• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

U.S. aircraft carriers’ ‘unchallenged primacy may be coming to a close’

cupper

Army.ca Veteran
Inactive
Reaction score
3
Points
430
Report: U.S. aircraft carriers’ ‘unchallenged primacy may be coming to a close’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/02/22/report-u-s-aircraft-carriers-unchallenged-primacy-may-be-coming-to-a-close/?hpid=hp_rhp-more-top-stories_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

The United States’ aircraft carriers have always been an almost untouchable deterrent, steel behemoths capable of projecting the full weight of the U.S. military wherever they deploy. Yet while many militaries could never hope to match the U.S. carrier fleet in size and strength, countries such as China, Iran and Russia have spent recent years adjusting their forces and fielding equipment designed to counter one of the United States’ greatest military strengths.

A report published Monday by the Center for a New American Security, a D.C.-based think tank that focuses on national security, claims that the Navy’s carrier operations are at an inflection point. Faced with growing threats abroad, the United States can either “operate its carriers at ever-increasing ranges … or assume high levels of risk in both blood and treasure.”

The report, titled “Red Alert: The Growing Threat to U.S. Aircraft Carriers,” focuses on China’s burgeoning military posture in the Pacific and on a term that is starting to appear with increasing urgency in defense circles: anti-access/area denial, or A2/AD. The term A2/AD refers to a concept that has long existed in warfare: denying the enemy the ability to move around the battlefield. Currently A2/AD strategy is much the same as it was when moats were dug around castles, except that today’s moats are an integrated system of surface-to-air missiles, anti-ship cruise missiles, submarines, surface ships and aircraft — all designed to push enemy forces as far away as possible from strategically important areas.

The report highlights China’s capabilities because of its “emphasis on long-range anti-ship missile procurement.” This, coupled with its growing tech base, qualifies China as the “pacing threat” to the U.S. military. China, however, is not the sole architect of an A2/AD strategy designed to deter U.S. operations. In the Baltic, Russia’s naval base in Kaliningrad is known to house a sophisticated air defense network and anti-ship missiles. NATO commanders also have warned of Russian A2/AD buildup around Syria, as Russia has moved advanced surface-to-air missiles into its airbase there as well as a flotilla of ships with robust anti-air capabilities.

As other countries focus on creating sophisticated A2/AD bubbles by using new technology such as drones, advanced missiles and newer aircraft, the United States — by operating as it always has — is putting itself more at risk. According to the report, this is particularly relevant as carrier groups have reduced their long-range strike ability in favor of being able to fly more air missions but at shorter ranges.

“Operating the carrier in the face of increasingly lethal and precise munitions will thus require the United States to expose a multi-billion dollar asset to high levels of risk in the event of a conflict,” the report says. “An adversary with A2/AD capabilities would likely launch a saturation attack against the carrier from a variety of platforms and directions. Such an attack would be difficult — if not impossible — to defend against.”

Last week, China’s A2/AD strategy made international news after satellite imagery showed the deployment of HQ-9 surface-to-air missiles on Woody Island, a disputed atoll in the South China Sea. Though small, the island is claimed by both Taiwan and Vietnam. The CNAS report classifies the HQ-9 as a short-range A2/AD threat but indicates that the movement of such systems into disputed territory in the South China Sea, if properly reinforced, is a potentially long-term problem for U.S. naval operations. Medium and long-range threats discussed in the report include land-based Chinese bombers and anti-ship ballistic missiles such as the DF-21D and DF-26. The two missiles “represent a significant threat to the carrier,” with an estimated range of 810 and 1,620 nautical miles, respectively. According to the report, if the DF-26 is as operational and as accurate as the Chinese say it is, the missile would be able to hit the U.S. territory of Guam.

While the report discusses possible countermeasures for a sophisticated A2/AD network, including the Navy’s future rail gun project, the United States probably would employ a variety of systems and strategies, including hacking, to defeat the enemy threat. However, long-term strategies suggested in the report include putting U.S. combat power into systems such as submarines and long-range carrier-based drones. Submarines could evade A2/AD by remaining undetected, while carrier-based drones — with their increased range — would give carriers much-needed standoff from potential A2/AD threats.

The United States “must re-examine the relevance of the carrier and its air wing and explore innovative options for future operations and force structure,” the report concludes. “If the United States is to maintain its military superiority well into the future, it cannot afford to do otherwise.”

Report can be found here:  http://www.cnas.org/growing-threat-to-us-aircraft-carriers#.VsvH1EuRtC0
 
No question that the carrier is a priority target,but getting one is beyond the ability of most potential adversaries to accomplish.The ship has layers of defense provided by its escort.An attack on one by China or Russia would be an act of war.Maybe North Korea will try it one day,but I doubt it.
 
I'm with T6 on this one.

First of all, the Centre for a new American Security has always tried to play on the emotions of Americans  to push for always more military, usually by overstating the threat and understating the corresponding capabilities. You must take any of their report with a grain of salt, as they say.

Second, the "threat" of A2/AD to CVBG (Carrier battle group) is not new, it has existed ever since the end of WWII. In the 60's, 70's and 80's, it was from Badger regimental attacks with saturation missile attacks attacks from submarines in support. Nowadays it is from shore based large missile batteries. So what !

The early Nimitz class ships, like Nimitz herself, Eisenhower and so forth, may be in their early forties and nearer the end of their service, but their self protection capabilities, alone or with their CVBG, bear no resemblance whatsoever with their former selves of forty years ago. It is so much better now that a current Nimitz would beat its former self flat out.

