5 ms·

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 carr

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
  No. That logic only holds if one or more of the parties are willing to escalate a conventional conflict to a nuclear one. Russia for example, would be willing to escalate a conventional war to a nuclear one in the event of an imminent ground invasion of Moscow. But the most likely wars are not ones of nuclear powers marching onto another's capital, but instead wars over bordering countries. Neither Russia nor the US would escalate an invasion of the Baltic's, Neither China nor the US would escalate an invasion of Taiwan. Both of these hypothetical wars are potential conflicts because a victory for Russia and China in those conflicts would be extremely advantageous and desirable to the point that even a very low risk of nuclear esculation would be worth it to them.
  - fuoqi 6y ago
    >Neither Russia nor the US would escalate an invasion of the Baltic's, Neither China nor the US would escalate an invasion of Taiwan. I highly doubt it. Baltic states are part of NATO, assuming Russia blitzkriegs them (it's a really HUGE assumption since they have relatively little geopolitical or economical value for Russia, the Suwalki corridor would be nice to have, but not considering the associated risks), leaving occupation unanswered will mean that US leadership position in the world (together with NATO) will be effectively dead. So further escalation will be practically imminent. I think China's invasion of Taiwan will not be left unanswered as well, in addition to the huge reputation hit similar to the scenario with Baltic states, Taiwan has a big geopolitical (cornerstone of the first island chain) and economical value (not only TSMC) for the US. Further escalation is highly probable as well. A contained clash could've happened in the South China sea, but since China got entrenched there, the US Navy got quite careful to not overstep itself in this region. And this balance will continue to tilt only further to China's favor. A limited conflict could in theory happen with a limited invasion of Russia, since its current nuclear doctrine is quite defensive (esp. compared to the US'), but the "threatens the existence of the state" condition is a bit vague, so assuming that Russia will use all its available military to defend itself, it will either drive invading forces out using conventional means (which would include counter-attacks on "decision centers"), or in the end will use nuclear weapons.
    - 6y ago
Raidion 6y ago
An attack on a carrier group is one of the conditions for the use of nuclear missiles. If you hit a carrier group (and especially if you hit a carrier group and win), you're gambling with mutually assured destruction.
- La1n 6y ago
  But can't you then also say, an attack with a carrier group is gambling with mutually assured destruction?
- chasd00 6y ago
  I've always thought that too, people like to point out some adversary has a state of the art anti-ship missile. Let's say a US carrier is sunk, then what? It's as if that would be the end of the ordeal and there would be no response.
ende 6y ago
Not necessarily - carriers are a peace-time fleet.. their value is in force projection and unparalleled logistics. When it comes to a shooting war though, the US Navy has an entirely separate war-time sub fleet. The carrier fleets would back off to a safe distance and provide logistic support until the subs and bombers decapitated enemy weapon and radar systems, and air superiority could be established. Then the carriers could move in to provide close air support missions and targeted air strikes.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  That's not a good mission profile at all when a stealth bomber, range 10 000km, takes off with a hypersonic anti-ship cruise missile with a range of 2000km, and sinks your carrier before it can even be of any logistic use. The US Military is ultimately reliant on naval domination for its logistics, and it's naval domination requires carriers and large surface vessels as submarines can't do area denial. If the US military loses that ability, it can't secure its supply chain, and it will be crippled. The unopposed aircraft carrier caused an anomaly where the US was able to have supply chains of infinite sizes without any issues. If the current threat materializes, then the US Military Doctrine for force projection crumbles.
  - varjag 6y ago
    > That's not a good mission profile at all when a stealth bomber, range 10 000km, takes off with a hypersonic anti-ship cruise missile with a range of 2000km, and sinks your carrier before it can even be of any logistic use. So far it's maybe remotely plausible in the second American Civil War, because no foreign enemy yet posses this capacity. No stealth bombers, and no hypersonic cruise missiles. Otherwise yes a lot of hypothetical tech that can disable carrier fleet. Photon torpedoes, Yuri's mind control, genetically modified Krakens..
    - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
