Gary, this is probably the biggest piece of misinformation that has been written on the subject of the vulnerability of large carriers yet.

This argument has been going on since the end of WW2, where by the way not ONE large US carrier of new design (Essex class, was lost! –small carriers on the other hand were very vulnerable).

The one point you, and most people miss, is battle tactics. You assume that there are just a bunch of dumb officers sailing into harms way feeling that nothing can touch them. Nothing can be further from the truth!

As it stands today, the most capable weapon system in any Navy is the US carrier battle group! Notice I said GROUP! Weapons systems work together and project further out from the group itself. It can project like no other weapons system.

So while missiles are a threat to any carrier, and any ship for that matter, they have been since and during WW2. Nothing new. You build technology to counter it!

The real problem is that articles such as these lead people to believe that now that China has a missile, we need to scrap the entire carrier battle group when actually we need to build more, build them more stealthy, and work on that one system that liberals laughed at for years.- anti ballistic missile defence.

What you should be pointing out is that we need more technology $$$ in the defense budget to counter these threats!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

China has nukes. The US has nukes. In a knock-down war - which anything that involved taking out carrier groups would be - either could effortlessly destroy as much or as little of the other as they wanted. They both know this.

The point of carrier groups is to
a) Enable the US to kick the shit out of little countries who can't fight back, like Iraq. Hell, Iran is too tough, much less China, and
b) Provide lots of opportunities for contractors to make money, voters to get jobs, and congresscritters to get elected.
Both of which functions they perform superbly well.

They all know this, including the PR flak who wrote the story you quoted. You do know that there are more PR staff working for the military than there are journalists in the whole country?

So get over it. The system is working exactly as intended, thank you very much :)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Vote of Confidence Amendment will give American voters the power to dismiss any elected official at any time.

VOCA, Now !!

FREE AMERICA

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article is flawed in both fact and premise. It's using simplistic rhetoric without any factual premise. You mean nobody's thought of the implications of the V-2 "buzz bomb" from World War 2? You mean our military and the Soviet military didn't think about this all through the cold war? Carriers have escort from other ships, from their flights of fighters and bombers, and from submarines. They are part of a highly effective system. The article chooses to argue against their military effectiveness, from a position of completely uninformed incredulity. I've seen better arguments in favor of intelligent design.

The premise against building more carriers should be the opportunity cost we pay for excessive military spending of any kind. If we were developing our societies and technologies towards the goal of sustainability and resource efficiency, it would render the sources of many of our conflicts moot. It would also divert money away from some powerful and greedy lobbies, ergo...

This is definitely not Alternet's best, far from it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author is suggesting that a country would trade its queen--namely its country (or--as we have unfortunatley seen--at least its autonomous control of itself)--for a pawn--which, to be inhumane, is the very most a carrier is ultimately. This is not to say that the attacking country wouldn't be committing suicide altogether.

But I'm really just restating what other poster have said above. If someone were going to go after a carrier, why not just nuke us? If they didn't have nukes, then read above--we would fuck them up. So why?

Moreover, terrorists don't have access to these types of Chinese missiles talked about in the article.

The guy's article really should have just been: Hey! Carriers might as well have better defense against freak occurrences not that they're the achilles heel of our military...Jesus Christ.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that technology.....When did the first B2 fly?....anyway the boffins over in Australia with their Jindalee over the horizon radar politely informed the U.S. air force as to exactly what time the first secret flight took place....Russia has been able to track all U.S. stealth aircraft for as long as they have been flying....some naughty person sold some high tech soviet missiles in Bosnia and Oooops down they started to come. Russia was forced to go get them back.....naughty naughty!!!

As for Floating targets. Well all types of missiles give off a particular noise signature don't they.....Just ask the survivors of the Shefield when they picked up the signal of a friendly Exocet (French fired by Argentina airplane from a long ways off) what was going through their heads when they realized that just what was about to happen....and that folks is what is going to happen on the day that the mighty U.S.of.A takes on a real foe.

Not a matter of if but more, how quickly one would sink.

Just how it is.

China is not the enemy..look a bit closer to home.

..No winners!!

Just carnage. Not rocket science. Or is it?

Captain OUT

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Just borrowing a word from Hightower's post on this same link... Aircraft carriers. They're too big to fail. So we need a support organization to keep them in service that is too big to fail. We have an entire industry building all this crap that is not useful to people who want to just live, creating all the incumbent pollution, because the system is too big to fail.

Pull the plug. Let it fail.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I think Mother Jones said it best: "Does it matter if controversial military columnist Gary Brecher is really an overweight data-entry clerk from Fresno?"

Mr. Brecher has no military background or training. Hasn't been to Anapolis or West Point. Isn't affiliated with the government or the DOD. But is, in fact, a community college dropout.

