Was talking with a reader and this question came up.
How much did the Chinese lose in my mythical war?
Easy...
*A couple of regiments of SU-27 type fighters....
*Around 30 J-10's...
*A regiment of TU-22M Backfire bombers...
*A squadron of Fast Attack Missile boats....
*A squadron of Diesel Subs....
Another statement was made that "hey, its ok, even if they sunk our carrier we still win"...they have to rebuild all those planes and ships and retrain aircrew lost.
Uh....we lost a carrier. We lost aviation mechanics, air crew, nuclear propulsion experts, and sailors that know there stuff....in addition to a small nations worth of aircraft.
And that's the real point. We can't afford to lose a carrier. Yeah we have more but that isn't the point. Every aircraft carrier represents a tremendous amount of national treasure....in people and equipment that just can't be reformed in less than a couple of years at best.
While we're focusing on littoral combat, every other navy in the world is concentrating on two things. Power Projection in the form of amphibious assault ships and multi-mission frigates. The reason is simple. The amphib can perform many of the missions of the carrier without the danger of "placing all our eggs in one high tech basket" and the multi-mission frigate can perform many of the rest without the tremendous cost of a carrier.
As the carrier is currently equipped it is incapable of properly influencing a battle at sea. While the Navy is seeking a UAV to attack targets on land, it relies on a short ranged missile (Harpoon) to attack other ships at sea.
Put another way. If the Marine Corps could be accused of becoming a second land army then the Navy could be accused of becoming an air force.
This isn't a slam at the carrier navy. Its just an observation that we have inflated the value of carriers to such an extent that the costs to destroy one pale in comparison to the need to keep one afloat. Additionally the mission set of the carrier has become so focused on influencing the land battle that naval warfare has become a secondary consideration.
Required reading. Buy Fords not Ferraris.
Its time to bite the bullet and consider downsizing carriers. A fleet of 20-25 fifty/forty thousand ton carriers might be more useful than what we have right now.
If the US does not interfere with China's action in the Taiwan straights or the Spratlys because the possibility of actually losing a carrier battle group is too high, the Chinese win. I think this is at the core of an area denial strategy and is very different from a desire to dominate the sea or even to a 'fleet in being' concept.
ReplyDeleteAs for carrier size, that's a holy war all its own, but I have two comments. One is that, in the era of cruise missiles and satellites, we need a serious re-evaluation of power projection without airplanes and the second is that what could be done with AEW/ISR and Maritime Patrol versions of the Osprey is something to think about. Personally I think new versions of the Osprey have enormous potential to increase the capability of a battlegroup without adding any CATOBAR capability.
I would argue that the Chinese came off the worst in your scenario. Sure a carrier is a tremendous investment, but when the fight is over the US still has 10 carriers (plus what ever is being pulled out of reserve) whereas the Chinese have just gutted their naval strike capability.
ReplyDeleteDuring the beginning of WWII we were able to quickly commission large numbers of new, combat effective, carriers despite having only a small carrier force before the war. Today the actual construction time will take longer, but we have a much larger base of trained personnel to draw from. I would think that experienced sailors from the remaining carriers could be used to form the core of a new crew fairly rapidly.
You say that other navies are building big deck amphibs and frigates because of the capabilities offered by those platforms. I think it's more a case of them being unable to afford super carriers and destroyers. Remember that for a navy like Spain or Australia, those amphibs are more valuable and more irreplaceable then our carriers are for us and their frigates consume a larger portion of their budgets then our destroyers do.
I sort of agree with your statements about the USN having surprisingly little capability geared towards war at sea. But even if the carriers hand their antiship role over to the submarines, the carriers can still exert a massive influence on a naval battle by providing E-2 radar coverage and CAP.
The problem with the smaller carriers is always that we would get maybe 15 - 20, not 20 - 25. And in a situation where they face an air threat they would have to operate in supporting pairs as they did in WWII. You will note that every country that builds a small carrier then builds larger ones. Russia, India, France, and the UK have all followed this path.
