The Ship Model Forum

The Ship Modelers Source
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 8:44 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 1:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 3154
Location: Vancouver, Canada
This is more in line with future technologies than history. Still, wouldn't it be too early to conclude that the carrier is going to become as obsolete as the battleship? If anything, other articles have pointed out the carrier's future as a floating factories with 3D-printers that can create and replace whole fleets of drone aircraft.

Military.com

Quote:

Will Aircraft Carriers Remain Useful in Future Wars?

By Bryant Jordan Monday, December 16th, 2013 11:57 am

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel has shown himself to be a student of modern warfare, says a former adviser to both Gen. Stanley McChrystal and Gen. David Petraeus.

But at a time of rapid advances in military and technological capabilities, “let’s hope he’s a student of the mid-20th century history as well, because the interwar period is going to have a lot of warnings and lessons” for the U.S. as it winds down in Afghanistan, said Mark Jacobson, now a fellow with The German Marshall Fund of the United States.

World War I convinced world military leaders that the future of combat was battleships, trench warfare and getting around trench warfare, he said.


“They were totally dismissive of aircraft, totally dismissive of strategic bombing and absolutely dismissive of the aircraft carrier,” Jacobson told DodBuzz. But World War II validated air war and the carrier.


Everyone agrees that cyber war capabilities are important, but Jacobson says the Pentagon is still trying to figure out what to do with it. Meanwhile, adversaries are constantly learning to work around U.S. strengths.

“But the services don’t change,” he said. “I’m not sure all the service chiefs get this yet … Are we focusing on new types of destroyers? Is anybody willing to question the existence of aircraft carriers? If you look at history this may be the battleship all over again.”

They will have some use in particular situations and environments, he said, but a carrier will never deploy anywhere it does not have absolute air domination and in some cases it would simply not have that.

“It won’t be a useful weapon in the Taiwan Straits, and it may not be one 15 years from now, depending on how many nations have hypersonic missiles,” he said.



_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Last edited by Haijun watcher on Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 9:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 26, 2013 11:43 am
Posts: 176
Location: Fulton, Missouri
I'd say it is a logical assumption. Battleships were vulnerable to submarine and air attack. Likewise, carriers are at danger from the increased sophostication of missiles. Carriers are perfect for fighting the last war, but for thr next major conflict it is anyones guess. Really, there are no blue water challengers, fighing will most likely be close to enemy shores. And its conceivable a specialized coastal force could take out carriers. I think I read about a simulation where the enemy, I think Iran, deep sixed all US carriers in the opening salvo.

They may end up as a floating drone factory, but won't be able to get as close to targets. I imagine in flight refueling will be a increasingly necessary componet to carrier operations.

I've often thought that submarines will become the major launch point for drones. Get in close, launch, and land somewhere else.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 10:23 am
Posts: 1098
Location: Northern Virginia
There is a far greater danger of losing carriers through budget cuts and a poor understanding of geopolitics than to any super-duper new weapons system.

Jack


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 19, 2013 12:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 3154
Location: Vancouver, Canada
LordAnkarin wrote:

I've often thought that submarines will become the major launch point for drones. Get in close, launch, and land somewhere else.


Or even submarine drone carriers? Anyone remember the old anime called Blue Noah/Thundersub which explored the concept of a submarine supercarrier? :big_grin:

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Dec 20, 2013 1:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 12:48 pm
Posts: 1059
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Of course it's not going to be a useful weapon in the Taiwan Strait.

Why would any carrier group loaded with F/A 18 Super Hornets that have a range of almost 1500 miles sail into a strait 110 miles wide? That's a ridiculous argument against carriers.

I would think that tactical nukes more than anything would make a carrier battle group obsolete, but carriers still seem to be projecting power long after their development.

Bob


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 23, 2013 2:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 2834
Location: UK
The point about aircraft carriers is thet they are the most flexible platform for naval warfare. They can deploy different types of aircraft to undertake A/S, AAW, ASuW, and other offensive and defensive tasks (unless they are British in which case they may be able to deploy a few fighters and helicopters!). The article says they can't go anywhere where there is not air supremacy but they can challenge that air supremacy to an extent that no other platform can do (assuming no nearby friendly airfields which seems a safe bet if the enemy has air supremacy).

