End of Aircraft Carriers Era?

Donate

Loading the player...

The flagships of the American Navy are ready to disappear from the oceans. This is the the perspective drawn for these monsters of the American Navy by senior analyst Ben Ho Wan Beng of the prestigious School of International Affairs in Singapore. His report was published by the American naval academy.

Firstly, this is due to a rather small range of the naval aviation aircraft. Most of the F-18 aircraft cannot be more that 500 nautical miles off the mothership. And even if the ship is at that distance away from the shoreline, there is no chance the Hornets will get into the enemy territory – no more fuel. If their objective is to attack a country which is not a small one, or an island nation, but a country with a deep “strategic depth” these aircraft are useless. The F-35 that is meant to replace it will not solve anything, because its combat radius is only 50 nautical miles greater.

Secondly, two of the likeliest USA’s military opponents – Russia and China are creating new generation of long range missiles that could be “moved” deep into the continent – the analyst thinks, that they could be moved up to 800 miles inland and still be highly effective against naval targets. The missile defense lines are virtually invincible for the American aircraft carriers.

So, the defending side has no need to attack the aircraft carrier with dozens of their own naval aviation aircraft – a Chinese DF-21 missile, just one, would be sufficient to sink a ship together with the 6000 men on board. It is difficult to say where up to 84 aircraft would land after that.

The new series – Gerald Ford class carriers. The first one was launched in 2013. By 2019 it is planned to build a second one. Their characteristics are vastly different, however, considering the existing conditions, these ships are made redundant by Russian and Chinese defenses.

The aircraft carriers that are capable by their mere presence near a country’s shores strike fear in the hearts of a small country’s government are turning into a gargantuan sitting duck for Russian hunter-killer submarines, Kirov-class cruisers and countless long-range missile systems. They are probably going to be about as useful as a movie prop in the next few decades. In the worst-case scenario – they would be scrapped.

The massive program to build these monsters nowadays exists more to beat the cash out of American taxpayers in favour of the American military industries. The main American suspected opponentы – Russia and China – aren’t scared of the fleet of naval airfields, but these ships are still capable of earning big money for the people who own the industries that build them.

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • Gas the kikes

    This is why I can’t wrap my head around why the hell do the elites think they can win a war against Russia. They have no way to proyect force into them, outclassed land and air, and made reduntant in the sea. Even their nuclear capabilities are greatly diminished by Russian Air Defense.

    A war against Russia would only serve to destroy the zionist empire the Jews have worked so hard to build. I guess this is the reason why the Jews and the Neocons are so divided on Russia.

    • Nexusfast123

      There is no limit to stupidity as Einstein once quipped.

      • Jacek Wolski

        But alas, stupidity does have a limit! What country is willing to start a nuclear war?

  • Jesus

    The advent of deploying hypersonic missiles or hypersonic glide vehicles makes protection of the carrier an impossible task. The first hypersonic missiles will have a certain range, I am sure subsequent missiles will have longer ranges. A Topol or Yars ICBM equipped with hypersonic glide vehicles with conventional warheads can be fired thousands of miles away from a carrier. Then there is Sarmat, that can deploy hypersonic glide vehicles with 2000lbs conventional warheads; who said ICBM’s are used for nuclear wars only? You have killer submarines, the Orlan battle cruisers, then the Lidder destroyers ( to be built) that are virtual missile platforms bristling with Zircon, Oniks and Caliber missiles.

    • Mateoran

      If Russian and Chinese ASW were so awesome (and surely they would know how awesome they were), then why would they take the huge expense of updating and expanding their own carrier forces? China has 3 new carriers in the pipeline. Russia is doing a boiler plant overhaul of the Kuznetsov and when oil prices bounce back in a few years will probably build a replacement or two. India has 2 new carriers in the pipeline. A proper carrier battle fleet with people, planes, and ships will run around $30 billion per fleet in order to be well defended and able to perform all missions asked of them.

      • Nexusfast123

        To get the US to spend more. The US has realised it is behind in a number of critical areas. If the military budget is extended more debt will be needed or programs will be cut. yhr The US economy is is serious decline.

        • Jacek Wolski

          They’ll just print more money 😀

      • Jesus

        Russia does not need carrier battle groups, they might build 2-3 carriers in the next 30 years, their need for a carrier is to have air support for a mission away from their borders, like Syria for example. Since Russia is not interested to project its influence far away from their mainland, their need for carriers is limited, unlike Soviet Union. US Navy does not have the reach to approach Russian borders in case of a conflict. Russian naval doctrine is different than the Chinese doctrine, even though the Chinese might use their man made islands as as “carriers” in the middle of South China Sea.

