Report: U.S. aircraft carriers could become ineffective

[Zarvan]

Story highlights

• A new report on the future of aircraft carriers raises questions about the choices the Navy has made about these mobile airfields
• The rise of new powers now threatens to push the Navy farther from shore and beyond the range of the aircraft the carriers hold

(CNN)Calling the U.S. aircraft carrier the "backbone" of America's global military presence, the Navy's top brass highlighted the risks of failing to maintain a big enough fleet during testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Tuesday.

But a new report on the future of aircraft carriers suggests that the Navy's problems run deeper than the number of ships or planes on these mobile airfields.

The Pentagon's focus on developing a "jack of all trades, master of none" aircraft, while rival countries build technology capable of sinking American carriers, could make these expensive warships ineffective in the coming years, according to the naval expert who authored the report.

The rise of new powers now threatens to push the Navy farther from shore and beyond the range of the aircraft the carriers hold, according to the report written by naval expert Jerry Hendrix of the Center for New American Security. "This push back would limit the service's ability to project power and thus undermine the credibility of the United States."

The U.S. carrier fleet and its air wings, or the aircraft on board, have been considered the foundation of American naval power since the end of World War II.

Over the last 70 years, the Pentagon has expanded and upgraded its fleet of aircraft carriers and the planes they carry; the staggering sums involved -- each carrier costs roughly $12 billion -- has been an investment that has allowed the U.S. Navy to project a consistent, military presence across the globe.

But the report charges that a misguided decision over the past 20 years to prioritize short-range, light attack aircraft -- rather than those with deep-strike capabilities and longer range -- coupled with the development of new, anti-ship missile technology by several unfriendly nations, jeopardizes the safety of the American vessels.

"Today's carriers and their accompanying air wings, with their shrinking ability to project mass power at great distance, represent 25 years of actively forgetting critical historical lessons," said Hendrix.

According to Hendrix's report, the loss of seven aircraft carriers during World War II led the Navy to initially prioritize the development of aircraft that could travel long distances to hit land-based targets and allow the carrier to stay further away from enemy territory.

But given the U.S. Navy's uncontested access to the world's oceans after the fall of the Soviet Union, aviation development has been refocused toward short-range, light-attack aircraft, over the last two decades, Hendrix said.

The light-attack, multi-role planes currently being used and developed tend to have lower maintenance costs and can be launched from an aircraft carrier more quickly than the specialized long-range aircraft of the past.

While the U.S. Navy and its air wing are still largely considered the most powerful in the world, Hendrix said the shift in capabilities coupled with the rise of new world powers, specifically China and its acquisition of a long-range carrier-killer missile, could hinder the U.S. carrier fleets.

READ: U.S. jets intercept Russian planes near aircraft carrier

These missiles "seek to take advantage of the United States' decision to cede range and the deep strike mission capability and push American ships and aircraft back beyond their operating ranges," Hedrix said.

That hurts U.S. power projection and its ability to contemplate regime change strategies that have dominated many modern American wars.

Russia, North Korea and Iran are also investing in similar anti-ship technology in an effort to re-impose the strict naval territories that existed in the decades prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, he added.

But the Navy said it is confident in the capabilities of its air wing and that the aircraft carrier will remain relevant despite the efforts of rival nations.

"A carrier is the only maritime force capable of executing the full range of military operations necessary to protect our national interests," Navy spokesman Cmdr. William Marks told CNN.

"The Navy remains committed to maintaining a carrier force, and associated carrier air wings, that provide unparalleled responsiveness and flexibility to operational commanders across the full range of military options," he added.

To counter the emerging threat posed by advanced anti-ship missile systems, the Navy has outfitted its newest destroyers and cruisers with advanced ballistic missile defense systems and is modernizing its ships and planes to include sensors and targeting systems that allow commanders, pilots and ship crews to share data with one another in real time.

READ: Size matters: Is the U.S. Navy really too small?

