Defense secretary signals he'll reassess Navy, Marine Corps programs

[Infohawk]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Milita...als-he-ll-reassess-Navy-Marine-Corps-programs

Basically the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, Carrier Groups into question. I think all this is short-sided. We need to keep our edge with things like carriers, amphibious warfare, and advanced fighters (RIP F22).

We are effectively protected by oceans from most of our potential enemies. We need a huge navy. More than we need a huge army. I don't care about the latest stryker that is all that is necessary for fighting numbnuts in the desert where we don't really need to be. I care more about weapons that can take on a well-organized nation-state.

 

[irishScott]

We're the superpower. Part of that definition includes the ability to project comparatively massive force virtually anywhere on the globe on short notice. I'm all for trimming fat in the form of inefficient programs, but leave the carriers be please.

Oh, and we have 100+ F-22s as it stands. If we do end up in a conventional war with.. say... China, I would think that and the rest of the USAF would suffice until new planes could be built. Not that a conventional war with China will happen any time soon (at least nothing on a large scale).

 

[Danube]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Dems offer some carriers to China to knock a few ducats off the debt.

I could see scaling back a bit to save money but when Obama Nation says they want to make cuts its only for defense so they can send the money to unions, ACORN etc.

You know if Obama gets his way the US will be defending itself with broom sticks and inflatable boats

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Carriers are obsolete. They are $5B sitting ducks. Massive and slow. No way to hide from satellites or radar. They have no defense against ballistic missiles, and guess what, the Chinese are developing "ship-killer" ballistic missiles.

http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/all/1/

If you don't like Gary Brecher for some reason, here are some of his sources, from the U.S. Naval Institute:

https://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp
http://blog.usni.org/?p=1964

And even if they find a way to defeat those conventional explosive ballistic missiles, there's not much you can do about a nuke detonated a few thousand feet over a carrier group. Bye-bye carrier group. Even if there were such a thing as effective defenses... the Chinese could just throw up a few tens or hundreds of them at a time. To defeat a carrier, with all of its planes and crew, it'd be worth it to use overwhelming force. How much could these missiles cost apiece? $10M?

In WWII we recognized that battleships were obsolete. The development of air power between WWI and WWII ensured that. Since WWII, there have been huge advances in space-based observation, and in missiles of all kinds. Therefore, in the next big war we will be forced to realize that all surface ships are obsolete, if we do not recognize it earlier and make the hard choices to radically alter our naval strategies, i.e., build more subs. Small attack subs. Big missile subs. Massive troop carrier subs. Hell, maybe it would even be possible to build an aircraft carrier sub. They don't all have to be super stealthy on sonar -- they just have to be capable of diving deep enough to avoid satellite detection. Yes, they would be sitting ducks if an enemy sub found them. But surface ships are even worse. They are sitting ducks whose positions are known 100% of the time and which can be attacked from 1000 miles away.

I don't see where it's any big debate among military buffs that big-gun battleships were made obsolete circa WWII. I don't see why it should be any big debate that carriers are being made obsolete currently. I guess it's probably the same debate process though, and there were probably die-hard battleship fans that didn't want to step into the future. It's the same way now with carriers. The writing's on the wall.

 

[Danube]

I guess it's probably the same debate process though, and there were probably die-hard battleship fans that didn't want to step into the future. It's the same way now with carriers. The writing's on the wall.

Well writing was on the wall for socialism too and this crowd brought that back. It's been statistically shown the stimulus bill did squat and the rest of the unspent 300+ billion should just be scrapped before things that actually serve some purpose.

This was in WSJ today


"Bryan McGrath, a retired Navy officer who drafted the service's most recent maritime strategy, said Mr. Gates was "utterly misreading the strategic landscape" by focusing on the Navy's size disparity.
"It is the overwhelming size of our Navy that keeps the rest of the world from expanding their own forces, because they trust us," said Mr. McGrath, a defense consultant. "If our friends and allies think that we're retrenching from our dominant role, you'll start to see a naval arms race, and that will be really destabilizing."




http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...634.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop

 

[LegendKiller]

Carriers are obsolete. They are $5B sitting ducks. Massive and slow. No way to hide from satellites or radar. They have no defense against ballistic missiles, and guess what, the Chinese are developing "ship-killer" ballistic missiles.

http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/all/1/

If you don't like Gary Brecher for some reason, here are some of his sources, from the U.S. Naval Institute:

https://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp
http://blog.usni.org/?p=1964

And even if they find a way to defeat those conventional explosive ballistic missiles, there's not much you can do about a nuke detonated a few thousand feet over a carrier group. Bye-bye carrier group. Even if there were such a thing as effective defenses... the Chinese could just throw up a few tens or hundreds of them at a time. To defeat a carrier, with all of its planes and crew, it'd be worth it to use overwhelming force. How much could these missiles cost apiece? $10M?

