Why Carriers Rule

America's aircraft carriers have yet to fight a real war at sea, as during the last World War, insists Martin Sieff:

The fact that no U.S. aircraft carrier has been seriously
threatened in combat in any of the wars the United States has fought since 1945
has added to the mystique of the carrier admirals. They continue to dominate the
Navy, greatly influencing its procurement decisions to this day. And arguably,
in the 21st century, the political power and prestige of the carrier admirals is
greater than ever...

However, the real reason none of America's magnificent
aircraft carriers has faced serious threat over the past 60 years is for the
very good reason that the United States has never fought any war during all that
time in which they faced any enemy with significant naval forces.

But can this highly desirable situation ( at least for Big Carrier advocates) last for long? Even Britain's mighty dreadnoughts finally were tested almost 100 years after their last similar conflict at sea, at Trafalgar. You would think, with no equal threat facing these costly and budget-shrinking powerhouses, the Navy might have weaned themselves off and turned to less costly but effective counters to Third World conflicts. But that would be too sensible.

Navy Ignores Threat to Carriers

This is ominous but not surprising to regular New Wars readers. From Bloomberg:

The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of warnings from Pentagon
testers, still lacks a plan for defending aircraft carriers against a supersonic
Russian-built missile, according to current and former officials and Defense
Department documents.

The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,''
has been deployed by China and may be purchased by Iran...

The Defense
Department's weapons-testing office judges the threat so serious that its
director, Charles McQueary, warned the Pentagon's chief weapons-buyer in a memo
that he would move to stall production of multibillion-dollar ship and missile
programs until the issue was addressed.

``This is a carrier-destroying
weapon,'' said Orville Hanson, who evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with
the Navy. ``That's its purpose.''

But the Navy remains unmoved:

``This was an issue when I walked in the door in 2001,'' Thomas
Christie, the Defense Department's top weapons-testing official from mid-2001 to
early 2005, said in an interview.

``The Navy recognized this was a major
issue, and over the years, I had continued promises they were going to fully
fund development and production'' of missiles that could replicate the Sizzler
to help develop a defense against it, Christie said. ``They haven't.''

The effect is that in a conflict, the U.S. ``would send a billion-dollar
platform loaded with equipment and crew into harm's way without some sort of
confidence that we could defeat what is apparently a threat very near on the
horizon,'' Christie said.

They might just as well ignore the threat, as the cruise missile, married to the ultra-stealthy diesel and nuke subs being built for potential aggressors, possesses the real capability of destroying the Expeditionary Strategy which the West currently depends upon. Imagine a future where surface ships dare not leave port, for fear that a supersonic dart will slam unexpectedly into their vulnerable sides. The whole Era of Globalisation remains under a cloud.

See also Demise of the Supercarrier.

Aircraft Carrier Vs. Cruise Missile #24

Again we hear from Martin Sieff:

The U.S. arsenal has no weapons to compare with the
Russian-built Moskit 3M80 -- NATO designation SS-N-22 Sunburn -- ramjet-powered
cruise missile or the new, even more advanced SS-N-27 Sizzler. These weapons fly
two and a half times faster than U.S. ones. American cruise missiles are
subsonic, but Russian-made ones can fly at well over Mach 2, or more than twice
the speed of sound -- with speeds estimated at 1,500 mph to 1,700 mph at close
to ground level.Russia has sold the technology to build the Moskit to China,
which manufactures it as the Hai Ying or Sea Eagle HY2. It can carry an almost
500-pound warhead, and it can deliver a tactical nuclear weapon. The threat of
the Hai Ying is so great that it has effectively barred operational access to
the Taiwan Strait to U.S. aircraft carriers in time of high tension. China has
also supplied the Hai Ying to Iran.

