State of the US Military

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ouze**

Man, there was some stuff even I wouldn't have cut there.

3 carrier groups seems too few.

Also, I don't think carriers are the past at all, I think they're going to be even more essential for supporting autonomous aircraft and vehicles, something that is clearly going to be the future of warfare - although I think those will be somewhat smaller.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

LordofHats wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

In other words, America needs to start engaging in realpolitik and see the world for what it is, not how America wants it to be...

This may be one of the greatest statements about US foreign policy ever made on this board.

As to the OP, yeah. Congress tends to the screw the armed forces when it comes to budgetary requirements. Sure they'll shell out a couple million to buy you some C130s you neither asked for, nor need because those 500 jobs building the damn things are worth throwing money into the ocean, but have a real problem that needs money to fix it? Good luck with that. No one votes on the military being effective, and well run. They vote on the military having big tanks, cool jets, and a ridiculous number of aircraft carriers because rule of cool.

I don't think Congress puts much thought, or stock, into how it funds anything in the military which makes the massive amount we spend an even greater quagmire.

Thanks for the kind words.

IMO the problem is not the US military, the problem is US politicians. Time and time again, the US military has risen to the occasion. Pre both world wars, the US military was in a bad state, but they got their act together and the rest is history. Even in Vietnam when they were operating with one hand tied behind their back, they still handle the situation fairly well.

I'm not worried about the US military, it's the politicians that concern me. The following criticisms are not unique to the USA, but the USA really needs its leaders to decide what its goals are. For whatever reason, be it the decline in political leadership in the west, the four year presidential cycle, or short term thinking, US politicans are not up to the task.

After reading Tom Ricks' book on the Iraq war fiasco, I was amazed at how shambolic the planning for the war was - and the politicians were to blame for this.

Sadly, I can only see this trend continuing when HRC becomes president, becuase you can bet your last dollar that her hawksih stance will see the US military dragged into another needless conflcit that doesn't really have any gain for America.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ouze wrote:
Man, there was some stuff even I wouldn't have cut there.

3 carrier groups seems too few.

Also, I don't think carriers are the past at all, I think they're going to be even more essential for supporting autonomous aircraft and vehicles, something that is clearly going to be the future of warfare - although I think those will be somewhat smaller.

I disagree. In the 21 century, I think carriers will end up becoming floating bullseyes. Some of those anti-ship missles scare the hell out of me.

**Frazzled**

Exactly. Antiship missiles, antiship drones, not to mention Thor's hammer from space.

**Seaward**

Ouze wrote:
Man, there was some stuff even I wouldn't have cut there.

3 carrier groups seems too few.

Also, I don't think carriers are the past at all, I think they're going to be even more essential for supporting autonomous aircraft and vehicles, something that is clearly going to be the future of warfare - although I think those will be somewhat smaller.

Three carrier groups is far too few. That's one for the Pacific, one for the Atlantic, and one for carrier qual and training...and I guess we just don't have one of those three areas covered when one needs to go into the yard for a year or two.

Western allies who have one or two carriers can get away with it because A) we train all their carrier pilots and B) they never use them for anything, anyway.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I disagree. In the 21 century, I think carriers will end up becoming floating bullseyes. Some of those anti-ship missles scare the hell out of me.

Carriers have always been floating bullseyes. It's because they've been the most significant surface warfare target since World War II.

Fortunately, the Navy's not quite as dumb as the average civilian thinks, and hasn't been caught entirely by surprise by the fact that potential enemies have noted the need to neutralize carrier battle groups in the event of a full-scale conventional war.

You might almost go so far as to say the Navy's well aware of the anti-ship missile route some potential future competitors are attempting to go.

If you really wanted to get crazy, you could theorize that systems to neutralize such attacks have been theorized, planned, built, and tested.

**Frazzled**

Fortunately, the Navy's not quite as dumb as the average civilian thinks, and hasn't been caught entirely by surprise by the fact that potential enemies have noted the need to neutralize carrier battle groups in the event of a full-scale conventional war.

