Russia and China have condemned the worst in the world, the US carriers

The Pentagon refuses to spend billions on a target for Russian and Chinese missiles

Россия и Китай приговорили самые страшные в мире авианосцы США

In the Pentagon with a new force a debate raged on the subject of whether to continue to invest in carrier battle fleet or it is wiser to direct them to the development of hypersonic missiles. Such missiles already in service with Russia and China, experts say the military review, has significantly shaken the cult status of the American carriers.

According to Defense News, in a recent press conference in the us military, Deputy defense Secretary Michael Griffin, that is, put a question on expediency of the further financing the construction of aircraft carriers. And said that the Ministry intends to carefully study this issue, as it may be to redirect funds for the development of other weapons, including the establishment of a hypersonic long-range missiles.

“Let’s do a thought experiment. What do you think the Chinese leadership would fear more: 2 thousand conventional missiles in the possession of the United States and its allies in the Western Pacific ocean, or one new aircraft carrier? Because these two points are about the same money,” — said the Deputy head of the Pentagon.

According to Griffin, to completely abandon the aircraft carriers are not worth it, but be aware that “opponents of the United States had already found ways to deal with the carriers”. In this connection, he believes, the Pentagon needs to think about the future.
Meanwhile, some experts refuse to recognize the so-called weapons of the prompt global strike an effective deterrent. They argue that the United States might not decide to strike hypersonic weapon, for example, on the territory of China in response to the attack on the American ships, as this could lead to a nuclear exchange.

“You can use it against Iran or even North Korea, but against China? Chinese leaders have serious doubts as to decide if we really are”, — the Deputy Minister opposes analyst at the Center for strategic and budgetary assessments, a United States Navy officer retired Brian Clark.

A former pilot of the U.S. Navy, rear Admiral Roy Kelly also believes that “nuclear aircraft carriers with their air wing remain the most advanced weapons system — and will remain so in the future.”

As far as the military review, at this point in the structure of the Navy of the United States are eleven supervisores. And it’s not just a ship, it is a real floating city (or mobile airports). Each can accommodate up to 80 aircraft of carrier-based aircraft and up to seven thousand troops — sailors, Marines and pilots.

One such carrier is worth approximately five billion dollars. And the last is the latest “Gerald Ford”, which, according to trump, should strike fear in the enemies of America at all cost the us Treasury a record 12.9 billion.

Today, however, among the professional military in the US is increasingly doubting that these giant ships are able to use his impressive force in actual combat operations.

“Carriers are no longer just Maritime platforms and has become almost mystical symbols of American national power, says the former captain of the U.S. Navy Jerry Hendricks. They have become symbols of our nation, its greatness, and now they see the guarantee of national prestige”.That is why the Americans, he said, in the event of a military conflict completely unprepared for the loss of the carriers. He finds it necessary to return the aircraft carrier “the real weapons to them have ceased to be treated as mystical unicorns”.Question, is it possible? Or age of these floating fortresses, indeed, coming to an end?

— Objectively speaking, Americans live on the island, so fleet for them — “sacred cow” — commented military expert, retired Colonel Mikhail Tymoshenko. And it has always been. The army, I would say they are interested only in the part of the forwarding task — this was originally done Marines.

Actually actively build aircraft carriers, the Americans began after the Japanese attack on pearl Harbor. Because I realized that he missed, when the bet is placed on battleships. “Dreadnoughts” as they were called artillery ships.
Well, got a bunch of carriers… Great… they Have the same doctrine — sail around the world, in all oceans.

And aircraft carriers is force projection. Because they are always accompanied by strike group, which includes the landing ship dock, missile cruiser, a couple destroyers, submarines… And all of this floating “farm”, capable of attacking submarines, aircraft and other objects, starts to circulate in the ocean.

At least such strike groups they have ten.

Yes, it’s expensive — both in construction and in operation. Earlier than a year or two aircraft carrier in operation is not returned even after average repair. The design is quite complex.

Moreover, with the rise of mass aviation (private aircraft) had the task of increasing the power of the catapults which launch the aircraft. Because steam catapults, which currently exist require so much energy (i.e., steam) that there was a problem: the carrier can’t keep the speed under thirty knots to launch planes, when consumed steam catapult to launch them.

Continuously increase the capacity of the power plant did not work. Then decided to put the electromagnetic catapult.

“SP”: — As on the newest “Gerald Ford”?

— Yes, but still turns out very well. Because they, too, are not always good. There was hope that all this will get better when you put the deck of the F-35. But, first, as often happens, everything comes down to money. And also depends on the fact that these positions — Minister of aviation, Minister of the Navy, they have political.

What’s up with that they have going on, you know — the constant head-butting of Congress with the President. Everyone, I understand, is fighting for his place. And defence Ministers trump change as gloves…

And the fact that the carriers were too expensive and unnecessary weapons, they have already started to speak. And it is also, I think this political game.

“SP”: — But if only two or three of our missiles can send almost any warship on the bottom, maybe it really makes sense to “switch” from aircraft carriers to something else? Americans with hypersonic?

— The question is not even how they are in this respect behind us. Let’s catch up — because the engineers are intelligent, the money is there, they make their own hypersonic weapon. And why is it? Whom to attack?
If we attack carrier strike group — everything is clear: use as anti-ship supersonic missiles. Because to America-the “hypersonic” does not reach our territory. There is need of an Intercontinental missile.

Hypersonic missiles pose a real threat to their carrier strike groups.

Because it was a major headache in the headquarters of the Navy in the Soviet times. After all, in order to reliably attack a carrier battle group, you had to raise two regiments of naval missile-carrying aviation. At least. It has yet to fly, and the aircraft carrier who knows where hanging in the ocean. That is, you need the designation.

We had the so-called “Legend”, which provided target designation in the ocean. Now it is not, and Liana — new — still in operation are not included. And then what?

And then the Chinese-made “Dongfeng-21” — rocket, which provides target designation from their space systems and has a warhead with high sensitivity. In fact, it is the same, our “pioneer”, only precision.

This means that the carrier get far in no time. It’s under attack. And the head can be screwed and nuclear. And then Mama do not cry! The Chinese will not be ashamed.

“SP”: — Then maybe it makes sense for them to withdraw gradually from the aircraft carrier strategy?

— It’s complicated. Can you imagine what howling rise in Congress and the Senate? They are in fact “deputies” protect every State and the jobs in it. And the carriers is a huge number of jobs, and there was just one thing after another clings — aircraft, coastal defense, etc. etc. So it seems to me that today the speech of Deputy head of the Pentagon is a particular of the assessment by forwarding. In order to assess how it will react in Congress. A reaction is most likely to be violent. But let’s wait and see…
Svetlana Gomzikova

Share Button