In WWII we recognized that battleships were obsolete. The development of air power between WWI and WWII ensured that. Since WWII, there have been huge advances in space-based observation, and in missiles of all kinds. Therefore, in the next big war we will be forced to realize that all surface ships are obsolete, if we do not recognize it earlier and make the hard choices to radically alter our naval strategies, i.e., build more subs. Small attack subs. Big missile subs. Massive troop carrier subs. Hell, maybe it would even be possible to build an aircraft carrier sub. They don't all have to be super stealthy on sonar -- they just have to be capable of diving deep enough to avoid satellite detection. Yes, they would be sitting ducks if an enemy sub found them. But surface ships are even worse. They are sitting ducks whose positions are known 100% of the time and which can be attacked from 1000 miles away.

I don't see where it's any big debate among military buffs that big-gun battleships were made obsolete circa WWII. I don't see why it should be any big debate that carriers are being made obsolete currently. I guess it's probably the same debate process though, and there were probably die-hard battleship fans that didn't want to step into the future. It's the same way now with carriers. The writing's on the wall.

The ICBM weapon will be a long-time in coming as Chinese technology is nowhere near what is needed to put one close enough to a ship, especially in light of ABM technologies we have.

Power projection is the key and the carrier will always be central to power projection until technologies like the instant strike comes available.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Carriers are obsolete. They are $5B sitting ducks. Massive and slow. No way to hide from satellites or radar. They have no defense against ballistic missiles, and guess what, the Chinese are developing "ship-killer" ballistic missiles.

http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carriers-will-die/all/1/

If you don't like Gary Brecher for some reason, here are some of his sources, from the U.S. Naval Institute:

https://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp
http://blog.usni.org/?p=1964

And even if they find a way to defeat those conventional explosive ballistic missiles, there's not much you can do about a nuke detonated a few thousand feet over a carrier group. Bye-bye carrier group. Even if there were such a thing as effective defenses... the Chinese could just throw up a few tens or hundreds of them at a time. To defeat a carrier, with all of its planes and crew, it'd be worth it to use overwhelming force. How much could these missiles cost apiece? $10M?

In WWII we recognized that battleships were obsolete. The development of air power between WWI and WWII ensured that. Since WWII, there have been huge advances in space-based observation, and in missiles of all kinds. Therefore, in the next big war we will be forced to realize that all surface ships are obsolete, if we do not recognize it earlier and make the hard choices to radically alter our naval strategies, i.e., build more subs. Small attack subs. Big missile subs. Massive troop carrier subs. Hell, maybe it would even be possible to build an aircraft carrier sub. They don't all have to be super stealthy on sonar -- they just have to be capable of diving deep enough to avoid satellite detection. Yes, they would be sitting ducks if an enemy sub found them. But surface ships are even worse. They are sitting ducks whose positions are known 100% of the time and which can be attacked from 1000 miles away.

I don't see where it's any big debate among military buffs that big-gun battleships were made obsolete circa WWII. I don't see why it should be any big debate that carriers are being made obsolete currently. I guess it's probably the same debate process though, and there were probably die-hard battleship fans that didn't want to step into the future. It's the same way now with carriers. The writing's on the wall.

Carriers are fast and ballistic missiles will not have an easy time hitting them. Nuke or not (not that it matters because once nukes are used all conventional forces are obsolete). As for guided anti-ship missiles, they are nothing new, that is how anti-ship or ship-to-ship warfare is done now. The navy is prepared for it.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

The ICBM weapon will be a long-time in coming as Chinese technology is nowhere near what is needed to put one close enough to a ship, especially in light of ABM technologies we have.

The Chinese have launched multiple satellites capable of providing targeting data, and have built the capacity to launch more such satellites in a short amount of time to provide more granular data. There is also over-the-horizon radar and UAVs, not to mention conventional recon aircraft. All of these can provide targeting data.