***Easy to say since we've not fought anyone with material anti-naval capability since Leyte Gulf. Howis the navy going to stop tungsten rods at mach 15 from low orbital vehicles or ballistic missiles armed with 500KT warheads, or just the 5,000 silkworm missiles pointed at the waters off Taiwan and Japan?

Alternatively replace the carrier group with drones. Never worry about a human casualty again.

**LordofHats**

Ouze wrote:
Man, there was some stuff even I wouldn't have cut there.

3 carrier groups seems too few.

Also, I don't think carriers are the past at all, I think they're going to be even more essential for supporting autonomous aircraft and vehicles, something that is clearly going to be the future of warfare - although I think those will be somewhat smaller.

Really, the US' greatest defense is that it's got a couple thousand miles of ocean on either side. When talking about our national security as it pertains to military force, the U.S. Navy is the most significant of all branches of the armed forces. Even in the harsh budgetary days of the Great Depression when the US army was literally running on fumes. we still maintained a strong navy because we had the sense to realize the difference between an armed force capable of defending the state and its interests, and an armed force capable of single handedly pummeling every other armed force into submission.

**Frazzled**

I agree a strong navy if helpful. That doesn't mean it has to be i the form of 1930s technology carriers. Time to start building the fleet of 2041, not 1941.

**jmurph**

Frazzled wrote:

Alternatively replace the carrier group with drones. Never worry about a human casualty again.

Also more production/repair/replacement jobs! Yay!

Really though, everybody just needs to calm down- Trump has got this. He will fix it by winning. There will be so much winning, we probably won't even need to fight anymore, because he will have gotten the best deals.

**Frazzled**

jmurph wrote:
Frazzled wrote:

Alternatively replace the carrier group with drones. Never worry about a human casualty again.

Also more production/repair/replacement jobs! Yay!

Really though, everybody just needs to calm down- Trump has got this. He will fix it by winning. There will be so much winning, we probably won't even need to fight anymore, because he will have gotten the best deals.

Trump's hair can be used as a nuclear umbrella. Viva Trump!

**Seaward**

Frazzled wrote:
Howis the navy going to stop tungsten rods at mach 15 from low orbital vehicles

Oh, are we not discussing threats that'll be relevant within the next fifty years?

or ballistic missiles armed with 500KT warheads, or just the 5,000 silkworm missiles pointed at the waters off Taiwan and Japan?

Well, Silkworms are actually pretty easy to shoot down (we've done it before), and they have a tendency not to hit what they're aimed at to begin with.

It's the newer stuff you want to watch out for, but even then, missile defense technology is something we've been working on since long before most of us were even born. We're actually pretty decent at it these days.

Alternatively replace the carrier group with drones. Never worry about a human casualty again.

I'm sure that's the future in ~50 years, but drones remain a long way away from matching all current manned aircraft capabilities.

**Breotan**

I'm going to disagree here.

There's a reason most nations soil their britches when a carrier group shows up in their part of the world. It's because a carrier group is still the most effective way to project force in support of war.

A carrier group is designed to move force projection from point to point as war fighting needs change. They allow us to strike anywhere in the world with near impunity and conduct operations even if land bases are unavailable or if airspace fly-through permissions cannot be obtained by distant bases.

Back in 1986, both France and Spain denied permission for American aircraft to fly over their territory on their way to bomb Libya. Were a carrier group in the Mediterranean, it would have been a moot point.

As for the threat of anti-ship missiles, carrier groups are not more vulnerable than forts/stations on land. If an enemy can sink your carrier with minor risk/effort then you are not projecting force properly.

Now if you want to discuss size, that is a more reasonable argument to make. Do we need super-carriers or will smaller more agile vessels be a better way to go? That debate has been going on since at least the 80s.

**Frazzled**

I'm sure that's the future in ~50 years, but drones remain a long way away from matching all current manned aircraft capabilities.

They can loiter and bomb targets on demand. Thats what its about. For the price of a carrier group how many drones and antiship missiles can I get? How many missile frigates? How many LCS's?

