| Submit your comments on this article |
| Government |
| Yes, the Aircraft Carrier Is Still Viable |
| 2016-03-07 |
| [The Diplomat] Over the last several months, the debate about the future of the United States’ nuclear-powered carrier (CVN) fleet has picked up speed again, with several major contributions coming from both sides of the aisle. Back in October, Seth Cropsey, Bryan McGrath, and Timothy Walton published their very detailed take on how to keep the carrier weapon system in the game. Not long after, well-known carrier critic Jerry Hendrix followed up on his earlier thinking on the subject in Retreat from Range: The Rise and Fall of Carrier Aviation. Most recently, Kelley Sayler contributed a study on the Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers. The issue was also discussed at length in House Armed Services Committee hearings on February 11, 2016. While the debate revolves around the viability of the carrier and its future roles (if any), it is inevitably bound up with current events in the Asia-Pacific, including China’s continuing militarization of the South China Sea. As People’s Liberation Army (PLA) anti-access and area denial capabilities continue to grow in density and sophistication, and as the underlying technologies spread to other actors, Sayler and other skeptics argue, they will "plac[e] greater constraints on U.S. carrier operations than ever before." In the following I will argue that this amounts to a major distortion of the U.S. Navy’s historical experience, and of the evolution of the capital ship more generally -- one that needs to be addressed if the U.S. is to make realistic choices about its future naval force structure in the coming years. |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #10 Yes, I remember, back in 69 or so, that we ran a simula90 9tion of nuclear war with the carrier my air wing was assigned to blasting off its planes. We figured we had about 90 minutes or so AFTER the launch codes were sent to exist; then we would be some radioactive dust settling on the sea bottom. But, the planes would have launched and a lot of other places would be radioactive as well. Yet, the carriers are still able to project power, not just bombs, over a very wide expanse of the ocean and the world. |
| Posted by: Crurong Elmeque1754 2016-03-07 20:38 |
| #9 "Problems wid the South China Sea" > not just the SCS but the East China Sea + ultimately China's de facto recovery of Taiwan. As per VARIOUS OLDER NET NEWS ARTICS, the East China Sea is Japan's #1 National Security problem + focii, while TAIWAN as above is Mainland China's = Beijing's. I have argued or said that China will NOT allow or accept any de facto or formal Inter-Korean Reunification between NOKOR + SOKOR [DPRK + ROK] unless it first gets back Taiwan, + that Pudgy = NOKOR is well-aware of this. IFF THE COLD WAR "STATUA QUO" ON THE KOREAN PENINSULA + NE ASIA DOES NOT CHANGE, IT IS MORE LIKELY THAN NOT THAT MAINLAND CHINA, AS NOKOR'S ALREADY PREDOMINANT TRADING PARTNER [read, "Sole"], WILL SE ITS EXCESSIVE SHARE IN BILATERAL TRADE WID NOKOR RISE TO NEW HEIGHTS POTEN EVEN TO NEAR OR AT 100%. Iff the latter occurs, it won't be long for China = Beijing to formally take over the NOKOR Govt + Army. CHINA WILL TOTALLY CONTROL NOKOR IF NOT ANNEX IT AS A ITS NEW NE CHINA SOVEREIGN PROVINCE. The Kim Regime doesn't want any takeover of NOKOR by China for any reason, and neither does SOKOR. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2016-03-07 20:33 |
| #8 Even so, Missouri and Wisconsin served in Desert Storm, 1991. Iowa and New Jersey were also re-activated in the '80s. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2016-03-07 17:54 |
| #7 Bobby, only sure of one thing, it ain't the LCS. I look forward to the upcoming shock test. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2016-03-07 17:45 |
| #6 I think we'll be seeing more amphibious carriers full of Marines, helicopters, and drones, and less supercarriers. Beyond that perhaps some drones launched from Boomers. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2016-03-07 14:55 |
| #5 Could be, but then what represents the 1941 aircraft carrier? Submarine? Littoral ship? Has Champ opined yet? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2016-03-07 13:42 |
| #4 dunno.. have a feeling that carriers are the Battleships of 12/7/1941 |
| Posted by: Clineth the Anonymous4966 2016-03-07 13:26 |
| #3 A sovereign mobile embassy with force projection. |
| Posted by: Skidmark 2016-03-07 12:05 |
| #2 There's no substitute for your own little mobile island that requires no haggling with host nations or 'mother may I' launch requests. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2016-03-07 08:34 |
| #1 The problems associated with the South China Sea are not best solved with sea based naval power. Instead they should be addressed with land based naval aviation and satellites. As for every other place we want to deploy force, the air craft carrier is good. It can dump $10K bombs on targets that destroyers and submarines need to use $10M cruise missiles on. So, fundamentally, it is an expensive delivery system for cheap bombs. And since it lasts for about 50 years, it is really not that expensive. Less than $100M per year in capital costs. On a cost benefit basis, if a carrier delivers somewhere between 10-100 bombs on enemy stuff during a year, then it is straight up cheaper than every other ship in the fleet. And that doesn't count the FUD factor it causes in our opponents' plans. |
| Posted by: rammer 2016-03-07 02:35 |