This seems like a good case for why congress needs less influence on military line items (distinct from the budget as a whole). They'll complain that it makes the US less safe but in reality they just want the jobs at the expense of defense capabilities. They know x carrier part will be built in their district as opposed to the billions used on other more relevant priorities as determined by people who are trained and paid to develop strategies. I don't think the people complaining are experts in military strategy and defense technology.
Now, all this said, to spite what most news outlets are babbling about, the carriers are very much still relevant and important and will remain so for at least a few decades. They just need to be balanced with developing future systems and demanding that we always have 11 carriers doesn't really provide the flexibility to handle emerging threats.
While Truman was still a Senator, he was head of what's today known as the 'Truman Committee'[0]. During WWII, there were tons of instances of budget bloat and shoddy manufacturing that were both too expensive to taxpayers and put Americans' lives in danger overseas. This saved tens of millions of 1940s dollars, and gained Truman the widespread political appeal that helped him eventually win his Vice Presidency.
I think a general point is, the military needs oversight, and we are a democratic country. For now, it might seem reasonable to you that Congress might not make the best decisions about military readiness, but removing the ability from Congress to decide that they should have the ability to investigate and shrink military budgets is un-democratic. I can easily imagine a world where we remove line-item oversight from Congress, and in 50 years, military spend is like it was multiple times in the history of other empires: not up to date, bloated, profitable to those in bureaucratic control, and an unpleasant surprise when we need it most.
I think you're totally right, the carriers are still important, particularly if we're not in a hot war. Carriers are second-to-none for establishing land/air/sea superiority. But if the military believes that, it should make that case to Congress, and Congress should do what they do with a recognition that they are beholden to the American public for their decisions.
The Naval Gazing blog has a four-part series called "Why the Carriers Are Not Doomed" in which he makes the case: "Claims that US carriers are very vulnerable to missile attack, and will be sunk immediately in any upcoming war, are quite common. They’re also wrong. The carriers are surprisingly survivable, and the prowess of missiles is usually grossly exaggerated."
I don't have the expertise to fully evaluate the arguments, but it's worth a read before you fully swallow the "carriers are pointless because of anti-ship missiles" line.
These claims also completely ignore the fact that carriers and other high value assets aren't going to be thrown into the fray, they aren't stationary and aren't unprotected.
In a case of a war with say China the US isn't going to park it's carrier fleet in the littoral waters and yell come at me bro the risks to the carrier are well known and understood and there are plenty of things the US can do to mitigate against those and very much effectively so.
The US has a very long history of naval warfare and the longest effective history in carrier operations a US carrier in the south china sea is still likely the most safe airwing you can have in the area since the US bases in the area are a much easier target for potential Chinese strikes.
I don't think people understand how hard it is to find a carrier battle group in the middle of the seas even within it's combat effective range not to mention guide and hit a moving target with very capable air defenses.
This holds true especially for the so called carrier killer "hypersonic" weapons which while might be able to pass through the missile defense shield of the strike group and the carrier itself have very poor terminal maneuvering and while a carrier is slow hitting a target evading your at 30 without very excellent terminal guidance isn't likely.
Following on with a generic upvote for the Naval Gazing blog, which got its start in the comments section of another blog and has become a source of very interesting pieces and research on its own.
Is the idea of a hot, but non nuclear war with China realistic? I have a hard time picturing scenarios where China is sinking carriers which don't quickly escalate to full blown nuclear war.
As a practical matter, perhaps carriers are just not going to be as important in the future? Drones can be launched from a much wider variety of places / ship decks.
The future of war may be a giant swarm of small ships and drones rather than one large flagship ringed by layers of destroyers etc to protect it.
> Is the idea of a hot, but non nuclear war with China realistic? I have a hard time picturing scenarios where China is sinking carriers which don't quickly escalate to full blown nuclear war.
It could be if there isn't a meaningful conventional deterrent.
Thought experiment--if the US only had strategic nuclear weapons, what would they do if China attempted to, for example, blockade Taiwan or the Philippines? It would be insane and homicidal to immediately escalate to nuking Beijing. What if the US had conventional forces, but not ones strong enough to hold off Chinese forces? They might take the risk that we wouldn't attempt a first strike.
