WWII saw the twilight of the battleship and the ascendency
of the carrier as the primary source of naval strike firepower. Why?
What characteristics made carrier power superior? No, this isn’t a trick question. The answer is the simple and obvious
one. Carriers were able to deliver
significant firepower but so could any surface ship so that’s not the
answer. What made the carrier so
effective was that it could deliver that firepower
Carriers could strike from well beyond the horizon and,
possibly more importantly, it could do so cheaply in the sense that the
firepower delivery unit, the individual aircraft, cold be easily and affordably
replaced to mitigate the inevitable attrition.
Trained pilots, of course, were a separate issue.
Consider the import of the cost aspect. Previously, in a clash of surface ships, the
firepower delivery unit was the ship itself and multi-billion dollar ships
(expressed in terms of today’s relative costs) were routinely lost in
combat. It took years and enormous costs
to replace a lost ship. Carriers, however,
did not risk themselves in the delivery of their firepower – they just risked
their aircraft and each aircraft represented only around 1/90th (an
air wing of 90 aircraft) of the carrier’s combat effectiveness. Further, losing an aircraft was a nearly
insignificant event (the pilots would, of course, vehemently disagree!) and the
aircraft could be readily replaced. In
fact, carriers routinely carried spare aircraft, ‘boxed’ and ready to
assemble. Replacement aircraft were
free, on a relative basis.
- from a great distance and,
- cheaply
 |
| SBD Dauntless - Rise of the Carrier |
Yes, carriers were at risk during the overall strike operations. If a carrier was in range to strike, it was
also in range to be struck. We’re
talking about the act of striking, not the overall operation.
So much for belaboring the obvious. How is this relevant to us, now?
Consider the cruise missile.
What are its outstanding characteristics compared to the current primary
strike unit of the Navy which is, of course, the carrier and its aircraft? Cruise missiles have two major
characteristics that distinguish them from aircraft:
Does this sound familiar?
Are these not the exact characteristics which led to the ascent of the
carrier over the battleship?
The cruise missile is now ascendant over the carrier for
strike operations. Indeed, ComNavOps has
repeatedly stated that the carrier is in its twilight as a strike
platform. It is, of course, still
dominant in the air superiority role.
We need to remember what led to the demise of the battleship
and rise of the carrier and be wise enough to recognize those same
characteristics in the cruise missile relative to the carrier.
- Greater range
- Much lower cost (nearly free on a relative basis compared to aircraft)
 |
| LRASM - Demise of the Carrier |
We also need to recognize that one of the characteristics
that led to the rise of the carrier and now the cruise missile is affordability. We need to keep that characteristic firmly in
mind. If the missile becomes too
expensive, which is the path we’re on now, then it loses its ascendency. Cruise missiles have tripled in price over
the last decade or two as we add ever more sophisticated and complex
functionality which serves no real combat purpose. We need to keep the missiles as simple as
possible which will keep them affordable and rapidly producible.
During WWII, we built an average of 80 F6F Hellcats per
week. Today, we’re doing well if we can
build 80 missiles per year. We’ve got to
bring the missile cost and complexity down so that we can produce them at
useful war rates.
Strike has moved on from the carrier and we need to adjust our
fleet composition and air wings accordingly.
Has the fighting around the mouth of the Red Sea influenced your thoughts on this?
ReplyDeleteNo. In what way would think it might?
DeleteHas it influenced your thinking on the matter?
It doesn't matter since they don't have any real air defenses. But if they did the dominant strategy would move towards cruise missiles and ballistic missiles that don't risk airframes. The cruise missiles have longer ranges but the ballistic missiles are fast. Even keeping one aircraft orbit overhead 24/7 in case the Houthi's roll a missile launcher out of cave costs over a million dollars per day. So cost wise it is actually a very good application for missiles that are getting targeting from cheap drones.
DeleteI was surprised to see the navy still using Tomahawks against the Houthis instead of JDAMs. Surely this was the perfect use case for JDAM- an enemy with no air defense what soever, near the coast. Save the money, save your ammo, and just use a dumb bomb instead of a limited supply, multi-million missile.
DeleteBut no. Tomahawks for everything. That makes it seem like the strike aircraft are a fancy super-car that is too expensive to ever be used.
It has been proven in Ukraine, this kind weapons don't work while facing another power having high tech capabilities.
Delete"no air defense what soever"
DeleteThat's unlikely. At a minimum, I would assume the Houthis have MANPADS and anti-air guns. There's also the ever present risk of simple mechanical failure. The US absolutely didn't want to risk having a pilot captured no matter how low the risk.
"this kind weapons don't work "
DeleteWhat weapons are you referring to?
Carriers perform two other roles: scouting/targeting and air defense. You've laid out a separate case for inexpensive, expendable drones conducting some scouting/targeting, but not as well as carrier aircraft can. And carriers are still the only way to create an air superiority outside of SAM range.
ReplyDeleteI guess that's why your conclusion is not that carriers are becoming obsolete, but that "we need to adjust our fleet composition and air wings accordingly."
I love these posts! Less depressing than the latest naval incompetence, and more prescriptive than "be better!"
"You've laid out a separate case for inexpensive, expendable drones conducting some scouting/targeting, but not as well as carrier aircraft can."
DeleteUm ... careful here. I don't think I've said that carrier aircraft are better scout assets than drones - at least not the aircraft we currently have. Our current carrier aircraft are fairly short ranged, not very stealthy, too expensive to risk, and lack useful (mainly passive) sensors. Now, a purpose built scout plane would be a viable possibility but would also take up a deck spot while providing only one function. Perhaps such an aircraft could be built as a combination tanker and scout? That would potentially be a very useful aircraft.
The CBARS program was intended to be a long range tanker scout drone, before being scaled back to focus on being a tactical tanker, with a secondary JDAM-dropping, missile carrying role (so, a drone KA-6D). It's not inconceivable that it could be employed as a scout in future by the use of recon pods in place of the buddy fuelling tanks.
DeleteMissile vs Aircraft carrier is a debate both sides fight fervently!
ReplyDeleteNot just subsonic cruise missiles like US, China has subsonic , supersonic (YJ-12, YJ-18), and hypersonic (YJ-21) anti ship missiles but still build aircraft carriers. Look like even Chinese navy has not yet figured out which one will dominate thus do both.
One big difference is fight superpower vs regional power. Carriers are still very effective fighting regional powers don't have top tier weapons. Past two decades, Pentagon focused on fighting regional powers and terrorist groups. Even though saw China as a threat treated it as a "regional power".
It is far from final judgement on the issue - missiles vs aircraft carriers.
"Carriers are still very effective fighting regional powers don't have top tier weapons. "
DeleteNote that if carriers are only useful for fighting second or third string powers, then it's probably not justifiable to spend $15 billion for each one and build the whole navy around carrier battle groups!
Usually, US carriers launch attacks 250 miles away to ensure these carriers are safe. This works only on regional powers with no or very limited long range strike capabilities.
DeleteI'm not disagreeing with you. The point I'm trying to make is that, if you are only ever going to use the ship to stomp on second or third string militaries, you don't really need all the super expensive capabilities of, for example, the Ford class. Or even the Nimitz class. You could use a much simpler and less expensive ship.
Delete"This works only on regional powers with no or very limited long range strike capabilities."
DeleteNo, it works against peers, too, although the stand off distance is likely greater. The purpose of the carrier's layered defense is to deny the enemy a targeting fix. Do that and the carrier is safe. That's also why, contrary to what so many people think, a carrier doesn't just stand in one place and launch strike after strike. The enemy will quickly find the carrier and sink it! A carrier strikes and immediately retires.
"You could use a much simpler and less expensive ship."
DeleteCorrect. A WWII Essex with Hellcats or Skyraiders could have done the anti-ISIS truck plinking. In fact, I've proposed building a few such carriers for the low end threat conflicts we so often seem to find ourselves in.
These saw China a threat as a regional power decades ago done more damage than those ignored China.
DeleteMy idea for making cheaper cruise missiles is to bring back the V1 Buzz Bomb; use pulsejet engines. They're inefficient, so range won't be good for the size, but they're extremely cheap with few moving parts. Make thousands of them.
ReplyDeleteWith the poor range/size ratio, they wouldn't be good for air launch and probably VLS launch. But you could put them in shipping containers, and launch from land or maybe a container ship. (Maybe not useful for the USA in the Pacific, but they could be given to Taiwan, Ukraine etc.)
Guidance would use off-the-shelf commercial electronics. GPS/INS for land targets. For ships, GPS/INS to get into the vicinity, then optical target recognition would probably be cheaper than trying to add radar. Just put a smartphone in the nose. If the guidance doesn't work well for some reason, they're still useful as decoys to help the "real" high-end missiles get through. They could also help aircraft get through defenses.
The main problem I see is that once they're demonstrated as a viable weapon, China could copy them and make more of them with their greater industrial output.