EDIT: AM I saying I have all the answers? No of course not. But we are a declining empire. Time to accept that and go back to being a business empire with sufficient capacities to defend iteslf but not pick a fight with every other country on the planet.

Since WWII we no fight outside of Grenada has turned out well. They say insanity is repeating the same mistake over and over and over and expecting a different result.

**djones520**

Frazzled wrote:
I'm sure that's the future in ~50 years, but drones remain a long way away from matching all current manned aircraft capabilities.

They can loiter and bomb targets on demand. Thats what its about. For the price of a carrier group how many drones and antiship missiles can I get? How many missile frigates?

Frazz, I love you man, but your understanding of how this stuff works just isn't that good. We can't launch a drone in the US to deal with something in Africa. Even in Afghanistan, all of our drones are based in Afghanistan. They have a lot of "loiter" time, but their slow as can be. It would take greater then 6 hours to fly an MQ-1 from North Afghanistan to South Afghanistan. Fuel demands means it would only have 2-3 hours of dwell time at that point. So tell me how having something that takes 6 hours to travel several hundred miles to hang out there for a short period of time beats an entire airwing of aircraft who can cross that distance in 1/12th the time, still have the same loiter time, while carrying 3 times the munitions.

This doesn't even take into account weather considerations. Is more then 1/2 of the sky covered in clouds anywhere from 15,000 feet or lower, in any of the mission window? Yes, well scrub that drone mission. That little amount of weather shuts them down. Manned aircraft, much much more capable of dealing with bad weather conditions.

**Frazzled**

djones520 wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
I'm sure that's the future in ~50 years, but drones remain a long way away from matching all current manned aircraft capabilities.

They can loiter and bomb targets on demand. Thats what its about. For the price of a carrier group how many drones and antiship missiles can I get? How many missile frigates?

Frazz, I love you man, but your understanding of how this stuff works just isn't that good. We can't launch a drone in the US to deal with something in Africa. Even in Afghanistan, all of our drones are based in Afghanistan. They have a lot of "loiter" time, but their slow as can be. It would take greater then 6 hours to fly an MQ-1 from North Afghanistan to South Afghanistan. Fuel demands means it would only have 2-3 hours of dwell time at that point. So tell me how having something that takes 6 hours to travel several hundred miles to hang out there for a short period of time beats an entire airwing of aircraft who can cross that distance in 1/12th the time, still have the same loiter time, while carrying 3 times the munitions.

This doesn't even take into account weather considerations. Is more then 1/2 of the sky covered in clouds anywhere from 15,000 feet or lower, in any of the mission window? Yes, well scrub that drone mission. That little amount of weather shuts them down. Manned aircraft, much much more capable of dealing with bad weather conditions.

And if you bring that carrier up against someone like the Chinese or the Soviets er Rooskies, thats thousands of dead men. Carriers were developed to fight naval battles. Against an existential threat they are targets of opportunity vs. other options.

**Vaktathi**

Its likely that within the lifespan of in-development ships and aircraft that drones and automated munitions will match or exceed the capabilities of manned vehicles, at least on a cost basis, if they havent already, and I suspect the future will be built on carriers not of manned aircraft, but drones and missile boats.

That said, carrier battle groups havent engaged anything truly capable of engaging them back since, well, WW2 really. There was the Falklands war, but that ultimately was a limited conflict and did not involve the US. There's just no data really to go on.

Much like the questions around tanks, any situation likely to result in clashes with major naval assets against non trivial powers runs the risk of nuclear escalation to such a degree that nobody has been willing to aggressively use such assets.

**Ahtman**

Vaktathi wrote:
Its likely that within the lifespan of in-development ships and aircraft that drones and automated munitions will match or exceed the capabilities of manned vehicles, at least on a cost basis, if they havent already, and I suspect the future will be built on carriers not of manned aircraft, but drones and missile boats.

Skynet is coming. We have learned nothing.

