5 ms·

While that is correct, I'd argue that the military value lies more in force projection than actual force itself. Sure it's predicted that if the US were to ente

While that is correct, I'd argue that the military value lies more in force projection than actual force itself. Sure it's predicted that if the US were to enter into a proper engagement with either China or Russia that every carrier on the seven seas would be under water within a few hours. Within those few hours however those carrier groups could deal a good bit of damage. That threat of force is an effective tool in maintaining the peace and keeping the world stage from getting too exciting. This tool is even more applicable with regard to organisations or states that lack the capacity to effectively engage the US Navy with even a slim chance of standing their ground.

nordsieck 7y ago
> While that is correct, I'd argue that the military value lies more in force projection than actual force itself. Sure it's predicted that if the US were to enter into a proper engagement with either China or Russia that every carrier on the seven seas would be under water within a few hours. > Within those few hours however those carrier groups could deal a good bit of damage. I just don't buy this argument. 1. As you admit, carriers are really only good against poor nations. But lots of ships are good against poor nations: patrol boats, destroyers, etc. These other ships are _way_ less expensive to build and operate. Ultimately, air power just isn't very useful against most of the US's modern adversaries. Yes - air power can destroy targets, but that just doesn't seem to have much of a long term positive political effect. 2. I'm not convinced that carriers can do much damage in a suicide strike. Non-NATO countries have been very busy over the last few decades creating really good SAMs. The S-400 is a great example of this - much more effective than the patriot. Russia has been pretty aggressive about giving their military systems a chance to be tested in combat zones. I'm sure someone will talk about 5th gen fighters and how great their stealth is. Maybe. But the SAMs are getting much better at penetrating that stealth by using sophisticated integrated anti-air systems, and by using a broad spectrum of radar. They may not be there yet, but in 10-15 years? It's at least an open question. 3. I don't think they'd get even 1 hour. The modern space race has widely dispersed the technology for creating ballistic missiles. There is no effective defense against them.
- greedo 7y ago
  1. If carriers are only good against poor nations, why are most of the worlds navies buying, building and deploying them? China, USA, Britain, France, Japan, S.Korea, Italy, Spain? Just following an outdated fashion? Or perhaps they realize that nothing is more important in modern, high intensity warfare than airpower? 2. SAMs are pretty much useless for the foreseeable future against stealth fighters. Until that's resolved, carriers and airpower will reign supreme. 3. You're vastly overestimating ASBMs, the corresponding targeting systems, and underestimating how the US will handle them.

nordsieck 7y ago

> While that is correct, I'd argue that the military value lies more in force projection than actual force itself. Sure it's predicted that if the US were to enter into a proper engagement with either China or Russia that every carrier on the seven seas would be under water within a few hours. > Within those few hours however those carrier groups could deal a good bit of damage. I just don't buy this argument. 1. As you admit, carriers are really only good against poor nations. But lots of ships are good against poor nations: patrol boats, destroyers, etc. These other ships are _way_ less expensive to build and operate. Ultimately, air power just isn't very useful against most of the US's modern adversaries. Yes - air power can destroy targets, but that just doesn't seem to have much of a long term positive political effect. 2. I'm not convinced that carriers can do much damage in a suicide strike. Non-NATO countries have been very busy over the last few decades creating really good SAMs. The S-400 is a great example of this - much more effective than the patriot. Russia has been pretty aggressive about giving their military systems a chance to be tested in combat zones. I'm sure someone will talk about 5th gen fighters and how great their stealth is. Maybe. But the SAMs are getting much better at penetrating that stealth by using sophisticated integrated anti-air systems, and by using a broad spectrum of radar. They may not be there yet, but in 10-15 years? It's at least an open question. 3. I don't think they'd get even 1 hour. The modern space race has widely dispersed the technology for creating ballistic missiles. There is no effective defense against them.

greedo 7y ago
1. If carriers are only good against poor nations, why are most of the worlds navies buying, building and deploying them? China, USA, Britain, France, Japan, S.Korea, Italy, Spain? Just following an outdated fashion? Or perhaps they realize that nothing is more important in modern, high intensity warfare than airpower? 2. SAMs are pretty much useless for the foreseeable future against stealth fighters. Until that's resolved, carriers and airpower will reign supreme. 3. You're vastly overestimating ASBMs, the corresponding targeting systems, and underestimating how the US will handle them.