Aircraft Carriers
Aircraft Carriers are the symbol and key portion of American power, and have been so for the past seventy-four years. Every president, whether Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, has relied upon them to address international crises.
A recent Congressional Budget Office report notes that “Since World War II, the aircraft carrier has been the centerpiece of the U.S. Navy. According to the Navy, today’s Nimitz class ships can sustain 95 strike sorties per day and, with each aircraft carrying four 2,000-pound bombs, deliver three-quarters of a million pounds of bombs each day. That firepower far exceeds what any other surface ship can deliver.”
Now, there are less of them than military experts say is the minimum needed for safety.
With the retirement of the USS Enterprise (CVN 65), the United States Navy will have only ten aircraft carriers, below the generally accepted absolute minimum number of eleven. That situation will continue until at least 2016, when the U.S.S. Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) is scheduled to be completed. The 2016 date is not guaranteed. Budget restrictions under the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act place a maximum $12.8 billion price tag on the vessel, with a further reduction to $11.5 billion for future fleet carriers. The effect on the Ford’s development remains to be seen.
Naval experts are concerned that even if the 11 carrier force is restored, it will be inadequate. ABreaking Defense article quotes Rear Admiral Thomas Moore’s concern that “We’re an 11-carrier navy in a 15 carrier world.”
The future for America’s fleet of aircraft carriers beyond 2016 may be further endangered. Under oneconcept being discussed, the Navy, to meet budgetary restrictions, would stop building new aircraft carriers altogether after completion of the U.S.S. John F. Kennedy, scheduled for 2020, the next in line to be built after the U.S.S Gerald Ford. The next aircraft carrier the Navy was scheduled to construct, the U.S.S. Enterprise, would be canceled, as would future carriers. Funding for the Enterprise would have begun in 2016. The result would be obvious: as older aircraft carriers retire they would not be replaced, and the fleet, already undersized, would continue to shrink.
U.S.S. Harry Truman
(US Navy photo)
Active Aircraft Carriers in the U.S. Navy
USS Nimitz (CVN 68)
USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN 69)
USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70)
USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN 71)
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72)
USS George Washington (CVN 73)
USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74)
USS Harry S. Truman (CVN 75)
USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76)
USS George H.W. Bush (CVN 77)
At the same time that America’s navy endures this diminishment, (the total number of ships in the U.S. navy has shrunk from 600 in 1990 to 286 currently) both China and Russia have committed vast resources to expanding their seagoing power both in terms of the number and sophistication of their respective fleets, as well as investing in technological advances that could threaten U.S. warships with distant, land-based weaponry. The U.S also faces threats from smaller actors such as North Korea and Iran.
Moscow’s Supreme Navy Commander Admiral Viktor Chirkov recently stated: [Russia is building a new] “cutting-edge nuclear-powered aircraft carrier. … The carrier should stay in service for a very long period and meet the requirements of modern and future naval operations in which it is expected to lead a group of surface ships and submarines and coordinate its action with a constellation of military satellites. The carrier project also includes plans to develop new ship-based fighter bombers and train personnel for the emerging carrier group. By 2020, the Russian Navy will receive 30 new corvettes and frigates, at least 15 missile- and artillery-carrying speedboats and nearly two dozen submarines. The latter will include strategic nuclear-powered missile carriers and medium-size versatile diesel subs. A new-generation destroyer is in the pipeline, as are land-based naval jets and coastal missile and artillery batteries.”
Moscow has committed $138 billion to its naval modernization program.
According to The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission’s annual Report to Congress, China’s navy could dominate the western Pacific by 2020. The report notes:
“Since commissioning its first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, in September of 2012, the PLA Navy has continued to develop a fixed-wing carrier aviation capability for air defense and offensive strike missions. China plans to follow the Liaoning with at least two indigenously built carriers…
“It is increasingly clear that China does not intend to resolve its disputes through multilateral negotiations or the application of international laws and adjudicative processes but instead will use its growing power in support of coercive tactics that pressure its neighbors to concede to China’s claims…
“The PLA [People’s Liberation Army] navy is in the midst of an impressive modernization program. China’s acquisition of naval platforms, weapons, and systems has emphasized qualitative improvements, not quantitative growth, and is centered on improving its ability to strike opposing ships at sea and operate at greater distances from the Chinese mainland. Today, the PLA Navy is able to conduct high-intensity operations beyond the region. Trends in China’s defense spending, research and development, and shipbuilding suggest the PLA Navy will continue to modernize…
“The PLA is rapidly expanding and diversifying its ability to strike U.S. bases, ships, and aircraft throughout the Asia Pacific region including those it previously could not reach, such as the U.S. military facilities on Guam…”
On January 1, Hainan, a province of an increasingly aggressive China, announced a requirement that international fishing vessels in the South China Sea seek permission from China’s central government, a move termed by the U.S. State Department “provocative and potentially dangerous.” It is an example of China’s intensive drive to dominate the air and sea space in Asian pacific region, to the clear detriment of the interests not only of its neighbors and the United States, but to international commerce as well.
