
Pentagon to Retire USS Truman Early, Shrinking Carrier Fleet to 10 - smacktoward
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/02/pentagon-to-retire-uss-truman-early-shrinking-carrier-fleet-to-10/
======
AWildC182
This seems like a good case for why congress needs less influence on military
line items (distinct from the budget as a whole). They'll complain that it
makes the US less safe but in reality they just want the jobs at the expense
of defense capabilities. They know x carrier part _will_ be built in their
district as opposed to the billions used on other more relevant priorities as
determined by people who are trained and paid to develop strategies. I don't
think the people complaining are experts in military strategy and defense
technology.

Now, all this said, to spite what most news outlets are babbling about, the
carriers are very much still relevant and important and will remain so for at
least a few decades. They just need to be balanced with developing future
systems and demanding that we always have 11 carriers doesn't really provide
the flexibility to handle emerging threats.

~~~
nickthemagicman
Are they? It seems like a billion dollar asset that can be destroyed with a
few million dollar missile is a little outdated?

~~~
0xffff2
How many of our carriers have actually been destroyed? Until we have some
real-world data, your assumption doesn't hold water. Missiles and missile
defense are incredibly complex beasts that almost never work quite as well
operationally as expected.

~~~
AWildC182
In fairness, waiting for carriers to get sunk to generate some empirical data
might not be the best route. Everything kind of has to be sorted out in
simulation to get the best chance of success

~~~
0xffff2
The point is that we _do that_ , and the problem space is just too complex to
produce clear answers. We don't know what would happen if someone launched a
missile at one of our aircraft carriers. With that in mind, nick is clearly
begging the question.

------
alexhutcheson
The Naval Gazing blog has a four-part series called "Why the Carriers Are Not
Doomed" in which he makes the case: "Claims that US carriers are very
vulnerable to missile attack, and will be sunk immediately in any upcoming
war, are quite common. They’re also wrong. The carriers are surprisingly
survivable, and the prowess of missiles is usually grossly exaggerated."

I don't have the expertise to fully evaluate the arguments, but it's worth a
read before you fully swallow the "carriers are pointless because of anti-ship
missiles" line.

[https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-
Part-1](https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-1)

[https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-
Part-2](https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-2)

[https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-
Part-3](https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-3)

[https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-
Part-4](https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-4)

~~~
dogma1138
These claims also completely ignore the fact that carriers and other high
value assets aren't going to be thrown into the fray, they aren't stationary
and aren't unprotected.

In a case of a war with say China the US isn't going to park it's carrier
fleet in the littoral waters and yell come at me bro the risks to the carrier
are well known and understood and there are plenty of things the US can do to
mitigate against those and very much effectively so.

The US has a very long history of naval warfare and the longest effective
history in carrier operations a US carrier in the south china sea is still
likely the most safe airwing you can have in the area since the US bases in
the area are a much easier target for potential Chinese strikes.

I don't think people understand how hard it is to find a carrier battle group
in the middle of the seas even within it's combat effective range not to
mention guide and hit a moving target with very capable air defenses.

This holds true especially for the so called carrier killer "hypersonic"
weapons which while might be able to pass through the missile defense shield
of the strike group and the carrier itself have very poor terminal maneuvering
and while a carrier is slow hitting a target evading your at 30 without very
excellent terminal guidance isn't likely.

------
dontbenebby
Is the idea of a hot, but non nuclear war with China realistic? I have a hard
time picturing scenarios where China is sinking carriers which don't quickly
escalate to full blown nuclear war.

As a practical matter, perhaps carriers are just not going to be as important
in the future? Drones can be launched from a much wider variety of places /
ship decks.

The future of war may be a giant swarm of small ships and drones rather than
one large flagship ringed by layers of destroyers etc to protect it.

~~~
philwelch
> Is the idea of a hot, but non nuclear war with China realistic? I have a
> hard time picturing scenarios where China is sinking carriers which don't
> quickly escalate to full blown nuclear war.

It could be if there isn't a meaningful conventional deterrent.

Thought experiment--if the US _only_ had strategic nuclear weapons, what would
they do if China attempted to, for example, blockade Taiwan or the
Philippines? It would be insane and homicidal to immediately escalate to
nuking Beijing. What if the US had conventional forces, but not ones strong
enough to hold off Chinese forces? They might take the risk that we wouldn't
attempt a first strike.

Conversely, if it happened today, it would be proportional and reasonable to
deploy conventional naval forces to escort merchant ships across the blockade.
Maybe one of the Chinese ships would fire on one of the American ships, or one
of the merchant ships under American protection, and maybe there might be a
naval skirmish. But it wouldn't immediately escalate into a nuclear exchange.
There would be an "incident", the Chinese would realize that they would have
to escalate to a nuclear first strike because their naval capacity is
hopelessly outclassed by ours, and thus they would probably stand down.
Furthermore, China already knows this is exactly what would happen in this
situation and that's one of many reasons they don't try anything.

Despite an infamous 1995 quote from a Chinese general that "in the end, you
care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei", Chinese posturing in
the Taiwan Straits in 1996 led to a large US naval deployment to the seas
around Taiwan, at which point China stood down. A full-on war could still
escalate to a nuclear exchange, but that is all the more deterrent against
starting even a conventional war with US forces. (For similar reasons, note
how Russia's bullying tends to be targeted towards countries that haven't
joined NATO.)

~~~
stcredzero
_There would be an "incident", the Chinese would realize that they would have
to escalate to a nuclear first strike because their naval capacity is
hopelessly outclassed by ours, and thus they would probably stand down._

Or, they might plan a secret saturation anti-ship missile strike that would
take out a big chunk of the US fleet, calculating that we wouldn't escalate to
full war or nuclear over Taiwan.

 _Despite an infamous 1995 quote from a Chinese general that "in the end, you
care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei", Chinese posturing in
the Taiwan Straits in 1996 led to a large US naval deployment to the seas
around Taiwan, at which point China stood down._

Basically it comes down to this: At what point is maintaining the Taiwan "cork
in the bottle" no longer worth the cost for the US to maintain global
dominance of the oceans? Keep your eye out for a naval arms race between the
US and China.

~~~
philwelch
> Or, they might plan a secret saturation anti-ship missile strike that would
> take out a big chunk of the US fleet, calculating that we wouldn't escalate
> to full war or nuclear over Taiwan.

This is similar to the strategy behind Pearl Harbor. Which isn't to say that
it's the exact same, or that the Chinese wouldn't attempt it--likewise, we
should expect and prepare for such a threat.

> Keep your eye out for a naval arms race between the US and China.

Agreed.

I think the anti-ship missile threat in particular is something the Navy is
planning for, judging by the strong investment in directed-energy weapons.

~~~
stcredzero
_This is similar to the strategy behind Pearl Harbor. Which isn 't to say that
it's the exact same, or that the Chinese wouldn't attempt it--likewise, we
should expect and prepare for such a threat._

All of the ways it's unlike Pearl Harbor favor the Chinese over what the
Japanese had to work with in WWII. For one thing, they already control China.
For another thing, they wouldn't have to reach all the way to Hawaii. They
could mount pressure requiring a US response, then take out our carrier groups
relatively close to their shores.

 _I think the anti-ship missile threat in particular is something the Navy is
planning for, judging by the strong investment in directed-energy weapons._

Things that make you go "hmmmm." Even directed energy weapons have a
saturation point. Such weapons are also dependent on detection and targeting,
which can also be jammed and saturated. Submarines would already mitigate a
lot of that threat. The US has a strong submarine force with considerable
experience in such "cold war" activities. They have a strong track record of
winning a war of stealth and signals intelligence far from their home shores.

~~~
philwelch
> All of the ways it's unlike Pearl Harbor favor the Chinese over what the
> Japanese had to work with in WWII. For one thing, they already control
> China. For another thing, they wouldn't have to reach all the way to Hawaii.
> They could mount pressure requiring a US response, then take out our carrier
> groups relatively close to their shores.

While true, I was referring more to the idea that immediately destroying a
significant amount of American naval power would cause the United States to
immediately fold. In that respect, China's possession of nuclear weapons is
the most relevant difference.

On the other hand, China would get one shot at 2, _maybe_ 3 carrier groups. If
their attack fails, it would be a massive strategic backfire. If their attack
succeeds, they gain only the immediate operational advantage of not having to
worry about US carrier groups. They would also gain the strategic advantage of
tying the hands of the US in terms of deploying ballistic missile defenses
against a potential Chinese nuclear strike. But, as you point out, we could
adapt and deploy submarines to blockade China while exerting diplomatic and
economic pressure.

In other words, even if China manages to prove themselves invulnerable to the
projected power of American carriers, they would still not gain a sustainable
advantage and would remain in a protracted state of hostilities. The best case
outcome of a Chinese first strike against American carriers would still be
pretty awful for them.