This isn't a personal attack on the author, but one should know the author's credentials (he has none) in order to judge that credibility of his "analysis", which can easily be summed up by the following:

Carriers are targets? Who knew????

And he probably should have considered the consequences if the Chinese (or anyone else) instigates a ballistic missile launch against a strategic asset of the United States.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I spent 6 years as a tin-can sonarman specializing in precision-guided ASW and ASuW weapons systems including WMDs. There is a far cheaper threat in weapons inventories in Russia, China and Iran that needs to be reckoned with. These are supersonic cruise missles designed by Russia and China expressly to counter the AEGIS weapons systems. Here are a few links of the weapons types:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moskit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-800_Oniks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BrahMos

All of these systems can be air, surface or subsurface-launched, have speeds in the Mach 3 range and are programmed to execute violent end-maneuvers to defeat AEGIS and PHALANX CIWS. They are specifically designed to kill Aircraft carriers and we currently have no defense for these either. While the 150-300 KM range is short in relation to ballistic missles, they also have a much shorter reaction time from launch to terminal inmpact.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm sorry but the article assumes way too many things.

Modern war is more of being armed for deterrance, and to force conflict backwards towards traditional warfare. War is moving increasingly towards the idealogical, psychological and economic spheres since having bombs that can blow up the world means they are deployments of last resort. They are the cry of defeat. It's no good to win if you've destroyed yourself and your prospects for survival in the process.

I think most sane citizens from every nation know the power of the bomb and missle weapons and would be apt to avoiding their deployment since they have long term effects.

The advent of nuclear weaponry and even bigger bombs under development in secret is going to stay with us, but let us also not forget that stars collapsing make nuclear bombs look like nothing. The point is we will reach a point of mass suicide, it will only take a single weapon to wipe everyone out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We haven't fought anyone who could fight back since the end of the Vietnam war. Of our opponents, only the Serbs showed even a glimmer of tactical sense about how to defend themselves.

This is the context in which US (Chinese, Russian,...) military technology plays out. So the right question is this: do our weapons investments pay off in power projection against the powerless, the military's chief mission? This was Rumsfeld's key obsession, and though his crackpot reign ended badly, I'm not sure he'd disagree with the author.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THESE DEATH BOATS TRUE PURPOSE ARE TO JAM USURY AND CORPORATISM AND DICTATORSHIP DOWN THE UNWILLING PLANETS THROAT..

READ "THE HEGEMONY OF PARASITISM" BY MY FAVORITE ANTI SEMITE, EUSTACE MULLINS

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A simple Italian PT boat had sunk the largest Austrian battle ship afloat. The pride and joy of her navy, in fact

History has a tendecy to repeat itself.

Over and over and over again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When I was a Navy Commander in the late 70's and early 80's, we had a name for carriers - missile magnets.

They are a useful extension of power for many low intensity conflicts but useless for a major conflict and a trigger for a nuclear exchange of missiles.

For the big (and unfortunately lethal end game) crises, the effective weapon system are the boomers, the nuclear missile submarines.

If used however, we all ought to start singing the old WW II song that ended the movie Dr. Strangelove - "We'll meet again, don't know where, don't know when . . . "

:)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

carrying a torpedo, her sister ship the Tirpitz, was also sunk at mooring with obsolete technology, The largest battleship ever built the Yamamoto never really saw action. The larger the target the easier it is to hit. The IED improvised explosive device, simple to build, and impossible to defend against. The instant you think your technology is better that theirs you have lost.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Navy is the most tradition bound branch of the military. Look at their history.

After Billy Mitchell demonstrated that ships could easily be sunk with air power, the Navy brass continued to build battleships and look for that Jutland type navel engagement all the way to the end of WWII.

After the Monitor demonstrated the effectiveness of the turret mounted cannon, the Navy continued the build ships with gun ports in the hull through the 1890s (30 years after the fact).

We will never fight a Midway type navel engagement again. But the Admiralty dreams of it every night.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A US carrier group is more than able to defend itself against a ballistic missile threat from the Chinese. I suggest you look up the SM-2 Block IV "Standard" missile's specifications. This missile was the setpping stone to the even more advanced TBMD.

From http://www.globalsecurity.org/ military/systems/munitions/sm-2.htm (Note the date of the test - 11 years ago!)
"On January 24, 1997, the Navy successfully demonstrated a Theater Ballistic Missile Defense capability when a ballistic missile target was shot from the sky for the first time using a new version of the Standard missile family. This Developmental Test Round (DTR-1) demonstrated the imaging infrared seeker and the capability to intercept a theatre ballistic missle (TBM)."

Note the url was broken after org/ so it would fit in the post.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One of the greatest, assets of any Navy is the power to take the war to the enemy. Some of the greatest battles (or the worst) have been at sea involving no civilian personal or infrastructure. The carriers offer an immediate threat to any aggressor and that is a great deterrent. If the Navy needs to learn or remember are the two days in December. 12-7-41 we're all are aware of, the other is 12-6-17 Halifax, Nova Scotia. Two ships collided in port and caught fire. They were both part of a convoy to supply Europe with WW1 supplies. The explosion, the largest man made, pre atomic age, totaled 50 ships in port. Lifting some right out of the water and placing them on their piers. Killed over 2K people and blinded another 2K who were watching from the windows of the buildings on the water front. It leveled two square miles of the surrounding waterfront. I have seen five east coast carriers in port at the same time. Currently Norfolk, Va. is the only east coast port that can handle nuclear carriers. Even if the carriers were all at sea, a WMD would leave them no where to return to. The Navy wants to send at one and possible two to Mayport, Fl. The senators from Va. reject this ideal because it would cost them billions in jobs transfered with the ships. Thats the senators job, but to only have one port that can handle nuclear carriers is a big mistake. This move has political implications because of the Bush connection. We need to get past that train of thought for the benefit of the country. The problem created by the Brac commission extends beyond the Navy, all of the east coast Raptors are also in the same target area of a WMD. So is the only shipyard that builds carriers. I agree the the PTB don't care one little bit about the average citizen. But China is not about to attack its biggest customer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Swarms of aircraft and ships that surround carriers defend them. These can detect and attack approaching aircraft, ships, submarines, cruise missiles, etc. A carrier also has several defensive weapons aboard.

Destroying ballistic missiles in re-entry is tough whether they are aimed at a ship or a city. It is easier during boost and mid-course, and this is the preferred approach. Also, ships move several miles during a missile's flight, so the missile requires terminal guidance and target recognition that can be jammed, decoyed or otherwise attacked.

It's a tradition in the military-industrial world to leak stories about the vulnerability of assets in order to promote new development programs. The real assessments are classified, rather technical, and not generally available to the public.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Carriers are peace time weapons and have thus far been extremely useful. If there's ever a full-scale war with China or Russia we'll have bigger problems than the few billions we spent on carriers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Chinese don't call themselves "Middle Kingdom" for nothing. The Communist regime is just another dynasty. The Red Dynasty has only been ruling since 1949 - not very long in Chinese history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We have lived in a nuclear-tipped world for 60 years. A number of nearly failed states are playing with atomic bombs and rockets now. Where's the concern?

We need to defend, well, maybe not scummy NYC, it's sort of marginal, but we do need to defend, um, how about Portland, Oregon. To do this in a nuclear-tipped world, we need to defend ordinary people's rights everywhere, because democracies like modern Germany have no desire to bomb us.

This means no more propping up the heroin warlords of Afghanistan, who will point guns at starving civilians and order them to say in unison, "We love our democracy!"

By the way, for NYC, shut down the Indian Point nuclear reactor, an a-bomb equivalent just waiting for about 3-5 armed nut cases to trigger it. Millions of people would of course still live in the city afterward, but many won't live very long if they try.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is why the air force exists today to provide an umbrella of space that the other forces can work beneath. Out in the middle of the ocean the navy would not need the assistance as much if at all. Against land-based targets the air force would definitely attempt to soften up or eliminate threats for any approaching naval force. A well trained and maintained diesel-electric sub would probably be a bigger threat.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ok, aircraft carriers are vulnerable. Granted.

Everything is vulnerable. There is no such thing as an invulnerable weapons platform.

So, what, then? Stop building vulnerable weapons platforms?

That is not an option.

The world is dangerous. The only question is what we will arm ourselves with.

It's a tricky equation to solve, because whatever we arm ourselves with, our (potential and real) enemies will adjust their tactics.

So we must continually adjust ours.

This means that the decision to invest in aircraft carriers can never be "off the table." It is a decision that must be constantly reevaluated in light of changing threats and technology.

Ballistic missiles are a real threat. But the probability of one killing a carrier is not 100%. Things can go wrong. It's the job of the Navy to make things go wrong if someone launches ballistic missiles at our ships.

If we go to war with China, we can try to take out their guidance satellites. Jam. Attack missile launch sites. Hide the ships. Disinform. Stay out of range. Lots of things are possible.

Whether or not aircraft carriers will be a useful component of our force structure depends on how we employ them and whether they can do the job we need them to do.

