Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!xanth!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!esco%tank.uchicago.edu@oddjob.uchicago.edu From: esco%tank.uchicago.edu@oddjob.uchicago.edu (ross paul weiner) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Are Aircraft Carriers Obsolete? Summary: Peacetime ops simulate combat Message-ID: <3405@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 24 Jan 89 02:50:33 GMT References: <3331@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: University of Chicago Computation Center Lines: 150 Approved: military@att.att.com >Land-based air advocates have claimed the death of the navy since airpower >started (Gen. William "Billy" Mitchell, for instance, during and just after >World War I.) Naval airpower has proved itself time and again to be better >because: 1) it is there (land-based planes take hours to arrive at the battle >scene when called; compare this with the ready-5 aircraft on a carrier, ready >to be on-station within five minutes); 2) it can stay there (an F-15 at the end >of its range might have only a 5-minute limit on how long it can engage; the >F-14 launched from a carrier deck can stay over the carrier for 2.5 hours or >until its weapons require reloading, whichever happens first); and 3) it is >more efficient in terms of aircraft to provide fleet cover (a carrier-based >aircraft which spends three hours over the battle group would have to be replaced >by three land-based planes which required two hours to get to the battle group >and each supplied only one hour's cover.) Combine all these together and it >is clear that the carrier-based aircraft can provide more planes over the group >for a longer time when they are needed than can a comparable number of land-based >aircraft. It is valid to ask if the technological edge is shifting to land power or at least land based airpower. The endurance of landbased aircraft has increased so dramatically over the last 30 years that we may question how to most efficiently keep a large volume of ordnance available say 1000-1500 miles from a land based airfields, with numerous relatively-no flames please- low payload and low endurance carrier based air (SA-3, A-6, F-14) or control the same 10,000 sq nm with fewer heavy land based craft (P-3, B-52). And for air control could a Phoenix follow on be hung from a similar low cost heavy platform- 747 et al. When teamed with the superior land based AWACS could this supply better open ocean air control than F-14s and E3s? I'm not claiming I buy this argument but it is just the type of question this newsgroup should examine. I know the carrier based equipment is good but the platform is expensive compared to an airfield. For some locations distance or political constraints may favor sea based airpower, for the Atlantic merchant escort role, the most important naval mission in the event of a General War , land based air may have the edge. The question is how many carriers? 14-20 can only be justified if they are a relatively better investment than the alter- native., and I believe in 6.5% of GNP for peacetime defense budgets, other critics would give a harder time. >The question then is, how long can a carrier survive in combat? Agreed. >Let's rule out the use of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons will most certainly >spell the end of any surface force, so I will grant that naval forces are >useless in a nuclear war. But then again, so is everything that has ever existed, >so it becomes a moot point. Agreed, but this sharpens my point that since Naval power is most useful in limited war, and granting that there has been -thank god- no Unlimited War (the plural is impossible) our first priority in allocating resources must be detering a General War, how much NavAir do we need? >The Soviet Union poses essentially two major threats on the US Navy: the >nuclear attack submarines and combined missile-air strikes. As far as the >submarines go, the US Navy has frigates, aircraft (helos and fixed-wing), >and other submarines to counter these. Whether all this will be effective or not >in actual combat is not known. But since we have already noted that the job is protecting the SLOCs, the sinews of war, the merchants, the question is begged whether this can best be done with sea based or land based air, protecting the Navy per se is secondary. I agree with most of what you say about subs but it is still probably more efficient to use submarines and P-3s in the ASW role wherever possible, they don't have to be protected against Backfires. >In the Falklands, the British had a severe disadvantage against the >Argentine air attacks in that they had little early warning of air attacks. >Ships set out between the mainland and the Falklands to act as radar pickets >came under heavy attack, the same as the radar pickets used at the end of >Word War II by the US Navy. Their small carriers could not carry any sort of >AWACS aircraft and their closest land base was too far away for any land-based >air-search aircraft. The US Navy carries its AWACS aircraft with them, allowing >both the early warning of an air attack and the possibility of coordinating >the response to that attack. I agree the British could use two or three real carriers, and our LHD/LHA ships are more flexible than their mini-carriers. The possibility of hanging the E-3 radar and the S-3 package on platforms like the V-22 Osprey means that in the future the utility of non big carrier battle groups will probably increase. The use of airships to provide aircontrol for surface naval groups, and Coast Guard surveillance is an exciting new technology. Our navy has made good progress in learning to cooperate with land based air. The biggest problem in integrating catapult air, other naval assets, and land based air is the unionization problem that afflicts all military beauracracies. This should not be the focus of this group so lets keep responses down to a dull roar, I'm just saying it is a problem. If the other guy can do the job, good. > If not, there is still some question about how badly damaged the >battle group will be. As Bill Thacker said, the carriers will be able to >sustain some level of damage. How much? I don't know. The Navy doesn't know. The >Soviets don't know. I'm hoping there will never be an experiment under actual >combat conditions carried out between the two forces. As Dunnigan pointed out in one of his delightful books, Aircraft Carriers are the singular military platform that does simulate battle damage. Planes do crash with affects that can be compared to hostile action. We should be able to make a shrewd guess as to what would happen in a real war. >Note also that what has been proved by these incidents is that the Exocet >seems to work fine against ships which do not have or are not operating their >Close-In Weapons Systems (CIWS). CIWS is better than having the mess cranks throw spuds but it is a last ditch defense. Also what is important is the ability to interdict and destroy the enemy, if you can do that you won't have to worry about shooting his incoming bullets. >One last note, on the revival of the battleships. I generally agree, the BBs are a gift from the past and a bargain. However I assume that any war with the Soviets will probably turn nuclear. The survivability of the BBs against the Soviet arsenal is probably moot. For a conflict with Libya a BB and one CG plus a few FFGs may make the point better than a carrier battlegroup. >>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 assassination attempt against Khadaffi, our land- >>based bombers actually had enough range to detour around the Iberian >>peninsula and fly over the Strait of Gibraltar! > >This is false on its face. To counter the US Navy, the Soviets have built one >of the most powerful blue-water fleets that ever existed. Rather than relying >on just their attack submarines, they are building super-carriers. Rather than >building hordes of small missile boats, they have been building large missile >cruisers and missile destroyers. In other words, they are building a navy that >is very much like the US Navy in its composition and mix of ship types. > >Now, if a nation with a strong maritime tradition, such as the US, France, or >Britain were expanding their fleet, we could claim that they were letting >past glories blind them to the realities of naval warfare. But the USSR is >not a long-time naval power. Their best-known naval adventure ended in an >inglorious defeat at the hands of the Japanese in 1902. Yet, a nation who >has traditionally depended upon their strong land army and land-based air force >spent the better part of the last two decades building a blue-water navy. >I expect it is because they see some value in warships and they do not believe >that airpower has made the naval warship obsolete. The `assasination' line put my back up too but we have to have a better reply than `they're buying it also'. I'm not a consultant to the Politburo so I do not care if they waste money apeing us, I hope they do. Navies are most useful against the Third world, so what. That is where the wars are. The strategic positions of the Soviets and Americans are assymetrical. They are a land power seeking Sea Denial to prevent the reinforcement of Europe, we are a sea power seeking Sea Control. We do not need their armed forces and they are fools if they devote scarce resources to a surface blue water navy. Ross P. Weiner Former BPDSMS officer - the rocket powered rock - Basicly Pointless Defense Surface Missile System