Article

2006-07-25 Science & Technology

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by 3dc 2006-07-25 00:00|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 A very good argument. But a large carrier, carrying an s-load of drones, could launch a massive armada of aircraft to attack a huge area of land, and all at once, rather than endless sorties taking months.

If you had two supercarriers, one with a large number of "smart" drones, and the other with a huge number of GPS-guided, but otherwise "stupid" small buzzbomb-like drones, expendables carrying single 250 to 1000 pound bombs, they could attack a thousand-square mile area in a massive but accurate conflagration.

Your "smart" drones could insure air superiority, detailed reconnaisance, and provide target damage assessment imagery, along with security for the carriers.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-07-25 00:27|| 2006-07-25 00:27|| Front Page Top

#2 The problem with carriers is longrange missiles with terminaly guided munitions that will show up soon.

Posted by Clerert Uneamp2772 2006-07-25 00:39|| 2006-07-25 00:39|| Front Page Top

#3 Stansfield Turner - the man who wrecked the CIA.

Enough said.

Posted by Fordesque 2006-07-25 00:46|| 2006-07-25 00:46|| Front Page Top

#4 Yeah, antiship missiles are just too good these days. We'll find that out as soon as we get into a real shooting war. It might be a while, though.

Posted by gromky 2006-07-25 03:35|| 2006-07-25 03:35|| Front Page Top

#5 I think Turner is right about the carriers, but it almost misses the large point to talk about carriers. Procurement costs are through the roof for new ships, submarines, and airframes. Our fleet is shrinking, our carrier air wings are almost all Super Hornets now - even for electronic warfare and tanker missions. Not much ASW capability on our carrier decks any more, either.

Our Navy needs corvettes, frigates, and minesweepers. We need to look into building diesel subs or these new AIP-subs. We don't need gold-plated pie-in-the-sky DDX and CVX hulls.

Posted by Rory B. Bellows 2006-07-25 04:15|| 2006-07-25 04:15|| Front Page Top

#6 Diversify now, see which ones work best, head in that direction after you get some concrete evidence. If it turns out the smaller ships didn't work as well, they'd still be good enough for many jobs, we could put the remaining big carriers in the appropriate roles, and we'd have time to change direction later. Different ships for different missions.

Posted by gorb 2006-07-25 05:12|| 2006-07-25 05:12|| Front Page Top

#7 I saw the "Ranger" Carrier from about 5 miles. It looked close enough to touch.

Posted by Griper Whegum8464 2006-07-25 06:14|| 2006-07-25 06:14|| Front Page Top

#8 Ah, but gold-plated pie-in-the-sky projects are what keep Congress in office.

Posted by gromky 2006-07-25 06:31|| 2006-07-25 06:31|| Front Page Top

#9 A retired admiral and an obscure but influential congressman have rekindled one of the oldest debates in the U.S. military, questioning the Navy's reliance on a small fleet of large aircraft carriers.

For those who were not around in the 80s the usual suspects, you know the special interest group types who somehow end up before the cameras of MSM, were telling us how the day of the big carriers was over and that smaller less vulnerable platforms were needed. They proclaimed operating ships in the Persian Gulf would be suicide. This was another chigger biter theme the MSM kept alive till Gulf War I. We then enjoyed a period of welcome silence as events demonstrated the fallacy of their position. However, like a cancer thats not killed, like by having the talking heads held accountable for their false prophecies, its back.

Check WWII. Yep, we lost some big carriers. However, the other guy ended up with no effective carriers. When combined with the land based airpower made possible by island/land hopping, the enemy forfeited his control of the air and permitted the allied forces to exert the offensive. No carriers, no offensive.

Posted by Thetch Sperelet4392 2006-07-25 08:27|| 2006-07-25 08:27|| Front Page Top

#10 I saw an interesting show recently about the CVX carriers. The class is designed for a 100 year service life.

Posted by Spot">Spot 2006-07-25 09:06|| 2006-07-25 09:06|| Front Page Top

#11 CV-21 will be the last carrier class built, just as the F-22 will be the last manned fighter built for all the reasons Norm Augustine identified thirty years ago. They should name it the Montana. In defence procurement we always have limited resources and must spend them where they produce the most benefit.

With long range, long loiter UCAVs the carrier becomes a less and less cost effective means of projecting power. For the price of a CBG, how many UCAVs could be built? How much power could they project?

If you're going to build a carrier, a bigger one is more survivable. But it's putting a whole lot of eggs in a basket that is getting more vulnerable even faster than it is getting more expensive. The real question is why build a CBG at all?

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-07-25 09:16|| 2006-07-25 09:16|| Front Page Top

#12 All of this debate from the hawks here at Rantburg really show before we spend 8 billion dollars we should really look into the rolls missions and functions of the Navy and define where they will or should be in 75 years. The Navy is a great service but it is hamstrung with its traditions. They resist change to a fault, remember they did not go to carriers willingly. Carrier groups were a WWII and cold war force projection tool and political tool of will. Do we need it or should the roll move more into the missle and UAV projection mode. I don't know the answer but its clear we must look into the Navy future and decide what we want it to look like before we commit the resourses.

