What's new

Face It, The Mighty U.S. Aircraft Carrier is Finished

The defender will be at an extreme cost disadvantage.

See what it says in the article, China can build 1,227 DF-21D for the cost of a US carrier. And according to the US Naval Institute, it will only take one DF-21D warhead to finish an aircraft carrier, with no system currently able to intercept it.

Now how long will it take to build another aircraft carrier + dozens of advanced jets + thousands of human crew members to replace it? Several years.

Now how long will it take China to build another DF-21D missile? They can be replaced in no time at all, in large numbers too.

Not even mentioning the new DF-26 with enough range to reach ships in Guam (over 4000+ km range).

China is not your typical country. War against the likes of China or Russia would cost the US dearly no matter what weapons/platforms they use; but that doesn't mean the carrier has lost its usefulness or will be defenceless.

The Japanese sunk US carriers during WW2, that didn't make them irrelevant then; that China (near superpower) can do so today doesn't make them irrelevant either imo.

Now put that carrier group against almost any other country of the world and you know how effective and protected they are. The rest of us cannot dedicate hundreds of fighters and cruise missiles to bring an AC down.
 
.
LOL, what a really stupid analysis.

How is the U.S or any other country is supposed to bring their fighters and bombers within the striking range of the adversaries territory ?? Via container shipments ??? LoL :p:
Do you know the parameters of these carriers? Do some research before post
 
. .
The defender will be at an extreme cost disadvantage.

See what it says in the article, China can build 1,227 DF-21D for the cost of a US carrier. And according to the US Naval Institute, it will only take one DF-21D warhead to finish an aircraft carrier, with no system currently able to intercept it.

Now how long will it take to build another aircraft carrier + dozens of advanced jets + thousands of human crew members to replace it? Several years.

Now how long will it take China to build another DF-21D missile? They can be replaced in no time at all, in large numbers too.

Not even mentioning the new DF-26 with enough range to reach ships in Guam (over 4000+ km range).
The best this debate can be is 50/50 for the carrier and for the missile. That means unless there is a shooting fight between the US and China, no one, not even the US Naval Institute, can know the final outcome.

This...

4Nu6sFT.jpg


...Is not how a carrier fleet array itself in combat. This is a PR formation.

The reality is that it is not possible to photograph the carrier fleet when it is arrayed in combat formation, we will have to go satellite for that.

So here is the next best thing to represent how a carrier fleet is arrayed in combat formation...

YA5FKu1.jpg


You are looking at HUNDREDS of surface square areas for any single missile, or a swarm of small boats for the Iranians' method, to search for ONE ship. And that is not considering the ship is under maneuvers.

So far, there are three ways to fight a US aircraft carrier fleet in combat formation: aircraft, missile, and small boats.

Of the three, the most laughable method is with small boats, no matter how much the Iranians may tout the Millennium Challenge exercise. Just because a US general did it, that does not mean it is replicable by someone else when that someone do not have access to the details of how the US general did it. How many small boats can survive crossing at least one hundred miles of surface ocean whose sea state is unknown just to take potshots at the carrier ? Assuming the boat passed the defense perimeter.

This is the Douglas Sea Scale...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_sea_scale

Those who have never been in a small boat in state 4 do not know how rough it is on the boat, let alone the humans, and the boat have to cross one hundred miles of this surface condition. The higher the sea state, the more fuel it will cost the boat to go from point A to point B.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/694049.pdf

The above 1969 doc is a study of aircraft carrier air operations feasibility in various sea states. Essentially, if the sea state is high enough to prevent deck operations, that swarm of small boats intended to attack the carrier will be fish food long before they can even be a threat to the ship.

http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/heavy2.htm
In a power boat, forget your intended destination and bring the bow around into the wind and waves using just enough power to make bare steerage way while conserving fuel. If fuel becomes a concern you might consider deploying a sea anchor to fall back on to help keep the bow into wind and wave action with no power necessary. It also slows any drift that you may be making if a leeshore is a concern.
Note the highlighted: forget your intended destination.