Conversely, if it happened today, it would be proportional and reasonable to deploy conventional naval forces to escort merchant ships across the blockade. Maybe one of the Chinese ships would fire on one of the American ships, or one of the merchant ships under American protection, and maybe there might be a naval skirmish. But it wouldn't immediately escalate into a nuclear exchange. There would be an "incident", the Chinese would realize that they would have to escalate to a nuclear first strike because their naval capacity is hopelessly outclassed by ours, and thus they would probably stand down. Furthermore, China already knows this is exactly what would happen in this situation and that's one of many reasons they don't try anything.
Despite an infamous 1995 quote from a Chinese general that "in the end, you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei", Chinese posturing in the Taiwan Straits in 1996 led to a large US naval deployment to the seas around Taiwan, at which point China stood down. A full-on war could still escalate to a nuclear exchange, but that is all the more deterrent against starting even a conventional war with US forces. (For similar reasons, note how Russia's bullying tends to be targeted towards countries that haven't joined NATO.)
Regarding China, we just don't know. That said, taking billions of dollars from one carrier and using it for hyper-sonic interception research so the other 10 can survive unscathed isn't terrible math.
The important thing to realize is that in a war scenario sortie rates are important. Drones are great because they can take off from North Dakota, fly 20 hours half way around the world, drop some stuff then spend 20 hours flying back. Compare that to a carrier sortie where you take off, fly for two hours, drop something, and fly two hours back. That frees 36 hours on that airframe to get reloaded and go drop more stuff.
China has a "no first use" policy with nuclear weapons, so it's entirely possible for a conventional war to be fought. They do have a large range of conventionally-armed missiles though, so I have no idea how the escalation path would go.
Is the idea of a hot, but non nuclear war with China realistic? I have a hard time picturing scenarios where China is sinking carriers which don't quickly escalate to full blown nuclear war
I don't see how any conventional war which is short of full conquest escalates into a nuclear war. The gap between one and the other is wider than the gap between peace and conventional conflict.
I think conventional wisdom is basically that in the event of a hot war with a major power like China, carriers and much of the rest of the surface fleet would send spend the war in port. They're too expensive and too vulnerable to missile attack to risk.
Their real purpose (aside from being a big make-work project) is to project force during peace time and during wars with adversaries that can't afford large numbers of the latest and greatest missiles.
I could see some scenario where a semi-successful counterforce strike only takes out the nuclear forces at the expense of effectively emptying the other nation's stocks, which would still leaves plenty of military and civilian infrastructure standing and ready to fight, but it'll definitely be unlikely.
IMO the world is heading towards a hot war where each side is confident in their ballistic defence capabilities against nuclear attack. We have to hope it isn't overconfidence.
Almost certainly. Friendly nations' capabilities are in many ways just as important as your own. While the obvious reason for pushing the F-35 on everyone is because we get to make money for LM, it also means there are more F-35s out there that can be used in the event something happens.
If the US got into a hot war with China, we are all screwed.
Recall that the US succeeded in WW1 and WW2 by out-producing their opponents. They simply built more guns and tanks and munitions than everyone else. US munitions were lower quality than what was produced in Europe, but they were cheaper and available in large numbers. That's what mattered.
However, that's a strategy that won't work against China. The Chinese are the undisputed kings of building things fast and cheap. They would out-produce the US easily AND they have a much larger population to conscript into their armies.
US military chiefs must know that a land-war against China has almost no chance of success. China is too big and their army too numerous.
So if the war were to go badly (which it almost certainly would) they would be likely to consider the nuclear option... and once we go there, there's no going back. China would retaliate; Russia would likely get involved; article 5 would be invoked.... game over.
I would imagine if the US got into a cruise missile fight with China the US would be building ships and other equipment at a scale unseen since WW2 and compliance would probably not be the chief concern over winning the war.
In the event that one of the 11 (or 10) biggest most expensive billion dollar things the US military owns is destroyed, I think congress can get together and amend the law at the time.
I wonder why the US is so determined to have a large carrier fleet?
With the advent of anti-ship cruise missiles, carriers have lost the decisive edge that they had during WW2. It seems like few nations are willing to bear the development and maintenance costs of modern carriers. Yet the US continues to build carriers as if they were at war! Furthermore, there is a huge uproar (along with legal challenges!) whenever anyone dares to suggest even slowing down the rate of carrier deployment. Why is the US so set on a policy that every other developed nation has eschewed? It makes no sense to me.
