NPS Prof in Forbes: "Kill the Carriers"

[2sr2worry]

http://www.forbes.com/business/forbes/2008/1208/032.html

Warning: This article may energize you more than your first "morning cup 'o joe."

Confirmed his faculty info at www.nps.edu website.

 

[phrogpilot73]

I agree that carriers are expensive, and maybe escort carriers would be more logical and affordable. However, he completely discounts the fact that you can launch a air strike without having to get host nation support/airspace rights. Seems pretty short-sided to look just at the current Iraq conflict, especially from 2005 when there was already a large host nation infrastructure. How about March of '03? How many bombs did they drop then? What about a strike in Libya in '86? What happens if Saudi, under pressure from their populace ejects us from the airbases there? Throw in Turkey restricting overflight rights, and a carrier would be the only game in town. He reminds me of the engineers I work with...

 

[airgreg]

I agree with Phrog's point about the necessity for carriers.

I think the author makes some good points but is incomplete. In the future, the structure of air assets aboard a carrier might be changeable overnight. On Tuesday, you could have 50 JSF's flying CAS and hitting targets within a country. On Wednesday, you could fly-off the JSF's (with long-range tanking) and fly-on a buttload of hellfire-laden UAV's for ISR and asymmetric threat mop-up. On Thursday, you fly-on a bunch of rotary UAV's for huminatarian aid deliveries. The UAV's can be easily assembled/disassembled.

Also, carrier defenses are not static over time. They will adjust to changing threats.

Lastly, and maybe in support of the author, sea battles of the future probably won't be drawn-out, interminable conflicts. Guess how long it would take China to pulverize Taiwan (as in the example he provides), and then figure out how long it would actually take to get a carrier strike group to the area and ready to fight (OPSEC precludes further details).

Aircraft, ships, carriers, weapons, personnel, systems, and supplies are all tools. You bring the right tool to the job and the carrier of the future will be one of your most flexible tools. It will also be one of the most vulnerable.

 

[Single Seat]

Wow. I HOPE that guy is looking for a new job. His statements and beliefs are so WRONG that it makes me go cross eyed. Did he really reference Top Gun????

Put a price on power projection and global influence, as well as humanitarian aide and American presence, then get back to me John. Jack ass.

 

[wink]

Lastly, and maybe in support of the author, sea battles of the future probably won't be drawn-out, interminable conflicts. Guess how long it would take China to pulverize Taiwan (as in the example he provides), and then figure out how long it would actually take to get a carrier strike group to the area and ready to fight (OPSEC precludes further details).

Even assuming we don't get warnings and other indicators that are actionable, who says it will be all over after the Chicoms "pulverize" Taiwan? You don't think there will fighting to be had for every U.S. warship in the PAC Fleet? What about the forward deployed CVN?

 

[Single Seat]

Someone's been in his ivory tower to long.

http://research.nps.navy.mil/cgi-bin/vita.cgi

Just put his last name in, Arquilla.

Like the saying goes, those who can do. Those who can't.... teach.

 

[Gatordev]

Even assuming we don't get warnings and other indicators that are actionable, who says it will be all over after the Chicoms "pulverize" Taiwan? You don't think there will fighting to be had for every U.S. warship in the PAC Fleet? What about the forward deployed CVN?

I'd recommend we not stray too far into answering the above questions. It's too easy to end up talking about some things that are still very sensitive.

 

[LazersGoPEWPEW]

I guess he forgot to read this....

It's always refreshing to hear the opinion of men who have never served in the military talk about how useful strategically a large scale weapons delivery system such as a carrier is.

 

[wink]

I'd recommend we not stray too far into answering the above questions. It's too easy to end up talking about some things that are still very sensitive.

Agreed, if you are taking warnings and indicators as in intel, absolutely. These days it is just as likely to be open source. I don't know how you prepare to invade a country with a capable, professional, modern military like Taiwan's and not see it looming on CNN or the newspapers. Ya, we really surprised those Iraqi's, twice! Never saw us coming. But with the exception of a annoying thread jack, I don't see the problem with an exchange about whether or not the US would sit back and just accept the PRC running over a free democratic country with out a military response.

 

[airgreg]

I'd recommend we not stray too far into answering the above questions. It's too easy to end up talking about some things that are still very sensitive.

Roger, concur.

Wink, I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying there is a time-distance problem associated with carriers. The same situation applies to a carrier response to NK... the first 5 minutes could be the worse.

Not downplaying the significance of a CVN, just presenting another point the author negelected.

 

[HuggyU2]

His bio says his expertise is in Information Operations/Warfare.
That's kind of a big leap from IO to writing about carriers, me thinks.

 

[wink]

Roger, concur.

Wink, I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying there is a time-distance problem associated with carriers. The same situation applies to a carrier response to NK... the first 5 minutes could be the worse.

Not downplaying the significance of a CVN, just presenting another point the author negelected.

You do have a point. Hey, it is a problem with the entire Navy, either you are near by or not. I just don't happen to think CVNs, will be useless even if they arrive some time late after the first shots are fired. Lets just assume Freelandia gets run over by it's belligerent neighbor. Is there any chance it will be in our nation's interests to expel the invaders from Freelandia? If so, it will take some time to plan and prepare that action. Plenty of time for the big deck CVNs to arrive with some whoop ass.

 

[HeyJoe]

His bio says his expertise is in Information Operations/Warfare.
That's kind of a big leap from IO to writing about carriers, me thinks.

He also comes with a RAND background. Follow link and you'll see where what influences his perspective beside the RMA crowd that has a tradition of shaking the tree of conventional thinking. The RMA crew are big on Information/Irregular Warfare. They just don't get out much. Warfighters, not!

 

[Single Seat]

Roger, concur.

Wink, I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying there is a time-distance problem associated with carriers. The same situation applies to a carrier response to NK... the first 5 minutes could be the worse.

Not downplaying the significance of a CVN, just presenting another point the author negelected.

It's not going to be the carriers that respond/save the day in the first 5 minutes though.

http://research.nps.navy.mil/cgi-bin/vita.cgi

 

[McBuff]

"This plan constitutes a huge waste of taxpayer money and exemplifies the Defense Department's fixation on preserving legacy systems designed for a kind of war that the U.S. is likely never to fight again."

I'm getting sick of hearing this bullshit. Why is it that after every major conflict, the masses are so quick to assume that "X" is the future of combat and we will never fight a "Y" type war again. Who knows who our next enemy will be so why leave yourself vulnerable for "a kind of war we think we'll never fight again". In the last 100 years, Control of the sea + control of the air = control of the ground.