NEWS Seahawks Sink Houthi Boats

[Random8145]

The long-range guided missile with OTHT is what will kill the CVN.

If you don't need to launch a jet to fly 500-700 miles to attack an enemy fleet or SAG because you can shoot missiles from a DDG that outrange the enemy... well, then you don't need carriers.

We're still clinging to short-range precision strikes because that minimizes collateral damage, thereby maintaining our legitimacy. That will probably evolve significantly over the next 10-20 years.

How can anyone really know this though? Until all these whiz-bang new missiles are really tested (i.e. a hot war or conflict) I don't think anyone can say for sure that carriers are obsolete. The Chinese certainly seem to value carriers, and also remember that carriers aren't just about destroying enemy fleets but also about supporting forces on land.

While not an exact analogy, consider that we have had hand-held weapons, plus numerous missiles and ammo, capable of disabling or destroying battle tanks since WWII. So why has the tank continued to play a major role in warfare? Because when used properly as part of a combined arms military machine, they are extremely useful. Carriers are similar IMO.

 

[Spekkio]

A warship is essentially a floating (or purposefully sinking) artillery platform. Manned aircraft serve to extend the range / accuracy of that artillery.

But if you can target a ship with a satellite or UAV and launch a mid-range ASCM for a fraction of the cost, you don't need manned aircraft to do it. Similarly, unlike WWII, a DDG can outrange attack aircraft with guided AA missiles.

I wasn't talking about PRC ASBM risk, I was talking about the natural evolution of technology as it pertains to maritime warfare. So far we're happy to rely on our assymetric USW advantage rather than going hard in the paint on ASCMs. There's rapidly growing risk to this approach.

The carrier probably will still have a role for expeditionary air missions in areas that the USAF can't operate - effectively their main role since 2001 - but if we stick to it as the cornerstone of blue water maritime supremacy then I think that we'll learn the battleship lesson all over again.

As far as tanks... there's an ongoing argument in the Army whether or not they are still relevant in lieu of lighter armored vehicles and the USMC has rid themselves of the platform. I'm not knowledgeable on the arguments for or against, simply pointing out that there's a substantial debate over the utility of them, particularly after seeing the damage Ukraine was able to inflict on Russian armor with very, very cheap weapons systems.

 

[Spekkio]

"When word of a crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident that

the first question that comes to everyone's lips is:

'Where's the nearest carrier?'" - POTUS Clinton - as well as many before him. Oh, and that was when the AS-4 was in service - far outranging anything.

Great 30 year old example.

In 2019, the DoD wanted to decommission the Truman early and use the savings towards developing unmanned systems and hypersonic missiles.

Today it's CENTCOM and INDOPACOM fighting over getting enough DDGs to do everything we need them to do.

 

[Brett327]

In 2019, the DoD wanted to decommission the Truman early

If you think that, you don’t understand how the DoD budget process works.

 

[WhiskeySierra6]

a DDG can outrange attack aircraft with guided AA missiles.

DDG = Surface Combatant. AA = Air-to-air. Do we have flying DDGs that no one knows about? Also, the CVW doesn't require third party targeting to target OTH. All surface combatants do...because they're on the surface. That's what we like to call a vulnerability in the kill chain. Both capabilities (DDG and CVW) are needed for 2027 and beyond.

 

[Mos]

AA = Air-to-air.

Pretty sure it can also mean anti-air.

 

[WhiskeySierra6]

Pretty sure it can also mean anti-air.

In that case we'd call it a SAM, so there's no confusion.

 

[Spekkio]

Also, the CVW doesn't require third party targeting to target OTH.

Against L1 combatants... yes, they do.

 

[Spekkio]

If you think that, you don’t understand how the DoD budget process works.

I understand just fine. The administration didn't get its wish because it faced staunch opposition in the Senate.

But the point I was making is that someone who was actually President in the 21st century and within the last 10 years didn't think carriers were as important as good ol'e slick Willy from 25-30 years ago. And more importantly ... let's discuss the merits and weaknesses of the platform without invoking quips from politicians. They're relying on us to advise them what to buy.

 

[WhiskeySierra6]

Against L1 combatants... yes, they do.

Let me be more specific. No surface combatant has more organic OTH targeting capability than a CVW. Key word being organic. It's just physics. Most players in this space have the capability to drive a kill chain to organic.

 

[Spekkio]

Let me be more specific. No surface combatant has more organic OTH targeting capability than a CVW.

Not relevant to modern maritime warfare. And to the extent that it is, you don't necessarily need an FA-18 or F-35 to execute the back end of the kill chain developed by an E-2.

This is why the maritime fires mission is increasingly moving toward the 18xx communities, and from my view in the cheap seats senior pilots are happy to give it to them.

 

[Random8145]

As far as tanks... there's an ongoing argument in the Army whether or not they are still relevant in lieu of lighter armored vehicles and the USMC has rid themselves of the platform. I'm not knowledgeable on the arguments for or against, simply pointing out that there's a substantial debate over the utility of them, particularly after seeing the damage Ukraine was able to inflict on Russian armor with very, very cheap weapons systems.

That used to be an argument back in the '90s as well, that the future would consist of lighter, more mobile armored vehicles. Then we invade Iraq again and it is found that the only vehicle with enough armor to fight through various areas are the tanks. And the other vehicles all had to have makeshift armor bolted onto them.

It is true the Ukrainians have been able to lay waste to Russian armor with very cheap weapons systems, but again, that's been the case since WWII. The Russians did not employ their tanks in a skilled manner, and if you don't do that, then yes they will be very vulnerable to the enemy.

 

[Brett327]

I understand just fine.

I disagree:

The administration didn't get its wish because it faced staunch opposition in the Senate.

 

[WhiskeySierra6]

Not relevant to modern maritime warfare. And to the extent that it is, you don't necessarily need an FA-18 or F-35 to execute the back end of the kill chain developed by an E-2.

This is why the maritime fires mission is increasingly moving toward the 18xx communities, and from my view in the cheap seats senior pilots are happy to give it to them.

That's true today in a permissive EM/cyber environment. It won't be in two years when both sides make all the whiz bang comms capabilities that enable third party targeting and engagement go night night. Any strike fighter at 200' with Harpoon + capability can reach out and touch ANY surface combatant Renhai, Arleigh Burke, Kirov, etc. included.

 

[hscs]

I understand just fine. The administration didn't get its wish because it faced staunch opposition in the Senate.

But the point I was making is that someone who was actually President in the 21st century and within the last 10 years didn't think carriers were as important as good ol'e slick Willy from 25-30 years ago. And more importantly ... let's discuss the merits and weaknesses of the platform without invoking quips from politicians. They're relying on us to advise them what to buy.

Oh, maybe Truman‘s deployment with the Ukrainian invasion. nah. Maybe IKE with Hamas and follow on attacks. Nah, they must have had their deployments extended because POTUS didn’t ask about them.