The systems allow the group to "detect, track and destroy an approaching target from distances hundreds of miles over the horizon," Marks said.

But Hendrix contended that upgraded defense capabilities may not be enough, suggesting the Navy reassess the types of planes it plans to buy and restore more balance to its air wing by investing in alternatives that have more range.

"New capabilities in the areas of unmanned systems, stealth, directed energy, and hypersonics could be combined to provide the range required to perform deep strike missions," said Hendrix.

Another recent report, this one by the Hudson Institute's Center for American Sea Power, also said the Navy must increase the striking range of its planes in order to protect aircraft carriers in an increasingly dangerous environment.

This group of researchers also concluded that the emerging threats posed by evolving anti-ship technology only increase the need to invest in aircraft carriers, provided they have the proper enhancements in capability.

Dakota Wood, who served in the U.S. Marines and is a defense expert with the D.C.-based Heritage Foundation, agreed with Hendrix's assessment that the U.S. Navy must adjust its thinking about aircraft carriers as the anti-ship capabilities of rival nations improve.

However, any argument that aircraft carriers are no longer viable is premature, he said, as only a few countries currently possess weaponry precise enough to pose a lethal threat to carrier fleets.

"I think aircraft carriers will exist in their current form for several more years," Wood said.

Report: U.S. aircraft carriers could become ineffective - CNNPolitics.com
@Rashid Mahmood @AUSTERLITZ @nair @MilSpec @fatman17

 

[alimobin memon]

WIth Havoc of missiles like cruise missiles fired on them at a time they are dead

 

[Rank]

They are completely dead in today's war... these AC or carrier battle group are not capable to defend upcoming multiple missiles..... basically billion dollar trash!

 

[GR!FF!N]

Peoples are dreaming to "Write off Carriers" when even news powers are making these.

Lets Analyze what threat a Carrier faces???

1. Sub Surface Threat- A CBG consists of Submarines as well as surface ships which can handle these,in fact they're performing the same duty for a century.

2.Surface Ships- No way,Fighter Jet Screens as well as CBG ensures the safety.

3. Missiles- Subsonic Missiles are easy target for SAMs as well as Fighter Jets.Real problem is Supersonic ones.But funny thing about Supersonic ones is their range is always low.so Platform has to come up close to fire it.

4.China is saying they've deployed the Ballistic Missiles for this purpose.well,untested tech at best,but recipe for total annihilation.


Introduction of new gen techs like UCAVs(US is soon going to deploy its UCLASS UCAVs) will ensure Carrier's protection as then Carrier will operate with much more distance from the shore.

 

[indianBong]

Aircraft carriers, in principle, are not solely responsible for their own defense. The defense of the carrier is predominantly the job of the other ships that form the Carrier Battle Group(CBG).
All the threats to the carrier are cataloged by the ship's personnel and then divided on the basis of their potency.most prominent threats to the carrier are from components that are either underwater or in the air.

The underwater component of the defense is primarily the job of ASW aircraft and helicopters(read SH-60) of the carrier that periodically scan the neighboring waters in assistance to the primary sonar onboard the carrier, to further augment the underwater capabilities, the CBG has hunter-killer submarines patrolling nearby.
Also all the ships accompanying the carriers have sonars of their own and their own complement of ASW weapons that can be used to defend against rogue subs.

The air-defense of the carrier is in varied stages.

• The first stage is usually handled by the aircraft of the carrier flying the CAP(combat air patrol) around it. These planes fly a fixed loitering pattern around the carrier but are rushed forward when informed by the carriers command center or by an accompanying AEW aircraft of enemy air presence(can be a ship or a cruise missile) approaching the Air Identification Zone of the CBG.
• If any enemy aircrafts evade the planes flying CAP missions, the next line of defense is the Aegis combat system, which then tracks the enemy and directs the SAMs from the surrounding cruisers to attack. The development of the DF-21D may have contributed to the USN’s decision to focus on air defense ships (such as the Arleigh Burke Flight III) capable of ballistic missile interception, at the expense of such platforms at the Littoral Combat Ship and the DDG-1000
  
• If the SAMs from the nearby cruisers are also unable to take out the intruder then the carriers own SAMs systems take over, consisting of sea sparrow missiles, RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile.
• And the absolute final air defense system of the carrier is the Phalanx CIWS consisting of an autonomous 20mm Gatling gun.

plus other systems are also present... also US navy must be working on other weapon systems too...