        • Mateoran

          “Russia does not need carrier battle groups”…..and yet Russia was trying to purchase 4 Mistral class carriers (ostensibly V/STOL carriers only, but still not items of “shore protection”) with two being built in Russia. The two that would have been built in Russia would have been key as Russia lost it’s ability to build large aircraft carriers when they lost the Ukraine. After the debacle that was the refit of the INS Vikramaditya, the Russians have realized that their ability to build large warships is completely lacking. The Russians lack funds and expertise in building the big ships right now, but not for lack of desire. http://thediplomat.com/2016/06/russia-to-modernize-sole-aircraft-carrier-in-2017/

          “Since Russia is not interested to project its influence far away from their mainland”…..and yet Russia secured full naval base privileges to the Syrian port of Tartus, guaranteed by the Assad regime. The Russian Expeditionary Force sent to Syria last year is a complete show of force projection (all of the 5 permanent UN Security Council members do it to remind us, the world, who is in charge). Russia’s primary strike targets were immediate, direct threats to the Assad regime, and not ISIS or ISIL (whichever you prefer). When Russia did strike ISIS, they used cruise missiles launched from the Caspian Sea. Why? A complete waste of money if you already have cheaper assets in theater. To show force projection capability…..and to sell the cruise missiles themselves to new customers. Russia also routinely flies long range aircraft to Venezuela on patrols as well as flying within 50 miles of California (well within it’s rights) as force projection. Its interest are global and so are its global projections.

          China’s doctrine might be stated as strictly local and nothing beyond the 2nd Line of Islands in the Pacific, but it is anything but. Through alliance with Myanmar, China possess a key island in Cocos Island chain in the Bay of Bengal that commands the western entrance to the Straits of Malacca and are expanding its capabilities. It was also recently announced that China will be setting up and stationing troops in Djibouti in the Horn of Africa region (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/31/china-military-to-set-up-first-overseas-base-in-djibouti.html). Protecting ones trade routes so far from home is force projection, the same as the Americans do. Those “carriers” in the middle of the South China Sea are useful (and illegal per UNCLOS, but my personal interest is in the destruction of pristine ocean reef environments (I’m a scuba diver)….WTF?), but as they don’t move, they would be easily knocked out of any conflict with a well armed opponent (US). It’s the reason that during its Pacific Pivot, the US is using a dispersed bases strategy. Having a few large bases that could be knocked out easily, would be a poor strategy. And before anyone goes on the ICBM with conventional warhead rant, think first. Former US president George W. Bush proposed an initiative just like that in the early 2000’s called “Prompt Global Response”. Using already existing ICBM technology they could strike anywhere within 2 hours. The problem? Other nuclear armed countries do not know if you are launching nukes at them or not. MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) comes into play.

          • Jesus

            Launching 1 or 2 ICBMs for conventional purposes does not constitute a first strike threat, besides their trajectory can tell tale their intent.

          • Mateoran

            Actually it does. ICBM’s have a unique flight signature which tells everyone with a VLF radar system that a possible nuclear armed ICBM has been launched. Again, South Korea adding THAAD only proves this correct.

          • Jesus

            That is old school thinking, hypersonic conventional warheads can be deployed by an ICBM or an MRBM, this is a 21st century reality. Supposedly the THAAD deployed by the S Koreans is to avoid any unexpected surprises from its northern neighbor. The flight trajectory of the ICBM can determine its intended target. THAAD is supposed to intercept MIRVS that are deployed on a somewhat predetermined trajectory, not hypersonic glide vehicles that are more maneuverable and capable of overcoming THAAD.

          • Jesus

            As far as China, it needs carriers because of having to deal with Japan and the US. Their coast line is succeptible to direct attacks, therefore securing advanced positions in South China Sea neutralizes US navy’s attempt to control the shipping lanes leading from the Indian Ocean to South China Sea. Having a couple of carriers deployed to face Japan and a couple of carriers for South China Sea and Pacific duties along with the island “carriers” would provide China with a credible deterrent against US and Japan. The island “carriers” do not sink when hit by 2000lbs bombs.

          • Mateoran

            “The island “carriers” do not sink when hit by 2000lbs bombs.”, but the purpose of a carrier is to launch and receive aircraft. 2000lb bombs, as you will, will destroy a runway. Also, with the “carrier” not moving, including it’s installations, repair facilities will also be destroyed. To quote General George S. Patton, “Fortresses are monuments to man’s stupidity.”.

            Also, in a theoretical war between China and the US, it would be suicidal on American planners to use the carrier fleets as a first-strike weapon system. The degrading of an enemies static air defense system would be step 1. Review the many exercises of the Chinese invading and seizing a foreign controlled territory (ostensibly Taiwan), and you will see that the same strategy. Ships are kept safe and out-of-range. Simple strategy. The recent addition in new build Virginia-class submarines of the VPM shows the emphasis on a first-strike air defense system degradation.

          • Jesus

            How are you supposed to achieve air superiority in South China Sea? How did US achieve air superiority in WW2 and thereafter? By deploying carriers and ground based aircraft, presently China will have greater air assets in the area given its geographical position and therefore control of the skies 10-1500 miles from their coast line. How is US going to degrade their air defenses? With Tomahawks launched from submarines and surface ships? That might have worked in Iraq, it will not work with China; Tomahawk’s capabilities and weaknesses have been analyzed by the Russians and Chinese and they have developed good countermeasures against it. It is sad to see the US navy relying for surface to surface combat on weapons ( Harpoon and Tomahawk) that are over 3 decades old and obsolete, in view of their significant defense budgets. The reality of the situation indicates that the US Navy did not consider the Russian and Chinese threat seriously, and chooses to live in the past cherishing the brute force applied against lesser enemies 2-3 decades ago.