Just saying that aircraft carriers are vulnerable over and over is not much of an argument. Of course they are vulnerable, as anything that floats is vulnerable, but I don't think that is a reason to do away with them.

It is not clear what the author thinks is going to replace the aircraft carrier?

_________________
In 1757 Admiral John Byng was shot "pour encourager les autres". Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 12:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 8:58 pm
Posts: 1549
Location: Houston, Texas
Even in the battleships' heyday there were places that were to dangerous for battleships. Placing a CVN in the Taiwan Strait is idiotic as the ship's aircraft are its main weapon not itself. Carriers would be kept to the east of Taiwan and their fighters would fly in and out of the combat zone as needed. The threats posed by the PLA-AF and PLA-N are well known and the USN has been planning a defense against missile attacks since the late 1950s.

Aegis missile defense. and now the follow on using the Dual Frequency (AN/SPY-3). Saturation missile attacks with long range ballistic and medium range cruise missiles. The Standard missile 2 medium range block IIIB (RIM-66M-5/7) and Standard missile extended range block IV (RIM-156A) are now being supplemented by the Standard missile six extended range active missile (RIM-174A, aka SM-6) and the continuously evolving Standard missile three to defend against these threats. Also the E-2D, data link to all ships, and Super Hornets and soon F-35, the AIM-120D which is much faster and longer ranged than even the AIM-120C-7.

_________________
╔═════╗
Seasick
╚═════╝


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 5:40 am 
.

I've found it amusing for 20-odd years that the US has had a real dual personality regarding carriers and stealth aircraft.

One side, basically, says carriers (sometimes refined as carrier task groups) can defend themselves and a defined amount of airspace. The other says stealth aircraft can get through any defence (again certain limits).

They can't both be right, but US politicians seem somehow to be happy paying for both positions !

Of course, such complications as quieter putative enemy submarines and longer ranged, stealthier, more capable missiles all add their capabilities to the mix.

.



.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 6:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:25 pm
Posts: 1532
Location: England
I think the argument is a bit more subtle than that.

Carriers absorb vast amounts of resources both in construction and deployment (task groups to protect them given the above mentioned vulnerabilities).

The loss rate of planes (and in particular pilots) in an air strike against a well defended area might be unacceptable in the context of modern air defense.

Given that modern AAW might turn your carrier into a rather inefficient way of projecting power, is it worth using up all your other surface assets protecting it when they could be doing better things? Since your escort group can effectively defend a carrier, why not remove the carrier and just have a group that can move around defending itself and striking out?

So the above arguments favor a more heavily missile or drone based strike force, which is also more spread out where each ship is individually cheaper but they are all equally capable, instead of putting all your eggs in one basket (carrier). If the total cost of such a task force and its overall vulnerability to attack by modern methods is less than that of a carrier strike force AND their ability to project power is cheaper and has an acceptable miss/loss rate compared to maintaining an air group and launching air strikes, then there is a basis for argument there.

Whether or not that is the case, I can't say, but it is a cost/benefit thing.

_________________
Vlad


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 7:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 2834
Location: UK
Well, carriers may evolve into platforms for drones but the drones will have to prove themselves first, also drones would be better controlled from a single source rather than trying to coordinate each individual ship's drone.

Even in your scenario where the carrier has lost a lot of its strike aircraft, it still has its ASW assets and most importanly its Hawkeyes which provide an unrivalled picture of the (above water) battlespace.

If the carrier has reached the end of its useful life then that has enormous implications for the future of the manned aircraft and the drone as a strike unit. It might be cheaper to develop the Tomahawk cruise missles to do the job of strike drones.

With no carriers, then warships themselves may no longer be of use.