Maybe there is a better force structure we could employ. But for damn sure, proving carriers are vulnerable doesn't answer the question of what it might be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

why not just blow up the carriers ourselves? they serve no good purpose that I can see. same goes for our fighter jets and tanks.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Someone is trying to get a starwars contract to build an anti-ballistic missile defense system for ships and this author goes off on a half baked, half profane spit spewing rant.
The trillions of dollars spent because our forces are vulnerable to super tanks, super missles, mega bombs, stealth this and that blah, blah, blah, have apparently taught this author nothing. Why do you think articles exposing the horrible weakness of our armed forces show up in Proceedings and similar publications?
Every ship is a sitting duck if all the right or wrong stars align. Every new development makes them more vulnerable but hardly (dammit) obsolete, we can only wish.

The weaknesses of this article are too numerous to address and it does not rate the time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In 2005, the Navy war-gamed an attack scenario of 3 carrier battle groups inside the Persian Gulf against Iran. The Red force commander(Iran) deployed his forces using wave attacks of hundreds of Exocet, Moskit and Oniks missles as well as Shkval torpedos deployed from shore launchers, Kilo-class subs, patrol boats and auxiliaries. The final result was every ship inside the Gulf, Carriers included, were sunk. Estimated Blue force casualties were in the 30-40,000 range. So the Navy changed the rules of the game to allow a Blue force win.

In addition, the new models of the Shkval are being outfitted with wire-guidance systems. They have about a 16 Km range on them. The problem is that the new generation of diesel-electric submarines are so quiet as to be virtually undetectable with passive sonar, especially in the shallow waters of the Gulf making even active sonar detection problematic.

All the weapons I mentioned are also in the Chinese inventory and would be used in a similar scenario like the Taiwan Straits during a Chinese takeover of Taiwan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

With all of this said, here is the most likely and cheapest way China can stop the US cold.

Before any hostilities break out, China dumps all 2-3 Trillion dollars of their US treasury bills on the open market, driving the US into Bankruptcy and hyper-inflation. The fleet wouldn't be able to deploy because we couldn't even afford the fuel. China could win this way without firing a shot.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

That the purpose of a fleet is not to fight has been a valid and tested part of military strategy for hundreds of years. It is, of course, more true of very expensive warships than it is of less expensive ones. That the author is surprised and shocked at this indicates his lack of qualification to comment on this subject. Not every advance has gravitated against carriers. The life expectancy of a sattelite is likely to be short in a conflict between sophisticated militaries in the near future. Few nations have access to military sattelite technology, anyway. The author overstates his case by a wide margin, but it is true that carrier groups are increasingly vulnerable, and so their utility and worth is fading.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Since 1873 the United States Naval Institute Journal "Proceedings" has served as the forum for debate among and about the sea services. As a life member for over 30 years I have great respect for the opinions of "Proceedings" authors, many of whom follow the "Proceedings" tradition of articles intended to encourage debate, It must be remembered that even well argued positions are not absolute and are intended to foster debate.

The bottom line is that the purpose of any navy is to keep lines of communication open by projecting power and nothing, not even a ship or sub equipped with cruise missiles, projects power like a carrier.

The debate over the fleet or supercarrier vs cheaper smaller hulls has been occurring since the dawn of the carrier age and was a favorite topic of the battleship admirals who saw carriers as either a toy or a threat. It was also a debate between those who advocated for WWII jeep carriers constructed on merchant hulls over the fast and powerful fleet carriers.

History showed that the fleet carrier could take the hit and survive, whereas the jeep carrier invariably went down with loss of both personnel and the ability to project power. Like the fleet carrier of WWII, the supercarrier of today can take a tremendous hit and survive, something that is not true of most other ships.

Advances in missile technology have been met with efforts to develop and implement Shipboard Ballistic Missile Defense (SBMD) systems ranging from the General Dynamics Phalanx System that is used on every class of U.S. Navy ship, plus Coast Guard Legend and Hamilton class cutters, to systems such as Raytheon's new SeaRAM (Rolling Airframe Missile) System.

