The role of Aircraft Carriers in conflicts

[navyproject]

I am writing a paper on the role of aircraft carriers in world conflicts (1975 to Present days). I would be extremely grateful to have your comments or point of view on that subject. I am trying to gather all types of non-classified information on the use of aircraft carriers in foreign policy around the world and the impact/result from their deployment during the recent crisis (war operations or natural disaster relief operations).

 

[Feanor]

How long is your paper? Or more importantly, do you have room to discuss the theory surrounding modern day carrier ops as part of expeditianory warfare capability?

 

[navyproject]

How long is your paper? Or more importantly, do you have room to discuss the theory surrounding modern day carrier ops as part of expeditianory warfare capability?

Thanks for your interest. My paper is due for this summer and it should be about 200 pages. I believe I have room to discuss "the theory surrounding modern day carrier ops as part of the expeditionary warfare capability" if you'd be so kind to tell me more about that theory.

 

[Feanor]

I'll be honest I'm not expert. I can give some general suggestions.

I feel kind of stupid sending you to wiki, but it's not a bad place to start.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_United_States_Navy_carrier_air_operations"]Modern United States Navy carrier air operations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Question_book-new.svg" class="image"><img alt="Question book-new.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png"@@AMEPARAM@@en/thumb/9/99/Question_book-new.svg/50px-Question_book-new.svg.png[/ame]
Carrier battle group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Global Security has some good general info on the subject.

Second Aircraft Carrier / Deuxième Porte-Avions / DPA / PA2
Kuznetsov Class - Project 1143.5

 

[gf0012-aust]

Thanks for your interest. My paper is due for this summer and it should be about 200 pages. I believe I have room to discuss "the theory surrounding modern day carrier ops as part of the expeditionary warfare capability" if you'd be so kind to tell me more about that theory.

they are fundamental shifts in doctrine. you need to separate the operational requirements for traditional carrier taskings and then look at what expeditionary events require.

I'd suggest that you research carrier operations from the development of the first super carriers (Forrestals) to Nimitz class and show the changes even in traditional taskings. as time has gone by the air wings have got smaller, but Wing capability has gone up.

Conversely, look at the USMC ARG's or look at Euro expeditionary examples such as the combined UK/Dutch amphib force.

part of the issue here is that traditional carriers have different design elements to expeditionary assets. Fit out, bunkerage, sustainment etc is different. You cannot necessarily migrate a CVN to an expeditionary role unless it stays as the Flag but undertakes more of a basing role with other assets in the task force taking up the proper expeditionary offloads etc....

my 2c anyway

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

I am writing a paper on the role of aircraft carriers in world conflicts (1975 to Present days). I would be extremely grateful to have your comments or point of view on that subject. I am trying to gather all types of non-classified information on the use of aircraft carriers in foreign policy around the world and the impact/result from their deployment during the recent crisis (war operations or natural disaster relief operations).

Other than the usual fare of battles and gunboat diplomacy issues which can be googled, some interesting events come to mind.

1980 Iran - failure of carriers to rescue hostages
1982 Falklands - non-use of CV by argentines
1986 Gulf of Sidra - defending an interpretation of international shipping law
1995 Taiwan straits - sending a signal to China (which has to be read with the deployment in Japan and the Korean conflict)

You might want to read this as well for a counter-perspective.
The Illusion of Power: Aircraft Carriers and U.S. Military Strategy

 

[gf0012-aust]

There are also some excellent UK sources which should be referred to - more so than US sources primarily because the RN being on a tighter budget had to multi-task in areas that the US could afford discretionary capability.

UK carrier ops as follows:

UK carrier ops over Kuwait in 1961 to establish air superiority and deter Iraq from invading
FAA ops over Borneo in the 60's
FAA presence over a coup in Tanganyika in 64 to help quell an army mutiny
The Beira Patrols of HMS Ark Royal and Eagle in 1965

Most people also don't realise that TopGun schools was heavily based on the RN FAA AWI course - and that RN instructors taught USAF pilots in the model precursor to TopGun. In fact the RAG manual for students was written by a RN FAA pilot.

Of significance is Ex BERSATU PADU. Involving RN and RAN carriers - and which the UK Dod was able to learn that organic air support provided by RAN Skyhawks was far more effective and timely than any land based air provided by RAAF Mirages and RAF Lightnings. Its also an expeditionary event, so has some relevance.

