Hacker News Reader

Comment by JanSolo | Hacker News Reader

I wonder why the US is so determined to have a large carrier fleet?

With the advent of anti-ship cruise missiles, carriers have lost the decisive edge that they had during WW2. It seems like few nations are willing to bear the development and maintenance costs of modern carriers. Yet the US continues to build carriers as if they were at war! Furthermore, there is a huge uproar (along with legal challenges!) whenever anyone dares to suggest even slowing down the rate of carrier deployment. Why is the US so set on a policy that every other developed nation has eschewed? It makes no sense to me.

View on HN

Did Afghanistan, Iraq, Isis, Syria, or even Serbia have the capability to launch cruise missles at aircraft carriers? What about Vietnam or Korea?

I think your underestimating what aircraft carriers are actually used for. The Navy has been dropping bombs off aircraft carriers since WW2. I doubt we will ever see another world war in our lifetime. They may sell it to Congress one way and use it another way.

I agree with you; guns are great when you're fighting enemies armed only with sharp sticks...

The first time the US has to deal with Anti-Ship cruise-missiles might be a bad day for them.

It would be a bad day for everyone!

Most other countries aren't making carriers not because they're obsolete, but because they're too expensive. Not only do you need the super expensive carrier, but you need the aircraft to launch off of it and the battlegroup to accompany it.

why?

they are a fantastic way to project power without having land bases, obviously. We have used them quite a lot for this purpose in the 60 years since cruise missiles were developed - including in the wars we are currently fighting.

also they are major sources of money for industry in important congressional districts, and have symbolic power that politicians and leaders crave.

no one else does it because they are expensive, difficult to develop, and no one else has the need to support global operations like we do (though China is getting there, and the UK fondly remembers when it used to).

> With the advent of anti-ship cruise missiles, carriers have lost the decisive edge that they had during WW2.

That may or may not be true. It has yet to be proven one way or the other.

Yes, in theory anti-ship cruise missiles can take out a carrier. A carrier in the middle of a battle group with all defenses running? Maybe... or maybe not.

Then, as others have pointed out, there are plenty of countries that don't have anti-ship cruise missiles, nor the data chain to target them properly. Against those countries, carriers still have a decisive edge.

Ship-to-ship naval warfare has practically gone extinct since World War II. The Navy is mostly used as another Air Force that doesn't require either established airbases or amphetamines to carry out sorties. This is because the US and its allies have a preexisting status of unquestioned naval supremacy already. Russia's access to the sea is almost completely bottled up by geography and nobody else has built close to as many ships as we have. In this environment, the focus naturally shifts from sea warfare to using naval forces to attack land targets.

Also, nuclear-powered aircraft carriers require a lot of specialized shipyard and drydock infrastructure that doesn't really pay off if you're only going to build one or two of them. That's why the Charles de Gaulle has been so expensive and why the Royal Navy didn't go nuclear with the QE class. So it only really makes sense, in an alliance, for one country to shoulder the particular burden of operating all the supercarriers. And of all the countries that aren't allied with us, Russia isn't going to waste time building supercarriers because they can't reach the open ocean in wartime anyway and China seems to be in the early stages of trying to do so themselves.

Russia's access to the sea is almost completely bottled up by geography and nobody else has built close to as many ships as we have. In this environment, the focus naturally shifts from sea warfare to using naval forces to attack land targets.

Taiwan, the Philippines, Japan, and South Korea are all key to the US's current global strategic game of keeping China bottled up behind the South China Sea. China's game plan consists of getting past this.

China seems to be in the early stages of trying to do so themselves.

It would make sense that they would try and leverage the advantage of having their landmass nearby, to give "artillery support" with hypersonic anti-ship missiles to their naval forces facing the US forces in the South China Sea. If I were the US, I would be looking into shifting emphasis to submarine warfare in the South China Sea, including submarines emphasizing ship to ship missiles. I would also be re-implementing SOSUS style listening arrays in the area.

There are no U.S. military bases on Taiwan or the Philippines. Nor Thailand, for that matter. Japan and South Korea are both north of the South China Sea.

China's game plan started with building a navy for the first time in half a millennium. Their geopolitical interests are complex, but I'm pretty sure the immediate focus of their naval power has been and will be securing resources in the South China Sea and reclaiming Taiwan. They're not bottled up, it's just where their interests lie.

There are no U.S. military bases on Taiwan or the Philippines.

But we could still stage resources there. Just having a place to land gives benefits in terms of sortie rate. Also, in the event of a lead-up to conflict, these can be built in a hurry.

Japan and South Korea are both north of the South China Sea.

All the same, they are a part of the general US geopolitical strategy of keeping China bottled up behind the South China Sea. Are you trying to "debunk" what I'm saying by using unnecessary specificity? The US does have bases in those countries.

I'm pretty sure the immediate focus of their naval power has been and will be securing resources in the South China Sea and reclaiming Taiwan.

Sure. And if/when they claim Taiwan, China will have access to the oceans which can't be easily restricted, even by a world-dominating navy. They will be able to move hypersonic missile bases, naval bases, and airstrips there. The door will be open to them to start competing with the US as the global naval hegemon.

> Why is the US so set on a policy that every other developed nation has eschewed?

Which other countries have made the security commitments that the US has? Not only being a part of NATO, but commitments to Israel, Egypt, Japan, Korea, Australia, NZ, and so on. At a minimum the US needs an active carrier in both the Atlantic and Pacific, and usually two in the Pacific. To do that you need at another minimum twice that number to rotate ships out. Then for carriers you need more for life cycle and overhauls.

Plus its always quite disingenuous to compare the US to say a country like France. The size, population, economy, etc are in completely different categories.

Team America, World Police.

They may not have the decisive edge they had 60+ years ago, but they still represent something. Having more carriers is indicative of the United States' willingness to be the biggest military superpower on the planet. It helps to secure economic power/influence. It helps to push their agenda.

Also, certain groups in the US (including the current president) would argue that the only reason other developed nations haven't engaged in this type of military building is because the US has done it and they've relied on that proxy strength.

> Team America, World Police.

Basically the British mortgaged their global empire to the US for bailing them out during WWI and WWII.

"Generals always fight the last war."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com