leonYup, an China has a floating casino from Ukraine.
No – the casino was the excuse to get an real carrier trough the Bosporus, a ship, which is now used as carrier.
Chakri Naruebet is now used as royal yacht, but was supposed to be used as carrier.
Countries as Thailand and the Philippines cannot afford to operate carriers.
leonAnd probably would not have happened had the British had a big deck CV with AEW.
But a government (Thatcher) focused on tax reductions even wanted to sell the small carriers (Invincible class) back in 1982 – as a government based on the same party (Tories) now decommissioned all remaining aircraft carriers (except of Illustrious converted to a helicopter carrier) and Harriers.
Big deck CVs are not that cheap, which explains why only one navy still operates big carriers… (UK is not the economic superpower anymore it was in the 19th and and early 20th century and therefore could afford to maintain the strongest navy of the world).
leonChina’s military spending could overtake United States’ by late 2020s, a mere fifteen years from now. I don’t think it actually will, largely because the United States won’t allow it, but certainly outlays will be comparable in a way that they never were during the Cold War.
That is depending on the economic development – in USA the economy was growing very slowly the last decades (since the 1970s), debts are accumulating and the balance of trade is very negative, i.e. the USA are heavily indebted to other countries (e.g. Japan, China, EU). In contrast China is growing fast and has a positive balance of trade.
But still: today the US spend more then all (or most) of the other countries combined. In the near future it is likely that the US have to reduce their spending on its military.
leonNor were any British ship using a CIWS like the 1979 Goalkeeper or the 1980 Phalanx, let alone something like the lightweight Sea Wolf. So the Skyhawk/Coventry clash wasn’t so out of place. In fact it was the Exocet/Sheffield clash that was probably more out of place when you look closely.
Coventry was there together with the Sea Wolf equipped frigate Broadsword – and both systems, Sea Dart and Sea Wolf, failed to stop the last attack on Coventry.
leonWhile the USN had not been tested defensively the CVWs have been used offensively since Korea against some of the best defensive systems in the world and have done very well. In air to air combat these small weak states have fielded some of the best fighters available in the world, in Korea it was Mig 15, in Vietnam it was Mig 21 and in Iraq 1991 it was Mirage F1, Mig 23/25, operating over their home territory with GCI radar systems and off limits sanctuary areas. If similar high-end tactical aircraft had to fight it out in the backyard of a CSG 3:1 would lead to horrendous losses to the attacking force, losses few air forces in the world can afford.
That is true. There is also a scenario as in Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy possible – combination of decoy and long range missile attacks, which would avoid some of the losses. Still the losses would be high.
But you have to consider that today there is no country in world which spends anything remotely similar to the amounts the USA spends for its military. And it is also not likely that US super carriers will be in combat in the near future against one of the big, industrial countries. It is therefore much more likely that in the near future the number of super carriers will be reduced even more – considering the budget problems (including the unsolved contradiction between tax reductions and very high spending for the military).
leonAs for land based strike, in the 60+ years of the jet age the USN has managed about a 3:1 kill ratio in air combat,
3:1 is not very impressive, if you consider that USN fought against very small and weak states as Korea, Vietnam, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia – non of them had significant means to endanger a carrier.
US super carriers were not tested in a combat against someone, who really had the means to sink them. Therefore there development is based only on experiences of peacetimes operations and strikes against weak, completely inferior states.
leonThe problem is not as much, if the Soviets have really detected the Midway group, but the statement that the lack of detection (in peacetime!!!!!) would prove that the carriers are a useful weapon system. Which is not a very logical argument. It is not improving the argument that it is only based on the reports of one side, i.e. it is not even known, if the Midway group was really not detected.
leonThats a misread on what Friedmans written. Comparative to the carrier presence the occasions where there were intercepts is very low.
That statement is based on what?
As I said I’m not denying that carriers could be, and were, detected on occasion sometimes by luck…sometimes by good use of intelligence and/or geography. I’m saying that in the main they werent and the task of evading defensive surveillance was easier than the tasking of that surveillance in finding the carrier.
There are many means to detect carriers, e.g. satellites, passive sonar networks etc. It is not that difficult, especially they were usually used as part of big battle groups. Therefore it was not that unlikely that they would have been detected – as they were.
You mean the first hand reports of the skilled, experienced, operators involved?. Yep heard the same story told too many times. What are you basing the view on that those operators were/are wrong again?.
