This article on the utility of the Carrier fleet challenges navel doctrine by playing up the apparent vulnerability of carriers. To the degree that the concerns have any merit whatsoever, it is totally true that any carrier is easily destroyed if it encounters simple ballistic firepower. Even a battery of world war one howitzers will get the job done. It is just that is not the role of an aircraft carrier.
Its role is to project force throughout the world while standing off from any such threat. It is not a bombardment platform; it is a mobile air power launch platform. As a force in place, it has been able to suppress military adventurism for over fifty years and occasionally support US military action in support of occasional geopolitical goals.
It is not a platform that can be applied easily against major states with deep hinterlands such as Russia, China, India and Brazil. And in the end, it is deployed in support of landing operations.
\
Regardless, today the USA is the great power whose effective borders are up to the two hundred mile limit of every country on Earth. The high seas are dominated by this large carrier fleet. The fleet is also still been added to and will apparently climb into the twenties. This is likely way too large. A shooting war seems to demand having five on station with all the aircraft that entails.
Regardless, today the USA is the great power whose effective borders are up to the two hundred mile limit of every country on Earth. The high seas are dominated by this large carrier fleet. The fleet is also still been added to and will apparently climb into the twenties. This is likely way too large. A shooting war seems to demand having five on station with all the aircraft that entails.
Then why is the Chinese building anti carrier missiles? Why not? They want to enforce territorial control over their share of the waters around China and blocking any form of USA adventurism is surely part of that agenda.
I will go a little further. A close reading of Chinese history since 1800 would lead you to the same decisions.
Every nation prepared to build a modern navy, showed up and forced concessions from the Chinese government and that included the very dangerous Japan who was local and had real plans of hanging around for a while. If that was your history, you too would want a robust coastal defense.
As an aside, a close reading of Chinese history reveals that in the early nineteenth century, a failed scholar rewrote missionary tracts about Christianity and inspired a mass movement that succeeded in grabbing the southern half of China away from the central government and precipitating a twenty year civil war. Maoist communism was another western inspired but Chinese ideology that also turned the country upside down. Is it any wonder that the leadership is less than sympathetic to the emergence of the Falun Gong? How many lessons do they need?
Navy's Big Weakness: Our Aircraft Carriers Are (Expensive) Defenseless Sitting Ducks
Every single change in technology in the past 50 years has had "Stop building carriers!" written all over it. But the Navy paid no attention.
I've been saying for a long time that aircraft carriers are just history's most expensive floating targets and that they were doomed.
But now I can tell you exactly how they're going to die. I've just read one of the most shocking stories in years. It comes from the U.S. Naval Institute, not exactly an alarmist or anti-Navy source. And what it says is that the U.S. carrier group is scrap metal.
The Chinese military has developed a ballistic missile, Dong Feng 21, specifically designed to kill U.S. aircraft carriers:
"Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at Mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2,000 kilometers in less than 12 minutes."
That's the U.S. Naval Institute talking, remember. They're understating the case when they say that, with speed, satellite guidance and maneuverability like that, "the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased."
You know why that's an understatement? Because of a short little sentence I found further on in the article -- and before you read that sentence, I want all you trusting Pentagon groupies to promise me that you'll think hard about what it implies. Here's the sentence: "Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack."
That's right: no defense at all. The truth is that they have very feeble defenses against any attack with anything more modern than cannon. I've argued before no carrier group would survive a saturation attack by huge numbers of low-value attackers, whether they're Persians in Cessnas and cigar boats or mass-produced Chinese cruise missiles.
But at least you could look at the missile tubes and Phalanx gatlings and pretend that you were safe. But there is no defense, none at all, against something as obvious as a ballistic missile.
So it doesn't matter one goddamn whether the people in the operations room of a targeted carrier could track the Dong Feng 21 as it lobbed itself at them. They might do a real hall-of-fame job of tracking it as it goes up and comes down. But so what? Let me repeat the key sentence here: "Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack."
Think back a ways. How old is the ballistic missile? Kind of a trick question; a siege mortar is a ballistic missile, just unguided. A trebuchet on an upslope outside a castle is a ballistic weapon.
But serious long-range, rocket-powered ballistic weapons go back at least to the V-2. A nuclear-armed V-2 would have been a pretty solid way of wiping out a carrier group, and both components, the nuke and the ballistic missile, were available as long ago as 1945.
A lot has happened since then, like MIRVs, mobile launchers, massively redundant satellite guidance -- but the thing to remember is that every single change has favored the attacker. Every single goddamn change.
You know that Garmin satellite navigation you use to find the nearest Thai place when the in-laws are visiting? If you were the Navy brass, that should have scared you to death. The Mac on your kid's bedroom desk should have scared you.
Every time electronics got smaller, cheaper and more efficient, the carrier became more of a death trap. Every time stealth tech jumped another step, the carrier was more obviously a bad idea. Smaller, cooler-running engines: another bad sign for the carrier.
Every single change in technology in the past half-century has had "Stop building carriers!" written all over it. And nobody in the Navy brass paid any attention.
The lesson here is the same one all of you suckers should have learned from watching the financial news this year: the people at the top are just as dumb as you are, just meaner and greedier. And that goes for the ones running the U.S. surface fleet as much as it does for the GM or Chrysler honchos. Hell, they even look the same.
Take that Wagoner ass who just got the boot from GM and put him in a tailored uniform, and he could walk on as an admiral in any officer's club from Guam to Diego Garcia. You have to stop thinking somebody up there is looking out for you.
Remember that one sentence, get it branded onto your arm: "Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack."
What does that tell you about the distinguished gentlemen with all the ribbons on their chests who've been standing up on carrier bridges looking like they know what they're doing for the past 50 years?
They're either stupid or so sleazy they're willing to make a career commanding ships they goddamn well know are floating coffins for thousands of ranks and dozens of the most expensive gold-plated airplanes in the history of the world.
That's why it's so sickening to read shit like the following:
"The purpose of the Navy," Vice Admiral John Bird, commander of the 7th Fleet, tells me, "is not to fight." The mere presence of the Navy should suffice, he argues, to dissuade any attack or attempt to destabilize the region.
From Yokosuka, Guam, and Honolulu, the Navy is sending its ships on missions to locales as far away as Madagascar. On board the Blue Ridge, the vice admiral's command ship anchored at Yokosuka, huge display screens allow officers to track the movements of any country's military vessels cruising from the international date line in the east to the African coast in the west -- the range of the 7th Fleet's zone of influence.
That's the kind of story people are still writing. It's so stupid, that first line, I won't even bother with it: "The purpose of the Navy is not to fight." No kidding. The 7th Fleet covers the area included in that 2,000 kilometer range for the new Chinese anti-ship weapons, so I guess it's a good thing they're not there to fight.
Stories like this were all over the place in the last days of the British empire. For some dumb-ass reason, these reporters love the Navy. They were waving flags and feeling good about things when the Repulse and the Prince of Wales steamed out with no air cover to oppose Japanese landings. Afterward, when both ships were lying on the sea floor, nobody wanted to talk about it much.
What I mean to say here is, don't be fooled by the happy talk. That's the lesson from GM, Chrysler and the Navy: These people don't know shit.
And they don't fucking care either. They're going to ride the system and hope it lasts long enough to see them retire to a house by a golf course, get their daughters married and buy a nice plot in an upscale cemetery. They could give a damn what happens to the rest of us.
