The Navy's Sitting Ducks

[uawchild]

By
Tobin Harshaw
With Iran testing ballistic missiles, the Russian military bombing in Syria, war grinding on in Yemen and Islamic State as deadly as ever, it may seem like a very dangerous time for the U.S. to find itself without an aircraft carrier near the Persian Gulf. Actually, it’s very unlikely to be a problem, and it's a good occasion to reconsider the Navy’s plans to build a new fleet of superexpensive “supercarriers."

The Theodore Roosevelt carrier turned for home last week, and the Harry S. Truman won’t arrive until late this winter, a rotation planned by the Pentagon long ago. This is unusual, as the Navy usually has one or two carrier groups in the Gulf region. But the Navy is rethinking its rotations, and some gaps will result. Under the latest plan, the 10 U.S. nuclear carriers are on 36-month schedules, which include two deployments overseas of roughly seven months each. This gives them nearly two years in port for maintenance and renovation. This year, the Navy has had just two carriers out on station at a time, down from three or four, largely to save money.

Even so, this all costs a fortune. A carrier strike group can have more than 7,000 crew members, and in addition to the flattop and its 60-plus aircraft, it usually consists of at least three large warships (missile cruisers, destroyers and frigates), a fast-attack submarine and a host of smaller support craft. It costs about $6.5 million every day to keep the armada afloat. This is on top of the $4.5 billion each current Nimitz-class carrier cost to build, which now seems like a bargain compared to the next-generation Ford class, the first of which is coming in at nearly $13 billion. (The Navy plans to buy up to 10 of them.)

So what do we get for all the billions? The goal is a hyper-capable, multipurpose combat platform that can react to virtually any expected crisis. The reality, increasingly appears quite different: a lumbering white elephant that’s easy prey for a Chinese rocket or a terrorist in a motorboat.
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-10-22/aircraft-carriers-are-the-navy-s-sitting-ducks
_________________________

Well, that last line was a bit over the top. I don't think our aircraft carrier task forces have to worry about terrorists in motorboats.

================
edit added: Whoops spoke to soon there, maybe not terrorists, but read this:
"A Navy war game in 2002 that simulated a swarm attack by speedboats of the type Iran has in the Gulf had devastating results: 16 major warships would be destroyed, including one aircraft carrier. Anti-ship weaponry has only grown more potent since then."
================

But they do seem to be string ducks for the slew of ever more advanced anti-ship missiles being developed.

Aircraft carriers are now only effective against 2nd and 3rd tier militaries that lack advanced missile technology. Even then, militaries at Iran's developmental level are very close to being a threat to carriers also.

So, are aircraft carriers sitting ducks in a real shooting war, say, oh, with China? I think they are.

[Brother Buzz]

1. Paul K. Van Riper and Millennium Challenge 2002 demonstrated small moterboats were damn useful

In asymmetrical warfare, there isn't much difference between a dhow and a junk.

[uawchild]

2. good points!

I had to add an edit to the OP about just your point. Missed it from the article.

Yeah, what's that old adage about modern warfare? That's its all about dispersion on the battlefield now, because concentrated forces are too easy to destroy now.

[cloudbase]

3. If you're not in a submerged submarine you're a target.

I'm a former engineering officer aboard many targets.