China’s domination of the western Pacific by 2020, if current trends continue, will be through both its expanded navy as well as its development of other high-tech weapons such as the J-20 stealth fighter.
China’s attack on offshore possessions of the Philippines in 2012 went unanswered, militarily or even diplomatically, by the Obama government. Encouraged, Beijing’s forces have become increasingly aggressive in the Pacific, threatening virtually all of its neighbors.
A recent incident involved China’s Liaoning carrier intentionally cutting off a U.S. naval vessel, the U.S.S. Cowpens, a guided missile cruiser.
T he world has taken notice, even as the U.S. continues to decrease its military spending. A Turkish news source, for example, Turkish Weekly, reported:”It [China] has recently launched an arms race through its creation of an air defense identification zone over a strip of the East China Sea and in the addition of arms in her military inventory.”
The Russian and Chinese navies are developing aircraft carriers as well as deploying weapons designed specifically for combat against their American counterparts. Even as this occurs, Washington’s traditional anti-defense spending politicians, joined by others concerned about budget deficits continue to question funding for U.S. carriers. Their predominant tactical argument is essentially this: Carriers are large and expensive, and increasingly vulnerable. Does it make sense to commit scarce dollars to their construction and maintenance?
Critics of that that line of reasoning argue that the concept tends to lack logical resonance for several reasons. First, the anti-military spending faction is not generally supportive of redirecting proposed savings to other military programs, despite rising need. Second, even if carriers face increasingly powerful enemy forces, there still remains no substitute for the capabilities they unquestionably present, and there is no assurance that the new weaponry being deployed will be effective.
Carriers do face a growing number of threats, as well as ones that have existed for some time.
In a 2001 study, the Lexington Institute noted that “The most significant threats to carriers are cruise missiles, wake-homing torpedoes, ballistic missiles and mines. But cruise missiles are unlikely to penetrate the battle group’s integrated air defenses, and few potential adversaries are capable of employing submarines or torpedoes effectively. Ballistic missiles lack necessary targeting features and mines are easily dealt with using a variety of existing and prospective methods. The intrinsic resilience of large-deck carriers further mitigates the threat posed by adversaries.”
CHINA
As part of their overall massive military buildup, China is both building a carrier fleet as well as deploying cutting-edge weaponry designed to attack American carriers. China has moved some of these weapons into operational capability faster than many experts have anticipated.
A dmiral Sam Locklear, commander of the US Pacific Command, speaking at the Surface Navy Association meeting recently, noted that China’s military ascension is putting the U.S. Navy at risk in the Pacific, and that America’s “historic dominance” is diminishing.
,director of naval intelligence and deputy chief of Naval Operations for Information Dominance, noted in 2011 that “They’ve [China’s new weaponry] entered operational capability quicker than we frequently project…” Dorsett stated that China’s rapid advances indicate that they may have the capability to hit an aircraft carrier.
T he first of Beijing’s carriers, the Liaoning, is currently honing the nation’s skills. It will be followed by a massive “super carrier,” according to Russia’s RT news. China has also developed a missile designed to attack American carriers from a significant distance away. “China will likely build multiple aircraft carriers over the next decade,” According to the 2013 Annual Report to Congress on Military and Security Developments Involving the Peoples Republic of China “China is fielding a limited but growing number of conventionally armed, medium range ballistic missiles, including the DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM). The DF-21D is based on a variant of the DF-21 (CSS-5) medium range ballistic missile (MRBM) and gives the PLA the capability to attack large ships, including aircraft carriers, in the western Pacific Ocean. The DF-21D has a range exceeding 1,500 km and is armed with a maneuverable warhead.”
A ccording to the United States Naval Institute:”The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. super carrier in one strike.
“Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at Mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.
“Supporting the missile is a network of satellites, radar and unmanned aerial vehicles that can locate U.S. ships and then guide the weapon, enabling it to hit moving targets…the weapon system is now operational… If operational as if believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea…”
How effective can China’s new arsenal be against American carriers? It bears keeping in mind that these ships are huge, compartmentalized, and built to withstand significant punishment. They are solidly protected by multiple layers of destroyers and cruisers equipped with cutting-edge Aegis defensive systems. Even aircraft launched from an enemy carrier or land base would likely lack the experience of their American counterparts.
S hould weaponry such as the DF-21D discourage the development of carriers? The question is actually a much larger one. Following a line of reasoning that would say “yes,” than what ships should be deployed? If a carrier faces a potential thrat, than so does every other naval vessel. Some experts, such as Seth Cropsey, author of Mayday, a study of America’s naval challenges, argues that while we should continue to deploy large aircraft carriers, smaller ones also should be added to the mix.
