
The U.S. Navy’s Big Mistake: Building Tons of Supercarriers - gk1
https://warisboring.com/the-u-s-navy-s-big-mistake-building-tons-of-supercarriers-79cb42029b8#.6hi87yw3z
======
vinceguidry
This question gets asked on Quora over and over and over and over and over
again. The article makes three main points, that carriers are expensive,
vulnerable and useless. All three points are wrong.

Sure, $6 billion looks like a lot of money. But it's a drop in the bucket
compared to the rest of the Carrier Battle Group. You need a lot of ships to
properly protect a carrier.

Sure, in a conflict with a major international power, our carriers won't stick
around. But first, 48 hours is a _long time_ in the context of modern
conventional warfare. Guerrilla warfare lasts as long as the people involved
want it to last, conventional wars are decided in time periods measured in
hours. So a carrier battle group isn't particularly vulnerable. Sure, new tech
like ASBMs will force us to change tactics, but we're developing new tech too.

Also, nobody is predicting another war with a major international power. The
game changer isn't carriers and hasn't been for decades. The game changer is
nuclear weapons. If Russia or China decides to target our carriers, the
response will have nuclear components. Nuclear weapons are the only things
keeping our carriers afloat anyway, if they didn't exist, we'd have scrapped
them a long time ago.

So, 48 hours. During this time, each carrier, with it's compliment of an
entire fighter-bomber wing, has destroyed much more than its share of enemy
military targets. Also, the battle groups don't have to actually see battle in
order to be useful. A carrier is essentially a floating air base that we can
put pretty much anywhere we want, giving us the global strike capabilities
that make it so, if we have to threaten a petty tyrant with utter destruction,
he doesn't just laugh us out of the room.

~~~
mcv
> Sure, $6 billion looks like a lot of money. But it's a drop in the bucket
> compared to the rest of the Carrier Battle Group. You need a lot of ships to
> properly protect a carrier

That doesn't make the carrier less expensive, it makes it more expensive.

> If Russia or China decides to target our carriers, the response will have
> nuclear components.

Are you suggesting that the US will initiate nuclear war?

~~~
SEJeff
The US policy on first-use of nuclear weapons is quite clear. We will use them
as an option against another country that is nuclear capable or has weapons of
mass destruction (chemical or bio). As a US military war vet do I think we
ever would unless faced with overwhelming military odds against us? Nope.

Obama has been doing all within his power (very little due to congress in-
fighting) to try and reduce our nuclear stockpile as much as feasible. With 3
seawolf class nuclear missile submarines sneaking around somewhere in the
ocean, it is unlikely that anyone no matter how advanced could prevent nuclear
retaliation should they pre-empt the US.

That being said, the entire premise of this article is a bit silly, and coming
from war is boring, I'm a bit surprised as their stuff is generally spot on.
The thing about a full Carrier Strike Group is the blue water ability to
project the US air power anywhere in the world. That is what keeps carriers
relevant (for now). The new hypersonic glide vehicles might change the game
certainly as there isn't really much of any defense against incoming warheads
going Mach 10, but those are still a bit out tech-wise.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use#United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use#United_States)

~~~
badloginagain
My takeaway from the article is that carrier vulnerability is increasing from
low cost, high range missiles. As the article mentioned, they only need a few
hits. Carriers are a big target, and from the sounds of it potential nation-
state enemies have adopted anti-carrier naval doctrines based on small
signature boats with high damage output.

Carriers seem to be highly effective in uncontested waters, allowing force
projection anywhere in the world. The article is saying that carriers are
becoming less relevant when contested by a prepared enemy.

~~~
sitkack
Cheaper, smaller carriers could deploy many more UAVs with a larger
operational range. Why are will still putting pilots in planes?

~~~
toss1
Because we need to anticipate conditions in which communications links and
space assets (e.g., GPS and comms links) are unavailable.

UAVs do not yet have the autonomous intelligence to operate on their own, and
even if they do, we haven't yet decided to give robots the decision to kill
autonomously.

Answer 2 =) we already do, to some degree. E.g., Cruise Missiles have had the
ability to navigate on inertial guidance and terrain-following technology for
decades, and we use those a lot. But again, a cruise missile can only get
programmed for one target, go there, and hit it.

A pilot can go to the target area, notice that the target has moved or new
conditions exist (e.g., a bunch of children have been moved in as human
shields), or notice that new targets of opportunity have popped up, and
immediately take appropriate action.

And, we're back to the autonomous AI tech is not yet that good (and I'm not
sure that we want it to get that good).

~~~
SEJeff
Re: cruise missile targets, not quite for the targetting. A group of the
Tomahawk Block IV missiles can be launched over a target area and loiter for
some time with a list of pre-programmed targets or updated live from any other
sensor platform (a jet, helo, satellite, etc). Say there are 20 targets and 25
missiles live loitering around an area. When the operator says to strike, 15
of the missiles can strike simultaneously while a few can stay aloft to
provide BDA (battle damage assessment for non-military folk) and then go in
for the 2 of the 1-2 punch.

The Block IV missiles can also share targets amongst eachother and decide
which target to strike (among a list of programmed targets) themselves based
on factors such as proximity and other classified bits.

[http://gizmodo.com/this-tomahawk-is-a-mighty-morphin-
cruise-...](http://gizmodo.com/this-tomahawk-is-a-mighty-morphin-cruise-
missile-1536509027)