      China and Russia have hypersonic missiles which can evade US targeting, and India is catching up fast. Russia and China are also developing stealth bombers. Bottom line is that carrier groups are already sitting targets and unlikely to last long in a superpower conflict.
onepointsixC 6y ago
And yet the PLAN have been building carriers of their very own as they build up a navy which would be capable of challenging the USN.
- magicsmoke 6y ago
  Even South Korea is building their own aircraft carrier even though they have no foreseeable overseas conflicts. That's because despite all the talk about anti carrier missiles, a carrier's combat effectiveness still harder to degrade than land based airstrips because they can dodge. An airstrip covered in bomblets and mines is useless even if its aircraft hangers are intact. South Korea is investing in carriers because in a combat scenario with North Korea once the air force has sortied they still need a place to land and resupply. Even if all the airstrips in South Korea are cratered at least there's a carrier out at sea you can resupply at instead of ditching them after one sortie. All this revolves around the fact that launching and relaunching aircraft takes a lot of real estate, whether on land or on a floating metal island. Until there's a replacement everything that combat aircraft can do, maybe autonomous missile swarms that you can fire at a region and forget because they're intelligent enough to pick targets without someone in a plane handing them targeting info, then carriers will continue to be necessary. Also, radar and wireless equipment powerful and sophisticated enough to detect and flag targets while bombarded with ECM is much more expensive than the missiles and we currently can't make enough of them to send on one way missions.
  - decafninja 6y ago
    Almost every aircraft used in countries' air forces are not carrier compatible. And while the US Navy is effectively like...the third? largest "air force" in the world, the very few other countries that even have fixed wing carrier naval aviation assets to begin with would be lucky to have a few dozen fighters at most. I see most carrier projects as a prestige item at this point. They aren't completely useless (yet), but I don't think their return on value during an active shooting war against a peer state is worth it. If South Korea was serious about using their proposed carriers in the manner you mention, they'd be replacing their remaining F-35A order with F-35Bs. China is also in a position where it can use carriers like how the US uses them - as a big stick to punish third world countries that can't fight back. Most other countries aren't in that position.
openasocket 6y ago
Also not a military expert, but thought I'd chime in. It's complicated, and depends a lot on your objectives. If you just want to defend the waters in your region, using a bunch of smaller surface combatants backed up by land-based aircraft can seem like a more attractive option. Especially when you consider the extreme difficulty and expense in developing advanced aircraft carriers. But here's some things to keep in mind. The biggest is that this is a game of reconnaissance. Ever since the advent of large fleet carriers in WW2 navies have had access to extreme firepower capable of striking at extremely long ranges. So it becomes a race to find the enemy before they can find you. Aircraft have the clear advantage here. They are faster, cheaper, can cover more ground, and with a powerful surface search radar can detect a ship from outside the range of SAM batteries. So you need aircraft to search for enemy ships, and you need to destroy your opponents reconnaissance aircraft before they can find your ships. Again, this is a job that aircraft can do very well. Carrier-based fighters can intercept aircraft at ranges exceeding that of even the most advanced surface combatants, and that means you don't have to expose your destroyers or frigates by turning on their radar. Don't get me wrong, carriers absolutely have their downsides. They are very expensive, and if they are hit it will take them out of action (but not necessarily sink them, carriers can take a lot more punishment than you would think). A proper airbase on the other hand is cheaper, and can be repaired fairly easily and quickly if struck. It's also a much easier target since its location is known in advance and it isn't mobile. A good balance would be a series of small ad-hoc bases distributed around, like the Swedish Bas90 system or the USMC expeditionary advanced base concept, though both have their drawbacks. In short, I don't think there's a decent replacement for the carrier if you need to carry out offensive operations. And I'd note that China, while developing some very advanced long-range anti-ship missiles, is also working very hard to develop their own carrier fleet, so the PLAN doesn't seem to think the idea is outdated yet. Some interesting reads on the ideas of the future of carrier warfare: https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CVW_Report_Web_1.pdf https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CVW_Report_Web_1.pd... and https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2000/RR2006/RAND_RR2006.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/...