That mean -- even with the moderate sea state of 4 -- keeping the boat afloat is primary consideration. Never mind where you are going. Just survive. And do this for at least one hundred miles. :enjoy:

Now for the aircraft. As pointed out earlier where WW II was the first time fleets fought each other without seeing each other, the aircraft is a PROVEN method of successfully fighting and even defeating the aircraft carrier. Today, no navy can challenge the US Navy in this method. Low altitude weapon like the Exocet was once thought and touted to be that 'carrier killer' method but a countermeasure was developed and that countermeasure method is %99.999 proven effective.

Finally remains the largely THEORETICAL ballistic missile method as a credible threat to the aircraft carrier. The more theoretical the less credible. That is the real world talking. The technical challenges for the descending warhead to find the maneuvering ship are enormous and the Chinese weapon have not faced the full array of the carrier's countermeasures.
 
.
Do you know the parameters of these carriers? Do some research before post

That doesn't answer my simple doubt. How is U.S or any other country who's intention are to attack a far away nation, supposed to bring their fighters and bombers within their striking range ??? Can you please enlighten ?? :)
 
.
@gambit

Thank you for your thought-provoking response.

A large number of members in this community are amateurs and arm-chair experts of things. They do not have much knowledge of American combat tactics and countermeasures against different kinds of threats and how a ballistic missile will get a lock on the aircraft carrier in the first place under hostile circumstances in the vastness of an ocean. They take propaganda pieces and/or PR stunts way too seriously sometimes.

Even a bit of common sense screams that defense-related possibilities are much grester with a 600 billion USD budget than with 100 billion USD budget.
 
Last edited:
.
The article has a point. If an aircraft carrier had to face a salvo of a few dozen missiles coming in at it, how likely are the chances of it being able to defend itself? The only reason its not been done already is because the US has only fought nations without that capability.
Is that -- the highlighted -- supposed to be a legitimate criticism ? I asked that kindly.

Before you criticize, you should make efforts to know at least the rudimentary of the subject matter. It appears you made no efforts to do so.

What is an 'anti-ship' ballistic missile ? The question begs many issues, starting with the target -- the ship.

If your target is a ship, what does it mean to you ? It means you have interests around the water, at the very least, you must have at least one coastal access to the sea, correct ? If you are landlocked like Mongolia, how are you going to develop a navy, let alone a weapon against a ship ?

So let us assume that you have at least that one coastal access to the sea, now you must allocate funds from your defense budget to develop that 'anti-ship' weapon. Not only the funds, but now you must recruit people, acquire materials, and perhaps develop new technology if necessary.

Next comes testing. But let us stop at this point for now. The testing regime for the 'anti-ship' ballistic missile have been debated before and NO ONE have been able to meet my challenges to the Chinese claim of the DF-21D's efficacy. Do not confuse 'efficiency' with 'efficacy'. Efficiency is about doing with the minimum efforts and resources. Efficacy is about the ability of achieving a desired goal. So let us stop at this point and return to your criticism.

Show us how many countries that fought US have at least such a weapon program ? If none do, how is that a reflection of US as a military ? We fought against countries with sea access before so it is not as if we picked fights only against landlocked countries. If you have access to the sea but do not have an 'anti-ship' ballistic missile, too bad for you. Criticizing US as you are beaten is pointless, right ?
 
.
Is that -- the highlighted -- supposed to be a legitimate criticism ? I asked that kindly.

Before you criticize, you should make efforts to know at least the rudimentary of the subject matter. It appears you made no efforts to do so.

What is an 'anti-ship' ballistic missile ? The question begs many issues, starting with the target -- the ship.

If your target is a ship, what does it mean to you ? It means you have interests around the water, at the very least, you must have at least one coastal access to the sea, correct ? If you are landlocked like Mongolia, how are you going to develop a navy, let alone a weapon against a ship ?

So let us assume that you have at least that one coastal access to the sea, now you must allocate funds from your defense budget to develop that 'anti-ship' weapon. Not only the funds, but now you must recruit people, acquire materials, and perhaps develop new technology if necessary.

Next comes testing. But let us stop at this point for now. The testing regime for the 'anti-ship' ballistic missile have been debated before and NO ONE have been able to meet my challenges to the Chinese claim of the DF-21D's efficacy. Do not confuse 'efficiency' with 'efficacy'. Efficiency is about doing with the minimum efforts and resources. Efficacy is about the ability of achieving a desired goal. So let us stop at this point and return to your criticism.