Did Afghanistan, Iraq, Isis, Syria, or even Serbia have the capability to launch cruise missles at aircraft carriers? What about Vietnam or Korea?
I think your underestimating what aircraft carriers are actually used for. The Navy has been dropping bombs off aircraft carriers since WW2. I doubt we will ever see another world war in our lifetime. They may sell it to Congress one way and use it another way.
Most other countries aren't making carriers not because they're obsolete, but because they're too expensive. Not only do you need the super expensive carrier, but you need the aircraft to launch off of it and the battlegroup to accompany it.
they are a fantastic way to project power without having land bases, obviously. We have used them quite a lot for this purpose in the 60 years since cruise missiles were developed - including in the wars we are currently fighting.
also they are major sources of money for industry in important congressional districts, and have symbolic power that politicians and leaders crave.
no one else does it because they are expensive, difficult to develop, and no one else has the need to support global operations like we do (though China is getting there, and the UK fondly remembers when it used to).
> With the advent of anti-ship cruise missiles, carriers have lost the decisive edge that they had during WW2.
That may or may not be true. It has yet to be proven one way or the other.
Yes, in theory anti-ship cruise missiles can take out a carrier. A carrier in the middle of a battle group with all defenses running? Maybe... or maybe not.
Then, as others have pointed out, there are plenty of countries that don't have anti-ship cruise missiles, nor the data chain to target them properly. Against those countries, carriers still have a decisive edge.
Ship-to-ship naval warfare has practically gone extinct since World War II. The Navy is mostly used as another Air Force that doesn't require either established airbases or amphetamines to carry out sorties. This is because the US and its allies have a preexisting status of unquestioned naval supremacy already. Russia's access to the sea is almost completely bottled up by geography and nobody else has built close to as many ships as we have. In this environment, the focus naturally shifts from sea warfare to using naval forces to attack land targets.
Also, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers require a lot of specialized shipyard and drydock infrastructure that doesn't really pay off if you're only going to build one or two of them. That's why the Charles de Gaulle has been so expensive and why the Royal Navy didn't go nuclear with the QE class. So it only really makes sense, in an alliance, for one country to shoulder the particular burden of operating all the supercarriers. And of all the countries that aren't allied with us, Russia isn't going to waste time building supercarriers because they can't reach the open ocean in wartime anyway and China seems to be in the early stages of trying to do so themselves.
> Why is the US so set on a policy that every other developed nation has eschewed?
Which other countries have made the security commitments that the US has? Not only being a part of NATO, but commitments to Israel, Egypt, Japan, Korea, Australia, NZ, and so on. At a minimum the US needs an active carrier in both the Atlantic and Pacific, and usually two in the Pacific. To do that you need at another minimum twice that number to rotate ships out. Then for carriers you need more for life cycle and overhauls.
Plus its always quite disingenuous to compare the US to say a country like France. The size, population, economy, etc are in completely different categories.
They may not have the decisive edge they had 60+ years ago, but they still represent something. Having more carriers is indicative of the United States' willingness to be the biggest military superpower on the planet. It helps to secure economic power/influence. It helps to push their agenda.
Also, certain groups in the US (including the current president) would argue that the only reason other developed nations haven't engaged in this type of military building is because the US has done it and they've relied on that proxy strength.
[+] [-] AWildC182|7 years ago|reply
Now, all this said, to spite what most news outlets are babbling about, the carriers are very much still relevant and important and will remain so for at least a few decades. They just need to be balanced with developing future systems and demanding that we always have 11 carriers doesn't really provide the flexibility to handle emerging threats.
[+] [-] txru|7 years ago|reply
I think a general point is, the military needs oversight, and we are a democratic country. For now, it might seem reasonable to you that Congress might not make the best decisions about military readiness, but removing the ability from Congress to decide that they should have the ability to investigate and shrink military budgets is un-democratic. I can easily imagine a world where we remove line-item oversight from Congress, and in 50 years, military spend is like it was multiple times in the history of other empires: not up to date, bloated, profitable to those in bureaucratic control, and an unpleasant surprise when we need it most.
