Special Report : Aircraft carriers, championed by Trump, are vulnerable to attack

[DonViejo]

Source: Reuters


Thu Mar 9, 2017 | 6:50am EST

By Scot Paltrow | WASHINGTON

Last week, President Donald J. Trump chose the deck of the newest U.S. aircraft carrier, the $13 billion USS Gerald R. Ford, for a speech extolling his planned boost in military spending.

Trump vowed that the newest generation of “Ford Class” carriers - the most expensive warships ever built - will remain the centerpiece of projecting American power abroad. “We're going to soon have more coming,” Trump told an enthusiastic audience of sailors, declaring the new carriers so big and solidly built that they were immune to attack.

Trump vowed to expand the number of carriers the United States fields from 10 to 12. And he promised to bring down the cost of building three “super-carriers,” which has ballooned by a third over the last decade from $27 to $36 billion. The Gerald R. Ford alone is $2.5 billion over budget and three years behind schedule, military officials say. The second Ford-class carrier, the John F. Kennedy, is running five years late.

Trump's expansion plans come as evidence mounts that potential enemies have built new anti-ship weapons able to destroy much of the United States’ expensive fleet of carriers. And as they have been for decades, carriers remain vulnerable to submarines.

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-carriers-specialreport-idUSKBN16G1CZ

[truebluegreen]

1. I'm not sure why this needed a special report.

Seems to me carriers became obsolete with the advent of cruise missiles. Shouldn't have needed Trump's advocacy to make that apparent.

[Adrahil]

8. cruise missiles did not make carriers obsolete... not even close.

The greatest threat to carriers is, and has been since the 60's, submarines.

[truebluegreen]

19. What's the defense against a cruise missile?

Or is the only issue--to date--who has them and who doesn't?

btw, didn't they have submarines prior to the 60's? (that was a rhetorical question). If so, why are they "the greatest threat" now, but not before?

[Adrahil]

20. Cruise missiles have existed since the 80's....

The Close-In Weapons Systems (sometimes called c-wiz, or Phalanx) was developed as a an anti-cruise missile defensive system. It uses a background noise rejecting radar.

In addition, newer updates to the AEGIS radar system can see low level radar targets, and can link in targets from airborne downward-looking radar platforms. AEGIS ships have engaged and destroyed cruise missiles in multiple tests. AEGIS ships are always part of Carrier Battle Groups.

[jpak]

22. A US destroyer recently shot down numerous Chinese/Iranian antiship cruise missiles off Yemem

They supposedly had only 15 seconds to engage them.

[7962]

25. Phalanx is really amazing. nt

[NickB79]

31. The threat is next-generation supersonic and hypersonic missile systems

Cruise missiles typically travel at subsonic speeds, while the newest Russian and Chinese anti-ship missiles can cruise at upwards of Mach 3.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a20565/russia-hypersonic-missiles-battlecruisers/

The Russian Navy will start sending so-called hypersonic missiles to sea as early as 2022. Capable of flying five to six times the speed of sound, the missiles will be carried by both aging battlecruisers and brand-new submarines, giving each the ability to quickly kill enemy ships.

Currently in advanced stages of development, the Zircon anti-ship missile is capable of flying at hypersonic speeds, between 3,800 to 4,600 miles an hour. That's fast enough to travel from San Francisco to Washington, D.C. in just over thirty minutes.

According to Moscow's state press, Zircon is undergoing land-based testing and and is planned to enter production in 2018. Zircon almost certainly builds upon Russian know-how in hypersonics, learned during the the joint development of the Russian-Indian BrahMos hypersonic anti-ship missile. Brahmos has a maximum speed of Mach 2.8 and a range of about 180 miles.

A missile traveling at this speed makes current anti-missile defenses almost worthless, as the weapons simply won't have time to detect, target and engage before the missile impacts.

[FogerRox]

41. Mach 3 cruise missiles go back 30+ years

The Soviet Sunburn dates from the early 1980's and is mach 3.

[Jimbo101]

2. Remember the Gulf War - when Sadaam was expecting -

us to show up with WW2 type fighting equipment?

[Submariner]

3. That's why Russia has nuclear tipped torpedoes like our submarines do

Last edited Thu Mar 9, 2017, 10:30 PM - Edit history (1)

They are non-contact torpedoes. They move through deep water up to 80 knots in speed and go off when they are under the carrier, or any other ship, and send the ship up in a mushroom cloud rather than punching a hole in the side below the waterline.

So if the carrier task force (guided missile destroyers, cruisers, and fast attack submarines) does not intercept the enemy ship, submarine or plane carrying the nuclear-tipped fish, then it is bye bye to billions of dollars in naval hardware and people.

[lapfog_1]

5. Yup.

They are only effective against non-nuclear nations (most of whom don't have much of a military anyway).

