6 ms·

Your hunch is correct. There is a quote from a british naval officer that roughly says that -if they were right [on aircraft carriers being the next best thing

by snakke 5y ago

Your hunch is correct. There is a quote from a british naval officer that roughly says that -if they were right [on aircraft carriers being the next best thing and battleships being obsolete] they'd win the war. If they were wrong, they'd lose the empire.- The exact quote escapes my google-fu sadly. I'm quite postive I've seen it in either one of Indy Neidell and his team's WW2 week-by-week episode[0] or one of the many excellent Drachinifel's videos about all things naval history[1]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCP1AejCL4DA7jYkZAELRhHQ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCP1AejCL4DA7jYkZAELRhHQ [1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4mftUX7apmV1vsVXZh7RTw https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4mftUX7apmV1vsVXZh7RTw

willhslade 5y ago
Just to play devils advocate isn't this happening right now with the US army's dependence on aircraft carriers vs the Chinese and Russian supersonic missiles?
- JackFr 5y ago
  The vulnerability of aircraft carriers to cheaper weapons notwithstanding, there is currently no other platform which does what a carrier group does. So they’re very expensive and much more vulnerable than they were 30 years ago — what else is available to project power 10000 miles from the US in a robust and flexible way? When that thing exists I think we’ll adapt to it quickly.
  - magicsmoke 5y ago
    The other uncomfortable possibility is that there will be no safe way to project force overseas in the face of overwhelming land based systems, and that the US will be limited to projecting force around where it has terrestrial assets and away from rival powers.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      Kind of - but that would just eliminate everyone from projecting power except the United States, who has basis in places like Guam, Germany, Japan, etc.
      - jabl 5y ago
        Well yes, but then again no surface navy comes even close to the USN in terms of power projection capability, so it wouldn't upset the status quo in any way. But absent a major war proving the point (or not, as it may), that's sort of how the "end of the carrier" could play out peacefully over a longer time: Improved tracking of opponent carriers (be it through satellites, drones or whatever) and improved land-based weapons forces carriers to stand away further and further, necessitating longer ranged strike aircraft. Such aircraft need to be bigger to accommodate the required fuel load, requiring either bigger and more expensive carriers, or fewer planes carried and thus reduced strike capability. Rinse and repeat a few iterations, and at some point you start thinking "what's the point of a mobile carrier since the opponent keeps track of its location 24/7, and my strike aircraft have enough range to launch from land bases anyway?"
        ericmay 5y ago
        Yes, but that's my point. You get rid of the carriers and then the U.S. is still the only country projecting power due to air bases and a sophisticated global logistics system. But either way, even if you know where the CSG is, it can defend itself and the land-based weapons have limited range. So if you're China, the U.S. Navy can go harass your shipping lanes, and protect their own supply lines going to strategic locations.
- ericmay 5y ago
  Well it would be the U.S. Navy, but not quite. First, how do you even locate the carrier groups? Let’s say you do get lucky and find them. Ok. Now let’s say you launch missiles - ok the carrier group can move and also shoot down missiles. Oh and once you do launch those missiles you’ve committed to a big time war, and you’re open to counter-attack by American forces - not just the carriers but also land-based strike forces. It’s not like the United States is sitting around saying well jeez I guess China built these missiles and we can’t do anything.