 

[Feros Ferio]

You might want to read this as well for a counter-perspective.
The Illusion of Power: Aircraft Carriers and U.S. Military Strategy

Just wanted to say thanks Weasel! While it is certainly dated, this article gave me some excellent food for thought as I've recently been pondering the merits of air craft carriers and the force projection capabilities they offer in light of more recent technological developments in naval warfare. I will refrain from mentioning my thoughts on that here so as not to derail another's thread, but I just wanted to say I always appreciate being pointed in the direction of well researched and well written piece such as this.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I always appreciate being pointed in the direction of well researched and well written piece such as this.

It is important to remember that the main role assigned to carriers is to project tactical air power. Now that the United States and the Soviet Union are discussing the possibility of orienting their armed forces toward defense, policymakers should strive to determine whether the United States still needs a means of projecting tactical air power and, if so, whether it should be land- or carrier-based. In answering the first question, they should consider whether the incidence of overseas conflicts that would truly impinge on vital American interests is likely to be high enough to warrant a forward deployment capability. In answering the second question, they should assess the costs and benefits of each option in the light of new political and military realities.

Carriers and their battle groups are awesome instruments of war, but they are not juggernauts, as their supporters claim; the amount of offensive power they can wield would be unlikely to affect the outcome of an attack on the Soviet Union. Furthermore, their financial cost is staggering, and their cost to the navy in both resources consumed and other ships not built is considerable. (In the current climate of fiscal austerity, those costs are likely to be ever more keenly felt.) Finally, the strategy they are intended to help implement is seriously flawed.

Carriers have rendered enormous services to the nation and still have a role to perform. But in view of the above considerations, that role does not consist of lingering off the coast of a country deemed hostile for the purpose of signaling that the United States has menacing intentions. Procuring additional large-deck carriers with that purpose in mind would be unwise.

I'm not so sure when you look at Isenbergs comments - he misses the point when he makes comments such as Para 2. In fact he is in complete contradiction to what the Soviets themselves thought of carriers and their impact in a full TN war....

I'd be extra extra cautious in quoting this as a reference as it contains flaws, temporal though it is, they were even flawed for the time.

In a contemporary context he completely misses the point about their contribution at the sensor level, at the capacity to cause force leakage for the enemy, the advantages of causing force compression (and conversely it means that the defenders resources become centrifugal and thus diluted.

IMO its pretty poor, but thats for another thread.

 

[Feros Ferio]

Lurker,

Without trying to be combative here, I submit that any piece which challenges assumptions, causes one to think about an important topic, and then causes one to decide whether you are in agreement with the authors thoughts on it, can be called well written (perhaps I am using the wrong term though). Further, while I admit my review of the authors sources was cursory, he did appear to put in some good work. However, I fully respect your opinion as I don't agree with everything he said either. For example, he did call sending carriers to various regions "a parody of gunboat diplomacy" and nothing of value is achieved. I don't agree that this is a useless exercise as it has demonstrated America's commitment to its alliances, which in turn has various political effects, some of which are quite positive (this is one example of where I disagree ). On the other hand, I did enjoy some of the points he raised such as the utility of such relatively limited offensive force projection at such great cost in terms of money, equipment, and manpower. Basically, it made me think, and that I can always appreciate.

 

[localhost127]

In fact he is in complete contradiction to what the Soviets themselves thought of carriers and their impact in a full TN war....

could you please lightly expand on this? just looking for a little history - thanks,

 

[Feanor]

could you please lightly expand on this? just looking for a little history - thanks,

The Soviets worked very hard on developing deck-based aviation, and had a very active aircraft carrier program. The first full-size Soviet aircraft carrier was laid down shortly before the USSR collapsed.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Soviets worked very hard on developing deck-based aviation, and had a very active aircraft carrier program. The first full-size Soviet aircraft carrier was laid down shortly before the USSR collapsed.

Stalin in fact wanted to develop a Carrier centric navy - Kruschevs ascendancy resulted in him dismantling basically all of Stalins naval plans - if it hadn't been for Gorshkov and a change of leadership, then the Soviets would never have been a blue water military - and in fact i'd argue that if Stalin had got his way, then the flow on effect for Navies such as the RN would have also been completely different. The UK would have maintained ger 5 heavy carrier navy and in all likelihood would have ended up with the 3 x 60,000 tonners that she was intent on building.

There would have been significant flow on effect across the wold if Stalins navy had taken shape.

 

[t68]

There are also some excellent UK sources which should be referred to - more so than US sources primarily because the RN being on a tighter budget had to multi-task in areas that the US could afford discretionary capability.

UK carrier ops as follows:

UK carrier ops over Kuwait in 1961 to establish air superiority and deter Iraq from invading
FAA ops over Borneo in the 60's
FAA presence over a coup in Tanganyika in 64 to help quell an army mutiny
The Beira Patrols of HMS Ark Royal and Eagle in 1965

Most people also don't realise that TopGun schools was heavily based on the RN FAA AWI course - and that RN instructors taught USAF pilots in the model precursor to TopGun. In fact the RAG manual for students was written by a RN FAA pilot.

Of significance is Ex BERSATU PADU. Involving RN and RAN carriers - and which the UK Dod was able to learn that organic air support provided by RAN Skyhawks was far more effective and timely than any land based air provided by RAAF Mirages and RAF Lightnings. Its also an expeditionary event, so has some relevance.

Is there any chance that you can point us in the right direction of a discussion paper or similar, regarding the Skyhawks off carriers and land based assets? I have had a quick look but have not found anything substantial.

Regards T68

 

[Feros Ferio]

Stalin in fact wanted to develop a Carrier centric navy

While I appreciate fighting fire with fire, this seems like a lack of imagination to me. Countering the US' carrier superiority with submarine superiority seems like a more creative solution to the Soviet problem. Sea lane control, based on submarines, seems like it would give the initiative to the countering power. In your opinion, would this be a better path to follow, or no?

 

[Kilo 2-3]

While I appreciate fighting fire with fire, this seems like a lack of imagination to me. Countering the US' carrier superiority with submarine superiority seems like a more creative solution to the Soviet problem. Sea lane control, based on submarines, seems like it would give the initiative to the countering power. In your opinion, would this be a better path to follow, or no?

Subs, especially 1940s-1950s boats, are fairly limited in what they can and cannot do. Although the U-boats showed us how deadly subs could be in the right hands, I still think the pre-NATO Western bloc would have been able to call the shots at sea against a Russian sub-oriented fleet. Had war broken out, Soviet subs would have had to navigate a variety of defendable chokepoints to reach shipping in the Atlantic or the Med. Combine that with the UK's and US' ASW tech and experience base from WWII and things start looking even grimmer.

Coordinated wolfpacks and saturation attacks on on TFs might have yielded some results, but, to the best of my knowledge, these weren't tactics used by Russian sub skippers in WWII. Generally, it's good to be at the top of the learning curve when the shooting starts.

Plus, I'm not sure subs would have fitted in with the goals of the early-Cold War USSR. While the Soviets weren't the rabid expansionists some make them out to be, there's little question that they wanted a piece of the pie. And carriers fit into this vision quite well.

Carriers and their battlegroups/task forces are flexible, powerful means of force projection. They can engage targets on the water, over the water, or under the water and they can do this virtually anywhere in the world.

For a nation looking to plant and protect its interests abroad, carriers make quite a bit of sense. Plus, they flattops come with a prestige factor and potential for "showing the flag" that doesn't come with many (if any) submarines.

So, given the Soviet's goals (expand Communism, plant and support satellite states, grow as a recognized world power), it would have made a fair amount of sense for Stalin to have made building CVs a goal.

(In the same vein, it also may not be unreasonable to link China's recent efforts to build carriers and procure air arms with its growing role on the international stage. Obviously, there's many other factors behind their decision, but this might well be one of them)

 

[gf0012-aust]

Is there any chance that you can point us in the right direction of a discussion paper or similar, regarding the Skyhawks off carriers and land based assets? I have had a quick look but have not found anything substantial.

Regards T68

The only public domain material that I am aware of is in:

"Phoenix Squadron", Rowland White.

 

[swerve]

The Soviets worked very hard on developing deck-based aviation, and had a very active aircraft carrier program. The first full-size Soviet aircraft carrier was laid down shortly before the USSR collapsed.

I'd call Kuznetsov & Varyag full-size. The limit on aircraft types carried is imposed by the ski-jump & lack of catapults, not the size.

 

[Waylander]

Not to forget the SSMs which take away alot of space which otherwise could be used for additional hangar space.

IIRC they want to change that with the major refit. So the Russians still believe in conventional carriers.

 

[t68]

With thanks to GF0012 Aust for his help I found this little gem.

Land based air V Carrier borne air and cost and achiements over 40 years, Authors: Admiral Sandy Woodward and Commodore Steve Jermy.

It’s not an in-depth work for which i was hoping, basically a summary of cost and achiements and the basic needs to reinstate HMS Ark Royal and her Harrier aircraft until the Queen Elizabeth class comes on line, how accurate the numbers are and if there is any bias i do not know.
Land-Based Air versus Carrier-Borne Air – Real Costs and Achievements over 40 Years « The Phoenix Think Tank

A little know story (well i did not know anything about it) of the RN came to avert an invasion of at the time British Honduras, goes to show the flexibility of carriers in a well balanced navy.

Phoenix Squadron