It is striking that four-star Adm. William Fox Fallon, who has
just resigned as head of U.S. Central Command, has expressed his caution and
reluctance about going to war with Iran. Fallon is the U.S. Navy's leading
expert, and therefore probably the top authority in the world, about using
aircraft carrier-based air power to strike land-based targets. His previous
position was running Pacific Command with great distinction, and that theater
includes China and Taiwan.Fallon's caution is clearly based in part on the fact
that U.S. carrier battle groups would have to be operated with great discretion
and skill to protect them from the threat of Iran's Sunburns.

Aircraft Carrier Vs. Cruise Missile #23

From Martin Sieff at the UPI:

The Russian-built and designed Sunburn -- known by the Chinese
as the Hai Ying or Sea Eagle HY2 -- in particular is designed to be a U.S.
carrier killer. It can fly at Mach 2.5, or two and half times the speed of sound
-- around 1,700 miles per hour carrying an almost 500-pound warhead. And it can
deliver a tactical nuclear weapon.

Writing in Defense Review on Nov. 20, 2006, respected defense
analyst David Crane also noted a report in Aviation Week that China was also
"developing a new high-speed cruise missile called Anjian -- 'Dark Sword.'"
"From the picture we've seen of it, Anjian also looks very stealthy, i.e., it
looks like it utilizes stealth technology. If China's already perfected this
item, it would be another weapon that our Navy can't combat," Crane
warned.Crane's warnings appear justified. U.S. nuclear aircraft carriers, for
all their size, resemble battlecruisers more than battleships in their high
speed, great offensive armaments and most of all lack of armor plate protection.
Armor plate went out of fashion after World War II among naval designers around
the world, and it has never come back into fashion. However, the nuclear
reactors that power U.S. super carriers would be the modern equivalent of the
Hood's inadequately protected ammunition, or powder magazines. And the new
Russian-designed supersonic anti-ship missiles would be the equivalent of the
Bismarck's 15-inch naval guns.

Aircraft Carrier Vs. Cruise Missile #22

From Wash Park Prophet:

A reader has noted that about two
years ago:


The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of warnings
from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending aircraft carriers
against a supersonic Russian-built missile . . . known in the West as the
``Sizzler,'' . . . ``This is a carrier-destroying weapon,'' said Orville Hanson,
who evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy" . . . . China bought
the missiles in 2002 along with eight diesel submarines designed to fire it,
according to Office of Naval Intelligence spokesman Robert Althage. A Pentagon
official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russia also offered the
missile to Iran, although there's no evidence a sale has gone through. . . .

The Navy's ship-borne Aegis system, deployed on cruisers and destroyers
starting in the early 1980s, is designed to protect aircraft-carrier battle
groups from missile attacks. But current and former officials say the Navy has
no assurance Aegis, built by Lockheed Martin Corp., is capable of detecting,
tracking and intercepting the Sizzler....

[The] Sizzler, which is also called the SS-N-27B, starts out flying at
subsonic speeds. Within 10 nautical miles of its target, a rocket-propelled
warhead separates and accelerates to three times the speed of sound, flying no
more than 10 meters (33 feet) above sea level.

On final approach, the
missile ``has the potential to perform very high defensive maneuvers,''
including sharp-angled dodges, the Office of Naval Intelligence said in a manual
on worldwide maritime threats. . . . Most anti-ship cruise missiles fly below
the speed of sound and on a straight path, making them easier to track and
target.

Aircraft Carrier Vs. Cruise Missile #21

While the Media and bloggers continue to pick at this old sore, concerning a Chinese Song class diesel submarine surfacing undetected in firing range of the carrier USS Kitty Hawk, they do keep alive a valid and serious issue: our unprecedented and enormously expensive carrier fleet is at risk from silent and deadly conventional submarines. Here is a post from Discourse.net:

While they excel in force projection against weak third world nations, there have been increasing signs that aircraft carriers are also awfully big targets. Some suggested that in these days of cruise missiles, the carrier’s days were numbered.

Some, including me have suggested this more than once. I actually consider the launching of the USS Nautilus, the world's first nuclear powered submarine in 1954, as sounding the death knell for the big ships. Now the undersea boats, which we only defeated with great difficulty and enormous national effort in two world wars, has the speed, endurance and weaponry to match the big ships. Many armed with supersonic cruise missiles, they can easily outrange our best ASW defenses before they can react.