I think you're totally right, the carriers are still important, particularly if we're not in a hot war. Carriers are second-to-none for establishing land/air/sea superiority. But if the military believes that, it should make that case to Congress, and Congress should do what they do with a recognition that they are beholden to the American public for their decisions.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman_Committee
[+] [-] KorematsuFred|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nickthemagicman|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] alexhutcheson|7 years ago|reply
I don't have the expertise to fully evaluate the arguments, but it's worth a read before you fully swallow the "carriers are pointless because of anti-ship missiles" line.
https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-1
https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-2
https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-3
https://navalgazing.obormot.net/Carrier-Doom-Part-4
[+] [-] dogma1138|7 years ago|reply
In a case of a war with say China the US isn't going to park it's carrier fleet in the littoral waters and yell come at me bro the risks to the carrier are well known and understood and there are plenty of things the US can do to mitigate against those and very much effectively so.
The US has a very long history of naval warfare and the longest effective history in carrier operations a US carrier in the south china sea is still likely the most safe airwing you can have in the area since the US bases in the area are a much easier target for potential Chinese strikes.
I don't think people understand how hard it is to find a carrier battle group in the middle of the seas even within it's combat effective range not to mention guide and hit a moving target with very capable air defenses.
This holds true especially for the so called carrier killer "hypersonic" weapons which while might be able to pass through the missile defense shield of the strike group and the carrier itself have very poor terminal maneuvering and while a carrier is slow hitting a target evading your at 30 without very excellent terminal guidance isn't likely.
[+] [-] 1stcity3rdcoast|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dontbenebby|7 years ago|reply
As a practical matter, perhaps carriers are just not going to be as important in the future? Drones can be launched from a much wider variety of places / ship decks.
The future of war may be a giant swarm of small ships and drones rather than one large flagship ringed by layers of destroyers etc to protect it.
[+] [-] philwelch|7 years ago|reply
It could be if there isn't a meaningful conventional deterrent.
Thought experiment--if the US only had strategic nuclear weapons, what would they do if China attempted to, for example, blockade Taiwan or the Philippines? It would be insane and homicidal to immediately escalate to nuking Beijing. What if the US had conventional forces, but not ones strong enough to hold off Chinese forces? They might take the risk that we wouldn't attempt a first strike.
Conversely, if it happened today, it would be proportional and reasonable to deploy conventional naval forces to escort merchant ships across the blockade. Maybe one of the Chinese ships would fire on one of the American ships, or one of the merchant ships under American protection, and maybe there might be a naval skirmish. But it wouldn't immediately escalate into a nuclear exchange. There would be an "incident", the Chinese would realize that they would have to escalate to a nuclear first strike because their naval capacity is hopelessly outclassed by ours, and thus they would probably stand down. Furthermore, China already knows this is exactly what would happen in this situation and that's one of many reasons they don't try anything.
Despite an infamous 1995 quote from a Chinese general that "in the end, you care more about Los Angeles than you do about Taipei", Chinese posturing in the Taiwan Straits in 1996 led to a large US naval deployment to the seas around Taiwan, at which point China stood down. A full-on war could still escalate to a nuclear exchange, but that is all the more deterrent against starting even a conventional war with US forces. (For similar reasons, note how Russia's bullying tends to be targeted towards countries that haven't joined NATO.)
[+] [-] AWildC182|7 years ago|reply
The important thing to realize is that in a war scenario sortie rates are important. Drones are great because they can take off from North Dakota, fly 20 hours half way around the world, drop some stuff then spend 20 hours flying back. Compare that to a carrier sortie where you take off, fly for two hours, drop something, and fly two hours back. That frees 36 hours on that airframe to get reloaded and go drop more stuff.
[+] [-] steve_musk|7 years ago|reply
The dynamics between the US and China are obviously much different but I don’t think we can 100% rule out a non nuclear confrontation.
[+] [-] sitharus|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stcredzero|7 years ago|reply
The announced (by PRC) invasion of Taiwan.
[+] [-] flyinglizard|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] simplicio|7 years ago|reply
Their real purpose (aside from being a big make-work project) is to project force during peace time and during wars with adversaries that can't afford large numbers of the latest and greatest missiles.
[+] [-] tomatotomato37|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lainga|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sgt101|7 years ago|reply
Does the pentagon calculate that there's some flex as a result?