[https://defense-update.com/products/t/tomahawk.htm](https://defense-
update.com/products/t/tomahawk.htm)

~~~
toss1
Yes, they have these fantastic capabilities, and they are improving all the
time.

That said, note that even your example included live updates via
comms/satellite links...

Consider the scenario where comms and orbital assets are
unavailable/unreliable.

We still need human pilots. We're working to the day when we won't, but, we're
not there yet.

(BTW, I'm all for unmanned, and think the F35 is already obsolete, and that
humans are the limiting performance factor in esp. fighter aircraft (e.g.,
limiting it to 10g accelerations, but we're just not there yet for all
scenarios, to answer the GP question as to "why not")

------
poof131
As a former Navy F/A-18 pilot, I have strong opinions on this and generally
agree with the analysis. A few thoughts:

1\. The services are building what the defense contractors want to build more
than what the war fighters want. Knew a lot of pilots who didn’t like the F-35
and would have preferred more, cheaper planes specialized for specific roles.
This defense contractor capture is a big problem.

2\. The services waste these ‘big war’ resources on our insurgency campaigns.
F/A-18s were about 10k per flight hour and perform worse than platforms such
as the Super Tacono[1] when supporting war fighters on the ground. We spent
hundreds of billions more than we needed to on the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan because when the game starts everyone wants to play to justify
their budgets. Programs such as the Super Tacano were shut down to protect and
justify the massive expenditure on fighter jets. Funding for different types
of wars needs to go through different sources to prevent this enormous waste
of money.

3\. I’d be for a submersible carrier that could surface to launch and retrieve
drones that act as missile trucks for both air-to-air and strike missions. I
wouldn’t go all in on unmanned aircraft though, since I would also assume the
possibility of totally denied electronic environment where signals are jammed
and space assets are unavailable.

4\. To force military leaders to focus on the services and not themselves, I’d
support a ban on senior level leadership (O-7 and above) from accepting board
seats or contractor / full-time positions with defense contractors. Too many
leaders make decisions while in service influenced by their personal outcomes
when they get out. This behavior reinforces a system that supports the status
quo. Senior leaders have great retirement packages and can do things other
than maintain an incestuous relationship with the military-industrial complex.
Although sometimes other jobs seem to result in more bad behavior such as
pressure to look the other way on Theranos and its questionable product.[2, 3]
Does look like their board has gotten a bit better with the only remaining
military / diplomat being General Mattis. Glad to see Admiral Roughead and
Secretary of State Kissinger are no longer there.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano)
[2] [http://www.techinsider.io/emails-theranos-elizabeth-
holmes-u...](http://www.techinsider.io/emails-theranos-elizabeth-holmes-us-
military-2015-12) [3]
[https://www.theranos.com/leadership](https://www.theranos.com/leadership)

~~~
tlrobinson
> To force military leaders to focus on the services and not themselves, I’d
> support a ban on senior level leadership from accepting board seats or
> contractor / full-time positions

I'd extend to this to a lot of high ranking government positions, and a lot of
other jobs (lobbying, etc).

What if we just said "In order to serve in this position you must give up the
right to employment by private corporations for the rest of your life. In
return you will be given a significant pension."

Is that a totally naïve idea?

EDIT: I was specifically thinking of positions where the prestige and a very
good salary/pension (plus book deals / speaking engagements) would be more
than enough to attract many qualified people.

But yes, preventing private employment entirely is probably too aggressive,
and it seems difficult to scope restrictions on types of jobs.

~~~
beambot
So more career politicians? And since their job prospects outside govt are
basically nil, you'd have an even higher bar for dismissal based on
performance or incompetence. It's already hard enough to cull the govt
employee herd... we don't need every little position becoming a lifetime
appointment a la supreme court justices.

~~~
semi-extrinsic
OP said those of O-7 rank (one-star general) or above. Statutory limits [1]
state that there can be no more than ~400 people of rank O-8 or above in the
US military. So say 1000 people in active service at O-7 or above.

Do you really think a number like that is significantly influencing the size
of the "govt employee herd"? And do you really think the cost of keeping these
people employed outweighs the benefits of keeping them away from private
positions using their connections for lobbying the government?

[1]
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/525](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/525)

~~~
beambot
The parent I responded to made no such distinction; they were advocating an
expanded scope:

> I'd extend to this to a lot of high ranking government positions, and a lot
> of other jobs (lobbying, etc).

------
hudibras
It can be easy to lose sight of in this new era of America intervening and
starting conflicts of our own choice throughout the world, but the U.S. is
still 100% committed to total defense of both Taiwan and South Korea. I'm not
talking about Afghanistan or Iraq levels of commitment (~100k troops for a few
months, 3-4 carrier strike groups), I'm talking full mobilization of the
reserves (1 million U.S. troops in uniform), commandeering the entire civil
aviation fleet, every Marine, every ship in the Navy, every aircraft in the
Air Force heading to the Western Pacific, fighting-to-the-last-man-like-
it's-World-War-Two level of commitment.

All decisions on U.S. military force structure, including the number of
aircraft carriers in the fleet, flow down from what is required to fight those
two conflicts.

~~~
mercer
Could you elaborate on why this is the case? Or point me in the right
direction?

~~~
simonh
North Korea is still actualy in a state of War with South Korea and has
nuclear weapons. They are expressly committed to incorporating South Korea, a
country Anerica has already fought one war to defend, under their control.
Similarly China considers Taiwan part of their territory. A commitment to
defend either of those has to be total in order to be at all meaningful. The
slightest indication of a weakening of resolve would open space for a
political and military wedge that would inevitably prize the US and its allies
apart.

In contrast, in Europe there is no similar explicit and imminent territorial
threat to US allies. Yes Russia makes no bones about their attitude to
Ukraine, but Ukraine isn't a NATO member and the US doesn't have as clear a
treaty obligation to protect it. The Russian governent are dangerous assholes,
but their threat is piecemeal and opportunistic while the claims of China and
the DPRK are existential.

~~~
exar0815
Yes and no. France and Great Britain guaranteed Ukraine's territorial
integrity, when they agreed to return the ex-soviet nuclear weapons to Russia
after the fall of the Iron Curtain. Somehow, they weaseled themselves out.

~~~
brohee
Surely you mean the US and the UK?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Securit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Security_Assurances)
[http://www.dw.com/en/ukraines-forgotten-security-
guarantee-t...](http://www.dw.com/en/ukraines-forgotten-security-guarantee-
the-budapest-memorandum/a-18111097)

France wasn't a signatory.

~~~
exar0815
Yeah, sorry, had that somehow mixed up.

------
oldmanjay
This article is one tree in a dark forest. The real problem, which underlies
all the issues faced by our government, is the complete reliance on robber-
baron contractors who happily enrich themselves at the public trough while
working the congress to ensure that the purchasing rules keep them locked in
on the path to enrichment forever.

It's good to poke holes in the need for military hardware that costs a
unicorn's specious valuation, but it's not the actual problem here.

~~~
aerovistae
Indeed. SpaceX has fixed just one of these cases but there are countless. If
only it could be addressed more systemically.

~~~
pm90
Is that really what we need? Advanced weaponry at cheap prices?

~~~
random28345
> Is that really what we need? Advanced weaponry at cheap prices?

That reminds me of the high-school math teacher who brings condoms to the
class when he teaches, because he's statistically less likely to contract an
STD than if he left his condoms at home. While _technically_ he's making an
optimal decision, he should really re-examine his assumptions.

------
hackuser
On a purely temporal level: The aircraft carrier became the dominant naval
warfare tech in 1942, 74 years ago. 74 years before that was just after the
U.S. Civil War. I wonder how many Civil War technologies remained dominant in
WWII; probably not much in the navy.

Now that is a very flawed, simplistic comparison. But it makes me wonder if
aircraft carriers are obsolete and we just don't know it yet because there
hasn't been a naval war since then. And it makes me wonder about other
technologies, such as tanks and fighter planes. Many of the technologies used
seem to be modernizations of what was used in the last large war, which ended
in 1945. Did innovation stop then?

Remember how quickly things changed in around 25 years between WWI and WWII:
Tanks, planes, and aircraft carriers, to name a few, either didn't exist or
were insignificant in WWI, and WWII ended with bombers dropping nuclear
weapons (another platform and strategy still in use today).

~~~
linkregister
Civil War technologies that persisted to WW2 and beyond: the rifle, trench
warfare, howitzers, battlefield surgery.

I agree in general with the article (the tl;dr being that carriers are
extremely vulnerable to asymmetrically small threats). It omits the reason the
U.S. Navy employs them in the first place: force projection.

Without a carrier group, an overseas nation has no credible opportunity to
bombard a far away theater, engage in air sorties, land troops, or any other
expeditionary action.

Defense of carriers is a problem that must be solved, or the U.S. would have
to accept a military stalemate for naval warfare. This has serious strategic,
diplomatic, and economic consequences. Many countries' posturing depends on
the U.S. Navy's implied or explicit protection.

~~~
Retric
In air refueling lets counties drop bombs on the other side of the planet.
Aircraft carriers are cheaper but that assumes they are not sitting ducks and
we can't find a friendly airfield somewhere.

~~~
kosmic_k
Airfields are the quintessential sitting ducks: high value targets with have a
fixed position that could have coordinates recorded long in advance of any
action.

An carrier on the other hand is a thousand foot runway that can move at 56
km/hr.

~~~
Retric
Moving is not a major defense if your easy to find, in modern warfare
satellites for example are sitting ducks. As the article points out aircraft
carriers are like battleships right before WWII. They have been drastically
improved, but are untested vs modern weapons.

So sure, if the enemy can't easily sink all your aircraft carriers then they
are a great option. Sadly, I don't think that's anywhere close to proven.

~~~
hackuser
> Moving is not a major defense if your easy to find

Based on practitioners and experts I've read, finding ships is very difficult.
The ocean is a huge place; remember there's far more ocean than land area.
Imagine if you were told that somewhere in North America there's an object the
size of an aircraft carrier, and it's moving around. How hard would it be to
find it? The Pacific is much larger (though if there's a war over a contested
location, the search area becomes much smaller).

Also, there are not nearly enough resources to watch the whole ocean at once.
The U.S. military can't even monitor all of Afghanistan, or even all of
contested regions in Afghanistan.

~~~
Retric
Aircraft carriers use active radar which makes them really easy to find. It's
much closer to locating Iowa in the middle of the ocean than a boat. And once
you locate one they can't really hide very well.

------
kosmic_k
The problem is that the same massive range of area denial weapons and cruise
missiles also puts fixed assets such as airstrips and bases as far as Guam in
jeopardy of attack. Thus there is the problem of how do you get platforms
capable of delivering payloads onto your adversary.

Carrier's are efficient at that. Unlike fixed bases, they're far more
difficult to track and hit. They can launch a large number of aircraft which
can hit a larger number of targets with stand off munitions. Drones can be
used to delivery, although it is worth noting that most modern cruise missiles
effectively are drones themselves with a several hundred pound warhead.

The author completely ignores China's increasingly sophisticated anti-
submarine underwater listening network. Just how stealthy are our submarines
in comparison to the detection capability of a potential adversary?
Furthermore how long with a submarine stay hidden after launching a cruise
missile attack? If we're to assume that the range places it within the sphere
of A2/AD then it would be just as vulnerable as a surface ship after
attacking.

Which then begs the question of how do you deliver payloads? You could opt to
instead rely on munitions which can be launched for farther away, but such
munitions certainly would be more costly. I would think that the optimal
solution in respect to limited resources would be some mix of long range
munitions to counter area denial capability followed by the deployment of
shorter ranged assets.

But that's just my 5cent as an enthusiast who doesn't actually have any
professional experience in the matter. Although from what I read about the
author, it appears we're on similar footing in that regard.

~~~
akiselev
》 _The author completely ignores China 's increasingly sophisticated anti-
submarine underwater listening network. Just how stealthy are our submarines
in comparison to the detection capability of a potential adversary?_

Our nuclear submarines would probably be easily tracked with their "listening
network" (I don't know anything about it) but diesel-electric submarines,
which seem to be making a resurgence although not with the pro-nuclear forces
in the navy, are far quieter and harder to detect. Combine that with the sound
matting being develop for next gen subs and/or titanium hulls like Russia used
to make, and you've got a very formidable submarine capable of high speed
travel which will be very hard to detect with passive or active sonar.

~~~
DennisP
Why are diesels quieter? It seems like the opposite would be the case.

~~~
Nokinside
Diesels are used only when the ship recharges batteries. When the sub is
underwater, they can run very silently and be completely silent when they
stop.

Nuclear subs generate noise and vibration from the steam turbines, pipes etc.
that can't be completely eliminated.

~~~
dctoedt
> _When the sub is underwater, they can run very silently and be completely
> silent when they stop._

True, _but_ diesel boats normally run on the surface, and on diesel, because
battery life is limited; they generally submerge only to run an attack or to
escape an attacker (or briefly at dawn, in case there's an unpleasant surprise
out there that wasn't picked up). That's why nuclear submarines were once
referred to as the first true submarines, as opposed to mere submersibles.

~~~
Nokinside
Modern air independent propulsion equipped diesel electric submarines have
underwater endurance for several weeks. Even if they sprint full speed non-
stop they could stay submerged several days.

------
gozur88
Another uninformed article from warisboring. At least in this one they don't
laughably assert the first ever air attack on a battleship happened at Pearl
Harbor.

Unless I'm Googling the wrong David W. Wise, the author has never been in
uniform and has no actual expertise in naval affairs. Most of the points in
the article are regurgitations of dubious headlines ("CBG Never Detects
Chinese Sub!"), and x vs y comparisons that don't make sense in isolation.

There is, though, a valid question buried in all the war nerd theorizing -
what is it, exactly, Americans want their navy to do? Do we still expect to be
able to fight a two front war against well armed adversaries? Now that the
cold war is over, does it make sense to have alliances in Asia that require
large force projection?

~~~
hackuser
> Now that the cold war is over, does it make sense to have alliances in Asia
> that require large force projection?

Yes, even more now that China is likely to become a 'peer' threat. It's really
the U.S.'s only use for a high-end Navy.

Also, I agree that War is Boring is sensationalized and ignorant in general.
It's heartening to see others have noticed.

~~~
gozur88
>Yes, even more now that China is likely to become a 'peer' threat.

Eh... why? In 1950, with the Soviets bankrolling rebel groups and invasions
all over the world you could make the argument countries needed alliances to
counterbalance the threat. But today... is it really unreasonable to expect
wealthy countries like Japan and Korea to see to their own defense?