 

[gambit]

I want as many people as possible believing that US aircraft carriers are no longer effective. Especially from countries that have none and have never been in large scale conflicts.

 

[Paksanity]

I want as many people as possible believing that US aircraft carriers are no longer effective. Especially from countries that have none and have never been in large scale conflicts.

There is no denial that US carriers are marvels of technology and cutting edge of global power projection by US. The debate however is on a different issue which is US carriers being pushed away from shore lines and reduced range of F-35. We are talking big countries here like Russia and China. Obviously they have made some progress and US carrier groups have to take threat into account.

Needless to say US has many options at its disposal. If faced with countries like Russia or China, most advanced US weapons will lead the assault some of which most of us are not even aware of. But if I was to take a guess, I would assume B-2, F-22, Tomahawks and Stand Off weapons would be first to go in assissted by extensive Netcentric web of US military. But they will need support from inland bases e.g Refuellers, AWACS etc. What about Carriers? Formidable it may be but how does it project power if F-35s can't reach their targets unless supported by a refueller coming in from a ground base?

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Keep in mind an aircraft carrier is also a moving air base. No overseas friendly airbase near the conflict theater needed.

 

[Paksanity]

Keep in mind an aircraft carrier is also a moving air base. No overseas friendly airbase near the conflict theater needed.

Assuming your post as response to mine, it isn't true that no friendly airbase is required. Not all the US assets can launch from carriers like F-22, refuelers, E-3s etc. While B-2s and B-52s can come all the way from US, they need to be refueled mid air by aircraft taking off from friendly bases. There will be other logistic issues. For example positioning and insertion of special forces. If friendly bases are taking hits and carriers are pushed away with shorter range aircraft onboard, it does complicate US problems. I think the person voicing concern on the issue has a point.

 

[Penguin]

Essentially an argument for a Tomcat and a Prowler replacement.

Author Jerry Hendrix | Center for a New American Security

People who interprete the report as indicating 'the end of the carrier' have not understood it. Defense Strategies and Assessments Program Director Dr. Jerry Hendrix argues that aircraft carriers risk becoming obsolete without a major shift in strategy. That is a call to shift strategy in order to keep the carriers relevant.

 

[sathya]

With all lasers and directed energy weapons coming up,
nuclear powered carriers will increase I think.

USA is at the top of the game, it's futile to think their carrier will get obsolete.

 

[RoadRunner401]

I want as many people as possible believing that US aircraft carriers are no longer effective. Especially from countries that have none and have never been in large scale conflicts.

The USS Wasp burns in the Coral Sea after being struck by three torpedoes from a Japanese submarine in 1942. The ship, the only one of its class, would ultimately sink because of the damage.

 

[jhungary]

Assuming your post as response to mine, it isn't true that no friendly airbase is required. Not all the US assets can launch from carriers like F-22, refuelers, E-3s etc. While B-2s and B-52s can come all the way from US, they need to be refueled mid air by aircraft taking off from friendly bases. There will be other logistic issues. For example positioning and insertion of special forces. If friendly bases are taking hits and carriers are pushed away with shorter range aircraft onboard, it does complicate US problems. I think the person voicing concern on the issue has a point.

Actually, Carrier borne refueler do exist. KC-130 have took off from USS Forrestal in 1960s and the current fleet refueler roles have gone on the C-2 Greyhound. But Marine and Navy uses both as air refueller on board any US carrier.