Show us how many countries that fought US have at least such a weapon program ? If none do, how is that a reflection of US as a military ? We fought against countries with sea access before so it is not as if we picked fights only against landlocked countries. If you have access to the sea but do not have an 'anti-ship' ballistic missile, too bad for you. Criticizing US as you are beaten is pointless, right ?

Climb down off your box. It wasn't meant as a criticism. The only reason you people go to war is to steal resources - why would you fight a war chance of winning is low, the cost of the war high and therefore ultimately the profits from stolen resources low? It's a commentary, not a criticism.

An anti ship ballistic missile is not as fancy as it sounds, it's a pretty standard ballistic missile with guidance that allows it to hit a moving target (some ballistic missiles typically don't do). You're right - it's not combat proven as a weapon, but then again how many weapons are? Back to my original point, none of the big boys go toe to toe anymore, the weaponry doesn't get tested on a fair platform. Who would win if the SU-35 went up against the Eurofighter? We can speculate, we can't know for sure. This whole article is based on similar speculation.
 
.
Having 500 Nautical Mile range for carrier based aircraft does not automatically force the carriers to get close to enemy shores. During Rolling Thunder, aerial campaign against North Vietnam, USN planes refueled over Laos before proceeding with their attacks on Hanoi.

If the Iranian Anti-Ship missiles are a legitimate threat then USN carriers can stay out of their range, refuel their planes over KSA and proceed with their attacks. Similarly if DF-21D is actually a genuine threat then, Tankers flying from Japan or South Korea can refuel the hornets or F-35's and the carriers can still stay out of the range of DF-21D.
 
. .
The best this debate can be is 50/50 for the carrier and for the missile. That means unless there is a shooting fight between the US and China, no one, not even the US Naval Institute, can know the final outcome.

This...

4Nu6sFT.jpg


...Is not how a carrier fleet array itself in combat. This is a PR formation.

The reality is that it is not possible to photograph the carrier fleet when it is arrayed in combat formation, we will have to go satellite for that.

So here is the next best thing to represent how a carrier fleet is arrayed in combat formation...

YA5FKu1.jpg


You are looking at HUNDREDS of surface square areas for any single missile, or a swarm of small boats for the Iranians' method, to search for ONE ship. And that is not considering the ship is under maneuvers.

So far, there are three ways to fight a US aircraft carrier fleet in combat formation: aircraft, missile, and small boats.

Of the three, the most laughable method is with small boats, no matter how much the Iranians may tout the Millennium Challenge exercise. Just because a US general did it, that does not mean it is replicable by someone else when that someone do not have access to the details of how the US general did it. How many small boats can survive crossing at least one hundred miles of surface ocean whose sea state is unknown just to take potshots at the carrier ? Assuming the boat passed the defense perimeter.

This is the Douglas Sea Scale...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_sea_scale

Those who have never been in a small boat in state 4 do not know how rough it is on the boat, let alone the humans, and the boat have to cross one hundred miles of this surface condition. The higher the sea state, the more fuel it will cost the boat to go from point A to point B.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/694049.pdf

The above 1969 doc is a study of aircraft carrier air operations feasibility in various sea states. Essentially, if the sea state is high enough to prevent deck operations, that swarm of small boats intended to attack the carrier will be fish food long before they can even be a threat to the ship.

http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/heavy2.htm

Note the highlighted: forget your intended destination.

That mean -- even with the moderate sea state of 4 -- keeping the boat afloat is primary consideration. Never mind where you are going. Just survive. And do this for at least one hundred miles. :enjoy:

Now for the aircraft. As pointed out earlier where WW II was the first time fleets fought each other without seeing each other, the aircraft is a PROVEN method of successfully fighting and even defeating the aircraft carrier. Today, no navy can challenge the US Navy in this method. Low altitude weapon like the Exocet was once thought and touted to be that 'carrier killer' method but a countermeasure was developed and that countermeasure method is %99.999 proven effective.

Finally remains the largely THEORETICAL ballistic missile method as a credible threat to the aircraft carrier. The more theoretical the less credible. That is the real world talking. The technical challenges for the descending warhead to find the maneuvering ship are enormous and the Chinese weapon have not faced the full array of the carrier's countermeasures.