Still early in development, but companies are working on modern versions.
Deletehttps://www.twz.com/news-features/pulsejet-drone-flies-could-have-big-impact-on-cost-of-future-weapons
No way, nothing is going to be cheap under Pentagon. There are way too many on these food chains.
DeleteWe have seen way too many weapon developments started emphasizing "low cost" but ended up ... you know.
"No way, nothing is going to be cheap under Pentagon."
DeleteThat's true ... today. However, if we simply give up and accept runaway costs then nothing will ever change. I encourage everyone to come up with cheaper products and procedures. I do it frequently. Sure, the military isn't going to overnight change and start doing things my way but at least the ideas are out there, being pushed, and I know from feedback that many active military personnel at all levels are reading this blog. Maybe, over time, things can begin to change.
In the endless debate over missiles vs aircraft, and now missiles vs. aircraft vs drones, one thing I have to argue (perhaps feebly argue) is sorties vs single use.
ReplyDeleteYes, that cruise missile is only a million dollars. It can be used once. Once. It is basically a really, really long ranged artillery shell. That manned aircraft my cost 80 times as much (it shouldn't but that's another discussion) but in a single day it can fly 2- 4 sorties expending munitions equivalent to 2-4 cruise missiles each sortie (depending on range, muntions, etc.) That adds up over time.
Lets say the billion dollar Burke has 60 cruise missiles each with a ton of explosive and a carrier is using 30 aircraft at 3 sorties a day and the load carried by each plane is 2 tons. The Burke shoots its load of 60. Now it has to go back to port to reload. So it has dumped 60 tons of munitions. The carrier has dropped that much in its first sortie and will do that two more times. And do it every day the Burke is spending returning to port, reloading, then moving back to the front line.
One might argue that that is one Burke and we won't be firing from just one Burke. True. But assume it is two dozen Burkes. they fire massive onslaught of 1440 tons of pain...and go back to base to reload. We have two carriers each doing 2 sorties per plane, with 30 aircraft (and they could carry and launch more if trained and equipped properly) and again just 2 tons of ordinance each time. On the first day they have only expended 240 tons. But by the end of the week they have dropped more that 1600, and they can continue pounding for weeks.
But aircraft are vulnerable to SAM's it is argued. Yes, if they were by themselves flying at medium altitude and the enemy was constantly radiating, and we weren't using jamming, and we were just using short range weapons on the planes, and SAMs worked at 100% efficiency. But they can fly low level, the enemy doesn't always give away its position by radiating, we will be using jamming, there are longer ranged air-to-ground weapons, and SAMs are more like 40-70% even when you aren't jamming them.
Let me bring back an old phrase; combined arms. There is no one-size-fit-all solution to battle. Its not just cruise missiles or jsut manned aircraft, or just unmaned aircraft or just battleships with really big guns. You scout them with drones, fire cruise missiles at air defenses and ships and while they are wasting air defense ordinance on the cruise missiles, you hit them with follow on air strikes. Their defenses wounded, you hammer the daily with air strikes.
Apologies for the long winded comment.
I like that you're thinking about this and analyzing the situation. However, you're missing several factors that greatly affect the conclusion. Let me go over some of them to see if they change your thinking a bit.
DeleteFor starters, the most important factor is that carriers at war do not normally run sorties. Sorties are a peacetime or no-threat concept and, even then, are not a normal practice. Carriers don't sit in one place launching sortie after sortie for days on end. That's how you wind up with submersible (that means sunk) carriers! Carriers execute a mission and then retire. The closest actual combat operation to your vision was probably Vietnam where the carriers sat on a station and launched a strike every day. That was the definition of no-threat (to the ship) and, even then, it was not a case of multiple sorties per day.
On a given mission, carriers might launch one or two strikes. More than that and you're just presenting the carrier as a target for the enemy.
Second, aircraft, especially modern, finicky, delicate, high maintenance aircraft CAN'T launch sortie after sortie. They require hours of maintenance for every flight hour. One sortie per day per aircraft on a sustained basis is problematic and multiple sorties per day is largely fantasy. In an emergency you might attempt a couple sorties per day per aircraft but you'd be holding your breath and crossing your fingers that the aircraft would keep flying. Our current full mission ready rate is something on the order of 30% and that's in peacetime so that should give you some idea of the maintenance challenges.
