6 ms·

I honestly think having several thousand nuclear warheads still pointed at various targets is what's really stopping WWIII. Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks

I honestly think having several thousand nuclear warheads still pointed at various targets is what's really stopping WWIII. Aircraft carriers are sitting ducks in any major conflict and they know it. They're fine if your adversary is working a level or two above the stone age, which is the type of wars we've been fighting.

scottLobster 5y ago
Sitting ducks? You have any idea how hard it is to find a carrier if you don't already know where to look? The ocean is a pretty big place, carriers move pretty quickly, and spy satellites only have a relatively narrow cone of view with enough resolution to detect one from orbit. Even if you found one visually, guiding a missile to accurately strike a moving carrier is extremely difficult. It's one reason China's much touted "carrier killer" missiles are less of a threat than the Chinese would like. While they could theoretically sink a carrier they rely on a complex system of satellites and radar to guide a missile in, disruption of any one piece of that system (remember the US has successfully tested anti-satellite weapons) and you won't be scoring any hits. Never mind the multi-layered missile defense systems that all carrier battle groups run with, which wouldn't be a guarantee but would have a chance. The most those missiles would is force the carriers to stay further away from the Chinese coast, which given the range of modern aircraft isn't that much of a burden if we're talking sea control. As for naval combat, there's no combination of ships in any country's Navy that can hope to stand up to the US Navy in a protracted conflict. US carriers have undisputed rule of the seas for at least the next three decades, even against the likes of China/Russia.
- randomopining 5y ago
  Can’t they just fire like 50 missiles in the carriers general area to airblast detonate? Plus how hard is it to track the location of a huge ship like that… is it that hard?
  - credit_guy 5y ago
    > Can’t they just fire like 50 missiles in the carriers general area to airblast detonate? A supercarrier would not sink from a nuclear airblast in the general vicinity. In 1946, the US performed an experiment to see how such an airblast would destroy or damage ships, in the operation Crossroads, test Able. The bomb was a 23 kT one (so a bit higher yield than Hiroshima). It detonated at a hight of 158m. The light aircraft carrier USS Independence (10k tons) was only about 500m from the point of the detonation, and although severely damaged, it did not sink. The fleet carrier USS Saratoga (37k tons) was about 2 km from point zero. It suffered even less damage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads#Able_target_array https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads#Able_targ...
    - beambot 5y ago
      Even if the ship survived, can the crew survive at less than 500m from ground zero?
      - slavik81 5y ago
        Quite possibly. The classic nuclear weapons did their damage mostly through heat and pressure. They were relatively ineffective against troops in armoured vehicles, which is why alternatives like the neutron bomb were developed. That said, the Hiroshima bomb was small by modern standards. A single Minuteman III missile can carry three W78 warheads, each with a yield of ~340 kT. China has similar nuclear capabilities. It would be an unmitigated global catastrophe if those sorts of missiles started flying. Nobody would be safe.
  - scottLobster 5y ago
    If we're talking nukes maybe (although if we're talking nukes carriers are largely irrelevant and nuclear missile subs become the primary threat), but once again the ocean is big. However huge the ship is, your search space is far larger. Even getting a siting from orbit could potentially be disrupted by weather. In the case of the pacific ocean you're literally looking for a moving football field in ~60 million square miles of ocean. Carriers in wartime wouldn't be sailing in straight lines over long distances either. National interest had a good line about it: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-its-really-hard-sink-aircraft-carrier-99487 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-its-really-hard-s... "And because carriers are constantly moving when deployed at up to 35 miles per hour -- fast enough to outrun submarines -- finding and tracking them is difficult. Within 30 minutes after a sighting by enemies, the area within which a carrier might be operating has grown to 700 square miles; after 90 minutes, it has expanded to 6,000 square miles." Binkov on YouTube did a good analysis of the threats modern carriers face as of last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui8sBMA3VGM&t=205s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui8sBMA3VGM&t=205s TLDR there are some technologies likely to show up in a decade or so that may make carriers harder to use, but would hardly render them obsolete. As for conventional missiles, Binkov also did a good analysis on how many missiles it would theoretically take to take out a single AEGIS equipped destroyer. Carrier battle groups would have multiple such destroyers in addition to their own missile defense and those of other accompanying ships. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcwDfaY4OW4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcwDfaY4OW4
- foepys 5y ago
  There have been multiple instances where submarines surfaced right inside a carrier group, some in active exercises where a threat was expected. Even the Chinese did it at least once and there is a high chance that the Chinese did not surface on their first few encounters. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvite...
  - scottLobster 5y ago
    That was 2007, or 14 years ago. I imagine the Navy has long corrected whatever error allowed that to happen, particularly given that China is now seen as a geopolitical adversary by a majority of Americans across the political spectrum. Even if China did get extremely lucky and took out a couple of carriers in the opening shots of any conflict, there'd be several more on their doorstep within weeks at a far higher state of readiness.
  - seaorg 5y ago
    That’s inexplicable because spotting that submarine is completely trivial. They run on diesel if I’m not mistaken, even now. You could easily blanket the area below you with radar. They must have simply not been looking, probably because there wasn’t any threat at all of attack.
    - DocTomoe 5y ago
      And that laissez-faire attitude towards operational security is what an adversary would count upon in a sneak-attack first strike scenario. Remember the USS Cole?
    - sofixa 5y ago
      The Swedish sub that surprised a US carrier at a training exercise was indeed diesel-electric, which is a great advantage. When stealth is required, they can use only their electric engine, or even stop it all together if the enemy is very close and listening. With a nuclear sub, the reactor and its cooling are always there.
- sofixa 5y ago
  > As for naval combat, there's no combination of ships in any country's Navy that can hope to stand up to the US Navy in a protracted conflict. US carriers have undisputed rule of the seas for at least the next three decades, even against the likes of China/Russia. I don't know, hypersonic and/or nuclear warhead cruise missiles and nuclear torpedoes with significant range can do serious damage from a decent distance.
kumarvvr 5y ago
Not sure about the sitting ducks part. Carriers have mini iron domes to protect themselves from incoming ballistic missiles. Not to mention that they are moving targets, often themselves loaded with nuclear armed missiles (in case of an actual war). They are a very very effective way to project power. It takes a lot to down one and in the process, the enemy will take a tremendous amount of damage.
systemvoltage 5y ago
Indeed, but it is far more complex than that. William Spanial (prof) has a full course on Nuclear Proliferation that's on-going on YT, I highly recommend academic and rigorious take on this topic than the random hoo haa on the internet: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKI1h_nAkaQqivWh2_XEtRacEW7ttnq1W https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKI1h_nAkaQqivWh2_XEt...

scottLobster 5y ago

Sitting ducks? You have any idea how hard it is to find a carrier if you don't already know where to look? The ocean is a pretty big place, carriers move pretty quickly, and spy satellites only have a relatively narrow cone of view with enough resolution to detect one from orbit. Even if you found one visually, guiding a missile to accurately strike a moving carrier is extremely difficult. It's one reason China's much touted "carrier killer" missiles are less of a threat than the Chinese would like. While they could theoretically sink a carrier they rely on a complex system of satellites and radar to guide a missile in, disruption of any one piece of that system (remember the US has successfully tested anti-satellite weapons) and you won't be scoring any hits. Never mind the multi-layered missile defense systems that all carrier battle groups run with, which wouldn't be a guarantee but would have a chance. The most those missiles would is force the carriers to stay further away from the Chinese coast, which given the range of modern aircraft isn't that much of a burden if we're talking sea control. As for naval combat, there's no combination of ships in any country's Navy that can hope to stand up to the US Navy in a protracted conflict. US carriers have undisputed rule of the seas for at least the next three decades, even against the likes of China/Russia.

randomopining 5y ago
Can’t they just fire like 50 missiles in the carriers general area to airblast detonate? Plus how hard is it to track the location of a huge ship like that… is it that hard?
- credit_guy 5y ago
  > Can’t they just fire like 50 missiles in the carriers general area to airblast detonate? A supercarrier would not sink from a nuclear airblast in the general vicinity. In 1946, the US performed an experiment to see how such an airblast would destroy or damage ships, in the operation Crossroads, test Able. The bomb was a 23 kT one (so a bit higher yield than Hiroshima). It detonated at a hight of 158m. The light aircraft carrier USS Independence (10k tons) was only about 500m from the point of the detonation, and although severely damaged, it did not sink. The fleet carrier USS Saratoga (37k tons) was about 2 km from point zero. It suffered even less damage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads#Able_target_array https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Crossroads#Able_targ...
  - beambot 5y ago
    Even if the ship survived, can the crew survive at less than 500m from ground zero?
    - slavik81 5y ago
      Quite possibly. The classic nuclear weapons did their damage mostly through heat and pressure. They were relatively ineffective against troops in armoured vehicles, which is why alternatives like the neutron bomb were developed. That said, the Hiroshima bomb was small by modern standards. A single Minuteman III missile can carry three W78 warheads, each with a yield of ~340 kT. China has similar nuclear capabilities. It would be an unmitigated global catastrophe if those sorts of missiles started flying. Nobody would be safe.
- scottLobster 5y ago
  If we're talking nukes maybe (although if we're talking nukes carriers are largely irrelevant and nuclear missile subs become the primary threat), but once again the ocean is big. However huge the ship is, your search space is far larger. Even getting a siting from orbit could potentially be disrupted by weather. In the case of the pacific ocean you're literally looking for a moving football field in ~60 million square miles of ocean. Carriers in wartime wouldn't be sailing in straight lines over long distances either. National interest had a good line about it: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-its-really-hard-sink-aircraft-carrier-99487 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-its-really-hard-s... "And because carriers are constantly moving when deployed at up to 35 miles per hour -- fast enough to outrun submarines -- finding and tracking them is difficult. Within 30 minutes after a sighting by enemies, the area within which a carrier might be operating has grown to 700 square miles; after 90 minutes, it has expanded to 6,000 square miles." Binkov on YouTube did a good analysis of the threats modern carriers face as of last year: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui8sBMA3VGM&t=205s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui8sBMA3VGM&t=205s TLDR there are some technologies likely to show up in a decade or so that may make carriers harder to use, but would hardly render them obsolete. As for conventional missiles, Binkov also did a good analysis on how many missiles it would theoretically take to take out a single AEGIS equipped destroyer. Carrier battle groups would have multiple such destroyers in addition to their own missile defense and those of other accompanying ships. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcwDfaY4OW4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcwDfaY4OW4
foepys 5y ago
There have been multiple instances where submarines surfaced right inside a carrier group, some in active exercises where a threat was expected. Even the Chinese did it at least once and there is a high chance that the Chinese did not surface on their first few encounters. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvite...
- scottLobster 5y ago
  That was 2007, or 14 years ago. I imagine the Navy has long corrected whatever error allowed that to happen, particularly given that China is now seen as a geopolitical adversary by a majority of Americans across the political spectrum. Even if China did get extremely lucky and took out a couple of carriers in the opening shots of any conflict, there'd be several more on their doorstep within weeks at a far higher state of readiness.
- seaorg 5y ago
  That’s inexplicable because spotting that submarine is completely trivial. They run on diesel if I’m not mistaken, even now. You could easily blanket the area below you with radar. They must have simply not been looking, probably because there wasn’t any threat at all of attack.
  - DocTomoe 5y ago
    And that laissez-faire attitude towards operational security is what an adversary would count upon in a sneak-attack first strike scenario. Remember the USS Cole?
  - sofixa 5y ago
    The Swedish sub that surprised a US carrier at a training exercise was indeed diesel-electric, which is a great advantage. When stealth is required, they can use only their electric engine, or even stop it all together if the enemy is very close and listening. With a nuclear sub, the reactor and its cooling are always there.
sofixa 5y ago
> As for naval combat, there's no combination of ships in any country's Navy that can hope to stand up to the US Navy in a protracted conflict. US carriers have undisputed rule of the seas for at least the next three decades, even against the likes of China/Russia. I don't know, hypersonic and/or nuclear warhead cruise missiles and nuclear torpedoes with significant range can do serious damage from a decent distance.

kumarvvr 5y ago

Not sure about the sitting ducks part. Carriers have mini iron domes to protect themselves from incoming ballistic missiles. Not to mention that they are moving targets, often themselves loaded with nuclear armed missiles (in case of an actual war). They are a very very effective way to project power. It takes a lot to down one and in the process, the enemy will take a tremendous amount of damage.

systemvoltage 5y ago

Indeed, but it is far more complex than that. William Spanial (prof) has a full course on Nuclear Proliferation that's on-going on YT, I highly recommend academic and rigorious take on this topic than the random hoo haa on the internet: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKI1h_nAkaQqivWh2_XEtRacEW7ttnq1W https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKI1h_nAkaQqivWh2_XEt...