U.S. Carriers Becoming Too Vulnerable To Be Relevant? New Report Says Yes

[USSWisconsin]

The US has a history of going to war over attacks on its capital ships, The Spanish American War (a percieved attack?), Pearl Harbor ... No capital ship in history is more important to the US than the Supercarrierrs are today. Anyone that attacks and damages or sinks one should: pack a lunch, be sure their life insurance is paid up and have their final affairs in order. While the US trains and is prepared for such attacks, a successful attack on a CVN is not a highly likely scenario. CVN's are hardened targets and they are very heavily defended.

[Deltacamelately]

If that is the case, the use of aircraft carriers are provocative actions and can be used as cassus belli. You cannot have the cake and eat it. An aircraft carrier is a viable military target. If US initiates hostilities, all is fair in war, including the attack against aircraft carriers which are being used as launch platforms for attacking planes the same way as airfields. How are airfields any different from aircraft carriers? Why does attacking airfields does not rise up to the level of attacking aircraft carriers?

Unlike airfields, USN Carriers carry nukes.

[Doktor]

If that is the case, the use of aircraft carriers are provocative actions and can be used as cassus belli. You cannot have the cake and eat it. An aircraft carrier is a viable military target. If US initiates hostilities, all is fair in war, including the attack against aircraft carriers which are being used as launch platforms for attacking planes the same way as airfields. How are airfields any different from aircraft carriers? Why does attacking airfields does not rise up to the level of attacking aircraft carriers?

There are ONLY 12 carriers. How many airports are there?

[TopHatter]

Unlike airfields, USN Carriers carry nukes.

They can carry nukes but they haven't since 1991. The only USN nukes are on the Trident SSBN's.

Meanwhile, US Air Force Bases do indeed carry tactical nuclear weapons.

[zraver]

They can carry nukes but they haven't since 1991. The only USN nukes are on the Trident SSBN's.

Meanwhile, US Air Force Bases do indeed carry tactical nuclear weapons.

You might want to double check that top. USN vessels are still not permitted to visit NZ because the US will neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons.

[TopHatter]

You might want to double check that top. USN vessels are still not permitted to visit NZ because the US will neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons.

The USN has never confirmed or denied the presence of nuclear weapons before or after 1991, that's boilerplate.

[zraver]

The USN has never confirmed or denied the presence of nuclear weapons before or after 1991, that's boilerplate.

Yes it is, but other statements back up the idea that if not carried all the time, naval air still has a nuclear mission at least under some circumstances.

[Navy2000]

SSBN's are not the only ones to carry nukes. The SSN's can carry nukes that are of a lower yeild. We had to train onboard just incase we did carry them. I also can not confirm if we did or didn't carry those as well even with all the time that I have been out of the Naval service. You will find out that at least 99.9% of the guys that served on US Naval subs will not confirm or denied what was carried or done onboard any sub that they served on, no matter how along ago it was. The submarine force is a tight lip group.

Duane

[Zinja]

I'm not sure how railguns would be better than today's missiles. Afterall, aren't the SM2s going to be much faster?

I think the way a railgun can be employed will be as a raw kinematic hit to kill system, pretty much like your good old pistol. No guidance, no steering, no vulnerability to jamming or anything like that, you just aim and shoot. That makes it a much easier system than a rocketry system. As for speed, i don't think a missile can reach muzzle velocity of a rail gun projectile, perhaps terminal velocity is a different story.

Another thing if my understanding is right, is that SM2 is an endo-atmospheric missile, and the SM3 is exo-atmospheric. So, you will have to choose the right missile for at intercept, a rail gun projectile will have no respect of that.

I might be wrong with some of my assumptions above, those that know better will add.

[Blademaster]

I think you miss the point. The Iraqis did have plenty of defensive works and did most of what you said. But his logistics were so crude he could not extend any farther than he did. Don't forget logistics extends to vehicle and medical evacuation and forward repair...the Iraqi Army was woefully short in that ability.

As for the masses of artillery...it did shoot at US forces but it was woefully innaccurate. His fire control systems sucked. US armored forces rolled through what barrages were accurate and then took out the guns & gunners with direct fire. And those which did fire from longer range had their positions pinpointed by Q-36 & -37 radar systems and saturated by MLRS fire. And the US fire control systems were excellent and M-109 equipped SP units were able to keep up with the armored advances and provide devestatingly accurte fires when called upon.

I am not being jingoistic but factual.

A follow up question... given the resources of the Iraqi army, how would Zhukov set up his defenses and counter offensive forces against the resources of the US army in 1991?

[Officer of Engineers]

A follow up question... given the resources of the Iraqi army, how would Zhukov set up his defenses and counter offensive forces against the resources of the US army in 1991?

A white flag.

Even you can beat Caeser in his hey day, especially if you have a compass and map.

[Blademaster]

An airfield is not a national asset costing $5-13 billion and manned by 6000+ Sailors and Marines in a space just under 1100 ft long and 260 ft wide.

Still if you take those assets into a battlefield, it's open season. If I am the local commander of the forces and I see the aircraft carrier launching attacks or going to launch attacks on my forces, I am going to do my damnest best to take out the carrier regardless of the larger picture. It is a natural reaction of any commander in battle.

[Blademaster]

A white flag.

Not an option. Zhukov's family is held at gunpoint and threatened with death if Zhukov does not perform up to his standards. Have a go.

[Officer of Engineers]

Not an option. Zhukov's family is held at gunpoint and threatened with death if Zhukov does not perform up to his standards. Have a go.

Then, he dies on the battlefield. Battle had long surpassed Zhukov. The breadth and depth of the WWIII battle is beyond anything he could imagine.

[Blademaster]

Then, he dies on the battlefield. Battle had long surpassed Zhukov. The breadth and depth of the WWIII battle is beyond anything he could imagine.

killjoy. Say he has gone back to advanced military school and brushed up knowledge of battle strategy. Ok, what would you do if you were the Iraqi commander?