Next, there's no such thing as even 30 aircraft per carrier available for strikes. The carrier group requires a dozen or so aircraft, at a minimum, from each carrier for group defense. It's combat, right? You're not going to send all your aircraft off on a strike and leave the carrier defenseless. Then, add in combat aircraft used for tanking, BARCAP, TARCAP, strike escort, high value unit (HVU) protection of Hawkeyes, tankers, and Growlers and you're be lucky to assemble six aircraft for the actual strike (see, "Carrier Strike") for a discussion of this. Now you see the folly in the Navy's downsizing of the air wings!
Finally, you're overlooking the impact of the loss of an aircraft (losses happen in combat with distressing regularity!). A million dollar missile can be replaced, notwithstanding our woefully low production rates, but a lost aircraft is pretty much a permanent loss. It takes years to produce an aircraft and even longer to train a pilot. We have no reserve replenishment squadrons. In fact, we only have 9 air wings for 11 carriers! If we lose an aircraft, there are no more coming in any useful time frame. Let's be optimistic and assume a 5% loss rate per strike. For the 40 aircraft involved in the overall strike, that's a loss of 2 aircraft. We said that we'd be lucky to assemble 6 actual strike aircraft so that means we could conduct three strikes and then we'd be out of strike-available aircraft! Remember, the supporting and defending requirements don't change just because you've lost some aircraft. Of course, if we lose, say 10% or 20% per strike against a peer defended target(s) then we're quickly and permanently out of the aircraft strike business for the duration of the war.
Most important to remember is that carriers operate by going in, hitting a target, and quickly retiring. That's, most likely, a single pulse of firepower. Now, run the numbers on a single carrier strike (with the aforementioned realistic numbers of aircraft) versus a single cruise missile strike and see if that changes your thinking.
By the way, an SSGN can launch 154 cruise missiles and our four SSGNs, operating together could launch over 600 cruise missiles with very little risk. The Navy made a very unwise decision to retire the SSGNs without replacement.
Keep thinking this through! I like it.
"By the way, an SSGN can launch 154 cruise missiles and our four SSGNs, operating together could launch over 600 cruise missiles with very little risk. The Navy made a very unwise decision to retire the SSGNs without replacement."
DeleteHow many of those cruise missiles would actually get through? If the enemy is sophisticated enough shoot down cutting-edge, supersonic, stealthy strike aircraft then it should be much easier for them to shoot down Tomahawks. For example, from the reports I've seen, basically none of the cruise missiles Iran fired at Israel got through their air defense.
"If the enemy is sophisticated enough shoot down cutting-edge, supersonic, stealthy strike aircraft then it should be much easier for them to shoot down Tomahawks."
DeleteTomahawks are a much easier target than aircraft, without a doubt. However, trying to shoot down hundreds of missiles converging simultaneously is far more difficult than shooting 5%-20% of manned aircraft which is what the definition of a manned strike disaster is.
"none of the cruise missiles Iran fired at Israel got through their air defense."
That wasn't a cruise missile attack. That was a live fire air defense exercise. The attack time was known. Multiple countries participated in the defense. The attacking weapons had no electronic countermeasures support or SEAD. Iranian weapons are notoriously poor quality and limited capability.
Israel reported that the attack consisted of 170 drones, 30 cruise missiles, and 120 ballistic missiles. Despite the defensive preparations and the Iranian poor quality, something on the order of 24-36 weapons got through. A couple of airbases were hit by multiple weapons and explosions were reported in various cities and locations.
"How many of those cruise missiles would actually get through?"
Depends on circumstances but trying to defend against hundreds of simultaneous missiles is impossible. The defenses would be saturated.
"Depends on circumstances but trying to defend against hundreds of simultaneous missiles is impossible. The defenses would be saturated."
DeleteTrue, but I'm assuming that in most realistic circumstances we would not be firing the entirement complement of 4 SSGNs at one target. At most just one, and it still probably wouldn't fire its entire complement, so maybe around 100 for a maximum strike. That's certainly a *lot*, but not unstoppable by strong air defense on a hard target, and also depletes our stock of Tomahawks very quickly.
"most realistic circumstances we would not be firing the entirement complement of 4 SSGNs at one target."
DeleteThat would be an incorrect assumption on your part. You recall a few years ago when the US attacked a Syrian airbase to send a political message? We used around 70 cruise missiles for a small, undefended base and only portions of the base were targeted. So, 70 some missiles for an undefended, partial attack.
How many missiles do you think would be required to take out a major target that was actively defended by a peer enemy? Honestly, 600 missiles may not be enough!
We've forgotten what real war requires in the way of weapon expenditure.