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Locating carriers to day? Easy, satellites and radar. Tag the group leaving port, track it 24/7. Or sonar. The days a surface fleet can hide are gone.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      Ok let’s say you have a satellite and you somehow find US ships. Then what? And how far is the radar range? Can you truly detect ship signatures with radar without the CSG being out of your range? Maybe a war started and the USAF bombed the Chinese radar stations? Idk. Anyway, let’s say you launch missiles. Ok? Ships move. Ship missile defense shoots down some missiles, etc. Now what do you do? Idk why people think that the U.S. Navy hasn’t considered these things. As if China is going to just build some missiles and launch them and that’s that. Whenever you think things are that easy, you should wonder if you have a grasp on the scenario.
      - RugnirViking 5y ago
        > And how far is the radar range? Can you truly detect ship signatures with radar without the CSG being out of your range? yes. > Anyway, let’s say you launch missiles. Ok? Ships move. Ship missile defense shoots down some missiles, etc. ships move means nothing at all, the missiles are tracking the ships with radar. missile defence shoots down some missiles yes, but usually the idea with these types of attacks is overwhealimg air defence systems with volume of fire, so you fire on the order of 30 missiles at once, and use a probabalistic attack to ensure one or two make it through Overall, you seem to be the one that isn't very up-to-date. Missiles have been around for almost 80 years, but people are saying things are different now - maybe have a look into why. Hypersonic boost glide missiles can manouver sharply, travel at speeds of up to mach 5, have next to no radar signature, and can time their attacks and manouver such that they come at a carrier group from all angles at once. Many people in the pentagon are sounding the alarm - the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering recently said that such weapons hold carrier groups at risk, and ordered a review into how to defend against the threat. The department of defence has said several times that hypersonics are their "top priority". Just because you don't hear them besides themselves in the media doesn't mean they aren't seriously concerned, but this kind of thing naturally tends to be kept muted in order to not make it obvious if they are defenceless. The biggest saving grace is that the current systems of this technology have on the order of 1000kms range. terrifying, but can be worked around. However, that range will inevitably increase with time.
- koheripbal 5y ago
  Yes, absolutely. The US invests heavily in aircraft carriers because they've worked so magnificently at force projection around the world, without any need for regional bases. ...but with the advent of hypersonic missiles, drones, small attack boats, I have serious doubt how long they would last in any modern non-nuclear conflict.
  - onepointsixC 5y ago
    How long will any regional base last? China or Russia knows where they are and would launch against them in the first minutes of a conflict. CSG's are the most survivable force projection assets that the US has.
- onepointsixC 5y ago
  No because Aircraft carriers are mobile and thus significantly harder to hit. Supersonic and Hypersonic's are most effective against fixed assets like airfields and bases who's locations are known ahead of time. China for example likely has missile right now aimed at Okinawa and Guam, just waiting for the order to launch. Compare that to trying to hit say the USS Ronald Reagan. It is capable of moving 700 miles a day. They need to track its location, have a firing solution, and continuously update the tracking to ensure they actually hit it as opposed to a near miss. All of these stages could be disrupted by US assets.
nojokes 5y ago
They lost the empire anyway.