The threat has changed, and increased some in that China was not a player 40 years ago, but the capabilities have more than kept up.

So what me worry  :)
 
I agree with T6 and OGBD, with one caveat (whic is not a new situation, it has existed ever since carriers became the center of the USN's capability to project power in the late 40s):

The existence of a credible threat against the CSG (Carrier Strike Group, used to be CVBG, Carrier Battle Group) may make the risk to the carrier too great and force it to operate farther out.  The farther out you get the harder it is to carry out strike (sortie rates go down due to transit times, etc).

Hasn't really happened yet though... it would be interesting to see how China and the US would posture over either Taiwan or the South China Sea as tensions rose and the acceptance of risk went up.  Hopefully either of those would remain a theoritical discussion...
 
Tanks have also been ready to be displaced as "Queen of the Battlefield" since about 1917 or so. Like everything else, there is a constant struggle between offense and defence, and it takes an exceptional change to totally displace a military system. Displaceing knights from the battlefield required the "Infantry Revolution", which included largte scale changes in society to allow for organized bodies of men outside of the traditional feudal system, weapons which could allow people with limited training to effectively engage knights and fully armoured men at arms, and tactics which maximized the advantages and masked the disadvantages of large bodies of reatively untrained men using effective weapons against the armoured feudal warriors.

While AA/AD systems are obviously a challenge to carriers and battle groups, they really don't meet the sorts of conditions that created the Infantry Revolution. Of course an even simpler counter argument is simply this: if the age of carriers is ending, why are the Chinese, Indians, Japanese and British busy building new carriers? Do they know something we don't?
 
Why do carriers and tanks exist?  IMHO it is to put rounds on target on time. 

Tanks were invented to move the guns into range of the targets while being shot at.
Carriers were invented to move islands, from which aircraft could be launched, into range of the targets.

Are there effective alternatives that have been developed since 1919?
 
Chris Pook said:
Why do carriers and tanks exist?  IMHO it is to put rounds on target on time. 

Tanks were invented to move the guns into range of the targets while being shot at.
Carriers were invented to move islands, from which aircraft could be launched, into range of the targets.

Are there effective alternatives that have been developed since 1919?

When I was in public school circa 1950 I read a book published in 1943 called something like Victory Through Airpower. The author argued convincingly that aircraft carriers were vulnerable and any attempt to use them in the Pacific was doomed to failure as the Japanese land-based aircraft were superior in performance to American carrier aviation.

One might add that people have been arguing for almost as long that the tank was obsolete, and they were in full voice after the 1973 Yom Kippur War.

The short answer to CP's question above is not so much. The longer answer is if you attempt to use either unsupported and not as part of a balanced force, then they are vulnerable to all sorts of counter-measures.
 
Thucydides said:
Tanks have also been ready to be displaced as "Queen of the Battlefield" since about 1917 or so. Like everything else, there is a constant struggle between offense and defence, and it takes an exceptional change to totally displace a military system. Displaceing knights from the battlefield required the "Infantry Revolution", which included largte scale changes in society to allow for organized bodies of men outside of the traditional feudal system, weapons which could allow people with limited training to effectively engage knights and fully armoured men at arms, and tactics which maximized the advantages and masked the disadvantages of large bodies of reatively untrained men using effective weapons against the armoured feudal warriors.

While AA/AD systems are obviously a challenge to carriers and battle groups, they really don't meet the sorts of conditions that created the Infantry Revolution. Of course an even simpler counter argument is simply this: if the age of carriers is ending, why are the Chinese, Indians, Japanese and British busy building new carriers? Do they know something we don't?

Armoured are considered the King of the Battlefield and Infantry the Queen, and,no, I'm not being sarcastic. The 'Royal' pair has always been thus, working as a team.

 
Anti-Access Area Denial (A2AD) is certainly in vogue, and some are arguing that it is changing warfare. I am not sure about that, but it is certainly an important topic. Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBMs) do look like quite the threat to aircraft carriers. I think that a bigger threat to the carriers, though, is interservice budget rivalry!

The paper recommends longer-range strike aircraft. OK - hard to argue in favour of shorter range aircraft but I don't know if its that simple.  The second recommendation is to use sub-surface vessels. Interesting, but what are they trying to do in the Chinese scenario? Launch strikes? If all the USN carriers were going to do was launch airstrikes against ground targets then don't use them if the ASBM threat is too high. There are other ways strike targets. Something that carriers can do that no other system really can is to establish air superiority to allow you to use the sea for something like inserting/supporting ground troops or getting something through an area. 

I recently read a RAND paper by Gordon and Matsumura on A2AD from a more Army perspective. It looked at A2AD and sought ways for the Army to help the Navy and Airforce deal with these challenges. The paper examined irregular adversaries, hybrid adversaries and state adversaries. Within that, of course, the capabilities of states are also widely varied. The threat from, lets say Iran, will be different than that of China for instance. The threat examined in the RAND paper was much more nuanced and realistic than the rather apocalyptic war with China apparently assumed in the original article.

I trust that the USN and indeed the US military writ large is looking at A2AD very seriously, and I wouldn't trade in the carriers for submarines just yet. 
 
recceguy said:
Armoured are considered the King of the Battlefield and Infantry the Queen, and,no, I'm not being sarcastic. The 'Royal' pair has always been thus, working as a team.

You spelled artillery wrong...

http://militaryringinfo.com/service-ring/military/449-who-is-the-king-of-battle/
 
Back
Top