Flight time at maximum range is around 12 minutes. At 30kts, in 12 minutes a carrier could be within a 6kt radius of where it was at launch time. Consumer-grade GPS is plenty enough to get it within that 6kt radius. (And have no doubt the Chinese are readying their own version of GPS.) Radar, IR, and optical scanners in the missile targeting systems should be enough to get pretty darn close, not to mention potential almost-real-time updates from the other sources (satellites, radar, UAVs).

What ABM systems do we have? How do you hide a 4.5-acre flat-top flight deck from radar? How do you stop a rocket that's screaming down vertically on top of you at a few thousand MPH? (The Dong-Feng 21 that China is reportedly developing for anti-ship purposes has a 3rd stage rocket for the downward portion of its trajectory, both for velocity purposes and for erratic maneuvering to confuse defenses. Conventional anti-ship cruise missiles such as the Harpoon or Tomahawk travel at sub-sonic speeds. The Dong-Feng 21 travels at hypersonic speeds.)

Power projection is the key and the carrier will always be central to power projection until technologies like the instant strike comes available.

The instant-strike capability is coming, we all know it is coming, we all are working on it and it's just a matter of time. It's really not that hard, just a matter of integrating a few different systems to work together. It's not like lasers or other things where the science is still very hard and we have to get super-high power densities in order to have useful weapons. It's just rockets, HE, guidance, and satellites.

It makes no sense to spend untold billions on things that we know are going to be obsolete well within their projected service life. We should keep the carriers we have, but not build any more; and spend the bulk of our resources on next-gen naval warfare, which will probably be sub-surface. Ships small enough to be radar-stealthy are good places to spend money too. Do we really want to start building the Yamato of our generation? Big, bad, and kick-ass, but totally obsolete, capable of being destroyed by much cheaper weapons against which it has little or no defense?

 

[Pocatello]

People have been saying carriers were obsolete since the 1950s. Yet the U.S has been relying on them for every conflict.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Carriers are fast and ballistic missiles will not have an easy time hitting them. Nuke or not (not that it matters because once nukes are used all conventional forces are obsolete). As for guided anti-ship missiles, they are nothing new, that is how anti-ship or ship-to-ship warfare is done now. The navy is prepared for it.

30 knots, not especially fast. Final-stage radar guidance is fine, and as I mentioned above, you're not hiding a 200,000 square foot flight deck from radar. Conventional guided missiles travel at sub-sonic speeds. The Tomahawk is Mach .7, the Harpoon is .85. The DF-21 is Mach 10.

I do wonder about the nuke thing. A nuclear strike against a CBG in the middle of the ocean is quite a different thing than using a nuke on land. I wonder what the retaliation scenarios are for such a case. It would clearly be an escalation, but a limited one. I guess it would open the door to all forms of tactical nukes, but not strategic nukes.

 

[ProfJohn]

A 'real' war between the US and China will never happen because it would get real messy real fast and I don't see either side willing to go that route.

A proxy way on the other hand is certainly possible, but I doubt the Chinese give their allies a weapon capable of taking out a US carrier group. The fallout would be to expensive for them. i.e. we have the ability to reach out and 'touch' them but they have no way to attack us on our home soil, sort of ICBM at which point its all over anyway

 

[Siddhartha]

If I were China or Russia, I would want the US to the use its resources to stay prepared to fight WWII and border wars like Iraq. The more the US pours money down its military blackhole, the less economically competitive it is. Russia and China can use its resources on its infrastructure while the US maintains carrier fleets.

 

[LegendKiller]

30 knots, not especially fast. Final-stage radar guidance is fine, and as I mentioned above, you're not hiding a 200,000 square foot flight deck from radar. Conventional guided missiles travel at sub-sonic speeds. The Tomahawk is Mach .7, the Harpoon is .85. The DF-21 is Mach 10.

I do wonder about the nuke thing. A nuclear strike against a CBG in the middle of the ocean is quite a different thing than using a nuke on land. I wonder what the retaliation scenarios are for such a case. It would clearly be an escalation, but a limited one. I guess it would open the door to all forms of tactical nukes, but not strategic nukes.

