Is the carrier strike group becoming obsolete?

SGM Mike Barbieri — Sat, 07 Nov 2015 08:56:53 -0500

With the competition focusing on longer range strike capabilities are our carrier fleets really in danger of becoming obsolete?

Interesting take, but I am not convinced. I believe our long range detection capability combined with our more advanced short range technological edge will continue to sustain the carrier's relevance well into the future. Thoughts?

(CNN)Calling the U.S. aircraft carrier the "backbone" of America's global military presence, the Navy's top brass highlighted the risks of failing to maintain a big enough fleet during testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Tuesday.

But a new report on the future of aircraft carriers suggests that the Navy's problems run deeper than the number of ships or planes on these mobile airfields.

The Pentagon's focus on developing a "jack of all trades, master of none" aircraft, while rival countries build technology capable of sinking American carriers, could make these expensive warships ineffective in the coming years, according to the naval expert who authored the report.

The rise of new powers now threatens to push the Navy farther from shore and beyond the range of the aircraft the carriers hold, according to the report written by naval expert Jerry Hendrix of the Center for New American Security. "This push back would limit the service's ability to project power and thus undermine the credibility of the United States."

The U.S. carrier fleet and its air wings, or the aircraft on board, have been considered the foundation of American naval power since the end of World War II.

Over the last 70 years, the Pentagon has expanded and upgraded its fleet of aircraft carriers and the planes they carry; the staggering sums involved -- each carrier costs roughly $12 billion -- has been an investment that has allowed the U.S. Navy to project a consistent, military presence across the globe.

But the report charges that a misguided decision over the past 20 years to prioritize short-range, light attack aircraft -- rather than those with deep-strike capabilities and longer range -- coupled with the development of new, anti-ship missile technology by several unfriendly nations, jeopardizes the safety of the American vessels.

"Today's carriers and their accompanying air wings, with their shrinking ability to project mass power at great distance, represent 25 years of actively forgetting critical historical lessons," said Hendrix.

According to Hendrix's report, the loss of seven aircraft carriers during World War II led the Navy to initially prioritize the development of aircraft that could travel long distances to hit land-based targets and allow the carrier to stay further away from enemy territory.

But given the U.S. Navy's uncontested access to the world's oceans after the fall of the Soviet Union, aviation development has been refocused toward short-range, light-attack aircraft, over the last two decades, Hendrix said.

The light-attack, multi-role planes currently being used and developed tend to have lower maintenance costs and can be launched from an aircraft carrier more quickly than the specialized long-range aircraft of the past.

While the U.S. Navy and its air wing are still largely considered the most powerful in the world, Hendrix said the shift in capabilities coupled with the rise of new world powers, specifically China and its acquisition of a long-range carrier-killer missile, could hinder the U.S. carrier fleets.

These missiles "seek to take advantage of the United States' decision to cede range and the deep strike mission capability and push American ships and aircraft back beyond their operating ranges," Hedrix said.

That hurts U.S. power projection and its ability to contemplate regime change strategies that have dominated many modern American wars.

Russia, North Korea and Iran are also investing in similar anti-ship technology in an effort to re-impose the strict naval territories that existed in the decades prior to the fall of the Soviet Union, he added.

But the Navy said it is confident in the capabilities of its air wing and that the aircraft carrier will remain relevant despite the efforts of rival nations.

"A carrier is the only maritime force capable of executing the full range of military operations necessary to protect our national interests," Navy spokesman Cmdr. William Marks told CNN.

"The Navy remains committed to maintaining a carrier force, and associated carrier air wings, that provide unparalleled responsiveness and flexibility to operational commanders across the full range of military options," he added.

To counter the emerging threat posed by advanced anti-ship missile systems, the Navy has outfitted its newest destroyers and cruisers with advanced ballistic missile defense systems and is modernizing its ships and planes to include sensors and targeting systems that allow commanders, pilots and ship crews to share data with one another in real time.

The systems allow the group to "detect, track and destroy an approaching target from distances hundreds of miles over the horizon," Marks said.

But Hendrix contended that upgraded defense capabilities may not be enough, suggesting the Navy reassess the types of planes it plans to buy and restore more balance to its air wing by investing in alternatives that have more range.