While I agree at some point China is likely to be just as strong, militarily,
as the US, I don't see a compelling US interest in using warships to defend,
say, Japan's claim to groups of uninhabited islands in the middle of the South
China Sea.

To paraphrase Pournelle, I'm happy to be a friend of freedom everywhere, but a
guarantor only of my own.

~~~
georgeecollins
The problem is that if you don't guarantee the freedom of Taiwan and, more
importantly, Japan, those countries may decide that the safer thing to do is
to switch sides rather than fight alone. Then you are not facing a peer
threat, you are facing a coalition that can plausibly threaten to cut off your
naval access in the Western Pacific.

~~~
gozur88
Switch to what side? If we're not at war with China, what does it even mean
for Taiwan to "switch sides"? More fundamentally, if we don't have declared
interests in the South China Sea area, why would we even consider going to war
with China. Let _them_ deal with the Norks.

In terms of access to the Western Pacific, all the sorts of threats faced by a
US fleet would be faced by a Chinese fleet attempting to operate outside the
range of Chinese land-based aircraft. The least useful role for carriers is
anti-surface warfare, and if the goal is just to keep the sea lanes open we
don't need them. A dozen modern submarines could play hell with any country's
ability to maintain trading routes.

~~~
georgeecollins
That is a bit naive. You may think countries don't "switch sides" but take a
look at Europe after 1989. East Germany joined West Germany and look what
happened to Russian influence over Poland and the Baltic States.

If Japan and Taiwan allowed China to base its navy or air force on their
territory, the US navy would effectively be pushed back to Hawaii. If China
chose to threaten Vietnam, South Korea, Australia.. there would not be much we
could do about it.

~~~
gozur88
>If Japan and Taiwan allowed China to base its navy or air force on their
territory, the US navy would effectively be pushed back to Hawaii.

Yes, and...? If they're happy with China guaranteeing their security, then I
don't see the big problem. As to the other countries... how is this my
problem? Did we help Vietnam the last time China invaded in 1979? Is first-
world island nation Australia incapable of defending itself?

~~~
hackuser
> If they're happy with China guaranteeing their security, then I don't see
> the big problem

China does not guarantee their security or offer to, and they wouldn't be
happy with it. In contrast, the U.S. has treaties to defend them, on which
they heavily rely and which have maintained peace in the region for over 50
years.

------
fooey
Seems to me, all the countries capable of taking out US carriers are powerful
enough that if a war actually broke out, it's the sort of end of the world
scenario where losing a few boats will be the least of our worries. When the
nukes start flying, who cares how many knights each side had?

The carriers are for suppressing the parts of the world who are incapable of
threatening them. Most of the military is completely irrelevant if there's
ever another world scale conflict.

~~~
ethbro
Ah, but there's the rub. If you have nukes and your opponent has nukes, and
your opponent tells you they will use their nukes if you use yours, _when do
you use your nukes_?

Probably to prevent core territorial incursion to the extent it would dissolve
you as a viable entity. But to protect / secure the South China Sea? To win a
proxy war in the Middle East? Where's the line?

Because it's certainly not "as soon as hostilities break out."

~~~
Snargorf
If there ever was a major war between civilized nuclear powers, and it didn't
immediately go nuclear, we might end up with a weird sort of gentleman's
agreement where it's accepted to fire nukes into your own country (at invading
enemy forces) but not at another country.

I can see that being an evolutionarily stable strategy.

~~~
manachar
I would think that a cold war situation is far more likely. No reason to use
nukes in your own territory, many very good reasons to not use nukes at all.
So long as the early warning systems (i.e. satellites) are still in place we
will probably assume that the other side would rather avoid irradiating their
own territory and prefer other aggressive tactics.

~~~
ethbro
My extremely boiled down version of the MAD calculus was that one was only
_required_ to use nuclear weapons if one's capability to use sufficient
nuclear weapons _at some future point in time_ were being lost.

Hence the Cuban missile crisis being such a big deal.

------
Spooky23
Fascinating analysis, that the authors sort of rebuffed at one point. Carriers
are there to project power.

China may have catamaran missile boats and Sovremmry destroyers, but guess
what? Those ships won't be operating far from Chinese coastal waters. Those
"obsolete" carrier battle groups can operate virtually anywhere on the coast
of any ocean. And they'll be able to deploy whatever mix of manned and
unmanned aircraft they need to.

~~~
quakeguy
And they can be sunk by todays military capabilities in no time, and what is
more frightening, nobody can tell where the torpedo/missile came from.

China/Iran/Isreal/Russia (i could name a more few) all have the ability to do
this, maybe even undetected.

Analysis of the detonation device used will be hard for a ship sunk to 3000
feet, not sayin this is impossible.

A carrier group can only do so much in the end.

~~~
sickbeard
Sunk by who how and with what? everything you said is pure speculation
armchair analysis. Carriers project power. end of story. If Russia had
carriers and we didn't they would be on the east coast projecting-their-power.

------
Tloewald
As I understand it, back in the 80s US carriers were regularly destroyed in
joint naval exercises with Australia by diesel submarines (inexpensive ones of
the kind owned by all of our enemies). They're _very_ quiet when running on
batteries. The US navy would respond by changing the "rules" so that the ships
were not considered sunk — I imagine in much the same way that the Japanese
navy brass changed the rules after cadets sank their fleet in wargames played
in their preparations for Midway.

Putting so many eggs in one basket is scary at the best of times, but the US
carrier fleet is the worst of all worlds — hugely symbolic and stupendous sunk
cost (no pun intended). Not only are they ridiculously expensive in and of
themselves, virtually everything else in the Navy (and thanks to the F35, the
air Force) is constrained by its role being defined in terms of how it
functions as part of a carrier task force.

This isn't just a navy problem, it's a defense and foreign policy problem, and
a fiscal disaster.

------
6nf
Supercarriers are good value for money compared to fighter jets or submarines.

The three new Ford class carriers will cost around $30 billion total. Compared
to the estimated 1 trillion spent on the F-35 that's peanuts. Virginia class
attack subs are 2.6 billion each, and the US navy wants 50 of them.

~~~
PantaloonFlames
> Supercarriers are good value for money compared to fighter jets

Good value? You're comparing the cost of Tennis rackets to tennis balls, which
is irrelevant. We either buy both, or neither.

As for your arithmetic regarding carriers and subs, that flies in the face of
the article. The Ford is now (2015 at time of writing) at $14.5B, and is late.
To expect that the Navy delivers 3 of those, for just $15B more.... not
realistic.