I assume that your reply is against the capability of the Chinese armed forces to destroy a US carrier fleet. However, isn't it possible to sink a carrier in a swarming attack by both aircraft and submarines? By aircraft I meant the long rage bombers not fighter planes.

Would China have any chance of sinking a US carrier if they could acquire latest Russian long range antiship missiles and their own submarines? I know that the stealth qualities of the Chinese subs are at a doubt, but in a general confusion after a swarming air attack; could they penetrate the underwater protection net and carry out a torpedo run?
 
.
Climb down off your box.
Take your own advice.

It wasn't meant as a criticism.
Sure it was, and we all know it.

The only reason you people go to war is to steal resources...
Such as where ? And if you say Iraq, I will embarrass you.

An anti ship ballistic missile is not as fancy as it sounds, it's a pretty standard ballistic missile with guidance that allows it to hit a moving target (some ballistic missiles typically don't do).
And am willing to say that you know NONE of the technical issues involved in that guidance.

You're right - it's not combat proven as a weapon, but then again how many weapons are?
Certainly the aircraft carrier has more combat experience than the anti-ship ballistic missile does.

Back to my original point, none of the big boys go toe to toe anymore, the weaponry doesn't get tested on a fair platform.
You want war to be fair ? What recreational hallucinogenic substance are you on ? Plus, your comment reveals you know next to nothing about weaponry in general. If a weapon needs to be 'tested' in war, you failed as a developer.
 
.
USNavypersiangulf.jpg



The U.S. Navy (and to be frank, the whole U.S. military) is living in a state of total denial. In the next great powers war, or perhaps even in a conflict with a mid-tier power like Iran, at least one of our aircraft carriers will sink to the bottom of the sea. That means thousands of lives could be lost—and there would be very little we could do to stop it.

We need to get used to a very simple reality: the decades-old age of the aircraft carrier, that great symbol of U.S. power projection, has now passed. We can deny the evidence that is right before our eyes, but innovations in anti-ship missiles over many decades—combined with advanced but short-range carrier-based U.S. fighter aircraft and missile defenses that can be easily defeated—have conspired to doom one of the most powerful weapons ever devised.

If the aircraft carrier is a symbol, an expression of U.S. military dominance stretching from World War II to today, then there’s another symbol that perfectly encapsulates its demise: China’s DF-21D, what many experts describe as a “carrier-killer” ballistic missile.

How the missile works is key to understanding what modern-day U.S. aircraft carriers face. The missile is mobile and can travel anywhere via a truck, making its detection difficult. When launched, the weapon is guided using over-the-horizon radars, new satellite networks, and possibly even drones or commercial vessels being used as scouts. The system also has a maneuverable warhead to help defeat missile-defense systems. When it does find its target, it can descend from the sky and strike at speeds approaching Mach 12. Worst of all, the missile has a range of 1,000 miles. A Pentagon source tells me that Beijing has already deployed “many of them—perhaps in the hundreds,” and is “fully operational and ready for action.”

With one report claiming China could build 1,227 DF-21Ds for every carrier the U.S. military sends to sea, Beijing and other nations will have ample budgetary room to challenge our mighty carriers for decades to come.

Now, to be fair, many nations already have various types of missile platforms that could attack carriers and do damage—even send them to the bottom of the sea. The solution seems obvious: Why not park your carriers out of range and attack from afar?

Great idea—except we can’t. Right now, if we tried to strike targets in, say, China or Russia, we would be unable to do it safely because, thanks to our short-range aircraft, we would have to be parked right in range of those countries’ own powerful missile batteries.

Despite all their amazing capabilities, the latest generation of attack planes onboard U.S. aircraft carriers, the F/A-18 and soon-to-be F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, are not long-range strike aircraft, as they’re only able to fly 500 and 550 nautical miles respectively. In a stand-off with a nation like China, this would put our most expensive weapon of war—and, more importantly, thousands of sailors, airmen, and marines—in harm’s way. Since American aircraft carriers sail in large groupings of ships, there exists the possibility of multiple U.S. naval vessels meeting fiery deaths, as they would have to travel close to the shores of other nations that have similar weapons.