> Even directed energy weapons have a saturation point. Such weapons are also
> dependent on detection and targeting, which can also be jammed and
> saturated.

It's hard to say at this point. If you're discussing the claim that cruise
missiles are cheaper than carriers, a fair response is that megawatts are
cheaper than cruise missiles. Maybe it won't work out, but it's worth a try
and that's the stage we're at.

~~~
stcredzero
_The best case outcome of a Chinese first strike against American carriers
would still be pretty awful for them._

If the Chinese are going to take the risks and roll the dice on a first
strike, then they're going to be playing for some pretty enticing stakes, like
Taiwan. That's the point of such a move. It would come at the end of a series
of escalations. For such a move to pay off, they'd have to be confident that
they could control the seas around Taiwan long enough to mount a successful
invasion. Prior to that, there would need to be a buildup of China's submarine
forces. Perhaps they would have built a SOSUS style listening array, along
with a surface fleet buildup which would only hit a level that the US Navy
brass would still scoff at. If I were China, I would consider building a great
many attack subs with ultra quiet but cheap surface independent propulsion and
anti-ship capability. Many of these might come in the form of even quieter,
smaller, and somewhat expendable autonomous drone subs. To make such a plan
work, they will also have to solve the logistical problem of landing an
enormous number of troops and their supplies. That last factor will likely be
detected by US intelligence long beforehand, but might be camouflaged to throw
off the time estimate.

If I were the Chinese top brass, I would be conducting a highly secretive
program of drone sub building. As an alternative or an adjunct, perhaps do a
huge air force buildup with very potent anti-submarine capability. The idea
would be to neutralize the US Surface advantage with saturation missile
strike, then make it very dangerous and miserable for the US submarines, but
achieve those advantages while still having the US Navy brass scoff at your
capabilities.

 _If you 're discussing the claim that cruise missiles are cheaper than
carriers, a fair response is that megawatts are cheaper than cruise missiles.
Maybe it won't work out, but it's worth a try and that's the stage we're at._

The question is not if cruise missiles are cheaper than megawatts. The
question is not even if cruise missiles are cheaper than the high-tech ship
that deploys those megawatts. (Which is a less favorable question for the US.)
The question is if the price of those cruise missiles and Chinese lives is
worth getting Taiwan. Given that Taiwan is a stepping stone for China's
ascendance to the level of global superpower, I suspect the price they're
willing to pay is rather high.

~~~
philwelch
The problem with Taiwan is that to take Taiwan, they have to actually take
Taiwan. That means transporting troops across the straits in sufficient force
to establish a beachhead and transporting supplies and reinforcements to that
beachhead. That requires a lot of Chinese surface shipping that would be even
more vulnerable to cruise missiles and air attack. And that’s assuming an RoE
where the US doesn’t just immediately (conventionally) bomb all of China’s
coastal ports preemptively. Even if they solve that problem, it would be
logistically very difficult to cross even the Taiwan Straits in sufficient
force, and would require destroying and alienating Taiwan and causing a
possibly bigger problem in the long run.

This is why the South China Sea is so important—it provides a potential outlet
to the open sea while keeping open the possibility of gradual, peaceful
reintegration with Taiwan.

The only caveat—and it’s a big one—is that China is in a demographic situation
where it wouldn’t hurt them to lose even ten million men due to the heavy
gender imbalance of the military-age generation created by the one-child
policy.

As for DEWs, cruise missiles and saturation attacks work because you can
launch so many cruise missiles that no system can track all of them in enough
detail to acquire a firing solution and launch SAMs. DEWs simplify this a lot.
The firing solution is just line-of-sight to a contact, you can fire the DEW
as quickly as you can generate power rather than having a set amount of
ammunition you need to conserve, and if it’s a choice between firing at an
unconfirmed target and losing the ship and you can fire the laser, you fire
the laser. The question is simply generating enough power to fire the DEW at
the necessary rate to handle a saturation attack. Hypersonic cruise missiles
make this harder, but at the cost of the cruise missiles themselves being more
expensive. It’s not obvious where the balance is going to end up.

------
sgt101
Does the delivery of HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales have any
bearing on this - they aren't super carriers, but they are pretty close.

Does the pentagon calculate that there's some flex as a result?

~~~
AWildC182
Almost certainly. Friendly nations' capabilities are in many ways just as
important as your own. While the obvious reason for pushing the F-35 on
everyone is because we get to make money for LM, it also means there are more
F-35s out there that can be used in the event something happens.

~~~
dTal
For the UK, the F-35 procurement deal has utterly crippled their force
projection ability. For some inexplicable reason, the decision was made in
2011 to "sell" all 72 of the UK's (newly refurbished at great expense) Harrier
jump jets to the US Marine Corps, for the tiny sum of 180 million dollars.
This left them completely without carrier-capable aircraft for many years,
despite investing billions in a new aircraft carrier. As of this moment, the
UK has a grand total of... 9 ops ready F-35 lightnings.

So forgive me if I doubt that allied readiness is in any way a priority for
the F-35 program.

~~~
AWildC182
Maybe the F-35 wasn't the best example. There was intent, and then there was
execution and I guess we can both agree that the execution was...lacking?

~~~
dTal
As I understand it, a major reason for the F-35's existence in the first place
was that the F-22 was considered too good to export; the F-35 is deliberately
inferior. So I'm still not convinced about the intent.

------
WrtCdEvrydy
I wonder how that law would be interpreted if China sunk one of our carriers
in a cruise missile fight.

On that one hand, the loss of life would be ridiculous but would we need to
immediately start building a new one to be 'compliant'

~~~
JanSolo
If the US got into a hot war with China, we are all screwed.

Recall that the US succeeded in WW1 and WW2 by out-producing their opponents.
They simply built more guns and tanks and munitions than everyone else. US
munitions were lower quality than what was produced in Europe, but they were
cheaper and available in large numbers. That's what mattered.

However, that's a strategy that won't work against China. The Chinese are the
undisputed kings of building things fast and cheap. They would out-produce the
US easily AND they have a much larger population to conscript into their
armies.

US military chiefs must know that a land-war against China has almost no
chance of success. China is too big and their army too numerous.

So if the war were to go badly (which it almost certainly would) they would be
likely to consider the nuclear option... and once we go there, there's no
going back. China would retaliate; Russia would likely get involved; article 5
would be invoked.... game over.

~~~
goatsi
How well could China sustain that production with zero imports via sea? They
have relied on imported coal for power production since 2007, and are now the
world's largest importer of oil, 43% of it coming from the gulf in big slow
tankers. US Carrier groups thousands of miles away from China could cripple
it's imports with a few radio messages.

~~~
simonblack
"the world's largest importer of oil, 43% of it coming from the gulf in big
slow tankers."

The Middle-East's oil and the factories in China are all on the same land-
mass. They don't _need_ sea transport, that's just more convenient/cheaper for
China at present.

~~~
goatsi
China has only a single land fueled pipeline that doesn't lead to Russia, and
it comes from Kazakhstan. It can carry 120 thousand barrels per day. China
used over 13 million barrels per day in 2017, and I can only imagine it has
increased since then.

There is a pipeline that leads from Myanmar to China, but it is supplied by
tankers docking in Myanmar. I assume the US Navy would put a stop to that
pretty quickly.

After pipelines the next best way to move oil over land is by train. Huge
trains of tanker cars are extremely visible to surveillance. Since they have
to follow the train tracks and are slow moving, they make perfect targets as
well, and you only need one missile to get through.

~~~
ardy42
Also, in any kind of hot war, all kinds of overland transportation
infrastructure are going to be high-priority targets. The are probably more
than a few bridges between the Middle East and China.

------
JanSolo
I wonder why the US is so determined to have a large carrier fleet?

With the advent of anti-ship cruise missiles, carriers have lost the decisive
edge that they had during WW2. It seems like few nations are willing to bear
the development and maintenance costs of modern carriers. Yet the US continues
to build carriers as if they were at war! Furthermore, there is a huge uproar
(along with legal challenges!) whenever anyone dares to suggest even slowing
down the rate of carrier deployment. Why is the US so set on a policy that
every other developed nation has eschewed? It makes no sense to me.

~~~
wil421
Did Afghanistan, Iraq, Isis, Syria, or even Serbia have the capability to
launch cruise missles at aircraft carriers? What about Vietnam or Korea?

I think your underestimating what aircraft carriers are actually used for. The
Navy has been dropping bombs off aircraft carriers since WW2. I doubt we will
ever see another world war in our lifetime. They may sell it to Congress one
way and use it another way.

~~~
JanSolo
I agree with you; guns are great when you're fighting enemies armed only with
sharp sticks...

The first time the US has to deal with Anti-Ship cruise-missiles might be a
bad day for them.

~~~
wil421
It would be a bad day for everyone!

------
dustinmoorenet
We should give it to Taiwan. That would piss China off nicely. /sarcasm