The value of the subs is that they are not vulnerable. According to the
article.

~~~
jedc
Former US Navy submarine officer here. It is _very_ difficult to
attack/destroy a submarine. And it's pretty easy for submarines to attack/kill
surface fleets. That's why I've been similarly skeptical of the Navy's heavy
reliance / budget for carriers & carrier groups.

------
btbuildem
"In 2002, the U.S. Navy held a large simulated war game, the Millennium
Challenge, to test scenarios of attacks on the fleet by a hypothetical Gulf
state [...]. The leader of the red team employed brilliant asymmetric tactics
resulting in 16 U.S. ships, including two supercarriers, going to the bottom
in a very short span of time. The Navy stopped the war game, prohibited the
red team from using these tactics and then reran the exercise declaring
victory on the second day."

This reads like something out of Yossarian's diary..

It seems the only reason there isn't a war on between the superpowers is that
it's economically more beneficial to not have one at the moment. Hundreds of
billions of dollars are pumped into outmoded solutions, but at least we don't
have to sink the ships so that the contractors can sell more of them -- the
government happily keeps buying more. The bankers' loans, the unions' workers
and the lobbyists' friends are all humming along finely.

------
vlehto
My prediction for the Ford carrier program is that it will be cancelled and
replaced with...

Even bigger carrier. Significantly bigger.

China can bomb shit out of Guam airstrips. Or from submarines any airstrip
that stays stationary. U.S. can in near future do everything a 100 gigagram
Ford carrier can do with 45Gg America class carrier. With the exception that
Ford will have triple the planes, triple the cost, triple the price and about
double the range of planes aboard. In near future you can do almost everything
with three Americas than with single Ford, with almost exactly the same $/kg
of ordnance delivered. This happens because V-22 osprey and F35B have short
takeoff and landing while having incredible capability. Ford will rely on
F35C, V-22 and super hornet. The hornet being mostly stopgap measure.

But Ford is still limited to planes less than 30 tons and less than 1700km
range. Something that could launch C130 super hercules (70 ton weight, 3800km
range) _safely_ , would make super-duper-giga-hyper-carrier look like
worthwhile investment. The weight of Ford is not the main problem, but it's
not long enough.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-
poc38C84](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ar-poc38C84)

Now you could replace significant portion of Guam with floating airstrips. You
could dominate entire northern pacific with single carrier with it's _organic_
refueling.

The alternative for hypersupercarriers would be America class + some flying
boats acting as refuelers, gunships and transports. That would be more robust
way to do things, as you are putting your eggs to more baskets. But it's also
something that China and India and Brazil can somewhat easily replicate to
lesser degree. (They don't get V-22, but anyhow.) So for reasons of military
industrial complex and to appear unachievable military power(Trump?), U.S.
will make something huge before Ford program runs its course.

~~~
DonHopkins
TIL they measure the weight of aircraft carriers in grams. Is it to make them
seem bigger yet less expensive? So what's the typical cost per gram of a
modern aircraft carrier? How about its range in centimeters on one load of
nuclear fuel?

~~~
vlehto
They don't, it's me.

100 000 tons = 100 000 thousand kilograms = 100 000 thousand thousand grams.
You have three different ways to say "thousand" there, one nested. Which seems
bit overcomplicated compared to Gg.

The 100Gg is huge, 45Gg is WWII huge, 10Gg is interwar "treaty maximum". 4Gg
is what USN currently regards "seaworthy", 2Gg is biggest things that sailed
with sails and anything less than 1Gg is no longer ship but a "boat" in modern
standards. Convenient?

------
Marazan
It was allowing so well until it mentioned ballistic launched anti ship
missiles.

No one is going to launch a ballistic missile at a carrier group as it is
indistinguishable from a nuclear weapon launch.

So the only situation a ballistic missile attack against a carrier group will
occur is in WW3 and we are all dead anyways.

~~~
Nokinside
This is not correct. Maybe it was real thing from cold war era. In any case,
it has not been true for a long time.

Conventional missile artillery is today's reality. The idea that detecting
launch of multiple MRBM's or IRBM would be automatically assumed to be nuclear
strike is absurd. US knows that China's second artillery has wast range of
conventionally armed ballistic missiles and they are part of their
conventional military strategy. Russia has batteries of Iskander-M missiles
directed towards Europe. Large air-defense missiles like Patriot, S-300, SM-3
can also be mistaken as ballistic missiles during the launch.

Terminology: Ballistic missile is general term referring to a missile that
follows a ballistic trajectory. There are several different classes of BM's
(Ballistic Missiles) and they can be easily distinguished from each other by
following their trajectory little bit (there are battlefield-range, short-
range, medium-range, intermediate-range and intercontinental BMs).

~~~
Marazan
When people talk of ship killing ballistic missiles they are talking about
China's Domgfeng arsenal. Dongfeng missiles are giants compared to any of the
SAMs or missle artillery you mentioned.

~~~
Nokinside
More specially DF-21D. China uses different versions of DF-21 missile as
medium-range ballistic missile with large payload, for conventional precision
ground attack, anti-satellite weapons delivery, ballistic missile defense and
for nuclear strike.

DF-21 is medium-range ballistic missile.

The new DF-26 is even bigger (intermediate-range ballistic missile) and can
reach Guam with conventional warhead.

------
rhino369
Presumably the Navy tests how vulnerable they are to ballistic anti ship
weapons and decides it is still worth it.

The article sort of ignores the difficulty of hitting a moving ship with a
ballistic missile when you don't have direct sight.

No way would the carriers be able to operate in the Taiwan straight during a
war, but they further off shore and launch air raids.

The first steps in any major war would be to blind the other sides offensive
radar and satellite capabilities.

~~~
rgbrenner
the chinese are working on the DF-ZF, a hypersonic glide vehicle... it could
search for the supercarrier when it nears the carrier group, and maneuver
itself into position to hit it.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WU-14](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WU-14)

This is the last stage.. it gets launched by a missile like the DF-26 or
DF-31:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-26](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-26)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-31](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-31)

The DF-31 can hit California from China. So if this works, they could keep a
supercarrier out of the pacific ocean with enough of these (assuming they can
get an approximate location).

~~~
sickbeard
None of this Chinese weapons/aircraft have done any actual combat. Their J-31
(f35 clone) is a terrible at flying

------
Hondor
The article seems to be saying America's military isn't powerful enough. Is
that really a problem for anyone, even America? I thought most of their
military was just a byproduct of the military industrial complex and not
actually needed for anything.

~~~
JanezStupar
> I thought most of their military was just a byproduct of the military
> industrial complex and not actually needed for anything.

Except for upkeeping Bretton Woods, which you know is the accord that made US
guarantee safe naval trade routes for everyone in the world.

But yeh, beyond that and perhaps upkeeping Pax Americana it is not really used
or useful for anythings else.

Eventually when Pax Americana runs its course people are going to see what the
US military was good for.

------
spangry
Other than nuclear powered subs, aren't carriers the only US naval vessels in
service that are nuclear powered? And therefore the only vessel able to power
the US navy's future rail gun? [1]

I was also under the impression that once full spec rail guns are mounted on
US carriers it vastly increases the carrier's durability in combat and expands
its combat role. The 32MJ version has a range of 220 miles and uses non-
explosive ordinance, meaning less chance of secondary explosions due to on-
board fires during combat. Also very hard to detect or deploy countermeasures
against a hunk of metal flying really fast (5600mph muzzle velocity
apparently), containing no explosives or electronics.

So carriers are currently giant, slow-moving targets that need to be protected
by a flotilla of other ships in order to achieve force-projection. With rail
guns, they become highly durable and versatile ships capable of ship-to-ship
combat, air defence, point defence, long-range land bombardment, being a
mobile air strip etc.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro-
Magnetic_Laboratory_Ra...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electro-
Magnetic_Laboratory_Rail_Gun)

~~~
chiph
They just need a ship with sufficient electrical generation to run one. The
new DDG-1000 (USS Zumwalt) likely has this, with twin 35 MW generators.

I'm not sure the rail gun has a sufficient rate of fire for use as a missile
defense weapon. It'll more likely be used for short bombardment and anti-ship
fire. I doubt that rail gun projectiles have sufficient penetration into water
to be useful for torpedo defense, but it's probably something they've modeled.

~~~
spangry
Funny, I was just wondering about this while having a shower. Could rail gun
ordinance be used under-water, say, to take out a sub?

It seems like you'd face the same problems as you would with in-air ordinance,
just to a greater degree (e.g. friction). The objective might be slightly
simpler though: rather than delivering maximum kinetic energy to the target
you instead just want to punch a hole through it. That change in objective
might simplify the design of the 'underwater rail gun' ordinance: just use
some nice heavy ferromagnetic metal, shape it to reduce drag and pierce armour
(i.e. make it pointy) and maybe coat it in teflon?

I dunno, not really a physics or weapons nerd here. I just like magnets :)

EDIT: just to clarify, I'm thinking of torpedo defence in the context of
'destroy the sub before it gets within range'.

~~~
chiph
Hmm. There might be enough kinetic energy imparted into the ocean surface to
replace depth charges, and thus damage submarines via concussion. I dunno.
Maybe.

------
Shivetya
I was under the impression that large carrier fleet was championed by the Navy
ages ago because they didn't want to take second place to the Air Force's
Strategic Air Command. This was especially true after WW2 as the Navy was so
very large and influential.

They don't have a place in a war with another super power but the greater
point here is missed. No one and nothing has a place should another war break
out among the super powers. that is a no win game.

So where do they fit it. In projecting power when lower tier countries act up,
when threats to shipping lanes are caused.

Do they need 11? Certainly not but this is all a dick wagging contest among
the branches of the US military which compete more than they cooperate
exaggerating the true cost of the military. My view, totally off the cuff, six
is all they need.

------
nikdaheratik
If you want to replace carriers, you need to look at each role they're playing
and see what works to fill that role.

Air-to-air: Fighters based half a world away don't do much good if you need
someone to shoot enemy planes down right now. Carriers are still useful for
this in many situations.

Air-to-sea: I think this is where the article makes its best point as missiles
and smaller craft make it much harder to keep these safe.

Air-to-ground (strategic): Land based bombers and drones work as well or
better if you have your targets planned out 12-hours in advance. Putting a
carrier there in this case may be a waste of resources.

Air-to-ground (tactical): Having this awesome air force half a world away is
kind of useless when you're getting beat up on the ground right now. Drones
may be able to take up the slack on this, depending on what the enemy has to
counter it, but carriers are still good for this role.

So basically, if you are unchallenged at sea, but have to fight against an
enemy with aircraft nearby, like Iraq, or you need air support because you're
fighting someone who is able to do alot of hit and run tactics, like
Afghanistan, then carriers are useful. If you're fighting against another
country with a huge navy, or you have some place with a friendly airbase
nearby that's relatively safe, you might not need them.

Considering the types of wars we've been fighting lately in the U.S., we can
probably do with fewer carriers, but still need a fair number.

------
hoodoof
Wars are won by the countries that have the largest manufacturing capacity.
This is what happened in World War 2 - the American and Russian manufacturing
capacity overwhelmed that of the Germans and Japanese.

~~~
andrewstuart2
Well, that and the two nuclear bombs.

~~~
vkou
The war was won at that point - the only question was how long it would take
to win it.

------
DanielBMarkham
The military's job is to make people we fight want to stop fighting. That's
it.

If you keep strategy simple and easy-to-understand, you can stay on mission.

Unfortunately, that's not where we're at. The military is used for all sorts
of things -- famine relief, nation-building, geo-political force projection,
and so on. This is the problem with aircraft carriers. They might be lead
weights in the event of an actual shooting war with a major superpower, but
right now we're using them for mobile airports. And mobile airports are useful
for all kinds of things.

If you get rid of the mobile airport, then what's going to take their place?
Who's going to show the flag in the Taiwan Strait or the Persian Gulf? Who's
going to support some U.N. humanitarian mission that's urgent, remote, and
requires CAPs?

The more capability you develop, the more you can't imagine doing without that
capability. So our floating airports are here to stay -- until somebody sinks
them.

Which means we have to support both those _and_ figure out how to do our
actual job, which is making people we fight want to stop fighting.

We see this same pattern of behavior in platform after platform. When you get
to a certain rank at the Pentagon, you feel it's "your time" to bring a big
change to the services. And that means big bucks, big capabilities, and so
forth. Nobody wants to be -- or gets rewarded for being -- a wise and crafty
caretaker of an ever-shrinking pile of money. (Yes, I'm sure there's lip
service paid to all of this. I'm simply making an observation as an outsider
watching DoD for several decades.)

Quick tempo lethal aerial force projection is going to have to be submersible.
Otherwise hypersonic missiles make mincemeat out of your task force. No matter
what kind of radar-controlled gun you have, you ain't stopping something
coming in from directly overhead at Mach 10. The kinetic energy alone is
sufficient here. Got a lot of other thoughts on this, but on some topics on
the net I've learned to keep my mouth shut :)

ADD: No matter what, Congress needs to re-sort out DoD. We need one service
for police force work, nation-building, and humanitarian aid. Another force
for space. One for cyber. Then leave the other ones alone. I might would peel
off strategic missiles from the Air Force because strategic missiles have
nothing directly to do with flying around.

Re-split the money. Then reduce senior staff by 20-40%.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> The military's job is to make people we fight want to stop fighting. That's
> it.

> Unfortunately, that's not where we're at. The military is used for all sorts
> of things -- famine relief, nation-building, geo-political force projection,
> and so on.

I'll give you famine relief, but geo-political force projection is the same
thing you said was the entire goal of the military. A military that can make
people who fight you regret it is the same military that sends the message "if
you fight us, you'll regret it".

It's not logically necessary that we use the military for nation-building the
way it is for force projection, but if we're going to do nation-building the
military is the appropriate group to do it.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
_I 'll give you famine relief, but geo-political force projection is the same
thing you said was the entire goal of the military. A military that can make
people who fight you regret it is the same military that sends the message "if
you fight us, you'll regret it"._

I do not agree with this, and it's important to understand why I do not think
it's the case.

"You're going to regret it" does not the end of a war make. We have already
reached the point where, for cases of conflict involving all but a few
nations, we can make them regret it. Fairly easily. Yet we see the use of
actual force happen more and more. Why? Because my proposed definition of the
military _was not to hurt people or make them regret picking a fight_ It was
to make them stop fighting.

I used to think the military was for blowing up things and killing people. As
it turns out, you can do a helluva lot of blowing stuff up and killing people
and you've got just as much of a conflict as when you started. War is not an
equation to be solved by some new McNamara. It is also not a spectacle meant
for some foreign national command authority. Yes, it _might_ work that way in
a very few large cases, but we know that in _every_ case the goal is to get
them to stop fighting.

We are buying very expensive hardware for edge cases. These edge cases might
occur. But even then, we should look at other ways of winning instead of out-
spending and out-producing the other guy. We're trying to build too many
expensive systems that do too many things. I don't even want to think of what
force readiness looks like in some areas. As one general put it many years ago
in a similar situation, we're destroying the artillery in order to have troops
able to do civilian police work. What if we need the artillery? The USMC D2D
ratio is heading south. F-35 is a Charlie Foxtrot. I could go on. If you stand
back and look at it objectively? It ain't good.

~~~
thaumasiotes
> we see the use of actual force happen more and more. Why?

False premise; this is the opposite of what we see.
[https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-
Violence/dp/...](https://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-
Violence/dp/0143122010/)

You can only make people stop fighting by (a) killing them; or (b) convincing
them that fighting you is a mistake. There are no other ways.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
Pinker is arguing big picture, and what he says is true, but when I say "we
see the use of actual force happen more and more" I mean the _number of times_
the use of force is made as a decision is increasing, not that the _overall
force used_ is increasing. If I had said that, it would be false. I did not
say that.

Here's my last comment. You linked to a book. (thanks). Here's one for you.
[https://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Armies-History-Guerrilla-
Wa...](https://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Armies-History-Guerrilla-
Warfare/dp/0871406888/ref=pd_bxgy_14_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=36H4VSRD9S8FWM0ZV0Z6)

------
vvvv
I can't believe nobody commented yet on how like a TIE fighter the "unmanned
underwater vehicle during a Navy demonstration" looks. US truly is evolving
into the Empire ;]

------
ObeyTheGuts
Noone ever learned from Rambo: greatest weapon is human brain.

------
sixQuarks
The US outspends the next top 20 countries in defense spending combined. But
I'm thinking this figure is wrong. If it costs the US $20 billion to build a
super carrier, what would the same thing cost for China (which doesn't have to
deal with high pension costs and labor?) Probably $5 billion or less.

And if these other countries are spending their money on more effective
weapons, where does that leave the US?

------
fiatmoney
US defense doctrine mostly revolves around massive surprise first strikes on
countries with limited ability to retaliate. Aircraft carriers are OK at this,
if you want to, eg, bomb the crap out of Uruguay and don't have basing or
transit rights nearby. That doesn't eliminate their vulnerabilities or the
cost/benefit ratio, but having a few is handy if you're running a global
empire.

~~~
argonaut
I don't think this describes US defense doctrine. America has not launched a
massive surprise first strike in a very long time (if ever). Iraq and
Afghanistan knew the invasion was coming a long way off.

To me, US defense doctrine relies on 1) massive logistical power projection
capability to counter any terrorism threat (real _or_ perceived) anywhere on
the globe, and 2) large conventional forces to counterbalance other large
geopolitical rivals (Russia, China).

~~~
fiatmoney
"Surprise" is relative; "blitzkrieg" (or "shock and awe") might be more apt.
Iraq I, Iraq II, Afghanistan, Grenada, Panama all fit the pattern. Kosovo
doesn't as much, but then again there were other considerations there (eg, not
pissing off Russia too much).

You're right on the higher-level strategy, but operationally it relies heavily
on immediately killing off all C&C, air defense, air force, etc. in the first
few hours so you can then bomb with impunity.

------
JoachimS
I thought the big problem for the US Navy in terms of spending spinning out of
control was related to the Zumwalt class destroyers. Started out with a plan
of 32 ships, then down to seven and now three.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-
class_destroyer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer)

~~~
vlehto
I think one of the biggest strengths of U.S. military has been ability to pour
money in R&D without wasting it to unneeded projects. This happens via
embarrassing cancellations, but anyhow it seems to work to some degree. Now
U.S. can pretty much rely on having the newest tech on all fronts, while
everybody else is scrambling to have fleeting glory of adequate gear fielded.

------
tiatia
Carriers are great against Iraq and Libya. Against Russia or China they might
well be useless. Against an able opponent, there are only two kinds of ships.
Submarines and targets!
[http://www.johntreed.net/sittingducks.html](http://www.johntreed.net/sittingducks.html)

------
falsedan
Reminds me of a Lewis Page (of _The Register_ ca. 2010) rant against UK
military waste. His book's worth a read [0].

[0] [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lions-Donkeys-Dinosaurs-
Blundering-...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Lions-Donkeys-Dinosaurs-Blundering-
Military/dp/0099484420)

------
mozumder
I don't know why all military ships aren't submarines, from aircraft carriers
on down..

~~~
vlehto
It's mostly about radar masts. If you wish to shoot down enemy missiles with
your missiles, you better do it early than late. Now to have some early
warning, that antenna needs to be relatively high to get significant area
inside your radar horizon.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_horizon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_horizon)

But I have no idea if that is smart thing to try anymore.

------
hoodoof
So Pearl Harbor 2 will be 10,000 simultaneous anti-ship cruise missiles.

------
dskrvk
Trying to build ever-larger aircraft carriers is like vertically scaling using
mainframes. The number of uses for these seems to be dwindling, and it's
becoming harder to justify the cost and complexity of maintaining this
expensive and uncommon hardware.

Compare with horizontal scaling, which in this case translates to large
numbers of individually-capable units acting in coordination.

It's just too damn hard and expensive trying to protect a single valuable
target against an ever-increasing number of threats.

------
einrealist
Don't worry. The Donald will make America great again! And he will make the
Military great again! And all Supercarriers will be great again!

And now shut up and ask no further questions!

------
partycoder
Well, once space launches get cheaper, one significant way of projecting power
is: space.

You can just drop a metal rod from space and cause significant damage (see
"rod of god").

------
campuscodi
I don't see this a mistake at all

------
alvarosm
Article sponsored by Russia, China and Iran. Quite probably at least.