I suspect the Navy wants them because 1) Admirals always want to command a fleet, and 2) the Navy expects Trump to piss off so many allies that we will depend on aircraft carriers for projecting air power over small regional conflicts.

Long range drones are much cheaper to do #2.

[C_U_L8R]

4. Sitting ducks

Or like Trumps wall, a big old turkey.

[Flaleftist]

6. Yes, but they do make defense contractors a lot of money .

[gordianot]

7. The battleship was replaced by the carrier in World War II.

Even before the end of World War II the submarine threat to carriers was being realized. Nuclear weapons rendered the carrier obsolete 50 years ago as a capital weapon platform. Idiot Trump destroying the State department is the gold standard of what happens when a rank amateur gets power.

[Adrahil]

10. Nuclear weapons make carriers obsolete ONLY in the event of nuclear exchange.

If nukes are flying, there's a whole lot of stuff going up in smoke.

OTOH, carriers can, and do provide the ability to project air power in low intensity conflicts like nothing else does. That's why both Russia and China WANT carriers.

[gordianot]

14. Everyone wants to project power.

Which makes it more likely you risk an exchange of nuclear weapons when you loose assets.

[Adrahil]

16. That's a different argument...

The wisdom of using such an asset is different from its utility.

[packman]

9. Seems like this is old news -

Aircraft carriers are floating targets for sea-skimming missiles. The Chinese are reported to have a missile that is virtually unstoppable which flies just a few feet above the water and is designed specifically to take out large craft.

A bit of history about the Exocet , a now dated missile with just such a purpose:

" (in)1982, during the Falklands War, the Exocet became noted worldwide when Argentine Navy Dassault-Breguet Super Étendard warplanes carrying the AM39 Air Launched version of the Exocet caused irreparable damage which sank the Royal Navy destroyer HMS Sheffield on 4 May 1982. Two Exocets then struck the 15,000 ton merchant ship Atlantic Conveyor on 25 May"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exocet

But for a projection of power - it's hard to top a carrier

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3ufligJMyP4/ToN3-Axa5OI/AAAAAAAAR7c/aNS-ggIziiQ/s1600/Aircraft+carrier.jpg

[Adrahil]

11. Surface skimmers are not the real threat to carriers.

hypervelocity missiles and submarines are.

And don't believe the hype about "unstoppable" cruise missiles.

[FogerRox]

42. Sub launched Sunburn

at mach 3 can screw your day up.

[7962]

26. Dont forget, carriers are ringed by many other support vessels.

They have to get past them as well

[machoneman]

40. We could counter....

the threat by building 2-3 times as many carriers using a concept from WWII. Jeep, CVE, escort or non-fleet carriers, much smaller, cheap to build and only holding say 20-25 jets, some being the Harrier jump jet types. By dispersing the air squadrons among far more ships, the idea counters the fact that a super carrier can be rendered useless if not outright sunk from just a few hits.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escort_carrier

But oh no, the Navy brass would never stand for it. Just like the Air Force brass is fighting the use of armed drones, meaning far fewer pilots, real airplanes, etc. It's all about maintaining power, not over our adversaries, but the power to command legions of men and women in uniform. Sad!

[DK504]

12. If Russia can hack into every dept.

in our government, nothing with stop them from hacking into the communication on board our ships or planes.

[Vermijelli]

13. Trump is stupid to say immune but

Citing war games played under unknown rules and conditions? Heh.

And you don't just fire a bunch of missiles like in the movies; there is a whole kill chain to execute. Horrors await those who think this would be easy. And still more horrors if they nuke the carrier.

[Bengus81]

15. Ridiculous costs..........

We have 10 but TWO more would make us safe?? BS,we're safe NOW and $72B could go toward people who aren't going to die from some old worn out "commie threat" but the real THREAT of no health care.

[Ray Bruns]

17. Having served in the navy and have been an engineer in the naval defense industry for twenty years -

I would like to clear some things up.

1) All naval ships are vulnerable. Aircraft carriers are no more vulnerable than cruisers, destroyers, submarines, or amphibious ships.

2)Because all ships are vulnerable (no such thing as an unsinkable ship, e.g. Titanic), we spend many hours training crews on damage control (See USS Cole) and operating ships.

3) Aircraft carriers have a high upfront cost, but last 50 years (or longer if circumstances require). So we get plenty bang for our buck.

4) The only reason the Gerald R. Ford was so expensive, is that it was a new hull with some very new technology. Having been an electrical engineer for many years, it is very difficult to do something new without some teething problems. Most of these are solved, but takes time and money -especially with the specifications for military equipment.