"New capabilities in the areas of unmanned systems, stealth, directed energy, and hypersonics could be combined to provide the range required to perform deep strike missions," said Hendrix.

Another recent report, this one by the Hudson Institute's Center for American Sea Power, also said the Navy must increase the striking range of its planes in order to protect aircraft carriers in an increasingly dangerous environment.

This group of researchers also concluded that the emerging threats posed by evolving anti-ship technology only increase the need to invest in aircraft carriers, provided they have the proper enhancements in capability.

Dakota Wood, who served in the U.S. Marines and is a defense expert with the D.C.-based Heritage Foundation, agreed with Hendrix's assessment that the U.S. Navy must adjust its thinking about aircraft carriers as the anti-ship capabilities of rival nations improve.

However, any argument that aircraft carriers are no longer viable is premature, he said, as only a few countries currently possess weaponry precise enough to pose a lethal threat to carrier fleets.

"I think aircraft carriers will exist in their current form for several more years," Wood said.

Report: U.S. aircraft carriers could become ineffective - CNNPolitics.com

The Navy's top brass highlighted the risks of failing to maintain a big enough fleet during testimony before the House Armed Services Committee Tuesday.

Response by PO2 Steven Erickson made Nov 7 at 2015 9:20 AM

PO2 Steven Erickson — Sat, 07 Nov 2015 09:20:58 -0500

SGM Mike Barbieri, until a shooting war at sea starts, and tactics and equipment are tested "fer realsies" there is no evidence that the ability to put 90,000 tons of concentrated Whoop-Ass several hundred miles away from an adversary is "obsolete".

The high-tech, high-speed, low-observability weapons being gossiped about have not been proven in practice, and obviously not in combat.

It may be true that the CBG will become, as we submariners like to say, "cruise-missile catchers" in a shooting war, but until then, in the non-shooting war political environment, the CBG is the undisputed, world-wide champion of (both military AND political) power projection.

The low-tech "bomb-with-a-pilot-inside" kamikaze was a serious threat to the CBGs of WWII. As always, the US military adapted to the threat in AA and CAP tactics, and the threat was manageable. We cannot know how 11 CBGs will fair against the new weapons, and what weapon (other than Fat Man and Little Boy) have ever functioned "as designed" right out of the box?

I'm cynical enough to believe that there's a fiscal agenda behind the push to call our carriers obsolete. Methinks that someone doth desire the coin...

Response by CPO Emmett (Bud) Carpenter made Nov 7 at 2015 9:31 AM

CPO Emmett (Bud) Carpenter — Sat, 07 Nov 2015 09:31:39 -0500

I'm a carrier sailor so I may seem prejudice but we could hide from the bad guys when I sailed the seas and we can still do it. Our battle group can still project our power deep into the enemy and live to tell about it.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 7 at 2015 10:54 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Nov 2015 10:54:03 -0500

Ask anyone on the receiving end of a Carrier Battle Groups capabilities. I think there would be a unanimous response.
One CBG packs enough punch to take on all but a couple of the world's Navies and/or Air Forces BY ITSELF. For the other arguably two (China and Russia), it could take them on too... it would just have to be a little more cagey about it.
As for secret squirrel weapons that are being developed by potential opponents, I am pretty sure we have a toy or two in the basement to try out too.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 7 at 2015 11:27 AM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Nov 2015 11:27:18 -0500

I Really don't see our strike groups becoming obsolete since it gives a tactical advantage and we are currently developing two new classes of carriers you have the ford class and the zumwalt class but I can see were people would wonder

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 7 at 2015 11:30 AM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sat, 07 Nov 2015 11:30:34 -0500

I believe the aircraft carrier is still relevant. I assume that the carriers will use a greater stand off distance, and we will use many fighters for tactical and strategic purposes.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 7 at 2015 11:33 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Nov 2015 11:33:23 -0500

The main focus is the carrier-killer missile pushing the carrier farther from the border. However, it didn't address the countermeasure of the carrier- killer missile. Moreover, long range attack is only one of the many missions/capabilities of a carrier group, if I am not mistaken.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Nov 7 at 2015 12:05 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Sat, 07 Nov 2015 12:05:21 -0500

As long as the warfare is conventional, they are very necessary. Should it become nuclear in nature, I'm not sure I want to be on a BIG target.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Nov 7 at 2015 3:00 PM

SN Greg Wright — Sat, 07 Nov 2015 15:00:12 -0500

SGM Mike Barbieri I think the answer to this question is rather simply given by another: if you were an enemy of the US, would you want one sitting 200 miles off your shore?