by snakke 5y ago

willhslade 5y ago

Just to play devils advocate isn't this happening right now with the US army's dependence on aircraft carriers vs the Chinese and Russian supersonic missiles?

JackFr 5y ago
The vulnerability of aircraft carriers to cheaper weapons notwithstanding, there is currently no other platform which does what a carrier group does. So they’re very expensive and much more vulnerable than they were 30 years ago — what else is available to project power 10000 miles from the US in a robust and flexible way? When that thing exists I think we’ll adapt to it quickly.
- magicsmoke 5y ago
  The other uncomfortable possibility is that there will be no safe way to project force overseas in the face of overwhelming land based systems, and that the US will be limited to projecting force around where it has terrestrial assets and away from rival powers.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    Kind of - but that would just eliminate everyone from projecting power except the United States, who has basis in places like Guam, Germany, Japan, etc.
    - jabl 5y ago
      Well yes, but then again no surface navy comes even close to the USN in terms of power projection capability, so it wouldn't upset the status quo in any way. But absent a major war proving the point (or not, as it may), that's sort of how the "end of the carrier" could play out peacefully over a longer time: Improved tracking of opponent carriers (be it through satellites, drones or whatever) and improved land-based weapons forces carriers to stand away further and further, necessitating longer ranged strike aircraft. Such aircraft need to be bigger to accommodate the required fuel load, requiring either bigger and more expensive carriers, or fewer planes carried and thus reduced strike capability. Rinse and repeat a few iterations, and at some point you start thinking "what's the point of a mobile carrier since the opponent keeps track of its location 24/7, and my strike aircraft have enough range to launch from land bases anyway?"
      - ericmay 5y ago
        Yes, but that's my point. You get rid of the carriers and then the U.S. is still the only country projecting power due to air bases and a sophisticated global logistics system. But either way, even if you know where the CSG is, it can defend itself and the land-based weapons have limited range. So if you're China, the U.S. Navy can go harass your shipping lanes, and protect their own supply lines going to strategic locations.
ericmay 5y ago
Well it would be the U.S. Navy, but not quite. First, how do you even locate the carrier groups? Let’s say you do get lucky and find them. Ok. Now let’s say you launch missiles - ok the carrier group can move and also shoot down missiles. Oh and once you do launch those missiles you’ve committed to a big time war, and you’re open to counter-attack by American forces - not just the carriers but also land-based strike forces. It’s not like the United States is sitting around saying well jeez I guess China built these missiles and we can’t do anything.
- hef19898 5y ago
  Locating carriers to day? Easy, satellites and radar. Tag the group leaving port, track it 24/7. Or sonar. The days a surface fleet can hide are gone.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    Ok let’s say you have a satellite and you somehow find US ships. Then what? And how far is the radar range? Can you truly detect ship signatures with radar without the CSG being out of your range? Maybe a war started and the USAF bombed the Chinese radar stations? Idk. Anyway, let’s say you launch missiles. Ok? Ships move. Ship missile defense shoots down some missiles, etc. Now what do you do? Idk why people think that the U.S. Navy hasn’t considered these things. As if China is going to just build some missiles and launch them and that’s that. Whenever you think things are that easy, you should wonder if you have a grasp on the scenario.
    - RugnirViking 5y ago
      > And how far is the radar range? Can you truly detect ship signatures with radar without the CSG being out of your range? yes. > Anyway, let’s say you launch missiles. Ok? Ships move. Ship missile defense shoots down some missiles, etc. ships move means nothing at all, the missiles are tracking the ships with radar. missile defence shoots down some missiles yes, but usually the idea with these types of attacks is overwhealimg air defence systems with volume of fire, so you fire on the order of 30 missiles at once, and use a probabalistic attack to ensure one or two make it through Overall, you seem to be the one that isn't very up-to-date. Missiles have been around for almost 80 years, but people are saying things are different now - maybe have a look into why. Hypersonic boost glide missiles can manouver sharply, travel at speeds of up to mach 5, have next to no radar signature, and can time their attacks and manouver such that they come at a carrier group from all angles at once. Many people in the pentagon are sounding the alarm - the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering recently said that such weapons hold carrier groups at risk, and ordered a review into how to defend against the threat. The department of defence has said several times that hypersonics are their "top priority". Just because you don't hear them besides themselves in the media doesn't mean they aren't seriously concerned, but this kind of thing naturally tends to be kept muted in order to not make it obvious if they are defenceless. The biggest saving grace is that the current systems of this technology have on the order of 1000kms range. terrifying, but can be worked around. However, that range will inevitably increase with time.
koheripbal 5y ago
Yes, absolutely. The US invests heavily in aircraft carriers because they've worked so magnificently at force projection around the world, without any need for regional bases. ...but with the advent of hypersonic missiles, drones, small attack boats, I have serious doubt how long they would last in any modern non-nuclear conflict.
- onepointsixC 5y ago
  How long will any regional base last? China or Russia knows where they are and would launch against them in the first minutes of a conflict. CSG's are the most survivable force projection assets that the US has.
onepointsixC 5y ago
No because Aircraft carriers are mobile and thus significantly harder to hit. Supersonic and Hypersonic's are most effective against fixed assets like airfields and bases who's locations are known ahead of time. China for example likely has missile right now aimed at Okinawa and Guam, just waiting for the order to launch. Compare that to trying to hit say the USS Ronald Reagan. It is capable of moving 700 miles a day. They need to track its location, have a firing solution, and continuously update the tracking to ensure they actually hit it as opposed to a near miss. All of these stages could be disrupted by US assets.

nojokes 5y ago

They lost the empire anyway.