**Jihadin**

Ahtman wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Its likely that within the lifespan of in-development ships and aircraft that drones and automated munitions will match or exceed the capabilities of manned vehicles, at least on a cost basis, if they havent already, and I suspect the future will be built on carriers not of manned aircraft, but drones and missile boats.

Skynet is coming. We have learned nothing.

Stop teasing us. Its not going to happen.......unless we're in Matrix situation......

**Frazzled**

I for one welcome our new Skynet Overlords, and will happily sell out you traitorous meatbags at the first opportunity.

**Seaward**

Frazzled wrote:
And if you bring that carrier up against someone like the Chinese or the Soviets er Rooskies, thats thousands of dead men. Carriers were developed to fight naval battles. Against an existential threat they are targets of opportunity vs. other options.

Walk me through how you think that happens. Walk me through how they find it in the first place, then how they get through the FAD net if they're coming in through the air, or how they get past the ASW net if they're trying a submarine attack.

I'm trying to figure out why you think carriers are unprotected and vulnerable in wartime when the opposite is in fact the case.

**Jihadin**

Over saturation of the carrier group defensive capabilities

**Seaward**

Jihadin wrote:
Over saturation of the carrier group defensive capabilities

I'm honestly not sure who could pull that off today. It'd have to be done exclusively by land-based missiles, since nobody else has the air or naval capacity to do it otherwise. And the thing everyone seems to forget is that, in the event of a shooting war with China, they're going to lose a lot of their ASM sites before a carrier group ever shows up. We have cruise missiles, too.

**Frazzled**

Indeed.
-They are not hard to locate.
-China crashes the software connecting US satellites, and well, everything else in the US.
-China launches 200 land based antiship missiles, followed by 10 squadrons of aircraft.
-China then launches 200 sea based cruise missiles, followed by 10 squadrons of aircraft.
-Within 24 hours China invades Vietnam, Taiwan. NK invades SK. China fires on any ship in the Sea of Japan.
-China declares these waters sovereign Chinese territory.

**Vaktathi**

Seaward wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
And if you bring that carrier up against someone like the Chinese or the Soviets er Rooskies, thats thousands of dead men. Carriers were developed to fight naval battles. Against an existential threat they are targets of opportunity vs. other options.

Walk me through how you think that happens. Walk me through how they find it in the first place, then how they get through the FAD net if they're coming in through the air, or how they get past the ASW net if they're trying a submarine attack.

I'm trying to figure out why you think carriers are unprotected and vulnerable in wartime when the opposite is in fact the case.

If they're operating within several hundred miles of a coast, a battlegroup can be detected and targeted, and once thats done there's a number of options available which dont require submarines getting within a few thousand meters or aircraft flying through a fighter screen. Saturation fire by land based missile systems is a large threat (and easier to hide than a massive fleet), and a carrier battlegroup has always been a prime target for tactical nuclear munitions if felt necessary. This is also to say nothing of the potential for diesel attack subs that have proven capable of penetrating battlegroup defenses during exercises.

**Agiel**

I posted on the Credible Defense reddit on my thoughts on the perceived vulnerability of Carrier Strike Groups:

I think people also forget some key facts like:

1.) How carrier battle groups represent probably the greatest concentration of AAW defences outside of Moscow, comprising a multi-layer defence of air defence fighters, AWACS able to detect and cue targets flying low, and finally the Aegis-equipped cruiser and destroyer escorts. Just because the means to sink a carrier exist, it doesn't mean that sinking one is as easy as one snapping his fingers. Even with the introduction of the Tu-22M and the AS-4 Kitchen, Soviet Naval Aviation wasn't terribly sanguine about their odds in attenuating the US naval threat; a given Backfire regimental raid against a carrier battle group was expected to have a 50% attrition rate, regardless of whether or not it succeeded in scoring any hits on the carrier.

2.) That in spite of the perceived vulnerability of carriers, absolutely nobody has put forward a viable alternative that provides the presence and force projection capabilities it carries, the ability to sustain it (a ship or sub can launch a whole lot of Tomahawks, but generally has to return to a home port to replenish; it's super dangerous to reload VLS cells at sea), and is any less vulnerable to boot.

