- Carriers ARE expensive ... the older ones were about $4.5B and the FORD costing as much as $13B. This number does NOT reflect operating costs. It doesn't include the cost of the Air Wings. It doesn't include the cost of the training required for the Sailors, nor the pay we pay them while operating these ships. If the enemy wishes to effect the greatest economic loss to America in the opening stages of a war - they would choose to sink a carrier, and probably several.
- There are over 5,000 Americans manning each carrier. Should the enemy succeed in sinking one or two of them - that's up to 10,000 Sailors lost and the biggest kick in the nuts to morale and motivation of American citizens you could imagine.
- Carriers are not mission capable on DAY 1 - they require the "way ahead" to be secured by ... SUBMARINES.
- The wars waging across the globe have revealed that ASYMMETRICAL war is the future. We only really see this right now with land based forces, but we will soon see it in the Maritime environment, and this will provide more problems for carriers.
The way ahead for America is ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE. Submarines, since the day the TURTLE took to the waters of New York Harbor - have been ASYMMETRICAL.
Re: "Putting aside for the moment my earlier suggestion that EVERYTHING is more vulnerable on the modern battlefield, EVERYTHING is EVEN MORE VULNERABLE."
YES!! The US will need a shit ton of everything from the tip of the spear to the end of the shaft.
Those two big oceans require a lot of navy to project influence around the world. Those oceans are both offer protection as well as risk.
As a side note, I worked on navy project back in the 1980's when the navy was searching for ways to disperse air assets. We did wind tunnel testing of proposed VTOL aircraft that could land on the little boys. The idea is reasonable if the sea is flat calm. The idea is insane if you consider the burden aircraft would put on the little boys.
I also had some contact with studying hypersonic transport designs. Hypersonic missiles don't do hypersonic cruise. You do that at 100,000ft. They go hypersonic when approaching a target.
Agree!! The "tech bros" are actually dangerous people if others start listening to them. Anyone that's making conclusions about the future shape of the Navy, and whatll be useful in the Pacific, based on the Russia/Ukraine thing is misguided at best.
The carrier isn't dead. Not even in the face of all the Chinese long range threats. (Tech bros DO know that many of the invincible hypersonics slow down to supersonic, and therefore become Aegis food, like other common missiles, right??)
In fact, I'd say that maybe this is the time for a carrier Renaissance. Time to get our airwings back up to 90+. Plus, maybe its time to drop the Ford program, and look at a return to Nimitzs, (or somthing without EMALS, AAG, or anything else that doesnt work worth a sh*t and the Navy has to classify reports to hide it) as well as considering a conventional variant, so we could carriers built somewhere besides NN.
Right now, we have some potential to get the Navy back on course...at least a Lil bit. I'd suggest that any time you come across a tech bro, or anyone that's spouting nonsense and misleading people about the Navy..
or anything military- call them out, and shut them down. Openly prove them wrong. We can't afford to have folks listening to low-knowledge, no-clue Influencers right now. There's too much at stake...
I believe carriers have had vulnerabilities since the Langley first set sail. We have been able to adapt to the vulnerability of enemy air power early on with the use of screening destroyers and Radar. We adapted to the submarine threat by the use of sonar and anti submarine groups. We adapted to the threat of sea skimming missiles with close in weapons systems. I think we have the ability to adapt to hypersonic missiles (carrier darts) with the existing technology that we already have. It's just a matter of time before that happens. Aircraft carriers and assigned air groups are one of our most versatile assets in our arsenal. Now our biggest battle is with political hacks that think they know better on what should be funded and what needs to go to the wayside.
I remember ADM Zumwalt's proposal and his support for what he termed "Sea Control Ships". He didn't base his proposal on an assumption that the SCS could possess the capability of a NIMITZ-class CVN (NIMITZ was commissioned in 1975). I think Zumwalt wanted to address the Navy's ability to provide escorts to convoys needed to reinforce NATO in the event of a Warsaw Pact invasion, freeing the CVs and CVNs to focus on strike missions.
At least, that's my understanding. (I was a CTI2(SS) in 1976 when I read Zumwalt's book while riding boats out of Rota.)
If the argument is that a ship as large and expensive as a CVN shouldn't be built and sent in harm's way because a missile or missiles may "leak" its integrated air defenses and damage or sink the ship and kill or maim any number of its crew, what's the point of building any warship?
If the point concerns only the number of CVNs to be built, what is the strategic plan for their use? The oceans and the number of potential combat theaters are huge. 11 CVNs may not be enough to support our actual needs if and when the balloon goes up.
I served aboard NIMITZ and EISENHOWER during large-scale NATO Naval exercises in 1980 and 1981. I also served aboard AMERICA, FORRESTAL, INDEPENDENCE, and SARATOGA before they became razor blades or reefs.
The tech bros don’t know a whole lot about modern warfare. They seem to think it’s like an MCU or “<something> Has Fallen” movie. And their acolytes in Congress should know better, but they are jaded by all the tech bro celebrity and their $$. Keep on fighting the good fight for facts that matter over the-rush-to-change-for-no-apparent-benefit.
The relevance of needing carriers can be born out by a discussion that should be had. The greatest benefit, in my uninformed opinion, is the projection of US power worldwide. Obtaining and maintaining fixed base operations in countries around the world is monetarily competitive with obtaining and maintaining carriers and often at the whim of a dubiously unstable government.
