Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!att!cbnews!ugthomps@cs.buffalo.edu
From: ugthomps@cs.buffalo.edu (Gregory Thompson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Are Aircraft Carriers Obsolete?
Message-ID: <3289@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 20 Jan 89 05:06:59 GMT
References: <3200@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science
Lines: 108
Approved: military@att.att.com


In article <3200@cbnews.ATT.COM> mmm@cup.portal.com writes:
>What is the reason for having aircraft carriers?  Aren't they a total waste
>of money?
>
Nope.  Aircraft carriers are an exceptional means of power projection.
85% of the world's land mass area is reachable by carrier based attack craft.
They are highly mobile, fast, and difficult to track with an experienced
crew on board.  Witness the test done recently where an american carrier
attempted to go from California to Australia undetected; the carrier made it
without being detected. 

>In a global conflict, the aircraft carriers would all be destroyed immediately
>by missiles.  A missile costs a lot less than an aircraft carrier.
>

Not necessarily.  A carrier will almost never be found without a large number
of escorting ships.  A common carrier group consists of Frigates on the
outer edges of the group (sometimes 100's of nm's away) These act as missile
& sub catchers (primarily sub catchers).  The next line consists of destroyers.
These are also primarily sub catchers, though with an increased role with
relation to the air combat situation.  The next line now a days usually has
an Aegis cruiser and another cruiser.  Though in some configurations, it might
consist of an "ayatollah" class DDG (ala USS Kidd).  (I've never operated 
with a carrier group, so I wouldn't mind any corrections on this)  The 
possibility of a submarine or a missile getting through these defenses
is quite limited.  Granted it CAN happen but the chances are not that
great.  Even if a missile did get through, the damage it would do to a
Nimitz class (for example) would not be very great. 

>In a conflict against an industrialized nation, like Argentina, capital ships
>must stay far away to avoid being hit by a Silkworm or an Exocet or even a
>torpedo.
>
See above.  Again the chances are not that great.  

>Only in a conflict with a third-world nation, like Lebanon or Libya, can 
>sea power have any effect.  And the same effect can be provided by long-range
>land-based bombers.  In the [attack against Libya], our land-
>based bombers actually had enough range to detour around the Iberian
>peninsula and fly over the Strait of Gibraltar!
>

You can not project power continuously using land based craft in many 
situations.  The amount of time that a plane could stay on station would
be limited in many circumstances were it land based.  Carriers provide an
air superiority factor that not only can NOT be ignored, it MUST be dealt 
with.  A land attack using air support can not depend on air bases that
are near the limit of the range of land based planes.  Response time is slow,
air time over target is limited, pilots are worn out from longs flights,
the overall situation is very bad when the air bases are fairly removed
from the front. 

>Aren't capital ships and carrier battle groups as obsolete as horse cavalry?
>Don't people remember HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales?  How about 
>HMS Sheffield and Gen. Belgrano?  Do you actually have to send an AEGIS ship
>to the bottom in order to prove sea power obsolete?  Or would even that
>be enough?

Don't you remember World War II?  Pearl Harbor.  Marianas turkey shoot.
Midway.  There are many more that I am sure you remember as well.  So many
battles in which the presence of carriers was crucial to the outcome of
the battle.  

I realise your point is in the modern sense.  However, before I touch on
that I want to go on a bit further in an "older" sense.  Tactics are tactics.
Many tactics in use today are based on hard learned lessons from
decades, even centuries ago.  West Point people study maps of battles from
even the revolutionary war and before.  Why?  Because tactics VERY rarely die. 
Carriers are a weapon.  Tactics have been developed to use them most 
effectively.  They are still VERY capable of fulfilling the mission they
were designed for.  

The coming of the missile changes the tactical situation relevant to a
carrier, what is done?  Phalanx CIWS system.  This system is capable of
firing 3000 depleted uranium rounds per minute.  It is entirely self automated.
Once turned on, it will take anything out of the air that it locks
on to.  It asseses threats by proximity and speed relative to the platform.
This is only the very last defense the carriers have.  There are far more
lines as stated above, and all the platforms stated above also carry
CIWS, as well as many other anti-missile mechanisms.  While these mechanisms
and the tactics used to make them most beneficial against missiles do not
remove the threat of a missile attack on a carrier, they reduce it enough
to make the role of carriers a very viable one. 

In any war in which sea power has played a role, ships have been sunk. 
In the next war (god forbid), AEGIS equipped ships will go to the bottom
as well.  This is a fact of war.  One ships or several going to the
bottom will not change the fact that sea power is something that can
not be ignored.  Dominance of the seas by this nation is not only critical
in a war time situation, it is necessary.  No projection of power can be 
achieved without sea power.  No armies can be moved across an ocean. 
No large quantities of ordinance and equipment can be moved across an ocean.
And none of these can get across that ocean without protection, protection that
land based craft simply can not provide in this day and age. 

[I realise this was not said...but...]  Carriers are not sitting ducks.
Carriers are among the fastest ships in the fleet, and one of them in
particular is probably *the* fastest ship in the fleet not counting PHMs.

If the logic of the United States and allies is skewed in building carriers,
then the logic of the Russians is also skewed, for they are at this time
building 8 new nuclear carriers. 

[pant pant pant....didn't realise this would be this long!]

                         - G