Some argue that if not the carriers, then what? No other warship currently in the Navy's inventory can equal the giant flattops in staying power, in the ability to launch precision bombs against long range land targets on short notice, and remain in the area as long as needed the carrier advocates contend. Almost a 100,000 tons of US sovereign territory, they have no need of a permission slip to park their planes off a hostile shore, as the Air Force and Army so often required before going to war.

My own answer to this is "what if the submarines force the issue", and sink or damage these mighty symbols of American power, much as these same vessels drove the battleships, themselves once thought unsinkable, from the world's oceans. As we have seen so often since 9/11, the new insurgent enemy rarely plays by our rules, and the hard won lesson as proven by General Petraeus in Iraq is our armed forces must adapt to change or die.

Aircraft Carrier Vs. Cruise Missile 20

A scathing critique of our extremely vulnerable force of super carriers, from Defense Review:

Basically, the stated mission of the Northrop Grumman CVN 21
Program is to "conceptualize, design, build, test and deliver a state-of-the-art
aircraft carrier that meets operational requirements of the United States Navy
and results in specified reductions in acquisition costs, manning and weight
while enhancing operational capabilities." How, a 13.7 billion super aircraft
carrier is going to lead to reductions in acquisition costs is anyone's guess,
but it sounds good. And, good PR is everything these days when it comes to
huge-budget military programs.


However, there are a couple of little
"flies in the ointment" in the form of... the latest ship-killing unmanned
weapon systems like supercavitating torpedoes and supersonic anti-ship cruise
missiles being produced and/or developed by other countries that can probably
sink the CVN-21, even if it is protected by its own highly-advanced,
highly-lethal systems like fighter aircraft (primarily F/A-18s), ASW
(Anti-Submarine Warfare i.e. "sub-hunting") aircraft, the Raytheon Ship
Self-Defense System (SSDS), Aegis-radar-equipped and highly-weaponized cruisers
and destroyers, submarines, etc. That's not to mention unmanned aircraft systems
(UAS) a.k.a. unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) being produced and developed by
other countries that can also potentially wreak a lot of havoc and destruction
on surface ships. And, at the end of the day, that's what the CVN-21 will be, a
large, hulking, incredibly expensive (albeit very sexy) surface ship.

So, what can be done? The author seconds my proposal for an All-Submarine Navy.

Scratch 2 Flattops!

Harriers and Hornets over Indian Navy aircraft carrier INS Viraat (Top) and USS Kitty Hawk during the recent Malbar exercise. U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Jarod Hodge.

Some interesting events from the five-nation Malabar naval exercise, Via the Indian Express:

IAF Jaguars ‘sink’ USS Nimitz, F-18s return the favour to INS
Viraat

As the small green dots approached closer on the radar screen,
the Indian officer sitting deep inside USS Nimitz knew it was too late to save
the ship. Jaguar maritime fighters of the Indian Air Force (IAF), operating from
the Car Nicobar air base, had managed to come dangerously within striking range
to successfully launch anti-ship missiles on the super carrier.
The IAF
registered its first “kill” of the day — none less than the mighty nuclear
powered Nimitz with its compliment of 85 fighters. But the young officer, on a
cross attachment to the US ship, barely had time to feel proud. The battle had
begun in earnest and the target now was India’s lone aircraft carrier.
INS
Viraat, however, proved easy meat for the joint striking force of US F-18 Super
Hornets and IAF Jaguars with the American fighters deliberately flying over the
ship to drive home their air-superiority skills.

No matter how good the defenses, some attacker will always get through. Something to consider when buying these 6000 crewman supercarriers.

Update-This is interesting. According to this report, 13,000 anti-ship missiles will be built world-wide in the next 10 years. During the same time period, only about half a dozen carriers are on order.