"We’ve got to bring the missile cost and complexity down so that we can produce them at useful war rates."
ReplyDeleteIf you reduce complexity too much the missile might not be useful for a number of missions. A mix is probably better.
At the same time, all of our Tomahawks come from Raytheon and all of our LRASMs come from Lockheed Martin. We need to diversify the manufacturing base. During WW2, General Motors built a variety of aircraft, including the Grumman Avenger dive bomber. At a minimum, we should get Raytheon and Lockheed to expand production to other sites.
"We need to diversify the manufacturing base."
DeleteYes! A major part of that is that we need to stop the insane practice of awarding all-or-nothing contracts for outrageous quantities. One manufacturer wins big and the rest go broke. The F-35 was the only combat aircraft in a fifty year period and it all went to one company. The rest all lost big.
We also need to contract for more than just a hundred missiles per year. It's tough to diversify a hundred items.
"If you reduce complexity too much the missile might not be useful"
Correct. The challenge is to determine what capabilities are MANDATORY and what are just technology for its own sake. I've described the kinds of capabilities that shouldn't be in various weapons. We need to design for the MINIMUM technology required for the task not the MAXIMUM that we can cram into the weapon (which is what we do now).
There is a constant tension between technology and production. The more complex something is, the fewer of them you can build in a given time (lower production rate). It does no good to have the ultimate, perfect weapon that can only be produced one per year.
If we find ourselves thinking we need a very complex weapon to accomplish the task then we need to think about other ways to accomplish the task.
Why does complexity mean a lower production rate? It seems that once all the widgets and software that add complexity to the missile are tested and ready for mass manufacture, then production could proceed at almost the same rate as for a simpler missile although at greater cost. It's not as if each widget is built in series although they'd probably be added to the final product in series. What am I missing here?
DeleteGreater complexity invariably means tighter tolerances, more exacting installation requirements, more exotic materials that are harder to solder, weld, and work, more wiring, more ... well, everything. 'More' simply takes longer.
DeleteThe F6F Hellcat was, basically, just a round internal combustion engine in a shell. 98% of the fuselage was empty space. We produced 80 Hellcats per week and that was without robotics and computer aided assembly methods. Today's F-35 (or F-18 or whatever) requires a year or more to build and consists of thousands upon thousands of parts and components. The fuselage is about 1% empty and, in fact, packaging of items is one of the major challenges. Exotic stealth and other specialized coatings add more time to production. And so on.
Look at the engine compartment of an automobile from the 1960's. It was just the engine. Nothing else. Drop it in and you're done with that area of the vehicle. You used to be able to, literally, stand inside the engine compartment when you worked on the car. Now, the engine compartment is crammed with gear, most of it not directly benefiting the engine. It's almost impossible to work on an engine just due to access challenges (and the need for computer diagnostics!). More complex, more parts, takes longer to assemble.
Seriously, this isn't even a debatable issue.
Its not just complexity of build, its failure rate in use. While this doesn't apply to fully integrated electronics like SOC, it certainly applies to everything else including software.
ReplyDeleteOn a lighter note I see on CFP that China is getting ready to launch a dedicated drone carrier, about the size of a WW2 CVE.
ReplyDeleteI've read the article and seen the photo and I'm very skeptical that it's intended to be an operational drone carrier. It might well be a simple prototype intended to develop operating concepts and gain experience.
DeleteFYI, the Turkish ship Anadolu is operational and is reported to be mainly a drone carrier although the degree to which it has been converted and the extent to which it is currently operating drones is unknown.
I can't place this in the right place in the conversation, but with regards to cruise missile carrying submarines - would it be impractical to spend a couple of billion dollars each on refurbishing and refueling retiring Trident submarines for another 20 years of life as cruise missile carriers? If so, that's cheap and effective.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if that can be done. Submarine lifespans are based on the (crudely put) number of dives. In other the subs have a structural life based on the expansion and contraction of the structure as the sub dives and surfaces.
DeleteAdditionally, the reactor has a service life that, as I understand it, can't be extended much due to embrittlement and other issues.
That said, if it could be done it would be well worth whatever cost.
At the very least, Id take the SSGNs out of service now, but maintain them in a high level of reserve- able to go to sea in say, 15 days. Id conserve whatever life they have left for "one good war"...
DeleteThey've kept the CVNs running for 50 years, why not subs? As far as structural life, SSGNs don't need to go deep, just stay a few feet underwater.
Delete"just stay a few feet underwater."
DeleteDepth is silence!