What's new

THE AGE OF THE STRIKE CARRIER IS OVER

Counterpunch

FULL MEMBER
Sep 2, 2014
769
3
787
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
The advancement in missile technology has far out crossed the advancement in anti missile technology which strongly scores in the favor of the OP. Moreover, the stealth air crafts, cruise missiles and the tactical nukes all are the odds against the giant carriers. A flurry of cruise missiles/tactical nukes no matter how many millions they cost, will still outweigh the benefit of sinking a multi billion dollar giant, which will clearly have a significant dent on the morale and motivation of the forces/masses alike even if we ignore the financial aspects

Future wars between any worthy militaries will see concerted efforts in sinking the carrier and very handy tools are just at hand if the will is. However, when it comes to the kind of adversaries US has been fighting with in the recent decades, the carrier groups will remain a potent force
 

jhungary

MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
Oct 24, 2012
10,358
321
10,833
Country
China
Location
Australia
Future wars between any worthy militaries will see concerted efforts in sinking the carrier and very handy tools are just at hand if the will is. However, when it comes to the kind of adversaries US has been fighting with in the recent decades, the carrier groups will remain a potent force
The key point is this. In future war, the potential enemy will first try to find, locate and destroy the USN Carrier before moving on to other defence.

The problem is, what does that actually do?

In strategic studies, it's always more important to have your opponent to try and defend one or all possible offensive, because that way, it draw resources away from anything else. This is the same concept why Blitzkrieg can realm supreme even til this day.

Look at the potential naval engagement. In all, you would have 3 elements, surface ship, surface aircraft, and subsurface ship. Now, for a defence to make sense, you would have to equally prepare to defend all 3 elements, that would mean units are bolted to the specific task, where you will need to position one type of asset for one element but not the other (eg, you have to position SAM to counter Naval Aviation threat, but SAM cannot be used for Surface Ship and Subsurface Ship engagement.)

The problem is, for the attackers, he or she can choose to use either one, two or all 3 elements in different order but since if I am the attacking force, I can refine my attacking force to focus on one, two or all three aspect. Yet, for the defender, it would always have to be distributed defence, thus, I can use this as a concentration to overwhelm one, two, or all three defence (If you have numerical or technological advantage or both) over the defender.

It's not a single weapon or platform that in charge of what you can or cannot do, but the problem lies between what the defender have to be prepare for an presumed engagement, because all preparation have to be done BEFORE hand, and a change in defence strategy mid fight would always end up in a disaster.

That is the strategic value of Aircraft Carrier.
 

Counterpunch

FULL MEMBER
Sep 2, 2014
769
3
787
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
The key point is this. In future war, the potential enemy will first try to find, locate and destroy the USN Carrier before moving on to other defence.

The problem is, what does that actually do?

In strategic studies, it's always more important to have your opponent to try and defend one or all possible offensive, because that way, it draw resources away from anything else. This is the same concept why Blitzkrieg can realm supreme even til this day.

Look at the potential naval engagement. In all, you would have 3 elements, surface ship, surface aircraft, and subsurface ship. Now, for a defence to make sense, you would have to equally prepare to defend all 3 elements, that would mean units are bolted to the specific task, where you will need to position one type of asset for one element but not the other (eg, you have to position SAM to counter Naval Aviation threat, but SAM cannot be used for Surface Ship and Subsurface Ship engagement.)

The problem is, for the attackers, he or she can choose to use either one, two or all 3 elements in different order but since if I am the attacking force, I can refine my attacking force to focus on one, two or all three aspect. Yet, for the defender, it would always have to be distributed defence, thus, I can use this as a concentration to overwhelm one, two, or all three defence (If you have numerical or technological advantage or both) over the defender.

It's not a single weapon or platform that in charge of what you can or cannot do, but the problem lies between what the defender have to be prepare for an presumed engagement, because all preparation have to be done BEFORE hand, and a change in defence strategy mid fight would always end up in a disaster.

That is the strategic value of Aircraft Carrier.
Thank you for the detailed reply. Makes a lot of sense. But, a worthy military opponent will be a good enough match if not a bullet to bullet man to man match. Saying so, he will be adequately supplied in offensive and defensive departments and will ensure the same dilemma is thrown back at the carrier group owners (say the attackers) i.e. to not be too sure about what to defend more though they were the attackers in the first place. Doing this their defenses will be stretched and the probability of a successful hit on the carrier or of a hit at another valuable target would increase manifold equally. Now, if we keep these dilemmas aside having established both the attacker and defender are faced with similar ones, and simply try and gauge the abilities of weapons defending the carrier VS weapons attacking the carrier, the score might be 1-0 in the favor of latter
 

Blue Marlin

SENIOR MEMBER
Jul 7, 2015
6,741
6
6,886
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
So,it is possible?