[+] [-] AWildC182|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WrtCdEvrydy|7 years ago|reply
On that one hand, the loss of life would be ridiculous but would we need to immediately start building a new one to be 'compliant'
[+] [-] JanSolo|7 years ago|reply
Recall that the US succeeded in WW1 and WW2 by out-producing their opponents. They simply built more guns and tanks and munitions than everyone else. US munitions were lower quality than what was produced in Europe, but they were cheaper and available in large numbers. That's what mattered.
However, that's a strategy that won't work against China. The Chinese are the undisputed kings of building things fast and cheap. They would out-produce the US easily AND they have a much larger population to conscript into their armies.
US military chiefs must know that a land-war against China has almost no chance of success. China is too big and their army too numerous.
So if the war were to go badly (which it almost certainly would) they would be likely to consider the nuclear option... and once we go there, there's no going back. China would retaliate; Russia would likely get involved; article 5 would be invoked.... game over.
[+] [-] makerofspoons|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gpm|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JanSolo|7 years ago|reply
With the advent of anti-ship cruise missiles, carriers have lost the decisive edge that they had during WW2. It seems like few nations are willing to bear the development and maintenance costs of modern carriers. Yet the US continues to build carriers as if they were at war! Furthermore, there is a huge uproar (along with legal challenges!) whenever anyone dares to suggest even slowing down the rate of carrier deployment. Why is the US so set on a policy that every other developed nation has eschewed? It makes no sense to me.
[+] [-] wil421|7 years ago|reply
I think your underestimating what aircraft carriers are actually used for. The Navy has been dropping bombs off aircraft carriers since WW2. I doubt we will ever see another world war in our lifetime. They may sell it to Congress one way and use it another way.
[+] [-] jandrese|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vpribish|7 years ago|reply
they are a fantastic way to project power without having land bases, obviously. We have used them quite a lot for this purpose in the 60 years since cruise missiles were developed - including in the wars we are currently fighting.
also they are major sources of money for industry in important congressional districts, and have symbolic power that politicians and leaders crave.
no one else does it because they are expensive, difficult to develop, and no one else has the need to support global operations like we do (though China is getting there, and the UK fondly remembers when it used to).
[+] [-] AnimalMuppet|7 years ago|reply
That may or may not be true. It has yet to be proven one way or the other.
Yes, in theory anti-ship cruise missiles can take out a carrier. A carrier in the middle of a battle group with all defenses running? Maybe... or maybe not.
Then, as others have pointed out, there are plenty of countries that don't have anti-ship cruise missiles, nor the data chain to target them properly. Against those countries, carriers still have a decisive edge.
[+] [-] philwelch|7 years ago|reply
Also, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers require a lot of specialized shipyard and drydock infrastructure that doesn't really pay off if you're only going to build one or two of them. That's why the Charles de Gaulle has been so expensive and why the Royal Navy didn't go nuclear with the QE class. So it only really makes sense, in an alliance, for one country to shoulder the particular burden of operating all the supercarriers. And of all the countries that aren't allied with us, Russia isn't going to waste time building supercarriers because they can't reach the open ocean in wartime anyway and China seems to be in the early stages of trying to do so themselves.
[+] [-] aurailious|7 years ago|reply
Which other countries have made the security commitments that the US has? Not only being a part of NATO, but commitments to Israel, Egypt, Japan, Korea, Australia, NZ, and so on. At a minimum the US needs an active carrier in both the Atlantic and Pacific, and usually two in the Pacific. To do that you need at another minimum twice that number to rotate ships out. Then for carriers you need more for life cycle and overhauls.
Plus its always quite disingenuous to compare the US to say a country like France. The size, population, economy, etc are in completely different categories.
[+] [-] moate|7 years ago|reply
They may not have the decisive edge they had 60+ years ago, but they still represent something. Having more carriers is indicative of the United States' willingness to be the biggest military superpower on the planet. It helps to secure economic power/influence. It helps to push their agenda.
Also, certain groups in the US (including the current president) would argue that the only reason other developed nations haven't engaged in this type of military building is because the US has done it and they've relied on that proxy strength.
[+] [-] ojbyrne|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krapp|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dustinmoorenet|7 years ago|reply