Aircraft carriers 'are the most survivable airfield' and they may soon be even harder to kill, top Navy admiral says

https://www.thisisinsider.com/top-na...to-sink-2019-2

* Adm. John Richardson, the chief of naval operations, said Wednesday that the
"the carrier is going to be a viable force element for the foreseeable future."

* He said the US carrier fleet — the most powerful naval force — is adapting to
meet threats from rivals, such as China, that are openly talking about sinking
them.

* The admiral emphasized that carriers are hard to kill, calling them the "most
survivable airfield."

US aircraft carriers are a "tremendous expression of US national power," and
that makes them a target for adversarial powers, the US Navy's top admiral said
Wednesday.

"The big thing that is occupying our minds right now is the advent of long-range
precision weapons, whether those are land-based ballistic missiles,
coastal-defense cruise missiles, you name it," Adm. John Richardson, the chief
of naval operations, said at the Atlantic Council, adding that the systems
wielded by adversaries are "becoming more capable."

Chinese media has recently been hyping its "carrier-killer" DF-26 ballistic
missiles, which are reportedly able to hit targets as far as 3,500 miles away.
China released footage of the Chinese military test-firing the missile last
month.

The purpose is to send "a clear message to the US about China's growing missile
capability, and that it can hold at risk US strategic assets, such as carriers
and bases," Adam Ni, who researches China at Macquarie University in Sydney,
recently told the South China Morning Post.

"There's two sides, an offensive part and a defensive part," Richardson said
Wednesday, stressing that the Navy's carriers are adapting to the new threats.
"The advent of some of new technologies, particularly directed energy
technologies coupled with the emerging power generation capabilities on
carriers, is going to make them a much, much more difficult target to hit."

Speaking with the crew of the new supercarrier USS Gerald R. Ford on Tuesday,
Richardson said, "You are going to be able to host a whole cadre of weapons that
right now we can just start to dream about. We're talking about electric
weapons, high energy laser, high-powered microwave [and] very, very capable
radars."

The expensive $13 billion carrier is expected to be deployed in the next few
years.

"Rather than expressing the carrier as uniquely vulnerable, I would say it is
the most survivable airfield within the field of fire," Richardson said
Wednesday in response to questions about carrier vulnerability. "This is an
airfield that can move 720 miles a day that has tremendous self-defense
capabilities."

"If you think about the sequence of events that has to emerge to be able to
target and hit something that can move that much, and each step in that chain of
events can be disrupted from the sensing part all the way back to the homing
part, it's the most survivable airfield in the area," he said.

Richardson said the carrier is less vulnerable now than at any time since World
War II, when the US Navy was putting carriers in action, and those carriers were
in combat taking hits. "The carrier is going to be a viable force element for
the foreseeable future."

US carriers are particularly hard, albeit not impossible, to kill.

"It wouldn't be impossible to hit an aircraft carrier, but unless they hit it
with a nuke, an aircraft carrier should be able to take on substantial damage,"
retired Capt. Talbot Manvel, who served as an aircraft-carrier engineer and was
involved in the design of the new Ford-class carriers, told Business Insider
previously.

US carriers "can take a lick and keep on ticking," he said.



*

On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 15:17:20 -0800, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On 7 Feb 2019 14:56:29 -0800, Miloch wrote


$13 - $15 billion, what else are they going to say? Yeah, China can
bottom our carriers with their subs and or DF-26 missiles?

Our carriers need to be smaller, less expensive and more nimble.

I disagree, but do believe we need more carriers, both smaller &
larger and we also must abolish the airforce & army. airforce assets
would then become naval assets and army troops would become marines.
We do not need all these different armed forces, only the Navy.

joet5 wrote in
:

On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 15:17:20 -0800, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On 7 Feb 2019 14:56:29 -0800, Miloch wrote


$13 - $15 billion, what else are they going to say? Yeah, China can
bottom our carriers with their subs and or DF-26 missiles?

Our carriers need to be smaller, less expensive and more nimble.

I disagree, but do believe we need more carriers, both smaller &
larger and we also must abolish the airforce & army. airforce assets
would then become naval assets and army troops would become marines.
We do not need all these different armed forces, only the Navy.


Since the US has more carriers than the
rest of the world combined how many more are
necessary?

On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 15:17:20 -0800, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On 7 Feb 2019 14:56:29 -0800, Miloch wrote


$13 - $15 billion, what else are they going to say? Yeah, China can
bottom our carriers with their subs and or DF-26 missiles?

Our carriers need to be smaller, less expensive and more nimble.

Small carriers are a false idea. They end up not having enough planes
to do the job, or not enough supplies or cramped quarters...

On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 20:34:29 -0600, Mitchell Holman
wrote:

joet5 wrote in
:

On Thu, 07 Feb 2019 15:17:20 -0800, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On 7 Feb 2019 14:56:29 -0800, Miloch wrote


$13 - $15 billion, what else are they going to say? Yeah, China can
bottom our carriers with their subs and or DF-26 missiles?

Our carriers need to be smaller, less expensive and more nimble.

I disagree, but do believe we need more carriers, both smaller &
larger and we also must abolish the airforce & army. airforce assets
would then become naval assets and army troops would become marines.
We do not need all these different armed forces, only the Navy.


Since the US has more carriers than the
rest of the world combined how many more are
necessary?


Here's an aswer for that:
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-U...craft-carriers

Basically, few of them are operational at any time: maintenance,
training, travel time, etc...


(ps: am not american)

"R2D2" wrote in message ...


Since the US has more carriers than the rest of the world combined how
many more are necessary?


Here's an aswer for that:
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-U...craft-carriers

Basically, few of them are operational at any time: maintenance, training,
travel time, etc...

The bigger the ship, the more major weapons hits it can take...

On Fri, 8 Feb 2019 17:49:23 -0600, "Byker" wrote:

"R2D2" wrote in message ...


Since the US has more carriers than the rest of the world combined how
many more are necessary?


Here's an aswer for that:
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-U...craft-carriers

Basically, few of them are operational at any time: maintenance, training,
travel time, etc...

The bigger the ship, the more major weapons hits it can take...

In a carrier, that's irrelevant, in terms of mission-capability. A
lucky hit on the catapults or arrestor gear and it's off to the
shipyard

"R2D2" wrote in message ...

A lucky hit on the catapults or arrestor gear and it's off to the shipyard

As if luck can always be relied upon...

On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 18:40:30 -0600, "Byker" wrote:

"R2D2" wrote in message ...

A lucky hit on the catapults or arrestor gear and it's off to the shipyard

As if luck can always be relied upon...

You can't *rely* on it, but you have to plan for it. Because ****
happens when you least expect it.

The Bismarck was crippled by a single torpedo hit in the only place
where it could work, the rudder. Luck.

In Midway, the unescorted US dive bombers, that had been wondering
around half-lost, arrived over the IJN carriers just as all IJN
fighters were at sea level, moping up the poor torpedo bombers. Luck.

The Hood took ONE hit in the wron place and boom. Luck.

And how many people have been saved because of a faulty detonator in
the bomb that just hit their trench/building?

It's called "worst case scenario" or "Murphy's law"; you have to plan
to suffer it.

"R2D2" wrote in message news
On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 18:40:30 -0600, "Byker" wrote:

"R2D2" wrote in message
. ..

A lucky hit on the catapults or arrestor gear and it's off to the
shipyard

As if luck can always be relied upon...

You can't *rely* on it, but you have to plan for it. Because **** happens
when you least expect it.

It's called "worst case scenario" or "Murphy's law"; you have to plan to
suffer it.

Sounds like you might be interested in the "what if" books. They're
collections of short essays by different authors. Example:
https://tinyurl.com/gl8yy2m

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_If%3F_(essays)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_If%3F_2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_I...erican_History