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
No. That logic only holds if one or more of the parties are willing to escalate a conventional conflict to a nuclear one. Russia for example, would be willing to escalate a conventional war to a nuclear one in the event of an imminent ground invasion of Moscow. But the most likely wars are not ones of nuclear powers marching onto another's capital, but instead wars over bordering countries. Neither Russia nor the US would escalate an invasion of the Baltic's, Neither China nor the US would escalate an invasion of Taiwan. Both of these hypothetical wars are potential conflicts because a victory for Russia and China in those conflicts would be extremely advantageous and desirable to the point that even a very low risk of nuclear esculation would be worth it to them.
- fuoqi 6y ago
  >Neither Russia nor the US would escalate an invasion of the Baltic's, Neither China nor the US would escalate an invasion of Taiwan. I highly doubt it. Baltic states are part of NATO, assuming Russia blitzkriegs them (it's a really HUGE assumption since they have relatively little geopolitical or economical value for Russia, the Suwalki corridor would be nice to have, but not considering the associated risks), leaving occupation unanswered will mean that US leadership position in the world (together with NATO) will be effectively dead. So further escalation will be practically imminent. I think China's invasion of Taiwan will not be left unanswered as well, in addition to the huge reputation hit similar to the scenario with Baltic states, Taiwan has a big geopolitical (cornerstone of the first island chain) and economical value (not only TSMC) for the US. Further escalation is highly probable as well. A contained clash could've happened in the South China sea, but since China got entrenched there, the US Navy got quite careful to not overstep itself in this region. And this balance will continue to tilt only further to China's favor. A limited conflict could in theory happen with a limited invasion of Russia, since its current nuclear doctrine is quite defensive (esp. compared to the US'), but the "threatens the existence of the state" condition is a bit vague, so assuming that Russia will use all its available military to defend itself, it will either drive invading forces out using conventional means (which would include counter-attacks on "decision centers"), or in the end will use nuclear weapons.
  - 6y ago

Raidion 6y ago

An attack on a carrier group is one of the conditions for the use of nuclear missiles. If you hit a carrier group (and especially if you hit a carrier group and win), you're gambling with mutually assured destruction.

La1n 6y ago
But can't you then also say, an attack with a carrier group is gambling with mutually assured destruction?
chasd00 6y ago
I've always thought that too, people like to point out some adversary has a state of the art anti-ship missile. Let's say a US carrier is sunk, then what? It's as if that would be the end of the ordeal and there would be no response.

ende 6y ago

Not necessarily - carriers are a peace-time fleet.. their value is in force projection and unparalleled logistics. When it comes to a shooting war though, the US Navy has an entirely separate war-time sub fleet. The carrier fleets would back off to a safe distance and provide logistic support until the subs and bombers decapitated enemy weapon and radar systems, and air superiority could be established. Then the carriers could move in to provide close air support missions and targeted air strikes.

sudosysgen 6y ago
That's not a good mission profile at all when a stealth bomber, range 10 000km, takes off with a hypersonic anti-ship cruise missile with a range of 2000km, and sinks your carrier before it can even be of any logistic use. The US Military is ultimately reliant on naval domination for its logistics, and it's naval domination requires carriers and large surface vessels as submarines can't do area denial. If the US military loses that ability, it can't secure its supply chain, and it will be crippled. The unopposed aircraft carrier caused an anomaly where the US was able to have supply chains of infinite sizes without any issues. If the current threat materializes, then the US Military Doctrine for force projection crumbles.
- varjag 6y ago
  > That's not a good mission profile at all when a stealth bomber, range 10 000km, takes off with a hypersonic anti-ship cruise missile with a range of 2000km, and sinks your carrier before it can even be of any logistic use. So far it's maybe remotely plausible in the second American Civil War, because no foreign enemy yet posses this capacity. No stealth bombers, and no hypersonic cruise missiles. Otherwise yes a lot of hypothetical tech that can disable carrier fleet. Photon torpedoes, Yuri's mind control, genetically modified Krakens..
  - TheOtherHobbes 6y ago
    China and Russia have hypersonic missiles which can evade US targeting, and India is catching up fast. Russia and China are also developing stealth bombers. Bottom line is that carrier groups are already sitting targets and unlikely to last long in a superpower conflict.