Aircraft Carrier Vs. Cruise Missile 19

From the Indian Express, during the Malabar Naval Exercises:

ON BOARD USS Kitty Hawk (150 miles west of Port Blair),
September 7: As the small green dots approached closer on the radar screen,
the Indian officer sitting deep inside USS Nimitz knew it was too late to save
the ship. Jaguar maritime fighters of the Indian Air Force (IAF), operating from
the Car Nicobar air base, had managed to come dangerously within striking range
to successfully launch anti-ship missiles on the super carrier.

The IAF registered its first “kill” of the day — none less
than the mighty nuclear powered Nimitz with its compliment of 85 fighters. But
the young officer, on a cross attachment to the US ship, barely had time to feel
proud. The battle had begun in earnest and the target now was India’s lone
aircraft carrier.
INS Viraat, however, proved easy meat for the joint
striking force of US F-18 Super Hornets and IAF Jaguars with the American
fighters deliberately flying over the ship to drive home their air-superiority
skills.

I wonder, with the Army and Marines forced reluctantly to fight a battle of attrition (ie. a sustained conflict) in Iraq, and now winning that battle after much trial and error, if the Navy would be able to fight it's own Iraq if a future war at sea were to last several years?

Aircraft Carrier Vs. Cruise Missile 18

As reported by the Washington Times:

...China's normally secretive military has revealed a new
version of the DF-21 short-range missile, also known as the CSS-6, that is
outfitted with an advanced guided warhead...the shorter-range DF-21 missile is
China's first anti-ship ballistic missile designed to attack U.S. aircraft
carriers and other warships. New Chinese radar and photographic satellites are
signs that the new anti-ship ballistic missile may be close to initial
operational status, the report said.

The new anti-ship ballistic missile poses a serious threat to
U.S. ships because "the U.S. does not have anti-missile capabilities to defend
large U.S. ships against this threat, so vulnerable targets, most importantly
aircraft carriers, will have to remain out of missile range in order to
survive," the report said.
The report also discloses for the first time that
China has deployed its third Type 093 nuclear-powered attack submarine, which
also was pictured for the first time this week on a Chinese Web
site.

If they must remain out of missile range, what good are they? Considering the short range of US naval aircraft, the big carriers might soon find their mission replaced by long-range cruise missiles.

Aircraft Carrier Vs. Cruise Missile 17

Iran has a 1000 ship fleet ready to strike any attacker. From the World Tribune:

The U.S. Navy has determined that Iran has amassed a fleet of fast
patrol boats in the 43-kilometer straits. Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard
Corps, responsible for strategic programs, leads the effort.
At this point,
officials said, IRGC has deployed more than 1,000 FPBs in and around the
straits. The vessels, armed with cruise missiles, mines, torpedoes and
rocket-propelled grenades, are up to 23 meters in long and can reach a speed of
100 kilometers per hour.

"This marks the implementation of Iran's swarm
program, where dozens of armed speed boats attack much larger naval vessels from
all sides," an official said.
In 2005, IRGC developed its swarm doctrine
following Teheran's assessment that the United States was considering an air
strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Officials said the swarm doctrine was
designed to exploit the slow pace of U.S. aircraft carriers and destroyers in
the shallow waters of the Gulf.

This is the USN's worse nightmare and why the multi-billion dollar Aegis anti-missile program was originally developed. But can it handle the Swarm?

Aircraft Carrier Vs. Cruise Missile 16

From Spacewar:

China plans to equip its upcoming missiles with infrared technology
to give them the ability to hit US warships in Asia, a Japanese newspaper said
Wednesday. The upgrade is part of preparations for a potential conflict over
Taiwan, which China considers part of its territory and which has a security
pact with the United States, the Sankei Shimbun said.
Citing unnamed
military sources in Japan and Taiwan, the conservative newspaper said that China
was developing an infrared detection system for its medium-range Dongfeng-21
missiles so they can pinpoint warships.
The upgraded Dongfeng would
discourage the United States or Japan from sending in their warships equipped
with the Aegis technology designed to shoot down incoming missiles, the
newspaper said.
The Dongfeng-21 has a range of some 2,150 kilometers (1,350
miles). The Sankei estimated that around 100 are deployed.
Western analysts
have also speculated that China is also developing a next-generation long-range
Dongfeng-41 capable of hitting the US mainland.