In terms of who is winning militarily you raise good points but the US hasn't fought a war with it's full capability since WWII. In every war since the issue is not has the US won or lost militarily, it's has the US decided the conflict is not worth more lives and money and/or the risk of escalation to a larger conflict that, once again, won't be worth the lives or money.
DeleteIf one carrier battlegroup is more than the US is willing to spend over Taiwan or the Spratlys, then all China has to do is convince the US that we would lose that carrier battlegroup if we intervened, not that they could beat us in an all out war.
When you start looking at the politics behind possible conflicts with China things become much more vague than when comparing military capabilities. I would argue both that any Chinese attack on a US warship would result in war and that any war between the US and China would be a total war.
DeleteTherefore, China's challenge to gain a free hand in the China Seas is not to convince the US that its carriers are vulnerable, but to convince the US that any escalation to the use of military force will end badly. The problem I see there is that even if China can achieve naval superiority they can still be threatened with the US nuclear arsenal.
The USSR could prevent intervention in their affairs by possessing conventional and nuclear parity with the US. Until China has both I cannot see them being able to keep the US out of their backyard.
@fencer
ReplyDeleteWhile other nations may wish to build larger carriers, none of them are building 100,000-ton Ford class carriers. Most seem to favor something in the 50,000-60,000-ton range. Perhaps that is because that is all they can afford in size or aircraft component, but none seem eager to replicate ours in size.
While 10 Nimitz/Ford class carriers is very powerful, 20+ 50,000-ton carriers would be arguably more flexible.
this is an interesting topic, but I can't help but feel that nobody in charge of deciding what to build cares enough. Just look at the majority of bi-partisan duds we elect to Congress every two years.
The problem here is twofold. First large carriers have served the US very well since WWII and we haven't lost one since. When something works well for 65 years it's tough saying change it. Also if a 100,000 ton carrier is vulnerable then more smaller carriers will be more vulnerable yet still require as many escorts; moreover, escorts include not only surface ships but SSN's, P-3/8's, etc.
ReplyDeleteSmaller carriers are less efficient. The UK's 65,000 ton carriers are designed to support 36 fighters plus a few supporting helicopters. Cutting the tonnage in half of a 100,000 ton carrier doesn't mean you can operate half as many aircraft, it's in fact less than half.
The evolution of USN carrier design since WWII has continually shown increases in stores and ability to sustain operations. The number of aircraft carried is not as important as how many days the carrier can do operations before taking a day off to take on stores, fuel for the aircraft and/or the carrier, etc. At one time it was fairly standard for a carrier to do 3 days of operations and use the 4th day to refuel and take on stores. So you needed 4 carriers on station to keep 3 doing operations. Today carriers are designed for more than a week of operations.
So having more smaller carriers means you need more escorts, more support ships (not only for more carriers and escorts but because the smaller carriers carry less stores, more SSN's, etc. It's simply not affordable. We can't afford 15 to 20 battle groups in terms of escorts, SSN's, and support ships whatever the size of the carrier.
In fact everyone other navies keep increasing the size of carriers. In fact the general consensus is 65,000 tons is about the smallest size you want to operate and that gets you about 36 fighters plus a few supporting aircraft. USN carriers are about 1/3rd larger and can carry double the number of aircraft.
The UK's new carrier is 65,000 tons and India's 2nd domestic carrier will be 65,000 tons. If France ever builds a 2nd carrier they're talking something about this size. There are many important design considerations why this is now the minimum size and why it's too inefficient for the USN.
Damn it Sol you posted this while I was asleep! I was supposed to have the first rebuttal! Just kidding.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I agree with Fencer completely. Yes we lost one carrier but we have ten more and one in reserve. We also have ten other crews and countless reservists that we can call up in order to either form another crew or train them. If we were to give a Herculean WWII effort we could rebuild that carrier in a year and a half.
Like Fencer said the we've just gutted the Chinese. They're not getting back on their feet quickly after that and like I said earlier we haven't even retaliated.
If we had a President who could fire up the nation we would have the will and the firepower to strike back at China tenfold. Yes, we've lost a lot relatively speaking but we didn't lose and we are far from losing any hypothetical war.
