Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 71 of 71

Thread: Is This The End of The Carrier

  1. #61
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    pvebber,

    What do smaller ships buy you? The advantage of the US aircraft carrier is that it can carry a large number of aircraft and size influences stability in rough seas. Are you thinking something more along the lines of a modern equivalent to the WWII escort carrier?

    I also don't see how retooling to more, smaller ships, mitigates the threat, especially in light of the downsides to a more numerous, small-ship fleet.

    And again it's important to point out that the "book" technical specifications and capabilities for threat systems only provide part of the story.
    Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.

  2. #62
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy View Post
    pvebber,

    What do smaller ships buy you? The advantage of the US aircraft carrier is that it can carry a large number of aircraft and size influences stability in rough seas. Are you thinking something more along the lines of a modern equivalent to the WWII escort carrier?

    I also don't see how retooling to more, smaller ships, mitigates the threat, especially in light of the downsides to a more numerous, small-ship fleet.

    And again it's important to point out that the "book" technical specifications and capabilities for threat systems only provide part of the story.
    Since I brought that up I'll take a shot at it until pvebber gets here. More and cheaper platforms presents a kind of reverse target overload to the attacker. Thats the whole idea behind missiles and why they are such a threat, they can be launched from very cheap platforms. That's why the Army wanted to base ICBM's on Semi-Trailers to be used on the Interstate Highway system (thats why it was called the Strategic Highway System to start)or construct a large Rail Road system out in the West over multiple States. The Air Force couldn't live with that so it never happened. But the same philosophy can be applied to Air,Sea or Land. Make a lot of Platforms that can Shoot,Move,and Communicate together and you increase your chance of deterrence and if that fails you increase your chance of survival. It was all figured out in the 1950's under IKE.

  3. #63
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Both would crash badly in wartime, but during peacetime the U.S. IS more dependent on the PR China than the other way around although not as drastically as some people portray it (China finances only a small fraction of the U.S. federal deficit directly).
    China's financing of the deficit is not the bogeyman it's made out to be, for a variety of reasons.

    I do not at all agree that the US is more dependent on China than the other way around, especially in wartime. The Chinese are sitting on a social volcano of enormous proportions: the income disparities among regions and social classes are staggering and the information flow has irreversibly opened. The aspirations are there and rising and they have to be met. It's as if they have the capitalist genie half out of the bottle. It won't go in and it remains to be seen whether they can get it all the way out.

    The Chinese can keep this situation stable as long as they keep generating massive growth, allowing the industrial coast to absorb money-hungry migrants and maintaining at least the belief that material aspiration can be satisfied. The US can survive a major recession, as we've seen. There is a great deal of doubt as to whether the current Chinese government could. It's likely that a significant economic crisis would generate social upheaval on a scale that would make Tiananmen look like a mosquito bite. The threat to China's rulers is internal, not external, and they know it.

    The Chinese economy is trade-dependent; the domestic economy can't absorb more than a fraction of the output. China suffered less than some expected in the recession because they sell highly cost-competitive goods that hold up well in times of reduced consumption, but trade sanctions in the event of conflict could hurt them enormously.

    In the event of war there would be no need to move US vessels close to China: outbound goods and inbound resources could be apprehended at a distance. Modern version of the old fashioned siege; the Chinese are a long way from being able to project power far enough over the horizon to prevent it.

    In any event the Chinese have no incentive whatsoever to fight the Americans or anyone else: the current order is quite conducive to their interests. The danger, of course, is that the recession that China will someday experience will generate major political instability and produce a reactionary and aggressive government. Not imminent, but not unimaginable.

  4. #64
    Council Member pvebber's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Rho Dyelan
    Posts
    130

    Default

    "What do smaller ships buy you? The advantage of the US aircraft carrier is that it can carry a large number of aircraft and size influences stability in rough seas. Are you thinking something more along the lines of a modern equivalent to the WWII escort carrier?

    I also don't see how retooling to more, smaller ships, mitigates the threat, especially in light of the downsides to a more numerous, small-ship fleet."

    You are thinking about hte problem from the point of view of WWII carrier operations.

    There is still a role for CVNs, just not 11 of them. If i were King i would have 4 on the west coast (1 forward deployed and 3 in Pearl/San Diego, and 2 on the east coast (with the UK CV in the mix to have a forward presence of 1).
    Maybe a 7th in reserve in case you lose 1. A CSG still has the aircraft and defenses to take on 80+% of the worlds air forces. That is an important capability. I submit that the CSG is not hte thing you want to send in at the pointy end of the spear anymore to poke around a hornets nest. ASBMs aside, just the ASCM and deisel sub threat can be daunting.

    SO how do you address the problem of overwhelming firepoewer against a concentrated defense. Spread out and make the enemy attack everywhere. I made a couple diagrams to show this. If you get away from having to take your full up air base (CVN) inot harms way, why not steal a page from the old Air Land Battle, where tstretches of Autobahn were going to used as improvised air strips. Create a CVA 9not in the WWII sense, but in the sense of "mobile austere air field ofr rearm and refeuling" surge aircraft to the CVN from land bases, keeping hte CVN well back, and send the aircraft forward to cheap things like the "containership airstrip" or High speeed vessel alternatives like:

    http://www.hydrolance.net/naval.htm

    (OK, a bit "out there" admittedly..)

    but Sea archer has a pretty strong design argument:

    http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf

    Integrate with the Air Force to leverage more than just land-base tanking, and look at the ability of long-range land-based aircrat to provide stand-off weapons, as well as fuel. Develop a version of LCS into a modlar Frigate that can provide long range SAM magazine, decoy and deception. use a mix of manned and unmanned aircraft (<than 3-1 umanned to manned) and use unamnned in particular as your forward ISR screen in conjunction with modular payload subs that can carry strike , SAM, and anti-ship weapons.

    An architecture like this case, in the top diagram you have 10 platforms inside the acees denial envelop, spread out (its just a cartoon so the scale is a bit skewed...) The threat now has an access denial problem sorting this picture out, and if he just attacks all ten, well that dilutes the defenseive problem by a factor of 10. 80 missiles is likely to give a full up CSG fits, 10 attacks by 8 missles is a much more tractable problem.

    The CVN alone and unafraid in the lower diagram, is a sore thumb standing out looking to get whacked, and is limited in its ability to distriubute its sorties to its own defense and to project more than about 500 miles out.

    The distributed system of CVAs can spread out, concetrate, feint, etc. THe CSG basically sits there drilling holes in the water until the bad hgguy cries "uncle" or until it has to go off task for major aircraft maintence. The distribued concept and keep "juggling balls" sending aircraft back to land bases and allowing new aircraft to be added into the cycle.

    So its not a question of "building a different carrier" its about looking at a whole different way to think about "airfields at sea" and what those mobile airfields really do for you. Leveraging those things with what land-based air gives you and working out a comporehensive power projection system rather that is agile, responsive, and which does not lose a high precentage of its capability when you lose a platform. Lose one of thoe CSG escorts and your house of cards starts to fall quickly. Lose a CVa or a couple frigates, and you still have 3/4 of your combat power. That is where we need to move, not just because of ASBMs, but because it is stupid not to and keep beat our selves up doing 1940s ops until 2040.
    Attached Files Attached Files
    "All models are wrong, but some are useful"

    -George E.P. Box

  5. #65
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Midwest
    Posts
    180

    Default These are the reasons why China could attack

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayuhan View Post
    China's financing of the deficit is not the bogeyman it's made out to be, for a variety of reasons.