_________________
In 1757 Admiral John Byng was shot "pour encourager les autres". Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 24, 2013 12:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:25 pm
Posts: 1532
Location: England
But carriers work best when they are as big as possible so they can maximise their air group and flight deck space. This means there is typically only one in a battle group, so any attack only needs to penetrate the screed an hit one ship to mostly neutralise the whole threat. Now imagine the same strength defense, but where sinking any one ship makes little to no impact on the capability of the group as a whole.

The parallel with the battleship is not clear cut. This is because no one single technology development rendered the battleship obsolete. It was a combination of factors that made building a ship around the concept of guns and armour economically and practically unfeasible compared to the alternatives available. Similarly, the carrier might not be rendered obsolete in one stroke, but it's huge cost might outgrow the capabilities it can provide to the point where alternatives become more attractive.

The human element is also a big one. Loss of life is seen as less and less acceptable by the general public (even though it is a fact of war) so anything that keeps "our boys" as far out of trouble as possible is tech the public will see as worth investing in.

Of course, part of the issue with this discussion is that we have no idea of the real capabilities of allied and potential enemy systems. Most of the information is rightly classified and the rest (including my opinions) is speculation. What is a good thing is that someone is thinking out of the box, even if some of the arguments are dubious questioning the status quo can only lead to improvement.

_________________
Vlad


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 25, 2013 2:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:29 pm
Posts: 1950
Before this "drones are the wave of the future" discussion progresses further, there are a couple of things that need to be addressed but are being left out of most discussions. My Navy background was as an electronic warfare pilot. There are things drones can do and things they can't (as well as things we won't trust them to do). A drone is either autonomous or remotely controlled. Do we trust the drone to automatically target things without outside intervention? The AI has not yet progressed to the point we can do that safely. That leaves us with a datalink, and that is a vulnerability. Most of the discussion on these links centers around security and encryption. That is good as far as not having the link hijacked by your opponent. However, you don't need to do that. It takes far less effort and sophistication to simply disrupt the link. The drones are either programmed to continue the pre-loaded strike, or more often, break off and return to base. In the first case, if the disrupters relocate the target and then disrupt the link, the drone bombs either a vacant target or gets the "children's hospital" the target was adjacent to without the benefit of actually hitting the real target. In the second case, the strike is warded off, and the target remains unscathed - the disrupters win that round. Drone technology is simply not yet at the level needed to rely on it to the extent some wish to. The technology may mature into what is needed, but we need to keep our alternatives open until that point is proven to have been reached, not just claimed to be by its enthusiasts.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 25, 2013 4:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 2834
Location: UK
For me drones are simply another kind of aircraft, they may or may not be effective (although they might be attractive to politicians as they will be a way of cutting expenditure) but that remains to be seen.

My real point is that the time of the aircraft has not come to an end so the aircraft carrier's time has also not come to an end.

The carrier will always be vulnerable to attack which is why it needs to be defended properly.

Unfortunately the RN/Britsh govt. seems to have forgotten the lessons of the Falklands war by producing a sort of AEW package (Crowsnest) that will have to compete for mission time with other missions. It seems that there will be aircrew trained for ASW and AEW and expected to swith from one discipline to another as required, which is a recipe for disaster.

The USN has developed carrier warfare to a fine art by its experience and expertise and we should be modelling ourselves on that, not some Ad-Hoc system which SAVES MONEY.

Sorry for the rant but the govt. really annoys me by trying to save money in ways which put everything at risk.

_________________
In 1757 Admiral John Byng was shot "pour encourager les autres". Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Dec 25, 2013 4:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:25 pm
Posts: 1532
Location: England
Even the drone though is not a perfect solution. If we can progress the technology far enough, even then it can get shot down, which would be an expensive loss. Cruise missiles similarly have a huge individual price tag.

I'm not saying cost effectiveness should be put before actual capability (I agree with the rant about the British government) but with tech becoming so expensive to develop and just as expensive to replace, we need to think very hard about what we do and do not put in harms way. In a long war far from home shores, constantly losing expensive gear could be crippling.

