Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

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

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

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

    Report: Costly USN Aircraft Carriers May Be Too Vulnerable To Keep | Defense News | defensenews.com

    TAIPEI — A 12-page report issued March 11 by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS spells out the disadvantages of continuing to rely on expensive, capacious vessels like aircraft carriers with the dawn of a new type of anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) capable of destroying them far out at sea.

    Read Report Here: First Report in New CNAS "Disruptive Defense Papers" Series Urges U.S. Navy to Change Course | Center for a New American Security

    The paper, “At What Cost a Carrier,” by U.S. Navy Capt. Henry Hendrix, is the first in the new Disruptive Defense Papers series by CNAS. The series deals with controversial issues in U.S. defense policy at a time when hard choices must be made.

    Hendrix, a career naval flight officer, argues that the aircraft carrier, the centerpiece of U.S. naval operations for 70 years, is in danger of becoming too vulnerable to be relevant.

    He also examines the life-cycle costs and utility of the aircraft carrier and recommends a new approach for U.S. naval operations that includes unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) and submarines armed with land-attack cruise missiles. He also argues that the Navy should drop the expensive, untested F-35 and retain the F/A-18 Super Hornet.

    Hendrix writes that the aircraft carrier is in danger of becoming like the battleships it was originally designed to support: big, expensive, vulnerable and surprisingly irrelevant to the conflicts of the time. This outcome has become more likely as the U.S. Navy continues to emphasize manned carrier aircraft at the expense of unmanned missiles and aircraft.

    If the fleet were being designed today from scratch, with the technologies now available and the threats now emerging, it likely would look very different, he postulates.

    With the expansion of foreign operated surveillance satellites and new long-range precision strike missiles, the carrier may not be able to move close enough to targets to operate effectively or even survive for very long.

    China is developing ways that challenge the carrier’s maneuverability and survivability. Chinese submarines (63 conventional and nuclear), surface ships (75 destroyers, frigates and one aircraft carrier), aircraft (227 bombers and fighters), anti-ship cruise missiles (around 30 types) and swarming small craft (332 patrol boats) each pose threats to a U.S. Navy Task Force.

    Hendrix writes that no weapon has captured the imagination of American naval strategists like the DF-21D ASBM. “Using a maneuverable re-entry vehicle placed on a CSS-5 missile, China’s Second Artillery Division states that its doctrine will be to saturate a target with multiple warheads and multiple axis attacks, overwhelming the target’s ability to defend itself.”

    Analysts estimate the cost of each DF-21D to be $5 million to $11 million. “Assuming the conservative, high-end estimate of $11 million gives an exchange ratio of $11 million to $13.5 billion, which means that China could build 1,227 DF-21Ds for every carrier the United States builds going forward,” Hendrix writes.

    Given the 1,087-mile range of the DF-21D and the unfueled range of the F-35 at 690 miles, this causes problems.

    “U.S. defenses would have to destroy every missile fired, a tough problem given the magazines of U.S. cruisers and destroyers, while China would need only one of its weapons to survive to effect a mission kill,” according to the report.

    Hendrix compares the carrier to the French knights at Agincourt who were wiped out by the English longbowmen.

    Using an $11 million missile to sink a $7 billion Nimitz carrier or a $13 billion Ford carrier is upsetting. Arguably, it could take all of the 1,227 DF-21Ds at a total cost of $13.5 billion to kill a Nimitz carrier, but that seems unlikely.

    China has been testing its DF-21D on an outline of an aircraft carrier in the Gobi desert. Though sinking an unprotected outline of an aircraft carrier is not the real thing, the imagery simply cannot be ignored.

    Hendrix says the inefficiency of manned aviation, with its massive fiscal overhead of training, pilot currency and maintenance, is rapidly outpacing its utility.

    “The idea that the United States needs a large sortie capability inexorably drives decision-makers to large carriers,” he writes. “These maritime juggernauts are expensive and hence need to be defended by an ever-larger ring of exquisite technologies in order to launch a historically shrinking number of very expensive aircraft from ever-increasing distances that may or may not drop their bombs.”

    Advancements in surveillance, reconnaissance, global positioning, missiles and precision strike all signal a sea change in not only naval warfare, but all forms of warfare, according to the report.

    To continue to invest in aircraft carriers at this stage, to believe that the USS Ford, with a service life of 50 years, would go unchallenged on the high seas, Hendrix writes, “smells of hubris.” The U.S. must break out of its “ossified force structure and not only get ahead of the strategic curve, but actively seek to redefine the curve.”

    One solution is the development of UCAV and cancellation of the F-35 program.

    UCAVs with longer range and loitering time could be operated from conventional carriers currently deployed, including light amphibious carriers.

    “The new UCAVs would be flown only when operationally needed,” Hendrix writes. “UCAV pilots would maintain their currency in simulators, reducing personnel and operational costs and extending their airframes’ lives by decades.”