3.) That a lot of scenarios of say, Russia, sinking a carrier had been contingent on catching a CSG by surprise in order to sink it. Sure they might have succeeded in wounding the US Navy, but they would then have to contend with the (currently) seven other operational carriers that would now be on alert and sailing for Kola, Kamchatka, Vladivostok, and Kaliningrad, to say nothing of the submarines and US Air Force they would be working in conjunction with. They got their black eye in, but it's the equivalent of giving a sucker punch to Holly Holm, who will murder you in the next heartbeat.

4.)That carriers represent only one component of a combined arms effort against adversaries. It isn't just the carrier and her air wing that's at play, it's also the SSNs and the SSGNs launching Tomahawks, the bombers launching stealthy cruise missiles flying 30 ft above the deck on targets 500nm away, and the strike fighters and multi-roles sustained by tankers to name a few.

Carriers have not been rendered obsolete by anti-ship missiles any more than tanks being rendered obsolete by anti-tank missiles in 1973 in the Sinai. Last time I checked, many of the newer ones are still rolling around with advanced composite armour and ERA, laser and plume warning sensors, multi-spectral smoke grenade launchers, electro-optical dazzlers, and advanced APS arrays. So too will the US Navy develop means to defend the carrier:

**Seaward**

Vaktathi wrote:
If they're operating within several hundred miles of a coast, a battlegroup can be detected and targeted, and once thats done there's a number of options available which dont require submarines getting within a few thousand meters or aircraft flying through a fighter screen.

Well, no. There's one. Long-range anti-ship missiles. That's pretty much it.

And we've got a lot of defenses against those.

Saturation fire by land based missile systems is a large threat (and easier to hide than a massive fleet), and a carrier battlegroup has always been a prime target for tactical nuclear munitions if felt necessary.

If nukes start flying, carrier strike groups become irrelevant, along with all other conventional forces. It's a nuke war at that point.

As far as saturation fire goes...you could probably blow your load and overwhelm the defenses of one in a complete Pearl Harbor-style surprise attack. Which is an accomplishment. But it's also why we have more than one. And then you're pretty screwed, 'cause the second we're aware we're at war, you're going to lose the bulk of your launch sites.

This is also to say nothing of the potential for diesel attack subs that have proven capable of penetrating battlegroup defenses during exercises.

GR4 Tornados were able to shoot down F-22s in exercises. Why "it happened in an exercise" is never a convincing argument is a topic for another time, but we're again back to getting lucky once with unconventional tactics and then having nothing to fall back on when that doesn't make the other three CSGs in the area disappear.

Look, it's possible to sink a modern American carrier, but it's nowhere near as easy as people seem to think. I'm starting to get a distinct WarIsBoring vibe from this thread, and there's a reason they're a blog and not policymakers or strategic planners - aside from the fact that none of them have relevant military or civilian-side DOD experience, that is.

**Vaktathi**

I honestly can say I dont think I have ever read WarIsBoring.

I also am not saying that its a piece of cake to destroy a CBG, but they do have vulnerabilities in a conventional conflict that are much larger than anything the US has faced in 70 years Sure, some of them are 1 trick ponies, but not all, massed anti ship missile fire from land based batteries is a consistent and viable threat to any CBG near a coastline, particularly if intent on striking targets deep inland, and highly capable first rate anti aircraft defenses are likewise something the US hasnt had to deal with much in the last 70 years which may greatly diminish the value of carrier based aircraft. The destruction of a CBG would also be a major event, one that could easily shift the balance of power in a theatre of operations even if another could be brought in, to say nothing of the potential propaganda/home front impact.

The big problem (well, a good problem) is that none of this has been actively tested in battle with a first rate power, and all anyone has to go on is theory, exercises, and one sided curbstompings of trivial powers.

**Killionaire**

Meh. This all sounds like budget squabbling between the armed services in an era of decreasing need of many big ticket items. We don't NEED thousands of a new MBT, not by far. We don't need the ability to defeat every other nation's air force combined, twice over.

What is being spent on however, are still real needs. Like replacing the older CVNs, that's a real big deal: CVNs are still our universal source of power projection, able to supply an entire NATION'S worth of air power anywhere in the world, and being utterly invulnerable to all but a major power's attacks (of which it'd provide a solid challenge as well).

Of course military budget procurement is going to ask for as much as possible, and highlight how 'woeful' funding is. That's part of their job. But the counterbalance is restraint, as everything has a real cost.

Lots of armchair secdefs here.

**Vaktathi**

99.99999% of eveyone is an armchair *whatever*.

This is an off topic thread on a message board about plastic toy fantasy armies. I dont think anyone was looking to craft official government policy here...

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

Seaward wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
If they're operating within several hundred miles of a coast, a battlegroup can be detected and targeted, and once thats done there's a number of options available which dont require submarines getting within a few thousand meters or aircraft flying through a fighter screen.

Well, no. There's one. Long-range anti-ship missiles. That's pretty much it.

And we've got a lot of defenses against those.

Saturation fire by land based missile systems is a large threat (and easier to hide than a massive fleet), and a carrier battlegroup has always been a prime target for tactical nuclear munitions if felt necessary.

If nukes start flying, carrier strike groups become irrelevant, along with all other conventional forces. It's a nuke war at that point.

As far as saturation fire goes...you could probably blow your load and overwhelm the defenses of one in a complete Pearl Harbor-style surprise attack. Which is an accomplishment. But it's also why we have more than one. And then you're pretty screwed, 'cause the second we're aware we're at war, you're going to lose the bulk of your launch sites.

This is also to say nothing of the potential for diesel attack subs that have proven capable of penetrating battlegroup defenses during exercises.

GR4 Tornados were able to shoot down F-22s in exercises. Why "it happened in an exercise" is never a convincing argument is a topic for another time, but we're again back to getting lucky once with unconventional tactics and then having nothing to fall back on when that doesn't make the other three CSGs in the area disappear.

Look, it's possible to sink a modern American carrier, but it's nowhere near as easy as people seem to think. I'm starting to get a distinct WarIsBoring vibe from this thread, and there's a reason they're a blog and not policymakers or strategic planners - aside from the fact that none of them have relevant military or civilian-side DOD experience, that is.

You've made some good, insightful points, and you're way more knowledgeable on this subject than I am, but I'd like to point out the following.

Having read numerous books on the disaster that was the Iraq war, I discovered that the DoD and hundreds of other planners and military experts had the best facilities that money could buy, some top experts, and people working on it 24/7...

and you know what, the Iraq war was was still a disaster for the USA, so the idea that military experts and strategic planners know best is well, you know...not 100%, war is hell, no plan survives contact with the enemy and all that...

That's not to say they don't know what they're doing, but they don't always get it right...

**Seaward**

Vaktathi wrote:
99.99999% of eveyone is an armchair *whatever*.

This is an off topic thread on a message board about plastic toy fantasy armies. I dont think anyone was looking to craft official government policy here...

I've got some personal familiarity with carrier aviation.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
You've made some good, insightful points, and you're way more knowledgeable on this subject than I am, but I'd like to point out the following.

Having read numerous books on the disaster that was the Iraq war, I discovered that the DoD and hundreds of other planners and military experts had the best facilities that money could buy, some top experts, and people working on it 24/7...

and you know what, the Iraq war was was still a disaster for the USA, so the idea that military experts and strategic planners know best is well, you know...not 100%, war is hell, no plan survives contact with the enemy and all that...

That's not to say they don't know what they're doing, but they don't always get it right...

Sure, the military can't account for political disasters like Iraq. It's beholden to political leadership; if the president calls a given play, they run it.

It's very difficult to craft a scenario in which a post-war insurgency somehow sinks a carrier strike group at sea? I dunno. I dunno what point you're making here. Specific to the issue of carriers, pointing out that our civilian leadership made horrific calls to disband the enemy army and flood the country with ready-made insurgents in Iraq is a bit of a confusing one.