China is stinging after US carriers foiled their attempts to invade or intimidate Taiwan in the 1990's.

Aircraft Carrier Vs. Cruise Missile 15

A disturbing report from Bloomberg:

Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Carrier-Destroying' Missile

The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile, according to current and former officials and Defense Department documents.
The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.
The Defense Department's weapons-testing office judges the threat so serious that its director, Charles McQueary, warned the Pentagon's chief weapons-buyer in a memo that he would move to stall production of multibillion-dollar ship and missile programs until the issue was addressed.
``This is a carrier-destroying weapon,'' said Orville Hanson, who evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. ``That's its purpose.''
``Take out the carriers'' and China ``can walk into Taiwan,'' he said. China bought the missiles in 2002 along with eight diesel submarines designed to fire it, according to Office of Naval Intelligence spokesman Robert Althage.
A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russia also offered the missile to Iran, although there's no evidence a sale has gone through. In Iranian hands, the Sizzler could challenge the ability of the U.S. Navy to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, through which an estimated 25 percent of the world's oil traffic flows.

Aircraft Carrier Vs. Cruise Missile 14

From Defense Review:

Given the current lack of U.S. ASW/ASuW capability, we don’t see how the U.S. Navy can possibly adequately defend itself against these threats. In January of this year (2006), Jane's Defence Weekly reported on a new “revolutionary” anti-ship version of the DF-21 medium-range ballistic missile being developed by the Chinese military, but the situation gets even bleaker when one takes into account the aforementioned high-speed, rocket-propelled guided supercavitating torpedoes like the Russian Shkval-2 ("Shkval" tranlates to "Squall") that's reported to weigh approx. 2700kg (5,923 lbs) and travel at 230-300mph. This supercaviating torpedo tech creates a real problem from a ship defense standpoint, since one has so little time to react to a threat coming in so fast underwater, even if you detect it quickly. At present, the U.S. Navy doesn’t appear to have effective anti-torpedo torpedoes, let alone torpedoes that can intercept ultra-high speed supercavitating torpedos.

Oh, and this just in: according to Aviation Week magazine, the Chinese military is developing a new high-speed cruise missile called Anjian (“Dark Sword”). The new missile was reportedly displayed at Air Show China. From the picture we’ve seen of it, Anjian also looks very stealthy, i.e. it looks like it utilizes stealth technology. If China’s already perfected this item, it would be another weapon that our Navy can’t combat.

Bottom line, our aircraft carriers are vulnerable against the latest Russian and Chinese torpedo and missile tech, and with the current U.S. naval defense philosophy, that situation isn’t likely to change anytime soon. Unfortunately, we no longer have an armored Navy (no more battle ships in service), which means we’re relying on our smaller, less armored high-tech ships like AEGIS (a.k.a. AEGIS weapon system MK-7 a.k.a. AEGIS combat system) to protect the fleet--along with our aircraft carriers themselves, which, again, are vulnerable.

Aircraft Carrier Vs. Cruise Missile 13

Brian J. Dunn on the Chinese sub stalking USS Kitty Hawk:

...will UCAVs displacing manned aircraft mean we need large or even medium carriers to haul these smaller aircraft around? Will more smaller carriers work? Will we be able to scatter UCAVs on amphibous warfare carriers and even surface ships the way anti-ship missiles are now throughout the fleet? If we truly can fight networked, we will be able to mass effect from widely scattered assets unlike today's carriers which are the pinnacle of needing a single platform to mass effect.Right now, our carriers with manned aircraft are still a tremendous asset. But as the years go by, cheap precision missiles will erode their value. Several decades in the future, carriers may be too big and expensive to risk enterring an enemy's array of sensors that can detect and guide missiles to overwhelm a carrier's defensive systems. Since carriers last five decades or more, the carriers we have now could last through the period of their fighting value and phase out as their vulnerability becomes too great. Should we build large carriers anymore?

