wdolson
Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dtravel
Because carriers can operate anywhere there is deep water. They are not dependent on having some friendly country in the vicinity where the US has already built a military base. They are usable against just about any target, not just naval forces. A lot of the aircraft flying ground support in Afganistan and Iraq were carrier based.
The USN carrier battlegroup is the current pinnacle of gunboat diplomacy and power projection. If someone does something we really really don't like, we park one nearby. They tend to improve the hearing and friendliness of whoever we want to talk to just by being there. 
I think the fleet carrier has been largely obsolete since 1950. The carrier is the peak development of the capital ship navy. At the turn of the last century, the European powers were trying to one up each other building bigger and better battleships. WW II showed that the battleship was obsolete and carriers/air power trumped battleships. The carrier was the top naval ship in that war.
Today, the carrier is as obsolete as the battleship was in 1941. Aerial refueling and longer range aircraft have made strike missions from extreme long range possible. And island bases can't be sunk (though they can be nuked). New development in anti shipping weapons make the US carriers more and mor vulnerable. The Russians have developed a cruise missile that is virtually impossible to shoot down. The Iranians and Chinese have developed a torpedo capable of 400 mph under water. There are rumors that the torpedo could carry tactical nukes.
Iran has built a vast fleet (hundreds) of small, wooden ships armed with anti shipping and anti aircraft missiles. They also have a number of diesel electric submarines. In the event of a war with Iran, the US Navy would be faced with a navy with the capability of shutting down the Persian Gulf. To open it again, they would have to sink all those subs and wooden ships. In the process, they will lose ships and planes. Possibly even a carrier or two.
Hitler wouldn't let the surface navy go to sea after the loss of the Bismark because the ships were too valuable. The Royal Navy guaranteed that any sortie by the Kreigsmarine would be a costly one. The threat environment for US Navy carriers is getting bad enough that the US may be faced with the same problem. If the carriers become too valuable to risk against an anti shipping threat, then their job will be filled with long range land based air.
Submarines and anti shipping missiles have become good enough and common enough that a 2 bit power with some anti shipping assets can put the US Navy's big ships in check. The day of the carrier is over. Just as the day of the battleship ended when carrier based air became effective and the iron clads ended the days of the ships of the line.
Unfortunately, in a future war, I believe the big deck US carriers are going to be the hunted more than the hunters. A country like Iran knows they can lose 100 ships and it's no big deal if they trade that loss for a Nimitz. The psychological blow to US morale losing a big carrier would be significant. Plus they are virtually irreplaceable. The US today doesn't have the heavy industry it had in 1941. Ironically, it's moved to Asia.
From a mechanical and aestetic point of view, carriers are cool. They are also very expensive and very vulnerable. They have some limited use against enemies with no anti shipping assets, but most potential future enemies have been developing carrier killer technolgies.
Bill
|
Printable Version
RE: Slightly OT: Last of the Nimitz class CVs Christened - 
Highest bidder gets the name or what? Perhaps companies will start paying for ship names as well as statium names. 
We are not deliberate enough as a nation...too wishy washy these days. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread