US military again admitted that aircraft carriers are vulnerable sitting ducks

[crossbow_sg]

As the PRCs are expecting their govt to launch aircraft carriers, it is studied to be only an expensive ego bid, because it is a useless vulnerable and expensive idea which offers little advantages for it's cost. Today PRC have many other high tech options including space segments of military that are much more effective. They are indeed reluctant to do stupid aircraft carriers.

That's why PRC govt kept surfacing the truths & myths admitted by US military regarding carriers.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2010-02/11/content_12966345.htm



您的位置：新华网主页 - 新华军事
美退役情报官警示美军“航母其实很脆弱”
2010年02月11日 10:21:48 　来源：人民网
【字号 大 中 小】　【留言】　【打印】　【关闭】

【Email推荐： 】

“卡尔·文森”号航母 资料图片

在过去半个多世纪中，航空母舰牢牢地把持着“海战之王”的宝座，凭借强大的攻防能力赢得人们的顶礼膜拜。那么，航母真的像某些支持者相信的那样永远不可战胜吗？美国海军退役情报官，现供职于美国陆军战争学院的约翰·帕彻，在刊登于今年１月出版的《美国海军战争学院学报》上的《海上要塞？航母无敌的神话》一文中指出，即便是当今最先进的大型核动力航母，在特定环境下也有可能像“缓慢移动的靶标”般脆弱。

多强的防御体系都有漏洞

１９４５年以后，美国海军的大型航母从未有过被击沉或遭重创的记录。尽管有关航母价值的争论始终存在，但它们大多是围绕航母的使命、成本以及兵力结构等展开，从未有人质疑其生存能力。换言之，在美军内部，“航母坚不可摧”几乎已成为一种潜意识。

文章指出，在支持航母的人看来，高航速、厚装甲、重火力乃至海洋的天然庇护效应，都是航母具有强大生存能力的有力证据。然而从理论上分析，足够聪明的对手仍能从航母的防御体系中发掘出某些漏洞并加以利用，譬如：

在临近主要航道或海岸的地方，频繁的通讯可能暴露航母的位置；

航母在高速机动过程中无法确保舰载机持续出动，夜间尤其如此；

在低战备等级下，航母上的装甲机库门往往处于敞开状态；

航母舰员人数众多、成分复杂，令破坏分子的渗透成为可能；

核动力航母不受航程限制，但仍需定期补充食品、航空燃料及其他物资；

航母为确保信息流通而配备的网络节点，同样可能成为攻击的对象。

如果掌握了这些弱点，再辅之以有一定战斗力的常规武器，潜在对手完全可能给美军的航母造成严重威胁。这里所谓常规武器，包括巡航导弹、静音潜艇以及智能水雷，近来被媒体热炒的反舰弹道导弹当然也在其列。

不对称战术更让美军头痛

如果上面所说的常规威胁尚容易应付，那么在后“９??１１”时代的海上冲突中，如何应对恐怖主义、黑客攻击等“非传统威胁”，无疑是更加严峻的考验。后一类威胁之所以令人头痛，主要原因在于其无法被精确定义和预测，也就难以提前采取针对性防范措施。２００６年黎以战争期间，以色列海军一艘最先进的护卫舰“出乎意料”地遭遇真主党武装的导弹袭击而损失惨重，就是对美国海军的明确警告。

事实上，由于“非传统威胁”的行为主体多为行踪诡秘的非国家性政治实体，身在明处的航空母舰往往要面对各种“超常规”战术的突袭。简而言之，对于那些“有创意”的敌人来讲，影响航母战斗力的各种要素??诸如通讯、机动性、后勤补给乃至水兵的士气，都可能是其下手的目标。此类行动不必以击沉或重创航母为目的，哪怕只是暂时限制了航母的行动，就可能严重扰乱美军的通盘布局。

为了更生动地说明这一点，文章作者构思了几种针对航母的“不对称战术”：

在一个无法起降飞机的夜间，一小队武装人员驾驶隐形快艇接近远离护航兵力的航母，强行登舰后迅速在航空设施上安装炸弹。舰员未及反应，舰载机已损失大半。

敌对国家派特种兵占领了一艘大型货轮，趁美军航母通过苏伊士运河时驾船撞击。后者躲闪不及，舰体受损导致航速降至每小时１０海里以下，舰载机无法正常起飞。

某极端组织避实击虚，利用自杀式快艇同时袭击了多艘相对脆弱的美军后勤补给舰。由于无法及时获得食物、饮用水及其他物资，航母的战斗力在此后数周内大为降低。

“航母是武器，不是神明”

就像世贸双子塔轰然倒塌所带来的震撼那样，多少年来一直被视为美国权力象征的航母一旦遭袭，给人造成的心理冲击同样将是难以想象的。上面所设想的种种情况并非妄想狂的梦呓，而是美军官兵有朝一日可能面对的最严峻事态。毕竟，在２００１年９月１１日之前，没有谁能料到区区几个恐怖分子，能在纽约市中心导演多么可怕的灾难。

非传统威胁的凸显，令美国海军不得不着手修订作战条例并引入新的作战思想。美军指挥官们所能做的，首先是对航母的弱点及对方可能采取的战术加以评估并制定预案，之后还要在日常演习中增加相应的科目，更重要的是，他们必须建立起这样一种意识：不对称威胁随时可能出现，一切计划的制定都必须以此为基础。

美军在第一次海湾战争后所做的一份内部报告曾指出，“航空母舰是强大的战争机器，但它并非某种神明，会因为信徒的膜拜而增加力量……”正如上文所强调的那样，事实上，对航母威胁最大的内部因素，恰恰是某些人长期以来“航母坚不可摧”的幻想。

 

[longbow]

Carriers are still relevant for power projection against small 3rd world nations. However they can be vulnerable to nations with satellite and ballisitc missile technology.

I think eventually the Chinese will build a few. Problem is a modern carrier consist of lots of pieces of technology that the Chinese do not have. So maybe in 10 years or so they can start construction.

 

[Zombie]

which is why they need Taiwan as "aircraft carrier"?

 

[SotongMee]

Fact is that nobody had sank an US aircraft carrier after 1945.

Quesiton is did anyone sink any aircraft carrier since 1945?

Carriers are still relevant for power projection against small 3rd world nations. However they can be vulnerable to nations with satellite and ballisitc missile technology.

I think eventually the Chinese will build a few. Problem is a modern carrier consist of lots of pieces of technology that the Chinese do not have. So maybe in 10 years or so they can start construction.

 

[boundThunter]

Big Boat In Small Pond...Chinese Aircraft Carrier.

 

[popdod]

Big Boat In Small Pond...Chinese Aircraft Carrier.

how it gonna sail out with the boundary?

 

[longbow]

No, but question should be whether carrier has been used against a large powerful nation?

Bear in mind that many nations have, since 1945, gotten ability to lauch their own satellite.

Fact is that nobody had sank an US aircraft carrier after 1945.

Quesiton is did anyone sink any aircraft carrier since 1945?

 

[Highfalutin]

Where is the link to an " official US military admittance to the vulnerable sitting duck" theory with regard to aircraft carriers? If based on the same premise, all naval surface ships are vulnerable. Why have a navy then?

An all out war between super powers will lead to Armageddon. Aircraft carriers are "I dare you to sink me" statements.

 

[boundThunter]

how it gonna sail out with the boundary?

This one not going anywhere, for training purposes... sort of "getting to know an aircraft-carrier thingy."

The father of China's aircraft carrier research and development (R&D) program was Admiral Liu Huaqing. From 1954 to 1958 Liu studied under the great Soviet naval strategist Admiral Sergei Gorshkov at the Voroshilov Naval Academy in Leningrad. Gorshkov was the driving force behind the Soviet navy's oceangoing offensive strategy, an ambition that came to fruition during the 1980s. Gorshkov's maritime strategy greatly influenced Liu's ideas on how the People's Liberation Army Navy should evolve. Like its Soviet counterpart, the PLAN had traditionally been subordinate to the army, with a primary role of coastal defense. Liu argued that China's maritime doctrine should evolve through two stages. The first should be a "green-water active defense" that would enable the PLAN to protect China's territorial waters and enforce its sovereignty claims in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea. The second phase would be to develop a blue-water navy capable of projecting power into the western Pacific. Liu was able to put these ideas into practice during his tenure as commander in chief of the PLAN (1982-88) and then as vice chairman of the powerful Central Military Commission (1989-97).

Liu believed that in order to fulfill a blue-water capability, the PLAN had to obtain aircraft carriers. In 1997, just before his retirement, Liu penned an article in Zhongguo Haiyang Bao (China's Maritime Paper) in which he argued it was "extremely necessary" for China to possess aircraft carriers. According to Liu, aircraft carriers were needed to protect China's sovereignty and maritime resources, especially with regard to Taiwan and the South China Sea; guard China's sea lanes of communications as the country industrialized and increasingly became a major trading power; enable China to keep up with regional powers such as India and Japan; and give the PLAN a decisive edge in future naval warfare.

This article appeared in Zhongguo Haiyang Bao, run by the State Oceanography Bureau, and was entitled "The Chinese Navy and Aircraft Carriers."

 

[Glaringly]

Aircraft carriers are perhaps out dated.

Won't be surprise in the next large scale warfare they will comes out with Drones Carrier, up in the air.

 

[longbow]

Dec 2009 article from US Naval Institute written by retire Navy Cdr

http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/story.asp?STORY_ID=2164

Mentions that USSR was never into carriers because they felt they were vulnerable. However carriers are great platforms against small or poor 3rd world nations like Iraq/Yugoslavia.

 

[crossbow_sg]

Carriers are still relevant for power projection against small 3rd world nations. However they can be vulnerable to nations with satellite and ballisitc missile technology.

I think eventually the Chinese will build a few. Problem is a modern carrier consist of lots of pieces of technology that the Chinese do not have. So maybe in 10 years or so they can start construction.

If PRC govt wanted carrier they had it 10 years ago. The matter of fact is they bought 1 from ex-Soviet and used it as Entertainment Theme Park in ShenZhen for the last 10years! It is so useless, the Chinese only let children play with it!

Russia today only kept nothing but just 1 single carrier, they sold everything they can sell to fools who have money. India and South American countries buy them, some of these countries have more carriers than Moscow.

Technology today is nothing to many countries including China & India. Carrier is very old technology and existed before WW2. USA is still foolishly keeping all their junks which are supposed to be scrap metals, many were build before or around WW2, they are grandfathers' Karanguni scraps! :p

 

[longbow]

http://www.usni.org/magazines/procee...?STORY_ID=2164

Read here lah. Navy will never ever say it because of politics. Building carrier brings in lots of $$$ for various states. Read that US defence minister wanst to cut many weapons programs but all kena block in Congress.

Depnds on who carriers are dealing with. Small country will not dare do anything. But big country like Russia/China/India, when it concerns national security will sink it with no problem. Even all this use of UAV - very effective against Taliban and small groups. But they will easily be shot down if they tried to do it to the Russian or Chinese. Many of these UAV use satellite to relay information back to base. Does not take much for Chinese or Russians to blow up the satellite being use.

They often use 3 to 1 ratio for military superiority. Question is, if China spends $300B a year can US afford $900B a year on military?

Where is the link to an " official US military admittance to the vulnerable sitting duck" theory with regard to aircraft carriers? If based on the same premise, all naval surface ships are vulnerable. Why have a navy then?

An all out war between super powers will lead to Armageddon. Aircraft carriers are "I dare you to sink me" statements.

 

[zuoom]

as much as aircraft carriers are sitting ducks, they have their own counter measures.

it's always supported by various ships that would do the "blocking" for her.
she would be in a bubble, protected by them.

there's multiple layers of bubble protection. each would have to be breached before hitting the carrier.

still, that idea has not been fool proof. there's reports of planes flying into the bubble n getting on top of the carrier. likewise for the submarines getting close to their targets.

however, it probably will take quite a bit of firepower to take down the carriers.