Debate is good, but it does not mean the sky is falling and American should discard it's most potent seaborne weapons platform.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I served aboard two aircraft carriers, the Essex and the Oriskany, two ships of the same type and size. These are considered obsolete old buckets nowadays. One is a fish reef off the coast near Pensacola, Fl, and I'm shaving with the other. Even if deployed now, these ships could still be considered impressive. Consider their mobility, for instance. An Essex class carrier travelling at 30 knots (they could go faster) can be anywhere in a 4500 square mile area at any given time. That's a lot of ocean, folks, and in order to pinpoint one's location, SOMETHING has to get close enough to do this. Aircraft are most often employed for this purpose. Even in my day, aircraft could be detected as much as three hundred miles away. For all practical purposes, half that distance was the norm, but it was plenty of warning foe evasive action to be taken. Aircraft carriers travel with two destroyers, called "plane guards". Their puspose is twofold; anti-submarine defense and anti-aircraft defense. Of course the embarked fighter aircraft served that purpose as well.
Now, let's take a look at modern carriers. Believe it or not, but their flank (top) speed isn't that much faster than the old essex class ships, but their firepower, both offensive and defensive is vastly superior as is their response time to enemy attack. The best anti-ship missle I can remember was the French Exocet, a nasty little bugger that could skim the wavetops, making interception a real problem, and capable of hitting a ship near the waterline, bad news for any ship. These were used by Argentina in their war with the British over the Faulkland (Maldivas)Islands. Of course, their use entailed getting within detection range of the enemy and exposing the ship to their fire. We all know who won that little war.
So, carrier battle groups aren't as vulnerable as many may think. The glaring fact that so much national treasure is wasted on "defense" from largely fictional enemies is what's amiss here. It seems to me that we'd be a lot better off if we acted to make friends rather than invent enemies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What does GM ,Wall Street, the U.S. Congress and the military all have in common? They all are either a corporation or run by corporations. And if you have been following the massive looting of America it almost doesn't it seem like the rats are jumping ship just before our ship sinks below the surface. Our country is in a downward spiral. Those at the top now can only accomplish, at this time, stealing whatever is left and with our government's help.

The shootings that we are seeing lately around the country are a sign of things to come as unemployment pressure and financial pressures force many citizens to their wits end. Eventually this rage will be focused where it belongs and that's on our government and the corporations that really run it.

I think we are entering an ugly time in our history as a nation, but at the same time a necessary one. The rank and file citizen has been exploited for to long by those with more money than could be spent in the course of a lifetime and those in government who continue to line their pockets and those of their family.

Protest like those on the 11th. and the 15th. of this month are only the tip of the iceberg. Educate yourselves on what's going on and how very important that "we the people", get back something we have not had in a while, our voices. Don't sit on the side write to your representatives in government and let them know that they will be out of office come the next election because you can no longer trust in their ability to represent more then themselves in Washington.

The very fact that you are reading Alternet is a step in the right direction. They say that newspapers are going out of business because less people are reading. I for one do not agree. Maybe closer to the truth would be that they are tired of reading the misinformation at best and the outright lies more likely found in MSM, after all they seem to be reading a lot on the internet so what is with that argument?

Get involved or become a pawn in their game. If you fail to act at all you will be sentencing your children along with yourself to a country that will be unrecognizable to most of us,that is if it survives at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yes, a ballistic missile can sink a carrier? That is only relevent if you care more about equipment than people, and if you do care about equipment more than people, it is irrelevent to the war effort.

The purpose of a carrier, is to put the squadron in reach of china's targets. By the time the ballistic missle hits, the carrier has already done it's job.

Of course, a better option, is to not be at war.

Why, just because the US is big, and China is big, does everyone assume this means we must go to war?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"The lesson here is the same one all of you suckers should have learned from watching the financial news this year..."

I resent being called a sucker. I, and many people, know about a lot of this stuff, like the fact – I believe I'm correct here – that back in the Clinton era, Boeing was permitted to allow China to produce the front ends of 737 passenger planes – which would have included sophisticated GPS guidance systems. Did this help the Chinese develop the guidance system for the Dong Feng 21? Maybe.

The fact is, many of us know about this stuff and more, and many would like to do something about it; but unless those many can get together in the tens of thousands or even millions, and rustle up a few million dollars in lobbying money, they will not be heard from, let alone have any kind of effect on changing policy.

Yes, there are a lot of suckers out there; but there are also the rest of us who have been effectively silenced, not through intimidation (although I bet that would used as well if necessary), but by being systematically ignored.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Or about 2 miles a second - about 1/3 escape velocity. The impulse energy to accelerate any significant mass to that velocity is massive.

I am unaware of any mechanism, short of a rail gun using a massive EMP that could achieve that velocity at the Earth's surface.

As for the vehicle, the friction at that velocity would etch the heck out of our best ceramics and nothing else save a thick Titanium body would survive the dynamic delta T. Of course, Titanium could not be used if a rail gun were the impulse generator - that requires and iron or nickel structure.

The physics are fundamentally flawed in this article.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I simply cannot believe neither the author nor a single one of you has bothered to mention the SM-3 which is already IOC on board Ticonderoga CG's in the Pacific and was specifically designed to kill MRBM's like the DF-21. Get real and stop the scaremongering bullshit. The USN has the capability to shoot down ballistic missiles, and there is no doubt about it. And I notice alot of people soiling their pants about supersonic cruise missiles from Russia and China. The SM-2, ESSM and RAM have ALL been successfully tested and certified against supersonic targets. The US carrier group with its complement of cruisers, destroyers, subs and aircraft, is one of the best protected platforms on this planet. You people are scared because you simply..... don't know it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

At Rickover's retirement hearing before Congress, he said that aircraft carriers could last four days in a "real war."