Various ABM technologies are progressing nicely. PAC, THAAD, and other technologies are improving rapidly and would be deployed over a CBG. Stealth isn't needed as jamming or other countermeasures would be deployed to fool the warhead. Since the target cannot be pinpointed with complete accuracy, since it is moving, your radius of attack automatically doubles.

Furthermore, to think that the USN and US government as a whole is sitting by and watching this develop is silly. There will be a counter by the time it is deployable.

Lastly, the carrier has never been seen as a first-strike against a hardened anti-air or invasion area in the last 40 years. Advancements of shore-based weaponry have ensured that. Any CBG getting close enough to result in a short-notice threat of a anti-carrier ICBM would have already had other weapons deployed to wipe out the threat. A sortie of the ISGNs we have, not to mention AF weaponry, would have taken the threats out or mitigated them.

Any anti-carrier weapon would have to be nuke based since any conventional weapon wouldn't be maneuverable or accurate enough. Since it would be equivalent to a tactical nuke, used against our forces, it would be a WMD and would result in a retaliation in-kind. The US would not look kindly upon somebody wiping out 6,000+ sailors in a single strike using a nuke.

Keep in mind, the deployable nukes ChiCom has is minute compared to the strike capability of the US. They may sting us, but we could wipe them off the face of the map many times over. Even if they "win", they suddenly lose their biggest trading partner and the only reason why their economy works. That type of victory is one they can ill-afford to win.

 

[Pocatello]

30 knots, not especially fast. Final-stage radar guidance is fine, and as I mentioned above, you're not hiding a 200,000 square foot flight deck from radar. Conventional guided missiles travel at sub-sonic speeds. The Tomahawk is Mach .7, the Harpoon is .85. The DF-21 is Mach 10.

I do wonder about the nuke thing. A nuclear strike against a CBG in the middle of the ocean is quite a different thing than using a nuke on land. I wonder what the retaliation scenarios are for such a case. It would clearly be an escalation, but a limited one. I guess it would open the door to all forms of tactical nukes, but not strategic nukes.

Actually, both the US and Russia don't differentiate between the use of tactical nukes vs. strategic nukes. Because the use of tactical nukes will lead to strategic nukes. This is a no-win situation when it comes to nukes.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Dems offer some carriers to China to knock a few ducats off the debt.

I could see scaling back a bit to save money but when Obama Nation says they want to make cuts its only for defense so they can send the money to unions, ACORN etc.

You know if Obama gets his way the US will be defending itself with broom sticks and inflatable boats

That would be extremely short sighted and pretty stupid to sell China any of our current carriers. Currently, they do not have any carriers, which means the ONLY ways they could attack the US directly would be with ICBMs or a large invasion force. Both of these we would be able to detect, and the invasion force would have to be large which wouldn't even get 1/2 way here before we did something about it.

Actually, both the US and Russia don't differentiate between the use of tactical nukes vs. strategic nukes. Because the use of tactical nukes will lead to strategic nukes. This is a no-win situation when it comes to nukes.

I think at this point, any nuclear power is on that same page.

 

[Jhhnn]

The problem wiht having a huge standing military, besides the expense, is that sooner or later a bunch of damned fools will find an excuse to use it for purposes other than deterrence or defense of friendly nations. Witness recent history.

Spreading "Free! Freedom! and Liberty!" at gunpoint is a central tenet of Neocon thinking-

Suddenly, after two decades during which "imperial decline" and "imperial overstretch" were the academic and journalistic watchwords, the United States emerged as uniquely powerful. The "magic" of compound interest over half a century had its effect on our military budget, as did the cumulative scientific and technological research of our armed forces. With power come responsibilities, whether sought or not, whether welcome or not. And it is a fact that if you have the kind of power we now have, either you will find opportunities to use it, or the world will discover them for you.

From page 3, here-

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp

Obviously, opportunities have been found... and coupled with the economic recklessness covered earlier in the article...

A smaller military changes the calculus entirely, forces a truly "Conservative" attitude wrt the use of military force. Given the recent applications of arrogance, fearmongering and stupidity, a smaller yet still highly capable military seems like a very good idea.

13 carrier battle groups? That's more than the rest of the world combined. How about 7 or 8? Nearly 1000 bases overseas? How about 500 or less?

Yeh, it would reduce our ability to act unilaterally, recklessly, which is the whole point...