Ideally you would want a long range delivery system where the launching platform can be a safe distance away but the actual payload is dirt cheap. This is why, even more than drones, I would advocate some sort of rail-gun or similar concept, at least for long range land strikes. Of course this technology is even more infant than drones, but you can't dismiss something just because it doesn't work NOW. We need more visionaries and risk-takers in military planning.

_________________
Vlad


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 11:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 14, 2012 12:18 pm
Posts: 2068
Location: Salt Lake City, USA
If drones become capable of flying to any point in the world there would be no reason to pay for supercarriers. They could fly from invulnerable bases well inland, strike anywhere in the world within hours and would be immune to the limits of human endurance.

Smaller ships similar to WW2 escort carriers would be more sensible with drones too.

I've always thought supercarriers were awful big, fat targets in a wartime scenario. They really are A LOT like battleships in the old days, more symbolic of a nation's power than anything else. Supercarriers would become priority targets subject to constant attack and I doubt they would last long in a full-scale war against another superpower.

_________________
-Jason Channell

Current Project: 1/200 Bismarck


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Dec 26, 2013 7:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 12138
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Channell wrote:

Smaller ships similar to WW2 escort carriers would be more sensible with drones too.


That only makes sense if drones were smaller than manned aircraft, which they are not - at least, not the large ones that are meant for combat/persistent ISR. In fact, the Navy's latest update on their UCLASS project is for a drone that's the size of an F-14!

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2013 9:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:35 pm
Posts: 2834
Location: UK
Channell wrote:
If drones become capable of flying to any point in the world there would be no reason to pay for supercarriers. They could fly from invulnerable bases well inland, strike anywhere in the world within hours and would be immune to the limits of human endurance.

Smaller ships similar to WW2 escort carriers would be more sensible with drones too.

I've always thought supercarriers were awful big, fat targets in a wartime scenario. They really are A LOT like battleships in the old days, more symbolic of a nation's power than anything else. Supercarriers would become priority targets subject to constant attack and I doubt they would last long in a full-scale war against another superpower.


Unlike battleships the US carriers have taken part in all of its major wars since 1945. They are symbolic of power because they are the power. No other platform provides the same level of control of the battlespace. They are capable of performing all of the major roles of naval warfare (many of them simultaneously) and that is why they are so valuable.

_________________
In 1757 Admiral John Byng was shot "pour encourager les autres". Voltaire


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2013 8:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 12:18 pm
Posts: 114
I wonder if we don't need a drone equivalent of an E2-D, along with something like the AN/AAQ-37 electro-optical Distributed Aperture System. Adding the infrared detection capability would help defeat low observable missiles and extend the detection range beyond line of site (of the ship). It also would not require near as much power as a radar system. If we developed a VTOL drone like the Bell Eagle Eye they could be used by destroyers for over the horizon targeting. Coupled with the RIM-174 Standard ERAM, it could go a long way towards increasing the time available for interception.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 7:06 am
Posts: 3154
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Resurrecting this old thread since this was the best place to put this new article.

Another article on the threat of the saturation attacks on a CVBG/CSG by Russian or Chinese ballistic or cruise missiles; will US carrier admirals' complacency make them ill-prepared as their dreadnought battleship predecessors were at Pearl Harbor over 70 years ago?

Washington Post

Quote:
Report: U.S. aircraft carriers’ ‘unchallenged primacy may be coming to a close’

The United States’ aircraft carriers have always been an almost untouchable deterrent, steel behemoths capable of projecting the full weight of the U.S. military wherever they deploy. Yet while many militaries could never hope to match the U.S. carrier fleet in size and strength, countries such as China, Iran and Russia have spent recent years adjusting their forces and fielding equipment designed to counter one of the United States’ greatest military strengths.

A report published Monday by the Center for a New American Security, a D.C.-based think tank that focuses on national security, claims that the Navy’s carrier operations are at an inflection point. Faced with growing threats abroad, the United States can either “operate its carriers at ever-increasing ranges … or assume high levels of risk in both blood and treasure.”

The report, titled “Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers,” focuses on China’s burgeoning military posture in the Pacific and on a term that is starting to appear with increasing urgency in defense circles: anti-access/area denial, or A2/AD. The term A2/AD refers to a concept that has long existed in warfare: denying the enemy the ability to move around the battlefield. Currently A2/AD strategy is much the same as it was when moats were dug around castles, except that today’s moats are an integrated system of surface-to-air missiles, anti-ship cruise missiles, submarines, surface ships and aircraft — all designed to push enemy forces as far away as possible from strategically important areas.

The report highlights China’s capabilities because of its “emphasis on long-range anti-ship missile procurement.” This, coupled with its growing tech base, qualifies China as the “pacing threat” to the U.S. military. China, however, is not the sole architect of an A2/AD strategy designed to deter U.S. operations. In the Baltic, Russia’s naval base in Kaliningrad is known to house a sophisticated air defense network and anti-ship missiles. NATO commanders also have warned of Russian A2/AD buildup around Syria, as Russia has moved advanced surface-to-air missiles into its airbase there as well as a flotilla of ships with robust anti-air capabilities.

As other countries focus on creating sophisticated A2/AD bubbles by using new technology such as drones, advanced missiles and newer aircraft, the United States — by operating as it always has — is putting itself more at risk. According to the report, this is particularly relevant as carrier groups have reduced their long-range strike ability in favor of being able to fly more air missions but at shorter ranges.

“Operating the carrier in the face of increasingly lethal and precise munitions will thus require the United States to expose a multi-billion dollar asset to high levels of risk in the event of a conflict,” the report says. “An adversary with A2/AD capabilities would likely launch a saturation attack against the carrier from a variety of platforms and directions. Such an attack would be difficult — if not impossible — to defend against.”

Last week, China’s A2/AD strategy made international news after satellite imagery showed the deployment of HQ-9 surface-to-air missiles on Woody Island, a disputed atoll in the South China Sea. Though small, the island is claimed by both Taiwan and Vietnam. The CNAS report classifies the HQ-9 as a short-range A2/AD threat but indicates that the movement of such systems into disputed territory in the South China Sea, if properly reinforced, is a potentially long-term problem for U.S. naval operations. Medium and long-range threats discussed in the report include land-based Chinese bombers and anti-ship ballistic missiles such as the DF-21D and DF-26. The two missiles “represent a significant threat to the carrier,” with an estimated range of 810 and 1,620 nautical miles, respectively. According to the report, if the DF-26 is as operational and as accurate as the Chinese say it is, the missile would be able to hit the U.S. territory of Guam.

While the report discusses possible countermeasures for a sophisticated A2/AD network, including the Navy’s future rail gun project, the United States probably would employ a variety of systems and strategies, including hacking, to defeat the enemy threat. However, long-term strategies suggested in the report include putting U.S. combat power into systems such as submarines and long-range carrier-based drones. Submarines could evade A2/AD by remaining undetected, while carrier-based drones — with their increased range — would give carriers much-needed standoff from potential A2/AD threats.

The United States “must re-examine the relevance of the carrier and its air wing and explore innovative options for future operations and force structure,” the report concludes. “If the United States is to maintain its military superiority well into the future, it cannot afford to do otherwise.”



Report can be found here: Center for New American Security

_________________
"Haijun" means "navy" in Mandarin Chinese.

"You have enemies? Good. It means you stood up for something in your life."- Winston Churchill


Last edited by Haijun watcher on Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:20 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 10:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Posts: 12138
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Man, it's a good thing we didn't build those Essexes and put out a bunch of CVLs and CVEs instead! Oh wait.

Snark aside:
Besides, any criticism of the carrier's vulnerability has to bring up alternatives that maintain the same or better capabilities while reducing vulnerability. A carrier isn't just about bringing the pain to distant targets - it's about all the different missions its airwing can accomplish, perhaps most uniquely that of loitering until an optimal time to strike can occur with minimum time-to-target. This cannot be replaced by more SSGNs with land attack cruise missiles, which is one of the frequently-touted alternatives - kinetic long-range strike is only one of the many missions carried out by CVNs.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 84 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests


You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group