onepointsixC 6y ago

And yet the PLAN have been building carriers of their very own as they build up a navy which would be capable of challenging the USN.

magicsmoke 6y ago
Even South Korea is building their own aircraft carrier even though they have no foreseeable overseas conflicts. That's because despite all the talk about anti carrier missiles, a carrier's combat effectiveness still harder to degrade than land based airstrips because they can dodge. An airstrip covered in bomblets and mines is useless even if its aircraft hangers are intact. South Korea is investing in carriers because in a combat scenario with North Korea once the air force has sortied they still need a place to land and resupply. Even if all the airstrips in South Korea are cratered at least there's a carrier out at sea you can resupply at instead of ditching them after one sortie. All this revolves around the fact that launching and relaunching aircraft takes a lot of real estate, whether on land or on a floating metal island. Until there's a replacement everything that combat aircraft can do, maybe autonomous missile swarms that you can fire at a region and forget because they're intelligent enough to pick targets without someone in a plane handing them targeting info, then carriers will continue to be necessary. Also, radar and wireless equipment powerful and sophisticated enough to detect and flag targets while bombarded with ECM is much more expensive than the missiles and we currently can't make enough of them to send on one way missions.
- decafninja 6y ago
  Almost every aircraft used in countries' air forces are not carrier compatible. And while the US Navy is effectively like...the third? largest "air force" in the world, the very few other countries that even have fixed wing carrier naval aviation assets to begin with would be lucky to have a few dozen fighters at most. I see most carrier projects as a prestige item at this point. They aren't completely useless (yet), but I don't think their return on value during an active shooting war against a peer state is worth it. If South Korea was serious about using their proposed carriers in the manner you mention, they'd be replacing their remaining F-35A order with F-35Bs. China is also in a position where it can use carriers like how the US uses them - as a big stick to punish third world countries that can't fight back. Most other countries aren't in that position.

openasocket 6y ago

Also not a military expert, but thought I'd chime in. It's complicated, and depends a lot on your objectives. If you just want to defend the waters in your region, using a bunch of smaller surface combatants backed up by land-based aircraft can seem like a more attractive option. Especially when you consider the extreme difficulty and expense in developing advanced aircraft carriers. But here's some things to keep in mind. The biggest is that this is a game of reconnaissance. Ever since the advent of large fleet carriers in WW2 navies have had access to extreme firepower capable of striking at extremely long ranges. So it becomes a race to find the enemy before they can find you. Aircraft have the clear advantage here. They are faster, cheaper, can cover more ground, and with a powerful surface search radar can detect a ship from outside the range of SAM batteries. So you need aircraft to search for enemy ships, and you need to destroy your opponents reconnaissance aircraft before they can find your ships. Again, this is a job that aircraft can do very well. Carrier-based fighters can intercept aircraft at ranges exceeding that of even the most advanced surface combatants, and that means you don't have to expose your destroyers or frigates by turning on their radar. Don't get me wrong, carriers absolutely have their downsides. They are very expensive, and if they are hit it will take them out of action (but not necessarily sink them, carriers can take a lot more punishment than you would think). A proper airbase on the other hand is cheaper, and can be repaired fairly easily and quickly if struck. It's also a much easier target since its location is known in advance and it isn't mobile. A good balance would be a series of small ad-hoc bases distributed around, like the Swedish Bas90 system or the USMC expeditionary advanced base concept, though both have their drawbacks. In short, I don't think there's a decent replacement for the carrier if you need to carry out offensive operations. And I'd note that China, while developing some very advanced long-range anti-ship missiles, is also working very hard to develop their own carrier fleet, so the PLAN doesn't seem to think the idea is outdated yet. Some interesting reads on the ideas of the future of carrier warfare: https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CVW_Report_Web_1.pdf https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/CVW_Report_Web_1.pd... and https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2000/RR2006/RAND_RR2006.pdf https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/...