- Carriers ARE expensive ... the older ones were about $4.5B and the FORD costing as much as $13B. This number does NOT reflect operating costs. It doesn't include the cost of the Air Wings. It doesn't include the cost of the training required for the Sailors, nor the pay we pay them while operating these ships. If the enemy wishes to effect the greatest economic loss to America in the opening stages of a war - they would choose to sink a carrier, and probably several.
- There are over 5,000 Americans manning each carrier. Should the enemy succeed in sinking one or two of them - that's up to 10,000 Sailors lost and the biggest kick in the nuts to morale and motivation of American citizens you could imagine.
- Carriers are not mission capable on DAY 1 - they require the "way ahead" to be secured by ... SUBMARINES.
- The wars waging across the globe have revealed that ASYMMETRICAL war is the future. We only really see this right now with land based forces, but we will soon see it in the Maritime environment, and this will provide more problems for carriers.
The way ahead for America is ASYMMETRICAL WARFARE. Submarines, since the day the TURTLE took to the waters of New York Harbor - have been ASYMMETRICAL.
It's really that simple.
Re: "Putting aside for the moment my earlier suggestion that EVERYTHING is more vulnerable on the modern battlefield, EVERYTHING is EVEN MORE VULNERABLE."
YES!! The US will need a shit ton of everything from the tip of the spear to the end of the shaft.
Those two big oceans require a lot of navy to project influence around the world. Those oceans are both offer protection as well as risk.
As a side note, I worked on navy project back in the 1980's when the navy was searching for ways to disperse air assets. We did wind tunnel testing of proposed VTOL aircraft that could land on the little boys. The idea is reasonable if the sea is flat calm. The idea is insane if you consider the burden aircraft would put on the little boys.
I also had some contact with studying hypersonic transport designs. Hypersonic missiles don't do hypersonic cruise. You do that at 100,000ft. They go hypersonic when approaching a target.
Agree!! The "tech bros" are actually dangerous people if others start listening to them. Anyone that's making conclusions about the future shape of the Navy, and whatll be useful in the Pacific, based on the Russia/Ukraine thing is misguided at best.
The carrier isn't dead. Not even in the face of all the Chinese long range threats. (Tech bros DO know that many of the invincible hypersonics slow down to supersonic, and therefore become Aegis food, like other common missiles, right??)
In fact, I'd say that maybe this is the time for a carrier Renaissance. Time to get our airwings back up to 90+. Plus, maybe its time to drop the Ford program, and look at a return to Nimitzs, (or somthing without EMALS, AAG, or anything else that doesnt work worth a sh*t and the Navy has to classify reports to hide it) as well as considering a conventional variant, so we could carriers built somewhere besides NN.
Right now, we have some potential to get the Navy back on course...at least a Lil bit. I'd suggest that any time you come across a tech bro, or anyone that's spouting nonsense and misleading people about the Navy..
or anything military- call them out, and shut them down. Openly prove them wrong. We can't afford to have folks listening to low-knowledge, no-clue Influencers right now. There's too much at stake...
Agree. Very disappointing remarks from Calvert. It is up to us in the USN community to educate him.
I believe carriers have had vulnerabilities since the Langley first set sail. We have been able to adapt to the vulnerability of enemy air power early on with the use of screening destroyers and Radar. We adapted to the submarine threat by the use of sonar and anti submarine groups. We adapted to the threat of sea skimming missiles with close in weapons systems. I think we have the ability to adapt to hypersonic missiles (carrier darts) with the existing technology that we already have. It's just a matter of time before that happens. Aircraft carriers and assigned air groups are one of our most versatile assets in our arsenal. Now our biggest battle is with political hacks that think they know better on what should be funded and what needs to go to the wayside.
I remember ADM Zumwalt's proposal and his support for what he termed "Sea Control Ships". He didn't base his proposal on an assumption that the SCS could possess the capability of a NIMITZ-class CVN (NIMITZ was commissioned in 1975). I think Zumwalt wanted to address the Navy's ability to provide escorts to convoys needed to reinforce NATO in the event of a Warsaw Pact invasion, freeing the CVs and CVNs to focus on strike missions.
At least, that's my understanding. (I was a CTI2(SS) in 1976 when I read Zumwalt's book while riding boats out of Rota.)
If the argument is that a ship as large and expensive as a CVN shouldn't be built and sent in harm's way because a missile or missiles may "leak" its integrated air defenses and damage or sink the ship and kill or maim any number of its crew, what's the point of building any warship?
If the point concerns only the number of CVNs to be built, what is the strategic plan for their use? The oceans and the number of potential combat theaters are huge. 11 CVNs may not be enough to support our actual needs if and when the balloon goes up.
I served aboard NIMITZ and EISENHOWER during large-scale NATO Naval exercises in 1980 and 1981. I also served aboard AMERICA, FORRESTAL, INDEPENDENCE, and SARATOGA before they became razor blades or reefs.
Spot on and 💯 on everything you wrote, Bryan.
The tech bros don’t know a whole lot about modern warfare. They seem to think it’s like an MCU or “<something> Has Fallen” movie. And their acolytes in Congress should know better, but they are jaded by all the tech bro celebrity and their $$. Keep on fighting the good fight for facts that matter over the-rush-to-change-for-no-apparent-benefit.
Calvert ignores the fundamental concept of carriers providing USA force projection pre a major hot war. Is he educable on this point?
The relevance of needing carriers can be born out by a discussion that should be had. The greatest benefit, in my uninformed opinion, is the projection of US power worldwide. Obtaining and maintaining fixed base operations in countries around the world is monetarily competitive with obtaining and maintaining carriers and often at the whim of a dubiously unstable government.