Those who continue to defend the aircraft carrier have an obvious solution: missile defenses can stop any incoming attacks and keep the carrier relevant for decades. That seems like a reasonable argument, except for one very basic problem: first-grade math tells us it’s flat-out wrong. As I have said on several occasions, U.S. naval planners in the future will face large missile forces aimed at their ships that could very well overwhelm their missile defense platforms. A great example comes from a 2011 report from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis, which shows it wouldn’t take much strategic sophistication to beat U.S. missile defenses—just some basic math:

Iran could deploy its land-based ASCMs (anti-ship cruise missiles) from camouflaged and hardened sites to firing positions along its coastline and on Iranian-occupied islands in the Strait of Hormuz while placing decoys at false firing positions to complicate U.S. counterstrikes. Hundreds of ASCMs may cover the Strait, awaiting target cueing data from coastal radars, UAVs, surface vessels, and submarines. Salvo and multiple axis attacks could enable these ASCMs to saturate U.S. defenses…salvos of less capable ASCMs might be used to exhaust U.S. defenses, paving the way for attacks by more advanced missiles.

Taking the above example to its logical extreme, could China, Russia, Iran, or even one day North Korea simply build enough missiles on the cheap and launch them close enough to exhaust the defenses of a U.S. aircraft carrier strike group? Considering that we are currently unable to reload such defenses with ease at sea, our forces would face an unpleasant choice if their missile interceptors were exhausted: withdraw or face down enemy missiles with no defenses.

This is a problem that will only get worse with time. And considering China is already in the process of developing an even longer-range anti-ship weapon—the DF-26, with a range that could attack our carriers as far out as Guam—simple logic suggests the problem will only get worse.

The best way to begin solving a problem is to admit that you have one. And let there be no doubt that if steps are not taken to redefine what an aircraft carrier does—essentially take bombs and attack enemies at long ranges—then the next war America fights against a formidable foe will truly be historic, and for all of the wrong reasons.

Harry J. Kazianis is director of defense studies at the Center for the National Interest and executive editor of its publishing arm, The National Interest. Previously, he served as editor of The Diplomat, a fellow at CSIS, and on the 2016 Ted Cruz foreign policy team.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/face-it-the-mighty-u-s-aircraft-carrier-is-dead/

The problem is the author knows nothing about the history of aircraft carrier fighting. Even in WW2 US carriers stayed well over 500 miles from Japan’s shores. It wasn’t missiles they were worried about..it was a swarm of Japanese Air Force bombers escorted by 100+ fighters. Carriers always stayed out of range of Air Force aircraft. In the entire war only one carrier got hit by a single Japanese Air Force heavy bomber turning its flight deck into a pock-marked wreck (but not sunk)

Any dope who thinks US carriers are going to pull up close to the shore of some country shouldn’t be doing any writing.

The planes attacking mainland Japan/Germany in WW2 were all US Airforce planes...not Navy planes. Guess how many US Aircraft carriers lurked off Nazi Germany’s coast during WW2...zero. Guess how many they sank...zero.
 
Last edited:
.
The article has a point. If an aircraft carrier had to face a salvo of a few dozen missiles coming in at it, how likely are the chances of it being able to defend itself? The only reason its not been done already is because the US has only fought nations without that capability.

For one, the carriers do not operate alone. They have dedicated anti-ship, anti-aircraft and anti-submarines deterrence readily available with them. Moreover, the carriers won't put them selves in a position that would provide them with disadvantage intentionally. IMHO the only nation which atleast has even a slightest chance of sinking a US carrier is Russia. No other country has come close to it yet.
 
.
I assume that your reply is against the capability of the Chinese armed forces to destroy a US carrier fleet.
It is.

However, isn't it possible to sink a carrier in a swarming attack by both aircraft and submarines? By aircraft I meant the long rage bombers not fighter planes.
Anything is 'possible'. However, this assume the aircraft carrier is passive, which we know cannot be. The fleet has AWACS and its air defense fighters. For underwater, the fleet has its sub escort, singular or plural which no one knows.

Would China have any chance of sinking a US carrier if they could acquire latest Russian long range antiship missiles and their own submarines? I know that the stealth qualities of the Chinese subs are at a doubt, but in a general confusion after a swarming air attack; could they penetrate the underwater protection net and carry out a torpedo run?
We can 'stack the deck' against the carrier as much as we want to satisfy the need to make the US the losing side. But the bottom line is that in order to assault the carrier, the attacker must have somehow rendered the rest of the fleet impotent.
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom