Arguing Different Points

I've noticed that in two naval debates, those who defend the exclusive use of big-deck carriers and nuclear submarines ignore the basic problem that those of us who would like to see smaller aviation assets and non-nuclear subs.

On the carrier side, defenders point out the greater efficiency of bigger carriers, their greater sortie generation rate, and their utility for humanitarian relief and in providing secure airfields for expedionary warfare. They may also say that the sheer bulk of the big super carriers make them more survivable if hit.

I don't actually disagree with those points.

What I disagree with is the idea that in a naval war that any of those cited advantages will matter one bit. Obviously, when in a war against a Taliban regime or Saddam regime that lacks the ability to strike our carriers, the bigger the carrier the better. The same goes for hurricanes and earthquakes that tend not to shoot at us.

But it isn't a matter of if a carrier gets hit, but when. And how many. A bigger carrier may have the bulk to avoid sinking, but I don't know if a bigger carrier can avoid being mission killed for the duration of the war until it can be repaired.

And in an age when precision missiles can be networked together, we simply don't need the platform-centric super carrier to mass effects from one ship when we can use network-centric capabilities to mass effects from widely separated surface, sub-surface, and aerial systems whether land- or sea-based.

I wouldn't scrap our big carriers, they do offer advantages in non-general war scenarios, whether it is expeditionary warfare against smaller enemies or disaster relief or even showing the flag. But in high intensity warfare they are not survivable. And even if they are survivable if we spend enough money, why spend that money when we can distribute our firepower over more hulls, making our capabilities more survivable?

I wouldn't simply replace our big carriers with equal numbers of smaller carriers. In a perfect world, I'd have some super carriers, with most kept on a short leash at home for surge operations; and a much larger number of smaller carriers for routine forward presence and for the leading aviation edge of any surface offensive into an enemy's anti-access/area denial zone. Add in the reserve naval aviation capabilities of our new amphibious platforms as well as aviation capable modularized auxiliary cruisers, and we retain the capabilities of the big decks while minimizing their vulnerabilities.

As for the nuclear versus conventional submarine debate, the issue is again survivability and not even the question of effectiveness. I don't know if our nuclear submarines are more or less effective than advanced conventional subs in shallow waters. But if the answer is close enough to make that debate go on, I think we can safely say that having more conventional subs for that environment would be superior to fewer nuclear subs. Perhaps nuclear sub advocates worry that they'd have to settle for conventional subs replacing nuclear subs on a 1:1 ratio. That's possible given our budget situation. But our budget situation might not allow for replacement of our nuclear subs on a 1:1 basis if that is the case. I'd rather buy more conventional subs to replace a certain portion of our nuclear fleet so our total number of hulls goes up, but if the money isn't there it won't be there to have enough of either type. If we have too few subs, they simply can't be everywhere we need them to be at some point. A good conventional sub where and when you need it is better than a super nuclear sub a week away.

I will grant the nuclear sub people one major point in their favor. The distance we have to go to reach patrol theaters means that we can't build small conventional subs. The West Germans built some very good conventional subs in the Cold War, but they reached the combat zone in the Baltic Sea just about as soon as they left port. In general, our ships--whether surface or submarine--need to be bigger just to have the range and sea going capacity to cross oceans to where we are needed. So either we need to base a good part of the portion of our submarines fleet that is conventional overseas or we need to build really big conventional boats that might very well make cost savings versus nuclear boats too small to matter.

So in my opinion, the nuclear sub people have the stronger argument and I could be persuaded that conventional boats aren't a partial answer to our number (and survivability in shallow water) problem. The big deck carriers, however, just can't be risked in high intensity naval warfare and we should be looking past them for naval survivable aviation capabilities.

The defenders of big carriers and large nuclear subs have compelling arguments in defense of those weapon systems. But none of them address the core issue of survivability that leads me to want alternatives.