In a Breaking Defense review, it was noted that: “one inexplicable aspect of the “carriers are vulnerable” argument, particularly versus the Chinese DF-21D ballistic missile threat, is that while the carrier’s vulnerability is trumpeted, there is little mention of the fact that every ship suffers from similar, if not greater, vulnerabilities – particularly ships built to commercial standards and simply painted haze-gray. This includes platforms on the various lists of options if the Navy were to stop building carriers. It also ignores enhanced passive and active systems–e.g., the cruise- and ballistic-missile defenses provided by the Navy’s Aegis cruisers and destroyers–that are designed to defeat tomorrow’s threats. Finally, to put the entire vulnerability issue in context, land bases, which never move, are much more vulnerable to attack than are mobile naval forces at sea.”
RUSSIA
Russia has committed vast sums to modernize its navy. This is a development that bears significant review, since, unlike China, Moscow’s strategic interests are more land-based. For the Kremlin, naval power has mostly an offensive character (as well as for expanding its interests in the Arctic.) Vladimir Putin’s naval construction program must be seen in this light.
This past year, a potential conflict between Russian anti-shipping weaponry and American naval vessels, including a carrier, was avoided. The Russian flagship Varyag, considered an “aircraft carrier killer” entered into the Mediterranean as tension between the west and Syria were high. The vessel has anti-ship missiles, among other weaponry.
Moscow did more during the crisis than dispatch its own forces. In the course of the dispute, it provided Syria with the P-800 Yakhout anti-ship missile, giving Bashir al-Assad a potent weapon against American naval forces. The Yakhout is Russia’s most advanced anti-ship missile, and its sale to Syria was an indication both of Moscow’s growing disregard for American resolve as well as the importance it attaches to its naval base at Tartus.
Russia Varyag, called an “Aircraft Carrier killer.” (U.S. Navy photo)
HOW VULNERABLE?
Concern over the vulnerability of aircraft carriers is not new. But the ability of both the carrier itself to survive substantial damage and continue to accomplish its mission, as well as the ability of the ships protecting the carrier from enemy attack should not be underestimated.
According to the Information Dissemination site, “While vulnerable to attack, the big deck carrier is still arguably one of the toughest ships to sink. The damage incurred to USS Forrestal in 1967 and that suffered by USS Enterprise in 1969 in accidental detonations of multiple pieces of ordnance testifies to the extreme survivability of the big carrier. The ex-USS America (CV-66) was recently sunk as a target and some open source accounts say the ship took a tremendous beating before being purposely sunk after the test.”
The Navy has also not rested in its drive to protect the carrier from emerging threats. U.S. carriers were indeed vulnerable to cruise missile attacks in the late 1970s, but development and fielding of the Aegis system for air defense significantly improved the ability of the carrier battle group to defend itself against this threat. The U.S. has pursued an equally aggressive program to defend against ballistic missiles like the DF-21D and there is no reason to believe this threat cannot also be countered by a technological response.
According to the U.S. Navy, “The Aegis Weapon System (AWS) is a centralized, automated, command-and-control (C2) and weapons control system that was designed as a total weapon system, from detection to kill. The heart of the system is the AN/SPY-1, an advanced, automatic detect and track, multi-function phased-array radar. This high-powered (four megawatt) radar is able to perform search, track, and missile guidance functions simultaneously, with a track capacity of more than 100 targets… There are currently 74 U.S. Navy ships in service with the Aegis Weapons System installed: 22 Cruisers and 52 Destroyers.”
As threats evolve, the Aegis system also evolves, providing advanced protection. According toLockheed Martin, which manufactures the system, “As the fleet of in-service Aegis ships ages, and the threat increases, modernization to improve the combat capability of existing ships is essential. Two modernization programs – for both cruisers and destroyers – are currently in place that will improve war fighting capabilities, extend hull service life, and reduce total ownership cost through the fielding of Open Architecture and commercial computing technologies.”
Offensive as well as defensive technological advances could also enhance the future role of aircraft carriers. A study by the Naval War College notes that unmanned aircraft could double or even triple the range of carrier-based planes, removing carriers from the range of some enemy ship-killing missiles while still allowing the carrier to provide solid striking power.
|
CONCLUSION
Debates about the survivability of aircraft carriers will also allow the re-emergence of considerations about augmenting the fleet with smaller versions. Although not as powerful or cost-effective, they may provide options in circumstances where sea-based airpower is required but where the environment may be too risky or simply not warrant the deployment of so major a portion of the U.S. arsenal.
At this point, despite their cost, there does not appear to be any substitute for the capabilities the aircraft carrier has, nor is there any enemy weapon so potent that it would render these massive vessels inadequately defended. |
In spite of this, keep in mind that many companies work on effects of cialis a contract basis, not just bad companies. This, however, should not be misconstrued to mean that Kenpo Karate was founded the price cialis by Parker. Nevertheless, men are advised to undergo medical consultation if they experience any problem when it generic levitra no prescription relates to intimacy. The fresh blood gets pumped all over the body it affects all click for more info levitra online canada reducing the quality of life.