07-19-2017, 04:34 PM
It may sound weird coming from an Army guy, but I have a ton of respect for our Navy. We need it, and we need it to be strong. When our country was first founded, one of the first things the Continental Congress did was call for the production of 5 frigates to form the base of our fleet. Because of our location and economic goals, having a strong fleet was always an economic priority. And so it continues today.
One of my favorite battles in history was the Battle of Midway, where our outnumbered fleet of carriers opened a can of whoop-ass on the Japanese. The more I read about it, the more I am awed by the steely determination of the admirals and airmen who went into that battle confident they would triumphant, despite knowing that the odds were against them in almost every way.
But that was 75 years ago. There are now questions about the future of aircraft carriers.
We currently have 21 aircraft carriers in our Navy: 11 CATOBAR and 10 STOL. CATOBAR is Catapult-Assisted Take-Off, Barrier-Assisted Recovery. These are the biggest aircraft carriers capable of holding and launching a large number and wide array of fixed-wing aircraft. They most resemble their smaller ancestors from WWII. Only 1 other country in the world (France) operates a CATOBAR (i.e. there are only 12 in the world and we have 11 of them).
STOL is Short Take-off and Landing. These carriers generally carry VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing) aircraft such as the Harrier jets, tiltoprop aircraft and helicopters. These types of aircraft are often inferior to fixed-wing aircraft in performance areas such as range, speed, payload, etc. We have 10 of these which are mostly used coordination with the Marine Corps and for anti-submarine operations. These types of aircraft carriers are cheaper to build and to operate and are more common throughout the world (France 3, England 2, India 1, Russia 2, Italy 2, Spain 1, Australia 2, Thailand 1, Japan 4, and South Korea 1), but they are also more limited in the types of operations and scope of the operations they can conduct.
Another type of carrier is the STOBAR. STOBAR is Short Take-Off, Barrier-Assisted Recovery. These carriers use a ramp to assist the aircraft to take off on a shorter deck than a CATOBAR. STOBAR carriers carry some smaller fixed-wing aircraft (generally fighter and attack aircraft), but are limited from carrying larger aircraft. Additionally, the number of aircraft they can carry is smaller than a CATOBAR carrier. The U.S. has no STOBAR carriers. The carrier acquired by China from Russia in recent years is a STOBAR carrier. Additionally, England and India eanch have 2 STOBAR carriers and Russia has 1.
CATOBAR carriers are expensive to build, maintain and operate. Additionally, a CATOBAR carrier requires a minimum support fleet of at least five surface-combat vessels and an attack submarine. The cost to operate a carrier group is around $2.5 million per day. However, the operating cost over the lifespan of the carrier (including overhauls and periodic upgrades) is $6.5 million per day (@$2.37 billion per year). This does not include acquisition costs ($6.2 to $12.8 billion). As noted above, we have 11 such carriers.
What do these large carriers do for us, you might ask. They provide us with the ability to plant one or more fully supplied airfields supporting air wings nearly anywhere in the world within hours. This capability protects our (and international) shipping lanes and commerce from interference. It also provides us and our allies with rapid air support to respond to any trouble areas in nearly everywhere in the world. The protection of world seaborne commerce alone is considered to offset acquisition and operating costs during peacetime.
The question at this time is, "What about wartime?". Most countries in the world are no threat to our carrier groups. There are exceptions. Nations with nuclear weapons capable of being placed upon missiles could be a threat. These would include: England, France, Russia, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan. North Korea is rapidly becoming a threat as their missile technology is improving at a very fast rate. England and France are our allies, so we don't worry about them too much. Also, we generally consider Israel an ally as well. India and Pakistan have not shown an inclination to point their nuclear weapons over water at this point (they prefer to point them at each other and at China).
Russia has drawn-down most of the Soviet-era navy and has limited its maritime power footprint dramatically during the past couple of decades (although there are recent signs that they may begin to rebuild some of their capabilities). They have ICBM's that are capable of taking out a carrier group in addition to conventional ground-to-ship and air-to-ship missiles capable of penetrating a carrier group's defense when launched en masse.
That leaves China, which has become our main concern as a potential maritime war opponent. China also has ICBM's in addition to conventional ground-to-ship and air-to-ship missiles. The development of their "East Wind" missiles in the 1990's has been of particular concern to U.S. naval strategists. The East Wind missile use a MaRV (Maneuverable Re-entry Vehicle) warhead capable of speeds exceeding mach 10, five time the speed of a typical bullet. Doctrine for using this missile is to saturate a target with multiple warheads. The target has to defeat all warheads, while the attacker only has to have one missile penetrate. The Chinese are believed to have several hundred of these missiles.
In addition to the threats posed by missiles, China and Russia are also able to field attack submarines and unmanned aerial vehicles to attack carrier groups.
What are your thoughts on the future of aircraft carriers?