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2006-07-25 09:33|| 2006-07-25 09:33|| Front Page Top

#13 U.S. Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., suggested shifting to smaller and cheaper US Congress ~~carriers~~

Posted by Besoeker 2006-07-25 10:07|| 2006-07-25 10:07|| Front Page Top

#14 Yeah, carriers are obsolete again, just like every new AT gun means tanks are obsolete, every new tank means we don't need infantry, missles mean that navies are obsolete (again, since that aircraft meant that navies and armies were obsolete in the 20s).

Almost nothing goes out of style in war. We still have the bayonet to turn rifles into a spear.

Posted by Oldcat 2006-07-25 10:36|| 2006-07-25 10:36|| Front Page Top

#15 Touring the DFAC at Victory a few weeks ago. Nice to see so many scoped "obsolete" M-14 rifles slung over the shoulders of young soldiers.

Posted by Besoeker 2006-07-25 10:41|| 2006-07-25 10:41|| Front Page Top

#16 Tanks aren't exactly obsolete, but I don't hear a lot about the development of a follow on to the M-1. Like the spear, some technologies get to the point where they are mature and remain effective solutions. And sometimes, like the ship of the line, they get to the point where they are superceded by new technologies. And sometimes, like the F-22, they get to the point where they are unaffordable.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-07-25 10:55|| 2006-07-25 10:55|| Front Page Top

#17 Getting rid of carriers assumes that we will have land based anywhere we need them in order to provide air superiority. That almost didn't happen in Iraq, and it didn't happen against the Taliban in 2001.

Leaving us with only land bases would be a great incentive for China to intimidate the Hell out of our Asian allies.

As far as UAVs are concerned, I suspect their flexibility and price savings have been oversold. Even if they perform as advertized, a CVN can accomodate UAVs. A UAV carrier will not be able to accomodate high performance jets.

Al

Posted by Frozen Al 2006-07-25 11:28|| 2006-07-25 11:28|| Front Page Top

#18 Form follows function. Define the threat and how you need to counter the threat, throw some geopolitical spice into the perloo, and you will begin to see what will be needed to support the mission. You need flexibility and you need redundancy. It really pi$$es me off to see people, especially Congress, talking about carrier this or that and not checking our assumptions and see if they are still valid.

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2006-07-25 14:28|| 2006-07-25 14:28|| Front Page Top

#19

"My concern is that we are moving to larger and larger platforms that are more and more expensive," Bartlett said in an interview, "and so we're ending up with fewer and fewer ships."

Bartlett's thinking carries weight on Capitol Hill because he heads the House subcommittee that oversees shipbuilding programs. He said he convened the unusual, closed-to-the-press-and-public hearing in an effort to provoke discussion about the future shape of the Navy.

"I have no idea where this dialogue will end up," Bartlett said.

Sounds reasonable to me.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-07-25 14:36|| 2006-07-25 14:36|| Front Page Top

#20 ... we should really look into the rolls missions and functions of the Navy and define where they will or should be in 75 years.

We have no idea what the Navy will need in 2080. The Navy of 1930 had no idea what we need today.

We can look maybe 20 years into the future, tops. Everything after that is a WAG.

Having 10 to 12 heavy carriers for the next 20 years means that whenever, wherever, however we need to project air power, we can do so. Having a few 'light' carriers (call them amphib assault ships, whatever, ~40,000 tons displacement with a flight deck) that can handle UAVs, copters, VTOL aircraft, and special forces (in any mix you wish) provides us with more flexibility.

I'd resist the temptation to gold-plate the light carriers, but then again, I'm not a Congress-critter.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2006-07-25 15:26|| 2006-07-25 15:26|| Front Page Top

#21 OK 75 is a bit much, my bad. I just get really frustrated with the more is better, cause congress is payin, without a plan for the future.

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2006-07-25 15:53|| 2006-07-25 15:53|| Front Page Top

#22 What about relativly cheap double hulled supertankers converted to arsenal ships(Just full to the gunnels with cruise missiles) supported by your ageis, and ssn's?

Would this not be cost effective during WOT opperations? Not that I've a real clue about this stuff, though.

Posted by pihkalbadger 2006-07-25 20:49|| 2006-07-25 20:49|| Front Page Top

#23 I need ships. I need the billions of dollars to keep my 3rd world economy alive with bloated overpaid bureaucratic mega-centers full of minions whose sole purpose in life is to bring me money for ships. Don't care if they float or have the staff to man them, just send me money for ships.

Posted by Trent Lott 2006-07-25 22:01|| 2006-07-25 22:01|| Front Page Top

20:06 Old Patriot
00:05 C-Low
00:05 Oldspook
23:53 Fordesque
23:46 Fordesque
23:04 gorb
23:03 Adriane
22:59 long hair republican
22:50 Glains Threrese9277
22:44 Hupuse Snamp6542
22:42 Eric Jablow
22:27 Hupuse Snamp6542
22:27 Griper Whegum8464
22:24 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:23 Scott R
22:23 Griper Whegum8464
22:21 Barbara Skolaut
22:18 Glenmore
22:14 Chomble Grolutch3348
22:13 Hupuse Snamp6542
22:12 tu3031
22:11 Champ Angeger5024
22:08 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:03 DoDo