Think @line is right but why is no one bring up the America-class, The America can be used as a small aircraft carrier
ReplyDeleteI actually have to disagree with most of the commenters here and completely with Solomon.
ReplyDeleteThe trend toward larger and larger aircraft carriers is just the rest of the world playing catchup with the US. I sincerely believe it has no more significance than that. There is always a point of diminishing returns with this kind of stuff and in my opinion the US Navy has already reached it. Our carriers are HUGE and as Solomon has pointed out they've become SO big now they're just huge easy to strike targets that we can't afford to lose.
Think about the mid-to-small carrier strategy. Think about how many of Solomon's current points about our aircraft carries don't apply. We probably could afford to lose a small carrier, but never a super carrier like the ones we're building now.
If we used smaller carriers our forces would be more agile. Better able to respond to conflicts with the appropriate amount of force. Instead of always showing up with a sledge hammer to attack a fly. And if you're worried the USN wouldn't get as many as she needs, well, that's life in the military. Every branch is always complaining it doesn't have enough .
Do the smaller carriers get smaller battle groups? Much of this discussion is too platform centric. A carrier battle group includes all the escorts, including SSN's, supporting aircraft such as P-3/8's, etc. It's an illusion that we can afford to operate 15 to 20 carrier groups whatever the size of the carrier. We do not have nor are we going to get enough escorts to protect them in addition to everything else we need our surface combatants for.
ReplyDeleteThe next carriers for India, France, and the UK are all 65,000 tons. There are many design considerations that have led these nations to conclude this is the right size for them. This sized carrier lets you operate about 36 F-35 sized aircraft plus a few supporting aircraft. USN carriers about 1/3rd larger can operate more than double this number of aircraft and they come with nuclear power and thus reduce the number of required oilers to support the carrier.
Operating 15 "smaller" carriers cuts the number of aircraft we can deploy by more than half while increasing the required number of escorts by 50%. That's simply not a trade off we can afford to make.
The argument that the USN losing one or two carriers in a potential conflict means the world comes to end and we have to pick up shop and go home is irrational. We lost half our fleet carriers in WWII in less than one year. If China sinks two carriers in some future conflict at the cost of being able to sink any more than they've lost the ability to impose their will while we retain ours.
As for the USN getting cut along with everyone else and we can just live with it I'd like to disagree. The USN is at the heart of our ability to project power. Carriers are mobile airfields that do not require foreign permission to use their bases. The USAF's 3,000 or so tactical fighters are entirely useless without bases in range. This nation requires some minimum capabilities in our Navy and if that has to come at the expense of the other services that's the price we should pay. I'd be more than willing to either cut 1/3rd of the USAF or cut it entirely and divide up 3/4 to 2/3rds of it's aircraft to the other services and reduce the rest from our force structure. We need to make hard choices and priorities not simply cut everything across the board.
you're making the assumption that all of these smaller carriers would operate independently.
ReplyDeletethat wouldn't be the case. instead the carrier battle group would be renamed the carrier task force and simply include x number of carriers required to accomplish whatever mission or task.
they could operate independently but come together for specific missions. so no. we wouldn't need to increase the number of escorts. although i still would like to see dedicated asw frigates and the burkes return to a pure anti-air mission set and have them drop the tomahawks.
Totally agree with you here.
Delete@Lane, see that's a good question. I would argue the smaller carrier needs a smaller escort. The current class of escort ships are arguably pretty poor anyway based on readings from this blog and others.
ReplyDeleteHow much of the current escort's fleet size is due purely to the fact the carrier is so large? What does the Navy use all those boats for anyway? If the carrier such an awesome display of power, why do we need a flotilla to protect it/support it? I'd argue an aircraft carrier is really an antiquated piece of shit.
I'd rather have a submarine any day of the week.
@Oliver.
ReplyDeletewhy would you argue that its antiquated? my take on it is that the Navy has become so focused on supporting land warfare that its forgotten that control of the sea must be fought for. let me be painfully obvious. the navy is on crack if they actually think anyone needs a land attack cruiser! they bought some bullshit that the Marine Corps was selling them. the biggest threats to carriers are aircraft, subs and ballistic missiles, in that order (in my opinion) what does that mean? it means the burkes are adequate if they dump tomahawks and focus on anti-air. we do need a replacement for the perry's and the lcs is just a mistake that no one wants to comp to.
@Solomon
ReplyDeleteLet me clarify. The aircraft carrier as the USN currently sees them are antiquated. They very much have a WWII mentality about them. The only thing they can think about is "if the Battle Leyte Gulf ever happens again we need as many G*d d**n planes as we can get" and honestly I don't think that will ever happen again.
That's not how the world works these days. If a war of any kind breaks out with China, and it ends up being some kind of "total war" the nukes coming out of your subs will play a role 10x larger than any jet's or boat's.
Aircraft carriers need to be agile and tactical to fight modern wars with modern foes. Not the Imperial Navy of Japan.
A lot of this discussion perplexes me. An aircraft carrier is a mobile airfield that projects airpower. It's about as antiquated or obsolete as the entire spectrum of aerial warfare and will be obsolete when airfields are. The size of the carrier is determined by the size of the air group and the daily sortie rate.
ReplyDeleteExactly why would a smaller carrier with less aircraft and lower sortie rates be more "agile". A USN nuclear powered is more agile than any other carrier in the world.
Exactly why does a smaller carrier with fewer aircraft and a lower sortie rate require less protection from fewer escorts? If anything the reverse is correct given the smaller carrier's decreased ability to defend itself.
The current class of escorts in the USN are without peer. A few navies operate ships comparable to the CG-47 and DDG-51 but the USN operates an order of magnitude more than any other navy. We have 97 of these ships active or being built all with AEGIS. If anything one could argue we have too many first class escorts and could perhaps use a few less but more smaller escorts more oriented for ASW and not tasked for area anti air.
The USN is without peer and has more capability in many areas than the rest of the world's navies combined. The emerging threat to the USN in China will continue to evolve and those concerned with USN being able to continue to dominate will pose concerns about our future capabilities to deal with China. It's part of why people point out the need for actual general purpose frigates vs LCS and the need to go to two SSN's per year to maintain adequate numbers longer term.
@Lane,
ReplyDeleteWere you/are you in the Navy? Your response sounds exactly like what I'd expect to hear them say.
First things first. As I explained to Solomon, I don't believe aircraft carriers, as a whole are obsolete, only the ones currently being designed by the USN.
Agility is defined, at least in this context, by how effectively AND efficiently a platform achieves multiple missions. Are modern aircraft carries effective? Perhaps in that they successfully carry hundreds of aircraft across the world on a daily basis, yes. Efficient? Their power train is perhaps. No one is going to argue that the nuclear power plants they utilize are the only way sail. But why does the USN need that many aircraft? Why are they flying that many sorties? Much like the debate with the Army vs Marines, at what point does the US Navy replace the US Air Force or vice-verse. Another thing that bothers me about aircraft carries is the advent of smart weapons. Manned aircraft are very slowly becoming a thing of the past. The Tomahawk missiles are really just a taste of what modern technology can do. Wrap a couple of Tomahawks in stealth and give them the nav system off of Boeing's unmanned drones and they will destroy any carrier in the world. I have no doubt whatsoever. In that scenario having all the F-18s in the world isn't going to help you. Or better yet, give me one of those with a nuclear tip and I'll wipe your whole fleet off the map.
The carrier has mutated into a crutch the navy leans on to make sure it stays relevant and looks cool and powerful. Modern carriers have TONS of flaws.
1) They are HUGE and don't even fit through most canals and channels.
2) They are 100% completely defenseless short of airplanes. And the defense provided by those planes is paltry at best. See #3.
3) When carriers fight submarines the submarines win every time.
4) Why do you always assume the assault on a carrier comes from the air? Only retards fight fire with fire. That only causes more burns. Fight fire with a fire extinguisher. Sink the boat and all the planes go with it.