    This would allow the slowly declining number of carriers that would remain in the inventory until the USS Ford retires in 2065 to remain effective.

    A parallel path, Henderson suggests, should include the maturation and extension of the U.S. inventory of conventional missiles. The current Tomahawk missiles are deployed on Navy cruisers, destroyers, fast-attack submarines and, more recently, four modified Ohio-class submarines, which can carry 155 Tomahawks.

    This compared to the daily sortie rate of 120 fighters a day for the Nimitz and 160 for the Ford, the Ohio guided-missile submarines (SSGN) “represent the most effective path forward in strike warfare.”

    “Super quiet, the Ohio SSGNs can penetrate enemy waters unseen, positioning themselves to unleash massive waves of precision strike weapons to take down critical nodes of enemy infrastructure, weakening resolve and resistance from the strategic center outward,” Hendrix writes. These submarines do not need the outer defense ring of destroyers, frigates, support ships and submarines.

    Carrier strike groups are expensive. Factoring the staggering personnel numbers, roughly 6,700 men and women, and the daily operating cost of $6.5 million, the value of these in real terms is questionable, according to the report — whereas stealthy submarines loaded with low-cost precision cruise and ballistic missiles capped with conventional warheads, as the Chinese are doing with the JL-1/2, provide the U.S. with an elegant “one target + one missile = one kill” solution

    Wouldn't the X-47B and future UCAVs deployed on carriers be the counter to this argument?

    Also, is the DF-21D actually giving people extreme cause for worry?

  • #2
    Originally posted by erik View Post
    Also, is the DF-21D actually giving people extreme cause for worry?
    The Chinese said that the DF-21D is not operational as an AC killer.

    Comment


    • #3
      PLEASE tell me Henry Hendrix is related to Jimi.
      sigpic

      Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

      Comment


      • #4
        Just another 21St century version of British Sandy White Paper.

        Comment


        • #5
          They've tested it on a stationary target, which isn't defending itself.


          Using an $11 million missile to sink a $7 billion Nimitz carrier or a $13 billion Ford carrier is upsetting. Arguably, it could take all of the 1,227 DF-21Ds at a total cost of $13.5 billion to kill a Nimitz carrier, but that seems unlikely.
          Not all that unlikely, they might not sink a single carrier with all their DF-21D's. To sink a carrier, they would probably need to use nukes on their missiles to assure kills. A couple hits with conventional warheads could probably mission kill the carrier, which might be able to recover and resume operations with some temporary self repairs. Sinking it would be much more difficult with 600 kg conventional ballistic missle warheads (only part of this is going to be explosive, maybe 100 kg, a manuevering RV is pretty heavy by itself). Another problem is we've got more carriers, and more nukes. China wouldn't "win" anything by using nukes on the US.
          Last edited by USSWisconsin; 13 Mar 13,, 02:22.
          sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
          If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

          Comment


          • #6
            The fate of carriers depends on the global conflict landscape (oe seascape). I could imagine carriers being phased out over the next century, perhaps even sooner - if there are no large scale conflicts and the world settles down a lot. Under those conditions, it is possible that only a few large carriers would be needed and most of the USN's needs could be met by smaller aviation capable multi-role cruiser type vessels. This is what most other nations are doing now, with no supercarriers and only one or two medium carriers in a few of the largest navies. I still don't see carriers being any less than essential for the USN for decades (it sounds like there will be ten soon). While 11-12 supercarriers sounds like a lot, with repairs, training and ships on the way to or on the way back from deployments, there are really only about 4-6 ships in place at any given time today. It woud require 3-4 carriers just to consistantly have one in place at any given time. The trend toward smaller capital ships is undeniable, with USN supercarriers being one of the only exceptions.
            Last edited by USSWisconsin; 13 Mar 13,, 22:07.
            sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
            If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by USSWisconsin View Post
              They've tested it on a stationary target, which isn't defending itself.

              Not all that unlikely, they might not sink a single carrier with all their DF-21D's. To sink a carrier, they would probably need to use nukes on their missiles to assure kills. A couple hits with conventional warheads could probably mission kill the carrier, which might be able to recover and resume operations with some temporary self repairs. Sinking it would be much more difficult with 600 kg conventional ballistic missle warheads (only part of this is going to be explosive, maybe 100 kg, a manuevering RV is pretty heavy by itself). Another problem is we've got more carriers, and more nukes. China wouldn't "win" anything by using nukes on the US.
              I'm not sure of the United States response or planning for a strike on a U.S. super carrier by the Chinese, by I would assume that it would involve a nuclear retaliation? Especially if the warheads of the DF-21 are nuclear tipped.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by erik View Post
                I'm not sure of the United States response or planning for a strike on a U.S. super carrier by the Chinese, by I would assume that it would involve a nuclear retaliation? Especially if the warheads of the DF-21 are nuclear tipped.
                That is what the Chinese should expect, nuclear retaliation for a first strike use of nuclear weapons against the US. It would be a suicidal act, everyone would be sorry. :bang:
                sigpic"If your plan is for one year, plant rice. If your plan is for ten years, plant trees.
                If your plan is for one hundred years, educate children."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by erik View Post
                  I'm not sure of the United States response or planning for a strike on a U.S. super carrier by the Chinese, by I would assume that it would involve a nuclear retaliation? Especially if the warheads of the DF-21 are nuclear tipped.
                  I believe it was Office of the Engineers who said the whole idea behind deterrence is not to go nuclear and that was China's goal. By using a nuclear tip DF-21 she would have failed at deterrence and invited a nuclear response to be brought down upon her shores.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Bear with me here for a sec and feel free to say I'm full of BS here.....