Again,possible?
anything is possible id say 8 good hits by harpoon size missiles would do the job. but russia or china or even iran dont have missiles that small. most likely the c802/noor would be employed and would require at least half a dozen.

a torpedo is better suited though and is my preferred opinion but that too has its hurdles, such as finding the carrier and dealing with the rest of the fleet accompanying it.

WW2 carriers were not sunk by bombs with 500kg explosives.
Brahmos has a 200kg warhead, but a lucky hit can result in secondary explosions.
the brahmos has as low-high-low trajectory and would light upon any radar. low altitude subsonic missiles are more deadlier.
yes a hypothetical hit can result in secondary explosions
 

T-123456

MEMBER
Nov 13, 2012
11,612
11
17,886
Country
Turkey
Location
Netherlands
anything is possible id say 8 good hits by harpoon size missiles would do the job. but russia or china or even iran dont have missiles that small. most likely the c802/noor would be employed and would require at least half a dozen.

a torpedo is better suited though and is my preferred opinion but that too has its hurdles, such as finding the carrier and dealing with the rest of the fleet accompanying it
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...h-submarines-are-so-lethal-they-sank-us-18383
 

Mrc

ELITE MEMBER
Dec 19, 2013
9,635
0
11,001
Country
Pakistan
Location
Qatar
carrier against a potent enemy will become a liability with US forces spending half the time protecting the carrier...

advances in AshM and AshBM technology, will leave very little room to run and hide
 

jhungary

MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
Oct 24, 2012
10,358
321
10,833
Country
China
Location
Australia
Thank you for the detailed reply. Makes a lot of sense. But, a worthy military opponent will be a good enough match if not a bullet to bullet man to man match. Saying so, he will be adequately supplied in offensive and defensive departments and will ensure the same dilemma is thrown back at the carrier group owners (say the attackers) i.e. to not be too sure about what to defend more though they were the attackers in the first place. Doing this their defenses will be stretched and the probability of a successful hit on the carrier or of a hit at another valuable target would increase manifold equally. Now, if we keep these dilemmas aside having established both the attacker and defender are faced with similar ones, and simply try and gauge the abilities of weapons defending the carrier VS weapons attacking the carrier, the score might be 1-0 in the favor of latter
Again, it's never about whether or not US Carrier could be hit, if you are attacking at a right time or place, anything can be destroy, there are no "Wonder Weapon" in this world that guarantee your survival.

That question is hence not a one on one situation, as that would be a tactical decision, what I was talking about is the grand strategy.

From the attacker, they have a choice to whether or not you would deploy your Carrier in an AO, they can choose either to deploy, or not, but for the defender, that choice is not available, they will need to deploy their resources to counter the enemy Carrier Threat, whether or not the attacker are going to use them in Battle. They will have to do it simply because the attacker has it.

The question about whether or not the chance to hit a carrier is not in the strategic calculation. As the problem has now entering a 4-dimension defence strategy. Basically, it's about resource management. Let's simplify the problem so I can explain to you in a way you could understand. Say I have a whole 100 KM coast line to defend, I have 2 division of troop (or 6 Battalions) to defend a single front line. Which for me, if I have to defend the whole thing, I would have to have 2 division lay side by side stretch along the whole 100 KM front line. Which would mean I have a Battalion to defend 15 km line each, and they all have to be equally distributed.

However, for an attacker, even if I only have 1 division of troop to attack that front line, I don't need to be stretching it out like the defender, in fact, I can concentrate to attack on one or two battalion holding the line, then I can stack a 3 on 1 ratio on that 15 km frontline on the defenders. For the attacker, the front line is not 100 KM, but only however long you choose to fight.

The dilemma does not exist on the attacking ends, as they have the initiative, they will have to attack only one spot of the line, but for the defender, they will have to defend the whole line.

In this case, the line is not just a numerical game we play before, but also different type of equipment. Where you can only deploy and support a limited number of defensive equipment at a given area, that mean to put your force in static defence in modern time would mean a dilution of force. However, for the attacker, that problem does not exist as A.) You can attack with concentration. B.) You dictate the tempo and initiative.

Because it does not matter, you will have to put DF-Series Missile in case of US attack, however, US may attack with or without their Carrier, and each DF Missile have to be supported and serviced by rear area troop, and that mean for every weapon platform you deploy, it stretch your supporting force further, and there are a limitation on how many unit or troop you can support in theatre, if US does not use Carrier for their offense, then DF-series missile cannot be use to attack something else, then their present is wasted.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom