Is the US navy overrated

If the article is trying to make a point that big ships (battleships, supercarriers) can still be sunk by cheap diesel subs, yes, that is true. No such thing as unsinkable ship. A lucky hit from a sub will disable or even sink a much larger ship.

However I'd also note that the USN has one huge advantage over all other countries, the American industrial base. During WW2 the American shipyards could crank out over 100 carriers of various sizes, plus their aircraft. Even if the Japanese had employed submarines successfully at midway, in the long run, there was simply NO WAY for Japan to win a war of attrition vs. US:




Now, suppose if the USN engage a tough opponent today and the other guy managed to sink a couple of carriers. All other carrier-equipped navies would be carrier-less at this point, but not the USN - they still have 10 more floating, and if needed, more under construction.

Is the USN over-rated? Definately not. Because it's a force that can easily replace its losses and come back in an "American Wave Attack" with more ships and planes (1,000+ F-18's produced) than anyone else.

Adeptitus is totally correct. This article does show that any large ship is susceptible to attack by low cost options, such as a diesel. While this article is old, it does have some valid points. The one thing that has changed is the USN they describe is not the USN of today. There have been many changes since this was addressed. But this doesn't change the major premise that a torpedo will still do damage to a USN carrier if they are able to get into a good position for attack. And also, there are vulnerabilities that need to be addressed, such as technologies to hunt for quiet diesel subs in littorals which have demonstrated a threat. The USN has done recent work on sonar systems, but how well they've improved them is anyone's guess.

Being part of a few exercises, I can tell you that the USN never scripted them like this article says. Maybe they did that before I saw them, but the exercises I saw all gave the enemy units 100% weapons effectiveness and readiness which isn't realistic. But it's good for training purposes. While they gave the enemy units this advantage, these exercises all took into account statistical anomalies for USN assets. I can't tell you any details of the exercises, but I will say it was nothing like the article described.

Sea Dog sez..

Being part of a few exercises, I can tell you that the USN never scripted them like this article says. Maybe they did that before I saw them, but the exercises I saw all gave the enemy units 100% weapons effectiveness and readiness which isn't realistic. But it's good for training purposes. While they gave the enemy units this advantage, these exercises all took into account statistical anomalies for USN assets. I can't tell you any details of the exercises, but I will say it was nothing like the article described.

Click to expand...

Well ,well well, Things have changed. Sea Dog says that the excersises are not scripted any longer. That was not the case when I served. It was about 60% scripted...Things have changed. But the oppsition was always given 100% capablity in my day.

Yes the US Industrial base would be able to crank out more ships than an enemy, but politics can make anyone lose or withdraw from any war. Sinking a few US ships may be enough to rouse enough political pressure to make the US withdraw. (But it depends on the pretense of the war.) For example in Iraq as the casualty toll rises so does the political pressure to withdraw. All a enemy would have to do is sink a few ships, and draw out the war and that would be enough to make any politician to think twice on a war.