I thought at the time (Reagan era) that what was not being said was that carriers were simply a means to project force and bash small countries. The proof of this was the provocations against Libya. Naval pilots flew directly at the Libyan coastline trying to create an incident.

Later, in this artificial crisis, a full scale attack with bombers launched from England began.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What a bunch of bunk. This article reads like the Chinese wrote it! Did the author ever think to consider that both the soviets and the U.S. have had ICBM's for many decades, yet, these could never be used because of MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction). The most lethal weapon system on earth is the ballistic missle submarine. Far more lethal than any land based system or yes, an aircraft carrier battlegroup. Why? Because it can't be detected. To think that the Chinese would fire at an aircraft carrier when just one hidden ballistic missile submarine of ours alone has the capability of taking out 1/4 of all China ..........is ludicrous. So, I guess when the German V1 rocket was invented in WWII and we didn't have a defense for it yet, we should have elliminated our army.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ever since the invention of the "Bazooka" in WWII, giving any infantryman the ability to destroy a tank, the tank has been obsolete. Nobody uses tanks anymore, right ?

Actually, war is obsolete.

No one can ever win a war anymore. It's unlikely that anyone can even gain any substantial advantage. It's a lose-lose proposition. Destroying your enemy ? Pure nostalgia. Now if we could just get our thinking as up to date as our weapons !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I agree with those who say alternet can do better than this - such a poor article.

The whole basis for the security of the USA and its allies, as it pertains to conflicts with foreign states-especially those with nuclear capability, is the threat of immediate retaliation. A nuke strike on a carrier would be seen as nothing less as an attack on the USA. The ruling administration in Washington, no matter who that might be, would take a trillionth of a second before initiating an indescribable counter attack. It is precisely this reality, as so many pointed out here, that establishes the carrier's purpose and strength.

In a nut shell, "just try it pal".

Brian

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I was in a bad situation at a command, but that's history....the US navy as a whole is by far the greatest of all marine military, and here's why.....THE US NAVY IS THE ONLY NAVY IN THE WORLD WHOM HAVE AND PERFECTED CATAPULT TECH...AND YOU GUYS HAVE NO CLUE ON HOW A BATTLE GROUP OPERATES AT ALL!!!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and the inhabitants of this building are biggest bunch of dumb-ass losers walking this planet. They haven't accomplished anything since 1945 except spread death and destruction on a planetary scale. The difference between wall-street bankers and the brass at the pentagon-NOTHING. The ones who rise to the top are the ones who can follow orders and memorize regulations. Once upon a time I was in uncle sam's canoe club and the difference between reserve officers and regular navy was striking. The reserve officers were smart, did their jobs and wanted nothing to do with the navy as a career. The regulars were the opposite. Those that can, do. Those that can't become management. Officers are the management and most of them couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag. These are the guys in charge of the canoe club and having new ships built. Whether it's Trump (how many times has this guy gone bankrupt?) and his buildings or the brass with their big ships, they're basically clowns with your money.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Take four nuclear carriers, paint them white with an orange and blue stripe, and create probably the best platform ever devised for search and rescue, power generation or mass evacuations to places that have been crippled by natural or other disasters.

The Coast Guard could play an outstanding role in not only saving lives, but improving the image of the United States abroad through the use of these expensive machines.

Swords to plowshares anyone?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I have served on an Escort Carrier (ASW), a Fleet Carrier and the first Guided Missle Cruiser.

My conclusion? May as well make them out of balsa wood as far as being war ships is concerned. They are great for beating the crap out of a defenseless enemy but wouldn't last long enough to launch aircraft if the balloon went up!

In the mid 1950's we recognized that there were only two kinds of ships in the Navy - Submarines and Targets! I doubt that has changed!

But I have to admit - they are impressive as all get out and useful to intimidate those weaker than the US. Just don't plan on them in a serious fight!

Oh yes - they help the Navy get appropriations! And if we ever get a chance to repeat WWII in the Pacific we will win again - for sure!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Navy Completes Air and Ballistic Missile Exercise
March 26, 2009

From U.S. Third Fleet Public Affairs

SAN DIEGO (NNS) -- Commander, U.S. 3rd Fleet, Vice Adm. Samuel J. Locklear announced the completion of the fleet operational exercise, Stellar Daggers, March 26.

The scheduled event took place March 24 and 26. Command and control of the participants in Stellar Daggers resided with U.S. 3rd Fleet based in San Diego.

San Diego-based Aegis destroyer, USS Benfold (DDG 65) engaged multiple targets during this multi-event exercise with Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) Block IIIA and modified SM-2 BLK IV missiles. The overall objective of
Stellar Daggers was to test the Aegis system's sea-based ability to simultaneously detect, track, engage and destroy multiple incoming air and ballistic missile threats during terminal or final phase of flight.

