Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!military@att.att.com
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Are Aircraft Carriers Obsolete ?
Message-ID: <3350@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 23 Jan 89 02:24:56 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 90
Approved: military@att.att.com

Henry Spencer writes:

>Normal Friedman, in his book "Carrier Air Power" [I think], pointed out
>that carriers have a few vulnerabilities not normally understood.

I certainly bow to Mr. Friedman's opinion; having read several of his
books, I acknowledge his expertise in these matters.  Still, even experts
can make mistakes, and I question a few of these statements.

>First, it simply isn't true that it's impossible for a single hit to kill
>them, although it is arguably unlikely.  Almost anything that penetrates
>to their magazines will blow the whole carrier to shrapnel.  [...]
>The magazines are mostly underwater and are armored, but hit
>one and it's bye bye carrier.

How much armor ?  And how much is required to stop an antiship missile
that's already had to penetrate several bulkheads and travel many meters ?

Further, I question the stated effect for a magazine hit. Theatrics aside
(really. now, "blow the whole carrier to shrapnel ?"), it is not at all
uncommon for ships to survive magazine penetrations. Just to cite a 
couple of examples off the top of my head:

	During the Battle of North Cape, Scharnhorst's fore shellroom was
penetrated by Duke of York (14" shell).  No explosion occurred; the
shellroom was flooded as a precaution, and the crew worked in knee-deep
water, salvaging ammunition for the guns.

	While in port, one of Gneisenau's magazines was penetrated by
an aerial bomb, causing an explosion which lifted the turret off its
bearings, venting the blast. The ship was not in danger of sinking.

Certainly, between the world wars, the British Navy conducted controlled
tests, with the goal of designing magazines which would burn, rather than
explode.  Propellents and explosives, as a rule, will explode only if
initiated by a contact explosion, or confined; the trick is to be able to
vent the combustion gases away before they can build up pressure and
cause an explosion; and the British were quite successful with designing
such magazines.

The obvious counterexample is HMS Hood; while certainly relevant, let us
not forget that Hood was designed over 70 years ago.

I would think that even a missile penetration of modern carrier magazines
would not seal the doom of the ship; certainly, the resulting explosion
or fire would cripple her, but I doubt one such hit would sink the ship.
I would think that a much worse situation would arise from a hit to
the nuclear reactor area, contaminating the ship past habitability. Of
course, the reactors, being below the waterline, are not overly
susceptible to Exocet-type weapons.

>And third, carrier doctrine for dealing with chemical attack and nuclear
>fallout is to button up tight, get through the contaminated area, and
>then clean up and resume operations.  This was done because experiments
>with operating in protective clothing etc. had truly dismal results.
>Now, consider:  at least some persistent chemical agents are quite
>difficult to clean off metal surfaces.  One cruise missile armed with
>a spray tank instead of a warhead and the carrier is as good as sunk.

I seem to recall reading that Enterprise (and, presumably, all later
carriers) is equipped with a "hosedown" facility, to rinse the outside
of the ship with seawater; originally, the intent was for decontamination
following a nuclear attack.  I wonder if this can be used against
chemical agents (if it does, in fact, exist).

Of course, this implies an escalation to chemical warfare; while certainly
a scenario worth considering, let us not forget that all parties in
WWII (excepting, perhaps, the Japanese in Manchuria) refused to escalate
to chemical warfare, even in their darkest hours.

[and, from a separate article, but relevant here]

>Sea power *can* be safely ignored if you can expect to sink much of it
>in the first few days of a war.  Current US shipbuilding policy basically
>assumes that relatively few ships will be lost, at least in the crucial
>categories (carriers, Aegis cruisers), because too few of them are built
>to allow for major attrition.  It is insane to be vitally dependent on
>a resource which you can count on your fingers.

I'm not sure of your point; do you advocate increased numbers of
surface ships, or their abandonment ?  If the latter, I'm very interested
if you can suggest an alternate means for the US to support a war effort
in Europe.

-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  - 
Bill Thacker      moderator, sci.military      military@att.att.com

"War is a matter of vital importance to the State; the province of life
or death; the road to survival or ruin. It is mandatory that it be 
thoroughly studied."   -  Sun Tzu