When someone can be apathetic about that, THEN they'll be obsolete. Until then, they will continue to rule much of the earth's surface, land and sea, as they wish. As for the supposed super-missiles...there's only been talk. No demonstrations, and certainly no combat tests. And that talk completely discounts our counter-capabilities.

Response by PO1 Glenn Boucher made Nov 7 at 2015 3:56 PM

PO1 Glenn Boucher — Sat, 07 Nov 2015 15:56:24 -0500

I highly doubt that the Carrier Battle Group will ever be obsolete.
Its a floating projection of power, and has been proven we don't even need to pull into a port if push comes to shove, with underway replenishment we can receive parts, material, food, fuel and personnel as needed. Its not ideal but on TR after 9/11 we stayed underway for 159 days straight before pulling into Bahrain. I would say that the only reason we would have to pull into port is if something major broke and we could not avoid having to pull in for repairs.
We can get on station rather quickly also because we are already underway and training for a variety of missions during deployment.
With advances in technology we are only going to have more options in our bag.

Response by LTJG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 7 at 2015 4:37 PM

LTJG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Nov 2015 16:37:13 -0500

No, it is not obsolete and I don't see it becoming that way for an extremely long time (like until there are space fleets). There is no greater ability to place fighter aircraft anywhere in the world as quickly as a CSG. A carrier's defense is built in layers starting with the fighter aircraft and then AEGIS CRUDES ships. Sure, our enemies are trying to develop longer range weapons to defend their shores and project their power. That should be expected. It's not like we aren't developing new defense systems either. Also, if carriers were becoming obsolete, why did the Chinese acquire one? Why are the Brits starting to develop one? Why does every maritime nation want one? I'll tell you, it's because of the projection of power a carrier provides, plain and simple.

This thinking that we can't operate in an environment where the enemy can touch us is ridiculous. The fact is, we train to operate in hostile environments and set doctrine accordingly to defend our assets. Think about the Arabian Gulf or South China Sea. We get close enough to our enemies that they could strike now, but they don't because no one wants to really fight us at this stage. No one has the capabilities to stand up to our naval force for more than a very short moment.

Plus, we have other techniques to hide our ships from our enemies, but I'm not going to talk about that on here.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 7 at 2015 5:51 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 07 Nov 2015 17:51:22 -0500

Considering we are going back to a 12 carrier fleet. No they are not.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Nov 8 at 2015 12:05 AM

Capt Richard I P. — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 00:05:31 -0500

Soon.

In the next 5-10 years someone will develop a microbot the size of a wasp with a battery life of a few hours to a few days. Then they will teach them to swarm. A swarm of 500 of these micro-drones spaced 1 meter apart up down front back in three dimensional space off the bow and stern of a carrier is a cloud of FOD representing a serious hazard and virtual inoperability to the aircraft. And they cant be shot down, how would you hit them? Set their programming to only hang off the bow and stern until their batteries die then leap onto the carrier deck with the last of their juice, keep replenishing. Carrier aircraft neutralized.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Nov 8 at 2015 10:56 AM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 10:56:24 -0500

Tomahawk missiles, JDAMs JSOWs, etc, from the CVNSG - relevant. Long range bombers are nice, but flying a 36 hour mission to spend 10 minutes over target is not very efficient or effective, nor is it a cost effective way to do things...

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 8 at 2015 12:29 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 12:29:46 -0500

Carrier Strike Groups are one of the few visible US military entities that are constantly projecting the might and readiness of America around the globe. There isn't anything more powerful and deadly than a CSG, except maybe one U.S. Navy nuclear ballistic submarine!!!

Response by PO2 Nick Burke made Nov 8 at 2015 7:38 PM

PO2 Nick Burke — Sun, 08 Nov 2015 19:38:58 -0500

Yeah... Not in the near future. How else to project force?

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Nov 9 at 2015 9:25 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Mon, 09 Nov 2015 21:25:55 -0500

SGM Mike Barbieri As long as there are such things as countermeasures there will be no threat to CVGs