 

[K1052]

What ABM systems do we have? How do you hide a 4.5-acre flat-top flight deck from radar? How do you stop a rocket that's screaming down vertically on top of you at a few thousand MPH? (The Dong-Feng 21 that China is reportedly developing for anti-ship purposes has a 3rd stage rocket for the downward portion of its trajectory, both for velocity purposes and for erratic maneuvering to confuse defenses. Conventional anti-ship cruise missiles such as the Harpoon or Tomahawk travel at sub-sonic speeds. The Dong-Feng 21 travels at hypersonic speeds.)

The deployment of the SM-3 missile to Aegis equipped destroyers has already happened and they are doing development on the next version.

Also, a nuclear first strike against any US forces is a losing proposition for China.

 

[Brainonska511]

Regardless of people's views on carriers in this thread, do we really need 11 carrier battle groups? Can we do what we want to do with 8?

 

[EagleKeeper]

The problem wiht having a huge standing military, besides the expense, is that sooner or later a bunch of damned fools will find an excuse to use it for purposes other than deterrence or defense of friendly nations. Witness recent history.

Spreading "Free! Freedom! and Liberty!" at gunpoint is a central tenet of Neocon thinking-



From page 3, here-

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/000tzmlw.asp

Obviously, opportunities have been found... and coupled with the economic recklessness covered earlier in the article...

A smaller military changes the calculus entirely, forces a truly "Conservative" attitude wrt the use of military force. Given the recent applications of arrogance, fearmongering and stupidity, a smaller yet still highly capable military seems like a very good idea.

13 carrier battle groups? That's more than the rest of the world combined. How about 7 or 8? Nearly 1000 bases overseas? How about 500 or less?

Yeh, it would reduce our ability to act unilaterally, recklessly, which is the whole point...

A issue with a deliberately smaller force is that an opponent will feel that they can obtain an advantage. See Japan w/ respect to pre-WWII. The US did not have forces available to try to deter them.

Not all groups are at sea at once; Usually 1/3 is in port for rework, 1/3 in transit and 1/3 on station. Those in transit may be reading out; which takes time to get to an area or returning with a tired force and potentially low on supplies.

While I agree that we can reduce forard bases; many of the 1000+ are symbolic tokens; not full up operational/staging locations.

A carrier battle group should be considered a forward floating airbase with a defensive umbrella that has multiiple stingers.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Regardless of people's views on carriers in this thread, do we really need 11 carrier battle groups? Can we do what we want to do with 8?

See explanation above.

Short answer is no - there are more than 3 areas in the world where they can have an impact. It is infeasible to shuffle them 20K miles from one spot to another - that will take months and leave areas exposed.

 

[Jaskalas]

We are effectively protected by oceans from most of our potential enemies.

Civil War ring a bell?

As our wealth declines and our status in the world recedes look to within for the greatest threat.

 

[rudder]

I would hate to be the pilot of a single seat fighter bomber having to fly from a base in Norfolk to the other side of the globe to carry out his mission. Which in all likelihood would be a limited regional conflict rather than a war with China or Russia.

 

[Jhhnn]

A issue with a deliberately smaller force is that an opponent will feel that they can obtain an advantage. See Japan w/ respect to pre-WWII. The US did not have forces available to try to deter them.

Not all groups are at sea at once; Usually 1/3 is in port for rework, 1/3 in transit and 1/3 on station. Those in transit may be reading out; which takes time to get to an area or returning with a tired force and potentially low on supplies.

While I agree that we can reduce forard bases; many of the 1000+ are symbolic tokens; not full up operational/staging locations.

A carrier battle group should be considered a forward floating airbase with a defensive umbrella that has multiiple stingers.

Comparing pre-WW2 US military readiness to what I've offered isn't remotely accurate. The real issue is relative strength. We'd still be easily the world's most potent military if we downsized by half. The notion that we could end up fighting everybody everywhere w/o the aid of our allies is absurd.

 

[piasabird]

Wasnt there just a thread claiming China was building a lot of submarines. Subs are definitely one of the main enemies of destroyers and air craft carriers. Of course these ships usually travel in groups with anti-missle cruisers.

 

[K1052]

Wasnt there just a thread claiming China was building a lot of submarines. Subs are definitely one of the main enemies of destroyers and air craft carriers. Of course these ships usually travel in groups with anti-missle cruisers.

and a couple of US attack subs for good measure