US Aircraft Carrier Operations

DPRKUnderground said:

I've been reading that the USN's capabilities are declining. I think I read coffee: ) this in the NY Post (I read it beacsue they have the best sports section!). The number of submarines will be declining (Are the Los Angelos-class subs being retired soon?), Congress is cutting down the budget for many future Navy programs, and many ships won't be ready for another 15 years. Can the USN still be capable to take on the world with somewhat of an aging fleet?

Click to expand...

Without the actual article I can't directly comment on how the USN is "declining". It is declining in one aspect, the number of combat ships; from the 600 ship Navy of the 80's to less than half that number today.

The LA class, the newer ones, still have a lot of life left in their hulls. The last one was commisioned in 1996. The over all numbers are lower than the coldwar days but that is because of the diminished submarine fleet. Furthermore, the Virginia class will replace the LA class but it will not be on a one on one basis. Still 50 submarines is a lot.

The USN ships are actually pretty new. Most of the Tico Cruisers were built in the late 80's and 90, the Burkes are still being built, the LHD were built in the 90's, and littoral combat ship will be coming along soon.

NO WAY, If anything the U.S navy is increasing in its ability. With the newer satellites and 100% situational awareness of the sea the U.S navy can hit any target on the planet within just hours or in many cases minutes. Less ships does not mean less capabilities. There are many many systems that have come on line that are highly classified. The advent and fielding of some steathy very very long range cruise missiles has become even a greater force than carrier based aircraft in some cases.

If it floats the U.S navy can sink it. The U.S navy could sink every navy on the planet within a week or so if it wanted .....cheers ute.

IDonT said:

Without the actual article I can't directly comment on how the USN is "declining". It is declining in one aspect, the number of combat ships; from the 600 ship Navy of the 80's to less than half that number today.

The LA class, the newer ones, still have a lot of life left in their hulls. The last one was commisioned in 1996. The over all numbers are lower than the coldwar days but that is because of the diminished submarine fleet. Furthermore, the Virginia class will replace the LA class but it will not be on a one on one basis. Still 50 submarines is a lot.

The USN ships are actually pretty new. Most of the Tico Cruisers were built in the late 80's and 90, the Burkes are still being built, the LHD were built in the 90's, and littoral combat ship will be coming along soon.

Click to expand...

I'd have to say that a 600 ship Navy is no longer necessary or prudent. We no longer need to fight the Soviets, there are no rivals even in the USNs league. Anyway, you can do more with less now. Look at the Seawolf. It can carry enough cruise missles to take out a good portion of the PLANs modern combat force. You couldn't do that during the 80s. But of course the greatest advancements have been made in Electronic Warfare, UAVs and various other intelligence/non-conventional warfare type platforms. The US military is more focused on network-centric warfare now, and you don't need that many ships in the present situation.

(Don't get me wrong, I have quite a grudge with network centric warfare.)

Another thing that people don't notice is the US's completely unrivaled amphibious/logistical capability. The US can land a powerful fighting force anywhere in the world. The buildup to the Iraq War is an example. Few countries can move a full invasion force all the way around the world and keep it supplied. And that wasn't even in a wartime situation. The US is still able to do that in a wartime situation. But of course, naval dominance and complete ampibious capability is a necessity for a superpower.

Finn, why do you have a grudge against network centric warfare. I am not sure why anyone would have issue with this. The rapid movement of information and giving the war-fighter up to date situational awareness on OPFOR and friendly forces is huge. ITS MORE THAN HUGE. it is godlike.

I have a grudge against it because...

Well first let me say that I know that getting information to the soldier and commander are important, and the US Military is so dominant due in large part to its capability to manage information so well.

BUT, and this is sort politics, I think that the proponents of that doctrine within the Pentagon have been too eager to prove it. That, I believe, is one of the reaons for the Iraq War. That Pentagon whizz-kids wanted to prove that they were right. And lets not forget that it is not intelligence but action that decides a battle. I just think that there is a tendancy to have a "Gee-whiz look what our new toys can do" attitude in the Pentagon. That is not preparing the military for real war.

Of course, improving the flow of information and interrupting the enemy's is something that the US military should be focusing on, especially considering it has a pretty big advantage over most of its prospective rivals in most other areas. However, commanders and Pentagon bureuacrats should remember that it is a part of the overall battle plan.

Mds, please don't delete this. Please?

By the way, you might want to read "Intelligence in War" by John keegan