I say No, and even get rid of some we now have. Let's freeze carrier production for awhile, and rebuild our anti-sub forces. It will be cheaper and only take a few years. Or else we could wait for another Pearl Harbor, this time with Chinese cruise missiles instead of jap Zeroes.

Aircraft Carrier Vs. Cruise Missile 12

This is reported by the Washington Times:

China sub secretly stalked U.S. fleet
A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in the Pacific last month and surfaced within firing range of its torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has learned. The surprise encounter highlights China's continuing efforts to prepare for a future conflict with the U.S., despite Pentagon efforts to try to boost relations with Beijing's communist-ruled military. The submarine encounter with the USS Kitty Hawk and its accompanying warships also is an embarrassment to the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, Adm. William J. Fallon, who is engaged in an ambitious military exchange program with China aimed at improving relations between the two nations' militaries...

According to the defense officials, the Chinese Song-class diesel-powered attack submarine shadowed the Kitty Hawk undetected and surfaced within five miles of the carrier Oct. 26. The surfaced submarine was spotted by a routine surveillance flight by one of the carrier group's planes. The Kitty Hawk battle group includes an attack submarine and anti-submarine helicopters that are charged with protecting the warships from submarine attack. According to the officials, the submarine is equipped with Russian-made wake-homing torpedoes and anti-ship cruise missiles.

Murdoc has more commentary plus links.

Aircraft Carrier Vs. Cruise Missile 11

This is from the Asia Times:

Being the lone superpower, any major conventional conflict involving the US will necessitate its bringing its forces to bear on its adversaries. This means that the US must cross the Pacific, Indian, and/or Atlantic Oceans in order to bring logistics or troop reinforcements to the battlefield. In so doing, the US will be crossing thousands of miles of sea lanes of communication (SLOC) that can easily become a gauntlet of deadly Chinese and Russian submarines lying in ambush with bottom-rising sea mines, supercavitating rocket torpedoes, and supersonic cruise missiles that even aircraft carrier battle groups have no known defense against. Logistic and transport ships and oil tankers are particularly vulnerable. The air corridors above these sea lanes will also be put at great risk by advanced air defense systems aboard Sovremenny destroyers or similar types of warships in Chinese and Russian inventories. In short, the US will be forced by geography to suffer all the disadvantages of conducting offensive operations against adversaries in Eurasia...

Superpower America is particularly vulnerable to asymmetric attack. A classic example of asymmetric attack is the September 11, 2001, attack on America. Nineteen determined attackers, armed with nothing but box cutters, succeeded in toppling the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and causing the death of some 3,000 Americans. Notice the asymmetry of casualty ratio as well - the most lopsided casualty ratio ever recorded in history. China, Russia, and Iran also possess asymmetric weapons that are designed to neutralize and defeat a superpower like America in a conventional conflict. Supersonic cruise missiles now in their inventories can defeat and sink US aircraft carriers. The same is true for medium- and short-range ballistic missiles with independently targetable warheads, extra-large bottom-rising, rocket-propelled sea mines (EM52s), and supercavitating rocket torpedoes (SHKVAL or "Squall"). The US Navy has no known defense against these weapons.

Aircraft Carrier Vs. Cruise Missile 10

This is from a blog article entitled Nuclear Weapon Doctrine of India:

ii) End of Carrier Age
SINKING THE US SEVENTH FLEET: Technology exists that would allow Indian Navy, by using missiles, satellite sensors, powerful munitions and nuclear nukes, to sink the US carrier fleets and their support vessels. The US led revolution in precision weapons allows the United States to engage and defeat much larger air forces and land forces. The revolution in precision weapons would also allow India to deny the United States to project its forces across the oceans and supply and sustain them there. Since the revolution in precision weapons makes this impossible, then the United States, which initiated the revolution in military warfare, will turn out to the net strategic loser. Nuclear India should deploy US precision munition technology to sink US carrier fleets in the times of war. It is in the geopolitical interest of India to use smart tactical nuclear weapons to deny the Maritime powers of United States and Britain the control of the seas. Smart weapons can destroy the maritime economic infrastructure by sinking merchant ships.