    I do not at all agree that the US is more dependent on China than the other way around, especially in wartime. The Chinese are sitting on a social volcano of enormous proportions: the income disparities among regions and social classes are staggering and the information flow has irreversibly opened. The aspirations are there and rising and they have to be met. It's as if they have the capitalist genie half out of the bottle. It won't go in and it remains to be seen whether they can get it all the way out.
    ....
    In any event the Chinese have no incentive whatsoever to fight the Americans or anyone else: the current order is quite conducive to their interests. The danger, of course, is that the recession that China will someday experience will generate major political instability and produce a reactionary and aggressive government. Not imminent, but not unimaginable.
    Dayuhan-

    I agree - it is unlikely that China will attack. BUt the very social instability you refer to could end up being the cause. If the economy goes downhill, and social unrest rises, the PLA could end up blaming it on capitalism/the West and use that as rationale to attack. It's a classic tactic of repressive governments to focus on external enemies to distract the public from internal problems.

    V/R,

    Cliff

  6. #66
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Yes, but as I remember they do rarely intentionally go into a real fight in such risky situations.
    Rhetoric, burning flags, sabre-rattling, provocations, skirmishes or the occupation of some remote island where they don't expect a serious military response - that's their toolbag in such situations.

  7. #67
    Council Member Dayuhan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Latitude 17° 5' 11N, Longitude 120° 54' 24E, altitude 1499m. Right where I want to be.
    Posts
    3,137

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Yes, but as I remember they do rarely intentionally go into a real fight in such risky situations.
    Rhetoric, burning flags, sabre-rattling, provocations, skirmishes or the occupation of some remote island where they don't expect a serious military response - that's their toolbag in such situations.
    The Chinese sometimes find it expedient to fire up a foreign threat to boost nationalist sentiment and distract from domestic issues. Other nations have been known to do the same thing.

  8. #68
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    If the economy goes downhill, and social unrest rises, ...
    Any example of a modern nation going into a full-scale war voluntarily in tumultous times?

    My point was that regimes may become loudmouths to rally their subjects in order to counter domestic troubles, but they don't go voluntarily into a full-scale war in such a situation.

  9. #69
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Midwest
    Posts
    180

    Default Don't think it would be intentional...

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Any example of a modern nation going into a full-scale war voluntarily in tumultuous times?

    My point was that regimes may become loudmouths to rally their subjects in order to counter domestic troubles, but they don't go voluntarily into a full-scale war in such a situation.
    Fuchs-

    Agree. The fear here though is that the PLA leadership will either miscalculate US response due to lack of understanding (not a lot of mil to mil contacts so not a lot of familiarity) or possibly mirror imaging. Another possibility is their overestimating their own position... if you read their literature there has been a distinct swing in their confidence over the last 2-3 years.

    Like I said before, I think it's unlikely, but that doesn't mean we don't need to prepare for it.

    V/R,

    Cliff

  10. #70
    Council Member pvebber's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Rho Dyelan
    Posts
    130

    Default

    The state of development of the DF-21 ASBM appears to be closer to operational then some have thought.

    http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201008250379.html

    A ballistic missile under development in China for the purpose of deterring and attacking U.S. aircraft carriers in the western Pacific is close to becoming operational, according to Adm. Robert Willard, commander of U.S. Pacific Command.

    Willard provided the assessment in a recent round table discussion with Japanese media in Tokyo.
    The initial site to use the missiles may be under construction:

    http://blog.project2049.net/2010/08/...ballistic.html

    ...China’s state-run media quietly announced the construction of facilities for a new Second Artillery missile brigade – the 96166 Unit – in the northern Guangdong municipality of Shaoguan [韶关].
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 08-27-2010 at 07:51 AM.
    "All models are wrong, but some are useful"

    -George E.P. Box

  11. #71
    Council Member pvebber's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Rho Dyelan
    Posts
    130

    Default

    The latet Naval War College Review has a great article on the ballistic missile challenge in the Pacific. It examines the "battle of inventories" issue, the vulnerability of a carrier at see and an airbase ashore.

    It argues: Attacks on missile launchers, ISR or C2 in China is not likely to be effective and that passive vice active (ie hard kill) defenses need to to be reinvigorated.

    http://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/7...les-and-U-S--A
    "All models are wrong, but some are useful"

    -George E.P. Box

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •