USN Proceedings and FP Magazines on CV Invincibility

[ChuckMK23]

Graphic for pure sake of hyperbole:

First the article in Foreign Policy

‘Proceedings’ braves fire from admirals as it reexamines the survivability of carriers

and the Proceedings article referenced:

Too Big to Sink

 

[nittany03]

And then Ricks doesn't even mention which GOFOs are allegedly opening fire on our good Lieutenants.

 

[sevenhelmet]

Not that I disagree with the overall threat assessment, but it's been all doom and gloom around here lately. There are no flight hours, Millington hates us all, you won't make level IV on your JO tour, nobody makes O-5 after DH, the airlines pay twice as well as just being a DH, and now some random swinging dick dictator will sink us while we're in the RR watching the roll-em double feature. That's if OBOGS doesn't kill us all first.

C'mon, let's have a little optimism here...

On topic, I'll submit that if the carrier is trying to repel a direct attack, we've already blown it.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Eh. Tom Ricks is a good writer but he's very impressed with his own brilliance. And this is hardly revolutionary thought or anathema within the Navy. We've been constantly questioning the carrier's value and survivability, ever since the damn things were invented.

The Sub JO he references is making a couple of flawed basic arguments that have been rolled out over and over again. I'm not really sure why Mr Ricks got such a chubby over this.

Incidentally, the exploding Boat picture was originally from a PLA propaganda piece. So. Ponder the irony there.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Not that I disagree with the overall threat assessment, but it's been all doom and gloom here lately. There are no flight hours, you won't make level IV on your JO tour, nobody makes O-5 after DH, the airlines pay twice as well as just being a DH, and now some random swinging dick dictator will sink us while we're in the RR watching the roll-em double feature. That's if OBOGS doesn't kill us all first.

C'mon, let's have a little optimism here...

Sounds like it's not all bad news. I'm pretty optimistic!

 

[sevenhelmet]

Sounds like it's not all bad news. I'm pretty optimistic!

Ha! There you go. I guess I meant bad news for those of us who decided to stay in a while longer.

 

[sevenhelmet]

More doom and gloom, but at least he's calling it straight.

 

[jmcquate]

C'mon, let's have a little optimism here...

Contrarianism is what Proceedings is for.........if it makes you feel any better, the same issue has an article entitled "Buy in to the Navy's Culture and Values".

 

[Python]

Not that I disagree with the overall threat assessment, but it's been all doom and gloom around here lately. There are no flight hours, Millington hates us all, you won't make level IV on your JO tour, nobody makes O-5 after DH, the airlines pay twice as well as just being a DH, and now some random swinging dick dictator will sink us while we're in the RR watching the roll-em double feature. That's if OBOGS doesn't kill us all first.

C'mon, let's have a little optimism here...

On topic, I'll submit that if the carrier is trying to repel a direct attack, we've already blown it.

I know you were tongue in cheek, but pretty much all of your first paragraph is actually true.

 

[Jim123]

Not that I disagree with the overall threat assessment, but it's been all doom and gloom around here lately. There are no flight hours, Millington hates us all, you won't make level IV on your JO tour, nobody makes O-5 after DH, the airlines pay twice as well as just being a DH, and now some random swinging dick dictator will sink us while we're in the RR watching the roll-em double feature catching up on GMT.

FIFY

 

[Flash]

Eh. Tom Ricks is a good writer but he's very impressed with his own brilliance. And this is hardly revolutionary thought or anathema within the Navy. We've been constantly questioning the carrier's value and survivability, ever since the damn things were invented.

Articles like those the reason Proceedings exists and has thrived for as long as it has. As you have already pointed out the thinking isn't as 'revolutionary' at all, one just needs to participate in almost any big exercise involving a CVN to see it die at least once.

The Sub JO he references is making a couple of flawed basic arguments that have been rolled out over and over again. I'm not really sure why Mr Ricks got such a chubby over this.

It is the second article that got my head scratching a bit, in no way does artillery or UAV's replace current manned aircraft and to claim so is shockingly ignorant. Any experience in a combined exercise or current ops would have taught him that. Surprised that one got past the editors.

Incidentally, the exploding Boat picture was originally from a PLA propaganda piece. So. Ponder the irony there.

That depiction was a cover of Proceedings a few years ago and I believe was done for that issue, there is plenty of Chinese propaganda out there but I am not sure that is one of their products.

 

[Uncle Fester]

That depiction was a cover of Proceedings a few years ago and I believe was done for that issue, there is plenty of Chinese propaganda out there but I am not sure that is one of their products.

Interesting...I saw it used on a PLA thing. The Chinese committing copyright infringement? That's unpossible!

 

[Flash]

Interesting...I saw it used on a PLA thing. The Chinese committing copyright infringement? That's unpossible!

 

[Spekkio]

It is the second article that got my head scratching a bit, in no way does artillery or UAV's replace current manned aircraft and to claim so is shockingly ignorant. Any experience in a combined exercise or current ops would have taught him that. Surprised that one got past the editors.

The article is a very long-winded way of saying 'we can do everything with only X platform,' which isn't true. Submarines are great for sinking gross tonnage of enemy ships, but not so great at being a mobile air base and command center used to launch an offensive campaign against another nation.

Good on him for thinking about stuff like this I guess, but he's speaking on issues way above his paygrade, and clearly without all of the information.

 

[Pags]

CDR Salamander has his reclama up on the USNI Blog:
https://blog.usni.org/posts/2017/06/14/we-will-lose-carriers-and-thats-ok

CDR S has a decent analysis and his overarching point that we should plan to loose CVs against a peer competitor is valid. At some point we as a country do buy warships to send them into battle with the knowledge that not all of them are going to come back home. And even more so during the "opening salvos" of a major war against a peer. As in past conflicts the opening engagements will be confused muddled affairs as pre-war assumptions and rules are cast aside and lessons are learned. Some things won't work as well as we had hoped while others will. And during this period there will be losses that would startle the pre-war navy. There's a reason that the actions around Guadalcanal in late 42 were fought with destroyers and light cruisers; nothing else was left from the pre-war fleet. The asiatic fleet was gone, most of the BBs were sitting in the mud at pearl or unable to deploy due to high fuel consumption, and Lex, Yorktown, Wasp, and Hornet were gone. Enterprise and Sara had already been damaged at least once. I don't know exact numbers but I'd bet that close to 50% of the pre-war pacific fleet capital ships were sunk or in the yards within a year of 7DEC41.