THREAT OF INTELLIGENT ANTI-SHIP PROJECTILES: The threat posed by faster and more efficient projectiles, whose launch sites neither can be located nor destroyed, imposes a tremendous defensive burden on the US carrier fleets. The fiendishly expensive US Navy's Aegis ship-defense system, is designed to destroy every incoming projectile. As the sinking of the USS Stark demonstrated when an Iraqi Mirage attacked it without a warning, a single error would result in catastrophe. This necessitates the diversion of greater and greater resources for the primary naval offensive mission to the task of ship self-defense. The revolution in smart weapons is pushing carrier battle groups, the foundation of the American maritime power, towards geopolitical senility. The cost of merely keeping alive the carrier battle groups will undermine the general capacity of the US Navy to carry out its global strategic offensive missions. Indian nuclear weapons doctrine advocates the preemptive use of tactical nuclear weapons against hostile aircraft carriers after the declaration of war. Smart tactical nuclear weapons make carrier battle group's geopolitical dinosaurs. No sensible US president should ever dispatch the Seventh Fleet to Bay of Bengal on a hostile mission.

http://my.opera.com/kalkitv/blog/show.dml/456360

---

Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

Aircraft Carrier Vs. Cruise Missile 8

Recently the last carrier launch of the venerable Navy F-14 Tomcat occurred. Originally designed as a fleet interceptor in the late 1960’s, the Tomcat evolved into a potent long-range strike aircraft just in time for the start of the Global War on Terror. This “Bombcat” was a welcome addition to the aircraft carrier’s strike capability after the retirement of well-used A-6 Intruder bombers in the 1990’s. The replacement of these late Cold War planes is the very good F/A-18 Super Hornet, which unfortunately lacks the range of the older aircraft. This decrease in the combat range of naval strike planes comes at a time when warfare at sea moves into the littorals; confined waters that are unsuited for the big ships. Carriers now are forced closer inshore to participate in the land battle, thus making themselves greater targets for enemy mines, diesel subs, and cruise missiles. This will inevitably give credence to those who say the vulnerable and over-priced supercarriers be replaced with smaller, more stealthy vessels that fire long-range missiles and UAVs, with less risk to ship and crew.

Aircraft Carrier Vs. Cruise Missile 7

This was sent to me by Phelps Hobart of Sea Power Ambassador, from an article appearing on Stratfor:

Today, it appears to be the Pentagon's view that China is following the Soviet model. The Chinese will not be able to float a significant surface challenge to the U.S. Seventh Fleet for at least a generation -- if then. It is not just a question of money or even technology; it also is a question of training an entirely new navy in extraordinarily complex doctrines. The United States has been operating carrier battle groups since before World War II. The Chinese have never waged carrier warfare or even had a significant surface navy, for that matter -- certainly not since being defeated by Japan in 1895. The Americans think that the Chinese counter to U.S. capabilities, like the Soviet counter, will not be to force a naval battle. Rather, China would use submarines and, particularly, anti-ship missiles to engage the U.S. Navy. In other words, the Chinese are not interested in seizing control of the Pacific from the Americans. What they want to do is force the U.S. fleet out of the Western Pacific by threatening it with ground- and air-launched missiles that are sufficiently fast and agile to defeat U.S. fleet defenses. Such a strategy presents a huge problem for the United States. The cost of threatening a fleet is lower than the cost of protecting one. The acquisition of high-speed, maneuverable missiles would cost less than purchasing defense systems. The cost of a carrier battle group makes its loss devastating. Therefore, the United States cannot afford to readily expose the fleet to danger. Thus, given the central role that control of the seas plays in U.S. grand strategy, the United States inevitably must interpret the rapid acquisition of anti-ship technologies as a serious threat to American geopolitical interests.