5) Finally, trumps military expansion plan is a croc. We spend as much as the next 15 nations combined. And that doesn't add in the Overseas Contingency money we spend. There really is no country who can oppose us. That, and his stupid wall is nothing but a boondoggle that will blow up the deficit, which will somehow be blamed on the democrats. More butter, less guns.

[OnlinePoker]

18. An example of the future USS Trump

http://history.vineyard.net/photos//vh2/V20102.HTM

[jpak]

21. China, Russia, Iran and India have or developing hypersonic cruise and ballistic anti-ship missiles

They are real threat to our carriers.

We have no similar weapons.

[Blue_Tires]

23. Wait... what?

1. We have our own subs to hunt down enemy subs

2. The aircraft from the carrier are supposed to be able to neutralize any anti-ship threat from land or air long before it gets in range

These aren't any "new" vulnerabilities, these are the same ones that have been around for decades...

[sarisataka]

24. For being so vulnerable

it is surprising to find the last aircraft carrier sunk in combat is the IJN Amagi in July of 1945.

In all of the post WW 2 conflicts that have had aircraft carriers involved, I do not believe any carrier has been damaged by enemy action.

[Blue_Tires]

39. Yeah, but some were sunk in war games

which is supposedly all that matters, and why this is such a shit piece from Reuters, who should know better...

If folks want to argue that the aircraft carrier is strategically unfit for the "war of tomorrow", fine... But they shouldn't pretend that its long-known inherent limitations are breaking news or something since EVERY weapons system has drawbacks and compromises to protect against...

[DonCoquixote]

27. oif we are goign to buy ships

why the hell do we not focus on submarines? They can defend, attack, and most imprtantly , deal witht e subs china has made.

[truthisfreedom]

28. Magical thinking Alzheimer's patient

[Calista241]

29. They're effective in the types of war we've been fighting for the last 16 years.

Low tech countries like Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Afghanistan are particularly vulnerable to air power that a carrier can deliver with great efficiency.

Against a major power like Russia or China, they will be much less effective.

[Baclava]

30. Aircraft carriers don't travel alone! Go ahead and try to attack one - go ahead.

yeah, that's what I thought

An aircraft carrier battle group is one of the most secure entities on the planet

I've read this stupid shit for decades. It's vulnerabilities are well known, have been for 60 years. Any nation that wants to try to sink a carrier better be ready for the consequences, you have started WWIII.

[Thor_MN]

32. "declaring the new carriers so big and solidly built that they were immune to attack."

If you see someone making an absolute statement, they are generally ignorant assholes.

[Baclava]

33. Nothing is immune to attack, but there are countermeasures

USS Nimitz Fifth Carrier Armed with Anti-Torpedo Weapon

ARLINGTON, Va. — Nimitz is the Navy’s fifth carrier to have the Anti-Torpedo-Defense System installed. The system includes the Torpedo Warning System, an acoustic sensor that detects an incoming torpedo; a tactical control station; and the Countermeasure Anti-Torpedo (CAT). The CAT, a small torpedo designed to intercept an incoming torpedo, was developed by Pennsylvania State University’s Applied Research Lab.



The anti-torpedo defense system was one of several improvements added to the ship, including two Mk38 25mm guns and the Consolidated Afloat Network Enterprise Services system, according to an Oct. 5 Navy release announcing the Nimitz’s commencement of sea trials following a 20-month Extended Planned Incremental Availability at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, Wash.

The overall SSTD system, which consists of a sensor, processor and small interceptor missile, is a first-of-its-kind "hard kill" countermeasure for ships and carriers designed to defeat torpedoes, Navy officials said.

The emerging Surface Ship Torpedo Defense technology includes the Anti-Torpedo Defense System, or ATTDS and an SLQ-25 Acoustic Device Countermeasure; the ATTDS consists of a Countermeasure Anti-Torpedo program and Torpedo Warning System.

http://www.chinatopix.com/articles/103685/20161016/uss-nimitz-becomes-fifth-navy-carrier-armed-anti-torpedo-system.htm

[Thor_MN]

34. Nope, according to Trump, they are immune to attack.

Nothing can touch them.

OR...

Might could be that he is an ignorant asshole.

[Baclava]

36. I meant in the world of reality

He's an idiot

[Thor_MN]

37. Did you even read what I posted?

Reality has little relation to Trump's world.

[TheDebbieDee]

35. Marking so I can find later...

I was Army but my brother was Navy. He told me that every air craft carrier is protected by a carrier group of ships that include destroyers, frigates, supply ships and at least one submarine...

He told me that these carriers are vulnerable unless their air craft is in the air.

All these other ships are there to protect the air craft carrier til it gets its birds in the air... Then the birds defend the carrier group from the air...

[Bernardo de La Paz]

38. Дональд Трамп (Donald Trump) is smarter than all the Generals (and Admirals). He said so himself. nt