# Argument Against Aircraft Carriers



## AfroNinja267 (Apr 24, 2015)

While I don't know much about the topic presented, I haven't seen anything here about it so I figured I'd share it with you guys. The article does a good analysis (from my perspective, at least) on the role of aircraft carriers today.


http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...ion Report&utm_campaign=2014_Situation Report



> If the Navy wants to address its budget crisis, its falling ship count, its atrophying strategic position, and the problem of its now-marginal combat effectiveness — and reassert its traditional dominance of the seas — it should embrace technological innovation and increase its efficiency. In short: It needs to stop building aircraft carriers.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Apr 24, 2015)

The author's an idiot.


----------



## AWP (Apr 25, 2015)

No more aircraft carriers...Trolling level: expert.


----------



## x SF med (Apr 25, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> No more aircraft carriers...Trolling level: expert.



...and where would the MEU's do PT if there were no ACC's?


----------



## Brill (Apr 25, 2015)

x SF med said:


> ...and where would the MEU's do PT if there were no ACC's?



On "their" LPHes where they belong. I never did understand the comedy behind the clogging of the shitters by MEU guys.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 25, 2015)

AfroNinja267 said:


> While I don't know much about the topic presented, I haven't seen anything here about it so I figured I'd share it with you guys. The article does a good analysis (from my perspective, at least) on the role of aircraft carriers today.
> 
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/article/417306/us-navy-needs-radically-reassess-how-it-projects-power-jerry-hendrix?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_term=*Situation Report&utm_campaign=2014_Situation Report


Carriers do more than project power.
The authors an idiot (as has been stated) and you need to focus more on HS.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Apr 25, 2015)

A US Navy carrier fleet brings many things, American military presence to be sure is front and center; but there is so much more. Capable American manpower, and top shelf medical relief/care also comes with the package. How many time has our nation responded to a crisis, with a carrier fleet to bring aide that also is measured in meals provided, rescue and recovery efforts, and many other humanitarian needs? I guess you can manufacture political/fiscal reasons to defund carrier groups, perhaps this article is a step in that direction? Time will tell, as it always does.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 25, 2015)

Red Flag 1 said:


> A US Navy carrier fleet brings many things, American military presence to be sure is front and center; but there is so much more. Capable American manpower, and top shelf medical relief/care also comes with the package. How many time has our nation responded to a crisis, with a carrier fleet to bring aide that also is measured in meals provided, rescue and recovery efforts, and many other humanitarian needs? I guess you can manufacture political/fiscal reasons to defund carrier groups, perhaps this article is a step in that direction? Time will tell, as it alsway does.


Carrier Battle Groups can be defunded as long as the American Media (and population), and State Department understand that response times increase when you have to sail from CA or VA to respond to a crises.  The probability of war goes up (IMO) when you don't have a Battle Group of some kind available.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Apr 25, 2015)

Yeah. There's something to be said about "OH HI THERE" being a real thing when you're an established nation and there's a CBG parked outside.


----------



## Teufel (Apr 26, 2015)

I think with the advent of the joint strike fighter there is a good argument to build less nuclear carriers and replace some of them with beefed up amphibious carriers like the USS America.  A MEU brings a lot of the things that a carrier battle group brings to the table at a much smaller price point.  The Navy is trying to answer budget cuts right now by reducing their amphibious fleet and is pushing back on MEU requirements.  I think that's a mistake.


----------



## AWP (Apr 26, 2015)

Teufel said:


> I think with the advent of the joint strike fighter there is a good argument to build less nuclear carriers and replace some of them with beefed up amphibious carriers like the USS America.



This makes sense in some environments, but you'll still need an E-2C or similar in the battlespace. In the permissive to semi-permissive environments we've operated in over the last decade plus an AWACS platform wasn't always necessary thanks to certain ground-based systems. Theater commanders may not have a vote, but I don't see them giving up certain C2 capabilities without a major fight. That and owing to the -35's range, your group becomes heavily dependent on assets not organic to the battlegroup.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 26, 2015)

Teufel said:


> I think with the advent of the joint strike fighter there is a good argument to build less nuclear carriers and replace some of them with beefed up amphibious carriers like the USS America.  A MEU brings a lot of the things that a carrier battle group brings to the table at a much smaller price point.  The Navy is trying to answer budget cuts right now by reducing their amphibious fleet and is pushing back on MEU requirements.  I think that's a mistake.


How does the Harrier stack up against the F/A-18 or F-35?


----------



## HOLLiS (Apr 26, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Carriers do more than project power.
> The authors an idiot (as has been stated) and you need to focus more on HS.



They can offer, electrical service, fresh water service, medical aid.   Look at the tsunami that hit Indonesia.   



> 'Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck.


     They are way more than a military force.


----------



## Teufel (Apr 26, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> This makes sense in some environments, but you'll still need an E-2C or similar in the battlespace. In the permissive to semi-permissive environments we've operated in over the last decade plus an AWACS platform wasn't always necessary thanks to certain ground-based systems. Theater commanders may not have a vote, but I don't see them giving up certain C2 capabilities without a major fight. That and owing to the -35's range, your group becomes heavily dependent on assets not organic to the battlegroup.



I'm not saying that we need to replace the carrier battle groups with escort carrier battlegroups (which the amphibs basically are) but assess whether we need as many carrier battlegroups that we have and if we can reduce that number by replacing some with amphibs.


----------



## Teufel (Apr 27, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> How does the Harrier stack up against the F/A-18 or F-35?



I'm not an expert in the subject but my understanding is that the harrier is not as capable as either platform.  They are supposed to start fielding the F35 on amphibs this year though.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 27, 2015)

Teufel said:


> I'm not an expert in the subject but my understanding is that the harrier is not as capable as either platform.  They are supposed to start fielding the F35 on amphibs this year though.


Wasn't the answer I expected.  Made me go look up data to compare all the platforms.

We talk about the Air Force selling it's soul to the F-35 gods, looks like Marine Corps aviation did the same thing; only the Navy seems to be capable of limiting the damage.


----------