          • Jesus

            Prompt global response did not entail delivery of hypersonic weapons, ( even if it did, US did not have anything tangible, except some theoretical concept). Russia did test successfully an SS 18 that deployed hypersonic vehicles. So did China, except China’s missile was a MRBM.

          • Mateoran

            But neither the Russian or Chinese designs used the more advanced scramjet technology. Scramjets will allow for a far greater range at Mach 6+ sustained speeds. Only the US has been testing with this. But this is not lost on the Chinese. Since using ICBM launched PGS systems, they have started, since 2015, to place a huge emphasis on scramjet technology. But again, the use of ICBM has a launch vehicle is seen as something that could start a nuclear war. China knows this. So does its neighbors. The recent installation announcement of THAAD in South Korea is evidence of this. Inquiries are also being into Aegis ABM systems using SM-3 and SM-6 ABMM.

          • Jesus

            Russia is currently testing Zircon a scramjet hypersonic missile, similar to Oniks in range and size and plan on deploying it later next year. Battle cruiser Nahimaov is expected to finish its remodernization progran in 2018 and will be equipped with Zircon. To my knowledge US does not have anything close to testing a similar weapon.

          • Jesus

            The Mistral is a helicopter carrier, and an amphibious ship, it has nothing to do with projecting long range air power for offensive purposes. Yes I agree, the shipbuilding capacity suffered since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, however, that capacity is coming back gradually. The immediate intent is to upgrade their submarine forces, refurbishing the two battle cruisers, build frigates (4000 tons) followed by Lidder destroyers (15-18000 tons), and eventually carriers. They expect to have a carrier in service by 2030. As far the display of their long range strike Caliber missile, some of those missiles killed hundreds of ISIS fighters. The Caliber is superior to the Tomahawk, and placed the US carrier battle groups on notice.

          • Mateoran

            Caliber are nice missiles, but a little unreliable. 4 of the recent Caliber missiles launched at ISIS crashed in Iran. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34479873 It probably explains why Russia used more Kh55 (Tomahawk equivalent) in Syria.

            The Russian Lidder class will absorb most of Russia’s ability to build ships. They do not have the large and expansive industry needed to build these ships (they’ve stated 12 to be built), large SSBN and SSN submarines, and frigates. The Kirov class when built actually stunted the growth of the Soviet Navy due to extreme cost and size. The only thing that has changed since then is that Russian shipbuilding industry has gotten significantly smaller and lost its ability to build large ships. The Lidder class will also be using the same powerplant/propulsion as the Kirov. This setup was notoriously and made detection by submarines at long range very easy. Even the Chinese have stressed a reduction in noise generation in their Type 55 cruiser/destroyer.

          • Jesus

            Caliber is a good missile, whatever presumed initial hiccup occurred has been corrected, in its terminal stages after it acquires the target it accelerated to Mach 3. The Soviets were able to build ships up to,approx. 60,000 tons displacement, the loss of Ukraine might have a temporal effect on shipbuilding capabilities, as of now, Russia replaced the deficiencies suffered by the Ukrainian embargo on engines, and other spare parts the Russians were dependent on; the loss of Ukraine should not hamper Russian naval resurgence, even if they presently do not have the facilities to build 100,000 ton carriers. I do not see any problems Russia building 20-30,000 ton helicopter carriers, and 60-70,000 ton aircraft carriers. I believe they want to build something around 100,000 tons and they are waiting for their naval production facilities to ramp up to support domestic and export needs. They have the money, they are being methodical making one move at the time.

  • Jesus

    The US navy does not have any powerful SSM it can deploy ….except for the subsonic Tomahawk that can be shot down or electronically jammed. US is behind in hypersonic technology, and it might fall behind significantly if the brain drain/deadness persists. It seems a lot of their projects are becoming white elephants that absorb significant defense resources.

    • Nexusfast123

      Their projects are corporate and finance driven. How much budget can they get. Producing effective or superior assets appears to come a poor second.

  • Vido Dasler

    The guy talking in the clip is Dutch, they have such a bad accent.

  • Jobu

    People have to stop fueling war rhetoric between Russia and the US. Russia has no intention of attacking the US and if the US attacks Russia. Russia has publicly stated that it will go straight to Nuclear weapons as it knows it can not withstand a protracted conventional war against the US and its minions. A war between the US and Russia will be the last war.

    • Nexusfast123

      You must have read the Russian military doctrine. I’m sure the people in the Pentagram have.

  • erc

    Russia and China should have a joint collaboration in land air space missile development for mutual benefit.

  • Frederick Jackson (El Lobo Mex

    I forget the Admiral’s name, but he admitted even back in the mid seventies that he feared for the US Mediterranean fleet confronting Soviet missile cruisers. In the ensuing 40 years seems like the situation has only gotten worse, with improvements in missile technology far outweighing the improvements in carrier based aircraft and in the carrier fleets defensive capabilities. I am no military expert, but this is the way it seems to me.