~~~
gk1
Do you have any evidence of whatsoever or do you think there's a conspiracy
behind everything? I know the author and he doesn't strike me as someone on
China's or Russia's payroll.

~~~
alvarosm
Well, an article so one-sided, incomplete and inaccurate can only be called
propaganda. I don't like evangelists. By the way, propaganda is much better
when the author has no idea he's on anyone's payroll. Of course I have no
evidence of anything but I'm just stating the obvious here.

------
nickbauman
Terrible analysis. This is especially funny: _Mitchell sank a captured German
battleship_ to prove a point. Except what point are your proving when you
destroy a _captured_ ship?

~~~
coredog64
Prevailing wisdom at the time was that airplanes were toys that could not in
any way, shape, or form put enough explosives on target to do anything more
than scratch the paint.

~~~
nickbauman
So this proves that a carrier is totally vulnerable?

------
alricb
Indeed, it's a mistake, but the solution isn't military, it's political; to
ensure its safety, the US must promote disarmament on a global scale, with
Russia and China, but including itself.

------
brooklyndude
My understanding is building ships is our jobs programs. Thought that all 50
states had a role in building one ship in the end.

Isn't that what war is all about? Boys and testosterone? It's that simple.
Boys and toys. Someday we will advance as a society beyond that, but who knows
when that will be.

Guess one can say, "hey we need this to advance our science, war is the big
experimental space."

Don't really seeing Elon Musk doing much war planning. He does seem to be
getting us to Mars just fine.

The amount of $$$s spend building one ship could probably build a heck of a
lot of hosptials and universities, all around the world, but guess that would
be just kind of boring.

There are still many people in my Brooklyn 'hood that can't read and write.
Think that would be a far better mission, AKA Education. But just my opinion.
Maybe we can do both?

~~~
adventured
> Boys and testosterone? It's that simple. Boys and toys

That's impressively sexist. Why are you referring to men as boys, if not for
derogatory purposes based solely on their sex? I see that in public forums
extremely frequently now, and it's only ever done as a belligerent insult.

Here's a historical reality check for you:

"European Queens Waged More Wars Than Kings"

[http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/01/european-queens-
waged-m...](http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2016/01/european-queens-waged-more-
wars-than-kings.html)

------
rdtsc
> Soviet Adm. Sergei Gorchakov reportedly held the view that the U.S. had made
> a strategic miscalculation by relying on large and increasingly vulnerable
> aircraft carriers ... In a 1982 congressional hearing, legislators asked him
> how long American carriers would survive in an actual war. Rickover’s
> response? “Forty-eight hours,” he said.

True. But these carriers are just large jobs programs which also let us bomb
poor countries here and there. And of course they look cool as hell.

If anyone attacks our carriers in large numbers they'll also be the target of
our nuclear missiles. So in a way our conventional weapons have to just look
cool on paper and be usable against 3rd world countries (that is why A-10 is
still in use even though Russian tanks have long stopped being vulnerable to
them. But groups of farmers with AK-47s are still blown to bits easily).

If Chinese or Russians launch their ballistic anti-ship missiles at these
carriers, soon they'll be seen ballistic missiles flying at their mainland,
coming from some place in Nebraska probably.

~~~
gozur88
None of what you've written here makes sense.

The Russians don't have ballistic anti-ship missiles. There's only one model
in the world so far, and it's Chinese.

It's large, expensive, and incredibly complicated, so they don't have many. It
relies on a trio of satellites that can be compromised in various ways, and
can be destroyed on the ground. It can also be shot down by the SM-3, which is
pretty widely deployed by now.

I do not believe the US would respond to conventional missiles with nuclear
missiles. For one thing, there wouldn't be any need - we could do a whole lot
of damage to China with aircraft and cruise missiles, so there wouldn't be any
need, and why invite a Chinese nuclear response? That would be suicidal.

Russian tanks are still vulnerable to the A-10. If we just want to attack
"groups of farmers with AK-47s" there are much more efficient solutions, like
Embraer's _Super Tucano II_ , for example.

~~~
ceejayoz
> It's large, expensive, and incredibly complicated, so they don't have many.

From the article: "Navy Capt. Henry Hendrix estimated China could produce
1,227 DF-21D ballistic anti-ship missiles for the cost of a single U.S.
carrier."

> It relies on a trio of satellites that can be compromised in various ways...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21)
indicates China is actively improving and expanding this satellite capacity.

> ... and can be destroyed on the ground.

You can say that about every weapon system in the world. If China built
thousands of these, there's no way you're taking out all of them in a
preemptive strike.

> It can also be shot down by the SM-3, which is pretty widely deployed by
> now.

Again, China can build thousands. An entire carrier battlegroup is going to
have at most a few hundred SM-3s.

~~~
gozur88
>From the article: "Navy Capt. Henry Hendrix estimated China could produce
1,227 DF-21D ballistic anti-ship missiles for the cost of a single U.S.
carrier."

Yes, and so what? They have not done it.

>[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21)
indicates China is actively improving and expanding this satellite capacity.

Not as quickly as the US is improving its ability to knock them out. We have
literally thousands of missiles that can take out satellites in LEO, and more
every day. And that doesn't take into account things like jamming and lasers
which could disable a satellite without blowing it up.

>You can say that about every weapon system in the world. If China built
thousands of these, there's no way you're taking out all of them in a
preemptive strike.

That's not how it works in real life - you don't have to take them all out.
You only have to take out enough that between manufacturing defects, design
failures, ECM, control systems degradation, antimissile systems, smoke, chaff,
and more exotic stuff like lasers and rail guns, the remaining missiles don't
hit a carrier. And remember, these are conventional missiles - they have to
actually _hit_ the carrier, which is not an easy thing to do. It's not like
lobbing a nuke and calling it a hit if it lands within fifty miles of the
target.

>Again, China can build thousands. An entire carrier battlegroup is going to
have at most a few hundred SM-3s.

Again, so what? You're comparing a deployed carrier group _today_ with a
Chinese arsenal at some future date following a huge production spree they
don't seem particularly interested in undertaking.

Saying you can build x missiles for every carrier is a meaningless statistic -
it assumes a reasonable response from the US would be to build more carriers
instead of upgrading the defenses of the carriers (or, more accurately, the
carrier battle groups) we already have.