During the event, Benfold's Aegis Weapons System successfully detected and intercepted a cruise missile target with a SM-2 BLK IIIA, while simultaneously detecting and intercepting an incoming short range ballistic missile (SRBM) target with a modified SM-2 BLK IV. This is the first time the fleet has successfully tested the Aegis system's ability to intercept both an SRBM in terminal
phase and a low-altitude cruise missile target at the same time.

Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD), which includes Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD), is a Navy core competency and a key warfighting capability
for the U.S. maritime strategy, which calls for credible combat power to be continuously postured to protect America's vital interests.

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=43808

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mach 10 ??? I don't think so. well, perhaps in space where the temperature is so very low (don't forget that the speed of sound is directly related to the ambient air temperature.) I went over the top on my 100,000 foot zoom flight at Mach 1.4, but my airspeed was only 24 knots.

However, much that was said was true. But here is the problem. They can certainly send a ballistic to any given latitude/longitude they want. However, what is the latitude and longitude of the given target ship? Ships cheat, they move around. They routinely operate in "emcon" which means, no radar on, no radios on, no nothing. Although they could easily be seen from space, after all they can identify a golf ball on a green from space, BUT ONLY IF THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHERE THE GREEN IS IN LATITUDE AND LONGITUDE. And ships use the night to hide. If you steam at 25 knots during the night you could cover and area of 15,904 square miles. So, at dawn, where does the North Korean begin to look? As to defenses against explosive laden cessna aircraft diving on the ship, well, the ships are outside the range of flight of small aircraft and even if they were in littoral waters and you had all the cessnas in the world attacking at the same time, they could not sink the ship. They could probably make it unable to launch/recover aircraft for several hours, but little more.

By the way #l "ships have no defense against ballistic missile attacks" ? Nonsense, and that is why the North Koreans are already complaining about our surface ships moving into position to engage their new satellite launch that is due to happen today or the next couple days. So are the Japanese cruisers. Yes, we absolutely can engage them while they are still in space, and have proven it several times during testing.

By the way #2, 2000 kilometers in 12 minutes is 10000 kilometers per hour. There are 2000 meters per nautical mile. Do the math, that ain't Mach 10.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OMGosh dude that is really scary when you think about it!

RT
Is your ISP watching?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OMGosh dude that is really scary when you think about it!

RT
Is your ISP watching?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When all the talk is done and balances adjusted it comes down to this. Any military force in the world is doomed by the very nature of Nuclear weapons. China will not risk a confrontation with any Nuke armed Nation that has 100 or more nukes in its arsenal. A military attack is really out of the question. The scariest thing I have seen lately is Obamas wish to talk 'Nuclear weapons reduction' with anybody. If the total number of weapons were to be reduced, this would create a "Possible nuke war survival scenario". Right now, 'MAD' keeps everybody honest about nooking anybody else. The only ones we have to keep away from nuke weapons are Nations run by religion. (Some of them [extremist] are stupid enough to think they can force 'divine intervention' "GODS HAND"). They don't realize that at this moment there will be 'NO' winner (survivors) in a nuclear war.....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

40 some years ago aboard a destroyer home port Yokosuka as a LTjg and quite insignificant then and now, scuttlebutt was going around among officers about a very smart Ensign. As it was told, an Admiral on his Flag, a very big new carrier of "most modern design" was defended confidently by several Air wings of deadly fighters and radar that could see a long in the sea at uncountable miles. It also boasted scads of missiles guaranteed to find and destroy any radar detectable object.

Sitting in front of the entire compliment of off-duty officers aboard he challenged them, "Gentlemen was are aboard the most effective weapon in the world. This ship cannot be successfully attacked by any current weapon system that this ship cannot intercept and destroy. I challenge any officer aboard to demonstrate any method or system that can sink this vessel."

An Ensign who was present gave the notion some thought and the next day he took several of his petty officers ashore. Late in the day the Ensign with his men set out in a rubber life raft and the men paddled across the harbor to the carrier. They attached a sign to the hull of the carrier at rubber raft height, "Boom, mine exploded sinking the USS ???"

He had it right. He showed that this super warship was vulnerable to the simplest and most unlikely weapon of all, the proverbial "Three Men in a Tub".

Man has not contrived nor is he (or she) invulnerability. Nor are we likely to.

I have no knowledge of the truth of some version of this story. However, I was told that within a short time conventional gun tubs appeared equipped with weapons familiar to those of us who were there during WWII. I suspect that any target which thinks it is invulnerable, shouldn't. Carriers included.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bravo! Why should the US have a Navy that is larger than all the other navies in the world, many times over, combined (based on gross tonnage)? This is insane! Squandering trillions of taxpayer dollars on useless or otherwise unnecessary armaments actually is weakening the country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Really only a problem in an all out nuclear war. And we have more nuclear deterrence that the other guys.

End of controversy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

In San Diego, California, we have parked, in front of our beautiful but inaccessible bay front the tremendous USS Midway. The gargantuan carcass of one of these MWD's that now serves as a museum, as a building. It is now part of the everyday city that people take their children to visit and play in awe of its majesty.
It is parked in one of the very few accesses to the water.
It is extraordinary that people don't think much of it.
Here! The sword of Gengis Kahn! It is stained with the blood of thousands!
Americans are militaristic, culturally, almost spiritually I would say.
America's big, sacred dicks are parked in its cities for reverence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"it seems that U.S. Navy admirals provoked this incident. Rumors from the current defense review that large aircraft carriers and surface ships are less valuable nowadays has alarmed the U.S. naval establishment. The Navy's favorite sales pitch is that aircraft carriers keep China from invading Taiwan"
looking for trouble

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Wessels are nescessary because the Schafflongkerraz Wessel,captured in 1947 ROSWELL BASE -Area 51,as they are transported by these Flight-personell wessels are absolutely nescessary for fighting crimes and war-lords all over this planet.....
To keep peace in this world,somebody need to do the job,therefore these wessels are absolutely nescessary-these are the worlds of the Messenger-the man who in his 18-years 1974,saw the picture taken by Marija BERNADETTE Peraic-Kroatic Girl-in 1968 was she in Los Angeles,14 years of age,travelcompanion to a bulgarian woman 24-26 years,Journalist-Student by Sofia High School-Bulgaria-with her 14-year charm,successfully took a picture on Robert Francis Kennedy,thus in a moment of stress-he was attacked by two assasines-one from the front=Sirhaan-Sirhaan,and one from behind,Swedish Police-officer,son of H.Goering and Actress Gaby Stenberg-Koch.The Picture(colour) clearly shows that Walther Evert Wilhelm Kegoe-born 26 nov 1945-took a shoot upwards right side of Roberts neck,and thus inflicting lethal injuries to the brain and lifesupporting biological system.
Thomas Escargency Kallmyr-SWEDEN-Uddevalla City

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Wessels are nescessary because the Schafflongkerraz Wessel,captured in 1947 ROSWELL BASE -Area 51,as they are transported by these Flight-personell wessels are absolutely nescessary for fighting crimes and war-lords all over this planet.....
To keep peace in this world,somebody need to do the job,therefore these wessels are absolutely nescessary-these are the worlds of the Messenger-the man who in his 18-years 1974,saw the picture taken by Marija BERNADETTE Peraic-Kroatic Girl-in 1968 was she in Los Angeles,14 years of age,travelcompanion to a bulgarian woman 24-26 years,Journalist-Student by Sofia High School-Bulgaria-with her 14-year charm,successfully took a picture on Robert Francis Kennedy,thus in a moment of stress-he was attacked by two assasines-one from the front=Sirhaan-Sirhaan,and one from behind,Swedish Police-officer,son of H.Goering and Actress Gaby Stenberg-Koch.The Picture(colour) clearly shows that Walther Evert Wilhelm Kegoe-born 26 nov 1945-took a shoot upwards right side of Roberts neck,and thus inflicting lethal injuries to the brain and lifesupporting biological system.
Thomas Escargency Kallmyr-SWEDEN-Uddevalla City

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Wessels are nescessary because the Schafflongkerraz Wessel,captured in 1947 ROSWELL BASE -Area 51,as they are transported by these Flight-personell wessels are absolutely nescessary for fighting crimes and war-lords all over this planet.....
To keep peace in this world,somebody need to do the job,therefore these wessels are absolutely nescessary-these are the worlds of the Messenger-the man who in his 18-years 1974,saw the picture taken by Marija BERNADETTE Peraic-Kroatic Girl-in 1968 was she in Los Angeles,14 years of age,travelcompanion to a bulgarian woman 24-26 years,Journalist-Student by Sofia High School-Bulgaria-with her 14-year charm,successfully took a picture on Robert Francis Kennedy,thus in a moment of stress-he was attacked by two assasines-one from the front=Sirhaan-Sirhaan,and one from behind,Swedish Police-officer,son of H.Goering and Actress Gaby Stenberg-Koch.The Picture(colour) clearly shows that Walther Evert Wilhelm Kegoe-born 26 nov 1945-took a shoot upwards right side of Roberts neck,and thus inflicting lethal injuries to the brain and lifesupporting biological system.
Thomas Escargency Kallmyr-SWEDEN-Uddevalla City

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why would China bother to attack US carriers or any US installation for that matter. If China wants to bring down the US all it has to do is call in the loans, and the US is finished.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]