One of my favorite battles in history was the Battle of Midway, where our outnumbered fleet of carriers opened a can of whoop-ass on the Japanese. The more I read about it, the more I am awed by the steely determination of the admirals and airmen who went into that battle confident they would triumphant, despite knowing that the odds were against them in almost every way.
But that was 75 years ago. There are now questions about the future of aircraft carriers.
We currently have 21 aircraft carriers in our Navy: 11 CATOBAR and 10 STOL. CATOBAR is Catapult-Assisted Take-Off, Barrier-Assisted Recovery. These are the biggest aircraft carriers capable of holding and launching a large number and wide array of fixed-wing aircraft. They most resemble their smaller ancestors from WWII. Only 1 other country in the world (France) operates a CATOBAR (i.e. there are only 12 in the world and we have 11 of them).
STOL is Short Take-off and Landing. These carriers generally carry VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing) aircraft such as the Harrier jets, tiltoprop aircraft and helicopters. These types of aircraft are often inferior to fixed-wing aircraft in performance areas such as range, speed, payload, etc. We have 10 of these which are mostly used coordination with the Marine Corps and for anti-submarine operations. These types of aircraft carriers are cheaper to build and to operate and are more common throughout the world (France 3, England 2, India 1, Russia 2, Italy 2, Spain 1, Australia 2, Thailand 1, Japan 4, and South Korea 1), but they are also more limited in the types of operations and scope of the operations they can conduct.
Another type of carrier is the STOBAR. STOBAR is Short Take-Off, Barrier-Assisted Recovery. These carriers use a ramp to assist the aircraft to take off on a shorter deck than a CATOBAR. STOBAR carriers carry some smaller fixed-wing aircraft (generally fighter and attack aircraft), but are limited from carrying larger aircraft. Additionally, the number of aircraft they can carry is smaller than a CATOBAR carrier. The U.S. has no STOBAR carriers. The carrier acquired by China from Russia in recent years is a STOBAR carrier. Additionally, England and India eanch have 2 STOBAR carriers and Russia has 1.
CATOBAR carriers are expensive to build, maintain and operate. Additionally, a CATOBAR carrier requires a minimum support fleet of at least five surface-combat vessels and an attack submarine. The cost to operate a carrier group is around $2.5 million per day. However, the operating cost over the lifespan of the carrier (including overhauls and periodic upgrades) is $6.5 million per day (@$2.37 billion per year). This does not include acquisition costs ($6.2 to $12.8 billion). As noted above, we have 11 such carriers.
What do these large carriers do for us, you might ask. They provide us with the ability to plant one or more fully supplied airfields supporting air wings nearly anywhere in the world within hours. This capability protects our (and international) shipping lanes and commerce from interference. It also provides us and our allies with rapid air support to respond to any trouble areas in nearly everywhere in the world. The protection of world seaborne commerce alone is considered to offset acquisition and operating costs during peacetime.
The question at this time is, "What about wartime?". Most countries in the world are no threat to our carrier groups. There are exceptions. Nations with nuclear weapons capable of being placed upon missiles could be a threat. These would include: England, France, Russia, China, Israel, India, and Pakistan. North Korea is rapidly becoming a threat as their missile technology is improving at a very fast rate. England and France are our allies, so we don't worry about them too much. Also, we generally consider Israel an ally as well. India and Pakistan have not shown an inclination to point their nuclear weapons over water at this point (they prefer to point them at each other and at China).
Russia has drawn-down most of the Soviet-era navy and has limited its maritime power footprint dramatically during the past couple of decades (although there are recent signs that they may begin to rebuild some of their capabilities). They have ICBM's that are capable of taking out a carrier group in addition to conventional ground-to-ship and air-to-ship missiles capable of penetrating a carrier group's defense when launched en masse.
That leaves China, which has become our main concern as a potential maritime war opponent. China also has ICBM's in addition to conventional ground-to-ship and air-to-ship missiles. The development of their "East Wind" missiles in the 1990's has been of particular concern to U.S. naval strategists. The East Wind missile use a MaRV (Maneuverable Re-entry Vehicle) warhead capable of speeds exceeding mach 10, five time the speed of a typical bullet. Doctrine for using this missile is to saturate a target with multiple warheads. The target has to defeat all warheads, while the attacker only has to have one missile penetrate. The Chinese are believed to have several hundred of these missiles.
In addition to the threats posed by missiles, China and Russia are also able to field attack submarines and unmanned aerial vehicles to attack carrier groups.
What are your thoughts on the future of aircraft carriers?
![[Image: 416686247_404249095282684_84217049823664...e=659A7198]](https://scontent.fphx1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/416686247_404249095282684_8421704982366424390_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=3635dc&_nc_ohc=p8hMrwwk1IoAX8mnFLJ&_nc_ht=scontent.fphx1-2.fna&oh=00_AfBXs4gKHr4knFejO874dfV3zzLd_bq4GiUqHxGWFlwbug&oe=659A7198)
