10 reasons a US Navy aircraft carrier is one of the safest places to be in a war

[Peter1469]

10 reasons a US Navy aircraft carrier is one of the safest places to be in a war

There is a debate about aircraft carriers- is their time over? Like the battleships before them.

This author doesn't believe it. He assumes that the carrier and its battle-group can easily defend itself, even against the new ballistic anti-ship missiles. I don't know enough about naval weapons systems. I do know, however, that as we add lasers to our ships we will indeed have a good chance to protecting our ships from these new ballistic anti-ship missiles.

Large-deck, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are the signature expression of American military power. They enable U.S. warfighters to sustain devastating air attacks against hostile forces on land or at sea for months at a time, precisely hitting hundreds of targets each day. And unlike some other combat systems, they don’t need access to bases ashore to accomplish their missions.

The fearsome power of America’s aircraft carriers makes them a potent tool for deterring aggressors without needing to rely on nuclear weapons. However, it is a common refrain among military analysts that our carriers are becoming vulnerable as long-range, anti-ship missiles proliferate around the world. For instance, Sydney Freedberg of Breaking Defense—one of the most respected journalists covering the military—observed in a March 12 budget analysis that “Beijing’s growing arsenal of precision-guided missiles seems increasingly able to find and cripple a thousand-foot-long flattop.”


No doubt about it, U.S. aircraft carriers are big. In addition to being over 1,000 feet long, they are as tall as a major office building (they have 25 decks) and their flight decks measure over four square acres. However, Navy leaders believe carriers are more survivable now than they were during the Cold War, and are steadily becoming less vulnerable to attack. When you consider all the provisions that have been made for protecting the ten carriers currently operating in the U.S. fleet, it is easy to conclude they might be the safest refuge to seek in a major war. Here are ten reasons why.


Deployed carriers are always moving.

Read the rest at the link.

[MMC]

10 reasons a US Navy aircraft carrier is one of the safest places to be in a war

There is a debate about aircraft carriers- is their time over? Like the battleships before them.

This author doesn't believe it. He assumes that the carrier and its battle-group can easily defend itself, even against the new ballistic anti-ship missiles. I don't know enough about naval weapons systems. I do know, however, that as we add lasers to our ships we will indeed have a good chance to protecting our ships from these new ballistic anti-ship missiles.




Read the rest at the link.

Lasers, the rail gun. But we do need to improve our subs. The Aussies have better diesel subs than we do.

[Peter1469]

Lasers, the rail gun. But we do need to improve our subs. The Aussies have better diesel subs than we do.

Aren't most of our subs nuclear now? We have the next generation Virginia Class sub coming online soon.

[MMC]

Aren't most of our subs nuclear now? We have the next generation Virginia Class sub coming online soon.

The Aussies can match the Chinese Silent subs. But they only have like 6 of them. The Chinese have surpassed us with Subs. They now have 76 to our 68.


But yeah some of ours Nuclear. Which they aren't silent.



Back as far as 2005, the U.S. Navy recognized the challenge and reached out to friends and allies for help. It was that year that the HMS Gotland, a modern AIP submarine serving in the Swedish Navy, made its home in California for a year. The goal was to test the impact of such a boat against U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups and other important vessels. It seems the boats, much cheaper to produce than the standard American nuclear-attack subs, created quite the stir:



“Apparently the Navy got more than they were bargaining for when it came to finding and engaging the stealthy little sub. The Gotland virtually ‘sunk’ many U.S. nuclear fast attack subs, destroyers, frigates, cruisers and even made it into the 'red zone' beyond the last ring of anti-submarine defenses within a carrier strike group. Although it was rumored she got many simulated shots off on various U.S. super-carriers, one large-scale training exercise in particular with the then brand new USS Ronald Reagan ended with the little sub making multiple attack runs on the super-carrier, before slithering away without ever being detected. . . ”

“. . .the little Swedish sub was "so silent it literally did not exist to our sensors." …..snip~



https://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...bmarines-15034

[Peter1469]

The Aussies can match the Chinese Silent subs. But they only have like 6 of them. The Chinese have surpassed us with Subs. They now have 76 to our 68.


But yeah some of ours Nuclear. Which they aren't silent.



Back as far as 2005, the U.S. Navy recognized the challenge and reached out to friends and allies for help. It was that year that the HMS Gotland, a modern AIP submarine serving in the Swedish Navy, made its home in California for a year. The goal was to test the impact of such a boat against U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups and other important vessels. It seems the boats, much cheaper to produce than the standard American nuclear-attack subs, created quite the stir:



“Apparently the Navy got more than they were bargaining for when it came to finding and engaging the stealthy little sub. The Gotland virtually ‘sunk’ many U.S. nuclear fast attack subs, destroyers, frigates, cruisers and even made it into the 'red zone' beyond the last ring of anti-submarine defenses within a carrier strike group. Although it was rumored she got many simulated shots off on various U.S. super-carriers, one large-scale training exercise in particular with the then brand new USS Ronald Reagan ended with the little sub making multiple attack runs on the super-carrier, before slithering away without ever being detected. . . ”

“. . .the little Swedish sub was "so silent it literally did not exist to our sensors." …..snip~



https://nationalinterest.org/blog/th...bmarines-15034

I wonder how fast those subs are and whether they make more noise as they approach top speed. The OP says the carriers can cruse at 35 knots (although I doubt that all ships in the strike group can).

[MMC]

I wonder how fast those subs are and whether they make more noise as they approach top speed. The OP says the carriers can cruse at 35 knots (although I doubt that all ships in the strike group can).

Our nuke fast subs can go like 40 mph. The fastest sub is a Russian sub that went 45 mph.

[Peter1469]

Our nuke fast subs can go like 40 mph. The fastest sub is a Russian sub that went 45 mph.

OK, 45mph is 39 knots.

[MMC]

OK, 45mph is 39 knots.

Subs with Laser systems will more than likely be able to go faster. Wont have torpedoes to carry.

[Peter1469]

Subs with Laser systems will more than likely be able to go faster. Wont have torpedoes to carry.

Can you fire a laser underwater?

[MMC]

Can you fire a laser underwater?

Don't know......but if we can in Space. Good bet we could underwater.