Yes, because reports of skilled, experienced operators in both World Wars were not accurate and reliable at all – as I have mentioned, according to the reports ten times more ship should have been sunk.
Only careful analysis after the wars by historians analysing the data of both sides revealed the true results.
leonNot guilty. Again the pattern has been repeated several occasions with RN light fleets and even once, I’m aware of, with a CVS. The Midway article is another example of a wider pattern…not the exhaustive proof.
In contrast Norman Friedman reports in Network-Centric Warfare several occasions, in which US carriers were intercepted in the middle of the ocean by Soviet bombers or submarines. US carriers were detected regularly.
And you are only guessing from the guesses of others. If you would used this kind of stories for everything, e.g. during the First World War ten times more ships would have been sunk, because one side thought to have sunk them – but reality have not even hit anything.
Again this is irrelevent. The mission, for the defender, is the same either way. This was at the height of the Cold War Leon it was called that for a reason. At times it was very serious indeed.
Still, it was not a war, nothing had to be defended, therefore also not the same means had to be mobilised etc. There was not e.g. not the same level in mobilisation as would have been in war, therefore not a realistic level of opposition etc. And: there was no real opposition, no real attacks!
leon@ Jonesy: try to find some reports for the other side. You are only guessing from the guesses of one side.
AND: it was only an US Navy exercise, not a war. Therefore anyway not a real test, not something, which really tells anything about the usefulness of super carriers. Your example could also be used to argue that Nimitz class carriers are too big, because the much smaller Midway was not detected. Does someone would accept that as argument? No. Therefore forget that story. It it is not really helpful.
leonThe hard part was real though. Firing weapons is the least significant part of the kill chain. It becomes almost a strictly mathematical exercise in the number of missile launches the attacker can generate against the number of defensive fire channels and soft-kill efficacy available to the defender.
The ability to detect the carrier, identify it correctly, establish a track and hold that track long enough to generate the strike is the key capability for those looking to engage a carrier force. That can be practiced without it ending in missile launches and has been done numerous times.
For sure it is important to detect it – and important to bring enough launchers in reach of the carrier.
BUT AGAIN: your arguing that the Soviets failed to detect the carrier Midway – which you have not proven. And that does not mean that the carriers were tested in combat.
And what does the fact prove that the other carrier was detected??? There are many examples of Soviet planes or submarines, which were able to detect and track carriers, e.g. the high speed chase of USS Enterprise by a November class submarine etc. etc.
For me that does not prove anything in relation to worth of supercarriers. Neither something in favour nor against them. They were never tested (and hopefully they never will be).
leonStill, it was not real. It was only an exercise and hardly something, which really tested the carriers. E.g. no weapons were launched, nothing was damaged etc. You are only arguing that it tested the ability of the Soviets to detect the carrier (and you have not shown that they really did not detect it – it was only guess). If the lack of the detection would be the main argument that would favour submarines – not carriers.
The supercarriers were never tested in combat against someone who had the means to sink them.
Different question: how many ships are currently escorting the Dwight D. Eisenhower? Only USS Hue City and the German frigate Hamburg? Or additionally ships of DesRon 28? If there are only two ships (and one not even an US Navy ship), the question of super carriers are a relict of the past or not, is probably more the question, if there is enough money for them anymore…
leon@ Jonesy: why do you think that the Russians had to react to exercises of NATO navies? There was no need to do it, because it was only an exercise 😉
leonWhat gives you that idea?. NATO carriers were definitely tested and tested against the best the Soviet Union had….and in their own back yard.
Ok, let me formulate me statement more precisely: US super carriers were never in action (i.e. war) against a modern military power of one the major powers. They were only in action against weak states, which had no or very limited means to attack shipping.
I would also consider the assumption that they were not detected only based on the statements of one side not very reliable. And that was anyway only an NATO/US exercise.
leonGranted, however what can you do in such a case? You can train and strategise, and try to defend yourself against the most potent of anti carrier threats, you can hardly ask china or russia to attack one of your carriers with full force just to see where you stand 🙂 …
For sure that is not an argument in favour or against the size of the current carriers – the current carriers were never tested, therefore it is not really known, if they are a relict of past or will remain useful. Very obvious is only that they are very expensive, which explains their shrinking numbers.
Sign In
