in that wikipedia article. Military training exercises are more like sparring matches, not a free-for-all with no rules. The constraints section also says that the ships were closer to shore than they would normally have been in order to not interfere with civilian ships that weren't part of the exercise.
  - DenverCode 6y ago
    Interesting, all of the training exercises I took part in were scripted and essentially just "training" without any real counters.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- no-dr-onboard 6y ago
  Prior Air Force here (not Navy). A couple of things to remember when thinking about the 2k2 challenge: - It was 18 years ago. Deployments, new technologies, RCA's and congressional studies have impacted the current military force in substantial ways. A lot has happened since then. - US FoF exercises are largely augmented during runtime to simulate "unforseen" battlefield conditions. The purpose of these rules/scripts/interjections is to artificially insert some degree of randomness into the scenario that demonstrates the individual/leadership's ability to react. - A large component of US FoF exercises, plans, and results and analysis are classified. Though admirable, the Wikipedia article pulls its sources from secondary sources at best.
treeman79 6y ago
Ukraine showed the need for having serous conventional arms. Nukes are so taboo, that so long as you don’t push too hard, you can get away with a lot. I do think that drone carriers will be the future. A single command fighter alongside dozens of drones that do most of the fighting.

by Iv 6y ago

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.
  - evilos 6y ago
    You'd have to hit the incoming pretty far out, or you're just gonna get hit by hypersonic buckshot.
- xster 6y ago
  Apparently it can even change course mid-flight. So it's even less likely the type of thing this countermeasure's meant to respond to. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25904/china-wants-u-s-to-know-its-ships-in-s-china-sea-can-be-targeted-by-long-range-ballistic-missiles https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25904/china-wants-u-s-...
- baybal2 6y ago
  They do not need a ballistic threat. Very regular modern antiship missiles have very good chance overwhelming the carrier formation defences.
oh_sigh 6y ago
I don't think Pompeo's reasoning for not doing that is because he thinks China is going to start a hot war with the US by taking down two of its many aircraft carriers. A true war hawk would be salivating at the thought of China stupidly killing a few thousand Americans.
discordance 6y ago
Doesn't help that they seem to collide into one another

decafninja 6y ago

I have no military background, but from an armchair general (admiral?)'s perspective, it really sounds like the US investing too much further into aircraft carriers is a dumb plan for a peer conflict. The Russian strategy of arming every little corvette with a shitload of powerful missiles seems like a smarter idea for the 21st century. Like you said - maybe anti-missile countermeasures can deter a missile. Or two. Or a dozen. But what if you have flotilla of cheap corvettes and frigates slinging swarms of hypersonic missiles at your valuable CBG?

fuoqi 6y ago
Hopefully the idea is that any serious military clash with China or Russia will inevitably lead to a massive nuclear exchange ("hopefully" because it significantly reduces probability of such clash). In such war carriers will be effectively useless and the biggest role will be played by strategic nuclear weapons. Meanwhile carriers are useful for projecting force, protecting trade routes and fighting with weaker enemies, i.e. for all other scenarios except a full-blown nuclear war.
- decafninja 6y ago
  It doesn't necessarily have to be with a peer state like China or Russia though. It's not hard to imagine an otherwise weaker state (say, Iran, or North Korea) also being able to utilize a similar strategy at some point in the future. The Kalibr and Oniks missiles are already available for sale if I'm not mistaken, and there is intention to sell the hypersonic Zirkon too.
  - fuoqi 6y ago
    Carriers don't act in vacuum. In both cases the US has enough ground bases and allies around those countries to suppress anti-ship capabilities first and then move carriers in. Of course in a surprise attack a carrier could be sunk using those weapons (esp. in the Gulf), but it's a one time opportunity only.
- onepointsixC 6y ago

nazgulnarsil 6y ago

I would assume that the actual state of the art in missile defense would be kept under wraps in terms of capability testing, but the US military is such a leaky boat that who knows.

ixacto 6y ago

We already saw the US navy get dominated by unconventional warfare in the Millennium Challenge "After the war game was restarted, its participants were forced to follow a script drafted to ensure a Blue Force victory. Among other rules imposed by this script, Red Force was ordered to turn on their anti-aircraft radar in order for them to be destroyed, and was not allowed to shoot down any of the aircraft bringing Blue Force troops ashore." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 So yeah lots of the big ships might not be that useful in a present-day conflict if they can get destroyed by suicide-attack boats. Of course that puts the whole need for the amount of military funding/pork into question and that makes the military-industrial-congressional complex very nervous.

dx87 6y ago
I honestly wouldn't put too much stock in that wikipedia article. Military training exercises are more like sparring matches, not a free-for-all with no rules. The constraints section also says that the ships were closer to shore than they would normally have been in order to not interfere with civilian ships that weren't part of the exercise.
- DenverCode 6y ago
  Interesting, all of the training exercises I took part in were scripted and essentially just "training" without any real counters.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
no-dr-onboard 6y ago
Prior Air Force here (not Navy). A couple of things to remember when thinking about the 2k2 challenge: - It was 18 years ago. Deployments, new technologies, RCA's and congressional studies have impacted the current military force in substantial ways. A lot has happened since then. - US FoF exercises are largely augmented during runtime to simulate "unforseen" battlefield conditions. The purpose of these rules/scripts/interjections is to artificially insert some degree of randomness into the scenario that demonstrates the individual/leadership's ability to react. - A large component of US FoF exercises, plans, and results and analysis are classified. Though admirable, the Wikipedia article pulls its sources from secondary sources at best.

treeman79 6y ago

Ukraine showed the need for having serous conventional arms. Nukes are so taboo, that so long as you don’t push too hard, you can get away with a lot. I do think that drone carriers will be the future. A single command fighter alongside dozens of drones that do most of the fighting.