While it is true that some job are exclusively dedicated to Air Force and cannot be done in the Navy, but CBG in the US navy acts as a stand alone assault platform, they can launch seaborne/airborne troop insertion and anything from deep strike to normal CAS.

 

[Paksanity]

Actually, Carrier borne refueler do exist. KC-130 have took off from USS Forrestal in 1960s and the current fleet refueler roles have gone on the C-2 Greyhound. But Marine and Navy uses both as air refueller on board any US carrier.

While it is true that some job are exclusively dedicated to Air Force and cannot be done in the Navy, but CBG in the US navy acts as a stand alone assault platform, they can launch seaborne/airborne troop insertion and anything from deep strike to normal CAS.

Thanks. I didn't know about Carrier borne refuelers. Are they still operational? I mean we don't see them on decks frequently. E-2 we do see but not a KC-130 usually. E-2 is primarily used for Carrier Air defence; correct me if I'm wrong.

Sure Carrier group is largely independent to launch an assault but the question is will it alone suffice against large countries like Russia and China? (we are talking mainland here). Better Anti-ship systems, improved Air defence systems (jam resistant and longer range) and ballistic and/or cruise missiles will force Carriers away from shores (will it?). Couple it with shorter range F-35 (a likely weapon of choice before holes can be punched through Air defence systems) and see if it will pose any significant problem to US planners? Somehow range of F-35 is brought into question (sometimes I feel for this aircraft. Western media loves to bash it without mercy LoL).

 

[jhungary]

Thanks. I didn't know about Carrier borne refuelers. Are they still operational? I mean we don't see them on decks frequently. E-2 we do see but not a KC-130 usually. E-2 is primarily used for Carrier Air defence; correct me if I'm wrong.

Sure Carrier group is largely independent to launch an assault but the question is will it alone suffice against large countries like Russia and China? (we are talking mainland here). Better Anti-ship systems, improved Air defence systems (jam resistant and longer range) and ballistic and/or cruise missiles will force Carriers away from shores (will it?). Couple it with shorter range F-35 (a likely weapon of choice before holes can be punched through Air defence systems) and see if it will pose any significant problem to US planners? Somehow range of F-35 is brought into question (sometimes I feel for this aircraft. Western media loves to bash it without mercy LoL).

Well, they tested KC-130 back in the 1960s for dual Cargo/Refueler Roles, the Navy decided not to officially adopt it, but they keep the operational requirement on KC-130 and did use them for Refuelling mission supporting Special Operation.

The Navy currently use C-2 as COD after the Navy retired the S-3 Viking aircraft. And C-2 now dual role as COD and CSA. KC-130 is still used from time to time to support Special Operation. They land on deck with full load (50,000KG load) without arrestor gear on a full length Aircraft Carrier deck. (at 754ft over a 840ft full length carrier deck)

The Navy is looking at the possibility of using V-22 to fill both COD/CSA role in the future

Well, each CBG is designed to penetrate enemy sea limit and break open the A2/AD strategy. Technically, it would not be any different if it was China and Russia. The problem with China and Russia are, they would need to defend the whole coast line and ADIZ with all the resource they have, thus that would dilute their asset. For the US, they don't need a full penetration on Chinese or Russia coastline and ADIZ, had there are any military operation, the US navy only ever need to penetrate one point at that defence line, while the Chinese and Russia have to defend the whole line. That would mean the USN would face a diluted defence. Unless the Chinese and Russian know where the threat is coming from, but then it was the whole point of using a floating airfield rather than a fix one, which mean the strike can basically launch from anywhere.

However, in the future Naval Warfare, F-35 would not need to be the mainstay of US navy, yes, they will be the force to reckon with, but the USN don't just have F35 for future defence solution, the new UCLASS (X-47B) and the Q/RQ/MQ drone would also play a part, hell, they even try to modify old F-16 or F-18 into autonomous drone, well, now it's for aerial targeting, but who know what will be of use for them tomorrow?