3 ms·

It's the Too Big to Fail principle in military terms. The projection of force is greatly reduced when the fear of losing an asset determines its domain. A carr

by ixnu 18y ago

It's the Too Big to Fail principle in military terms. The projection of force is greatly reduced when the fear of losing an asset determines its domain. A carrier that has to stay 2000 km from the action puts a tremendous strain every aspect of operations.

ryanwaggoner 18y ago
A carrier that has to stay 2000 km away from the action is completely useless. Carriers are designed for one thing: tactical air support. Can't do that from 2000km.
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- falsestprophet 18y ago
  Carriers were designed for many things, but never for action against a serious opponent like China or even Iran. Like much of the US military, the carriers were meant to bully weak Soviet satellite states. Today they are used to bully weak states of all persuasions.
  - mnemonicsloth 18y ago
    That must be why it took four years to defeat the Japanese. If the US Navy had been really serious, instead of mucking around with fleets of aircraft carriers...
    - falsestprophet 18y ago
      It is probably a mistake to plan for future wars in the model of a war 70 years in the past. Surface fleets were rendered obsolete around the 1960s when anti-ship missiles matured. Things change, 70 years before the aircraft carrier, warships were made of wood and powered by the wind.
      - mnemonicsloth 18y ago
        It's silly to rely on anecdotes like this. For example, the AK-47 is as old today as the sailing ships you mention at the time of the first aircraft carriers, but some American combat units are willing to ditch their M4s for it. The odds it will be improved much in the near future are pretty slim. I think the flaw in your argument is the word "obsolete" -- it connotes "replaced" or "no longer in use." What else, besides the carrier battle group, do you use to project power?
        falsestprophet 18y ago
        You are missing the point entirely. Anti-ship missiles are no joke. No one really believes the US surface fleet can survive against an enemy equipped with a large number of these weapons. Of course, the Navy has defenses. But it only takes one missile to incapacitate a ship. Would you really feel safe on a carrier off the coast of China during a war? I read in one Navy report that a supercarrier would not be expected to last the first few hours of a conflict with Iran or the first few minutes of a conflict with China. Unlike the ground-combatant, who has the advantage of concealment, terrain, and, fundamentally, ground beneath his feet, the naval surface combatant is alone, aboard a warm boat, easily distinguishable from the cold water that surrounds her, said boat being packed to the gills with men, weaponry, and explosives, sailing on a flat, relatively featureless expanse of ocean, which offers concealment and shelter to none, and is (eventually) naturally deadly to human life. As this is the case, threats that would merely slow down the ground combatant--such as guided missiles--are a much greater threat to the naval combatant. Possessing a speed and an agility that naval platforms cannot forseeably match, as well as computerized "smart" guidance systems and a heavy payload of high-explosive, the modern anti-ship missile, once it has acquired its target, is an enemy that the target ship cannot usually run from, hide from, physically avoid, or absorb. wikipedia.com: anti ship missiles
        DanielBMarkham 18y ago
        Nyah. You're selling, but I'm not buying. Couple of points. First, warfare is no longer all-or-nothing. Carrier forces can and do sit offshore from nation states that have anti-ship missiles and have their way. War is mostly incremental any more. That might change, but that's current state. Taking pot shots at a carrier fleet in interational waters because its doing something you don't like (like protecting Japan or Taiwan) is starting to play for real money. Might happen, but it's not the most common scenario. Second, got any evidence of anti-ship missiles taking out a modern warship in the last 30 years or so? Last I remember it happening, I think, was during the Falkland Islands conflict. I think A/S technology poses an immediate and extremely dangerous threat to a surface naval fleet -- no doubt about it. But it's not a new threat. This threat goes back at least 50 years. A lot of work has been done on both sides to increase the threat and make it go away. Most of these weapon systems have not been tested in integrated battle. That's a wild card that could either help or hurt a carrier, but the assumption was that carriers were sitting ducks, so the onus is on you to demonstrate this is the case. Finally, a carrier fleet is a large assembly of surface ships, not just a single target. These other ships do all sorts of neat and interesting things. Electronic CounterMeasures are not going to be completely known to either combatant ahead of time. So right now it's a total crap shoot, in my opinion, to take shots at a carrier group. And it's not a gamble that has any reasonable payoff -- unless you're in a total war situation. In which case carriers are the least of your worries. You'll be ducking submarine-launched nukes. And that's not so much fun.

by ixnu 18y ago

ryanwaggoner 18y ago

A carrier that has to stay 2000 km away from the action is completely useless. Carriers are designed for one thing: tactical air support. Can't do that from 2000km.

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
falsestprophet 18y ago
Carriers were designed for many things, but never for action against a serious opponent like China or even Iran. Like much of the US military, the carriers were meant to bully weak Soviet satellite states. Today they are used to bully weak states of all persuasions.
- mnemonicsloth 18y ago
  That must be why it took four years to defeat the Japanese. If the US Navy had been really serious, instead of mucking around with fleets of aircraft carriers...
  - falsestprophet 18y ago
    It is probably a mistake to plan for future wars in the model of a war 70 years in the past. Surface fleets were rendered obsolete around the 1960s when anti-ship missiles matured. Things change, 70 years before the aircraft carrier, warships were made of wood and powered by the wind.
    - mnemonicsloth 18y ago
      It's silly to rely on anecdotes like this. For example, the AK-47 is as old today as the sailing ships you mention at the time of the first aircraft carriers, but some American combat units are willing to ditch their M4s for it. The odds it will be improved much in the near future are pretty slim. I think the flaw in your argument is the word "obsolete" -- it connotes "replaced" or "no longer in use." What else, besides the carrier battle group, do you use to project power?
      - falsestprophet 18y ago
        You are missing the point entirely. Anti-ship missiles are no joke. No one really believes the US surface fleet can survive against an enemy equipped with a large number of these weapons. Of course, the Navy has defenses. But it only takes one missile to incapacitate a ship. Would you really feel safe on a carrier off the coast of China during a war? I read in one Navy report that a supercarrier would not be expected to last the first few hours of a conflict with Iran or the first few minutes of a conflict with China. Unlike the ground-combatant, who has the advantage of concealment, terrain, and, fundamentally, ground beneath his feet, the naval surface combatant is alone, aboard a warm boat, easily distinguishable from the cold water that surrounds her, said boat being packed to the gills with men, weaponry, and explosives, sailing on a flat, relatively featureless expanse of ocean, which offers concealment and shelter to none, and is (eventually) naturally deadly to human life. As this is the case, threats that would merely slow down the ground combatant--such as guided missiles--are a much greater threat to the naval combatant. Possessing a speed and an agility that naval platforms cannot forseeably match, as well as computerized "smart" guidance systems and a heavy payload of high-explosive, the modern anti-ship missile, once it has acquired its target, is an enemy that the target ship cannot usually run from, hide from, physically avoid, or absorb. wikipedia.com: anti ship missiles
        DanielBMarkham 18y ago
        Nyah. You're selling, but I'm not buying. Couple of points. First, warfare is no longer all-or-nothing. Carrier forces can and do sit offshore from nation states that have anti-ship missiles and have their way. War is mostly incremental any more. That might change, but that's current state. Taking pot shots at a carrier fleet in interational waters because its doing something you don't like (like protecting Japan or Taiwan) is starting to play for real money. Might happen, but it's not the most common scenario. Second, got any evidence of anti-ship missiles taking out a modern warship in the last 30 years or so? Last I remember it happening, I think, was during the Falkland Islands conflict. I think A/S technology poses an immediate and extremely dangerous threat to a surface naval fleet -- no doubt about it. But it's not a new threat. This threat goes back at least 50 years. A lot of work has been done on both sides to increase the threat and make it go away. Most of these weapon systems have not been tested in integrated battle. That's a wild card that could either help or hurt a carrier, but the assumption was that carriers were sitting ducks, so the onus is on you to demonstrate this is the case. Finally, a carrier fleet is a large assembly of surface ships, not just a single target. These other ships do all sorts of neat and interesting things. Electronic CounterMeasures are not going to be completely known to either combatant ahead of time. So right now it's a total crap shoot, in my opinion, to take shots at a carrier group. And it's not a gamble that has any reasonable payoff -- unless you're in a total war situation. In which case carriers are the least of your worries. You'll be ducking submarine-launched nukes. And that's not so much fun.