New article out on the relevance of carriers.
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-reassess-how-it-projects-power-jerry-hendrix
http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-reassess-how-it-projects-power-jerry-hendrix
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
New Maritime Strategy
- Thread starter ea6bflyr
- Start date
Just out of curiosity, what was his warfare?
Just my .02, but I think he is underestimating the vulnerability of surface combatants in general. Missiles that can take out a carrier can probably take out other surface combatants too.
E-2C NFO. Bio says masters from Navy Post Grad, another masters from Harvard and a PhD from King's College in London.
http://www.cnas.org/HendrixJerry.
http://www.cnas.org/HendrixJerry.
I think he understands that other assets are as vulnerable to vampires as CVs. His argument is that CVs are "to big to fail"
Actually he was a P-3 NFO, you have to do a little digging to find a bio that mentions it. He has written a few other articles dinging carriers pretty hard, it seems to be his bête noire.
I can agree to that to some extent, the things are damn expensive as well, and I never understood why we have only been making carriers bigger, and not smaller flat decks that could deploy a couple of detachments to places where we didn't need several full squadrons and 4800 people vice 2000 to conduct isolated operations (perhaps we will be seeing the new LHA's being squeezed into this role when the F-35B's roll out). However, his entire argument of "we need to be prepared to fight the next war" is based around the assumption that the next war is going to be against a peer competitor. We have bigger problems if we have ships being taken out at the 1000 mile mark than the fact that the carrier was targeted first. We could essentially forget any seaborne operations, other than submarines, if we face that kind of threat. This is from the guy thats been steaming well within that 1000 miles of China for a few years, and my only defense to a missile is my M14. Article was well written by someone with far more experience and knowledge than I, and has a lot of valid points, especially that our power projection shouldn't rely on the carrier, but the "death to the carrier" vibe (which I could never see the USA doing) offsets it a bit IMVJO.
The dude definitely knows way more than I do, but from an argument standpoint he was kind of all over the place. And some of his points just seemed very irrelevant (comparing WW2 carrier numbers to today's numbers). He seemed locked on to a single threat large-nation warfare environment and not showing the carriers value on more realistic broader spectra of threats.
"Statistics are like women; mirrors of purest virtue and truth, or like whores to use as one pleases." ~Theodor Billroth.
http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2011-05/twilight-uperfluous-carrier
http://www.wired.com/2013/03/replacing-aircraft-carriers/
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2013/03/at-what-cost-carrier.html
http://www.wired.com/2011/06/are-aircraft-carriers-slowly-becoming-obsolete/
http://thediplomat.com/2015/01/solving-the-us-navys-carrier-fleet-puzzle/
There was another a few months ago in Cicero, but their page seems to be having some issues.
Wrong. The CVN isn't designed as an air defense platform.
Just because something is designed as an air defense platform doesn't mean it will work so yes, something that could to hit a carrier could hit a DDG or a CG too.
You're punching above your weight class buddy. Is there a 'possibility?' Sure, albeit a small one. The post I quoted is still patently wrong, as is yours.