                    Ever since I read the Colonel's reasoning that the Chinese are using their nukes as a deterrence more than anything else, I've become a firm believer in the theory.

                    And every subsequent articles I've read just solidifies this theory in my mind.

                    Could it be that they're using their ASBM in a similar manner?

                    They have yet to prove that they have the ability to give their missiles mid course corrections after re-entry, much less the ability to track and target a carrier.

                    Could this be a simple case of, "we're close to doing this so you better keep your carriers away from us..."?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      There is certainly some elements of deterrence theory at play here. Thus far, it has been the Americans, more specifically, defence analyst contractors, those pushing to get paid for their studies, who are making the biggest noise about the DF-21D. Thus far, we have not seen a DF-21D nor has there been any test of any part of the system that can do the target acqusisition, course correction, target guidance, and hit an actual moving target. There has not even been a proof of concept ... and yet, the Americans have already stated that this system has reached IOC.

                      However, the evidence is just not there to support such a claim.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        My opinion, The report is full of shit.

                        The USN Carriers are in esscence a floating air field, devoid of outside politics and influence. They can strike any place on the planet within 24 hours and their utilities are unsurpassed. They dont require permission from any foreign government for forward air basing (which equates to mucho $ in the overall as we all know and protection which means even more $) nor permission for launching sorties. They are worth every dime invested in them.

                        You would be hard pressed if not impossible to find another class of ship in any countries navy that has their life span at minimum.

                        The pilots are always for airpower, never for the surface combatants. This way the money comes their direction instead come budget time.

                        I say the report is nothing more then a crock. Just my opinion.

                        In closing, if a USN carrier was in fact sunk, I and many like me would expect somebody's country and its political leaders and military to pretty much dissolve over a few herendous days of battle. Well that and that foe country can enjoy the USN (and other forces) presence for a very very long time as all is recovered and THEY decide when its time to leave.

                        Arrogant, perhaps but several points that cannot be denied by anyone no matter their rank.

                        NATO forces dont operate on "the unseen" they know its there and yes hidden as it should be but physical presence to the Mk 1 eyeball screams deterence and nothing does that more then a USN carrier battle group.

                        If you need proof of that, then read about all the countries unfriendly to us that have threatend this or that attack on the CVNBG but do nothing because they know exactly whats going to happen following any attack. And they do this with good reason.....

                        Because they want to remain both alive and in power.
                        Last edited by Dreadnought; 14 Mar 13,, 00:05.
                        Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Dreadnought,

                          jingoism aside, here's some food for thought. If a nation has developed a capability to kill US carrier groups, by the same token, that nation has the same capability to undo to US as you so blithely suggested that US would do to that nation.

                          In the last 60 years, only one nation had the capability to sink US carriers and that was the USSR. After USSR, the only nation that comes close to such a capability but not there, is China. If China does develop that capability, its political leaders and military would not dissolve in several horrendous days but years.

                          Also, I see one flaw in your thinking. If a small nation, let's say, Iran, do sink an US aircraft carrier, it will only be done after they realize that their days are doom and that the US are coming for them so it is a case of use them or lose them. In short, if US was gonna pull off a Desert Shield move, Iran would not make the stupid mistake that Saddam Hussein did of giving US all the time and the space in the world to allow US to set up for an offensive of US's choosing. If Iran is going to be invaded one way or the other, in their shoes, I would inflict much pain as possible including sinking any US carrier I can.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                            In short, if US was gonna pull off a Desert Shield move, Iran would not make the stupid mistake that Saddam Hussein did of giving US all the time and the space in the world to allow US to set up for an offensive of US's choosing. If Iran is going to be invaded one way or the other, in their shoes, I would inflict much pain as possible including sinking any US carrier I can.
                            That always confounded me; there's no way Saddam Hussein COULDN'T have known about the massive US build-up of men and materiel just a few hundred miles from his borders, and yet he did nothing. The only thing I can think of is that he assumed the US was just "rattling her sabers", and didn't really mean to re-take Kuwait.
                            "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              And hoping that he can play the victim card.
                              No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                              To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X