That’s a rather limited view of what being a superpower entails. The US is primarily a superpower through virtue of its maritime dominance and nuclear umbrella, which enables it to keep the sea-lanes open to feed its economy and those of their allies. Russia has no equivalent maritime interests because it is nowhere near as dependent on bulk, seaborne international trade; it is a land empire. Realistically, it only has two main interests on the seas: 1) secure littoral waters, especially off the strategically important Arctic (useful for launching SLBM’s into central Russia, and for its hydrocarbons) and 2) to be able to deny the use of the seas to its sea-power antagonists in the event of a Great Power war. Building CV’s is only a matter of costly pretend-prestige which I’m glad they’re abandoning. 1) can be fulfilled with the help of the phalanx I’ve described. 2) is possible with the development of a submarine, stealth craft and arsenal ship fleet and in the last resort, with an advanced nuclear arsenal.

Re-”Re Iran. Boy, you were backpeddling even faster than normal on that one.”

I wasn’t back-peddling. What I was getting at is that technology, even old technology, is perfectly fine if it continues to fit a purpose. For example, 50-year old Bear bombers are still perfectly serviceable (as are B-2’s) because when outfitted with modern electronics and cruise missiles, they still fit their original purpose – to bomb key enemy nodes, without suffering excessive rates of attrition. I do not think that is the case with CV’s, which are increasingly useless in littoral waters (where they are supposed to be at their most useful by projecting power!) and even questionable on blue water (if China’s new anti-ship ballistic missile is anything to go by). Or with the Iranian fighter air force, which I agree is next to useless.

Re-”Oh. And BTW. I somehow doubt that Putin et al are following your advice re hydrocarbons. Going the opposite way, if anything. And I’m sure that they didn’t abandon their carrier plans because of a Eureka moment re the uselessness of CVs. Its all about the RUBs.”

I agree. Generally speaking governments are very short-sighted in comparison with Sublime Oblivion, even Putin et al unfortunately.

“If nukes are allowed.” Big if. The point is that a true superpower has full spectrum capabilities, and CVs provide that in spades.

Re Iran. Boy, you were backpeddling even faster than normal on that one. You make a technology-centric argument about the obsolescence of CVs, raise Iran as a specific example, and then say “technology isn’t everything” when you get called on it. Iran tried messing with the USN in 86, inc. the use of small boats and outposts (on oil rigs) and got their asses kicked in a major way. Since Iran has moved backwards and the USN forwards in the years since (esp. with the development of smart weapons) it would be even more lopsided the next time. Yes, small diesel SSs would pose problems, but no doubt the US CVs would leave the Gulf proper, and a mere 2 boats in restricted waters would have a very limited lifespan.

Re China. No. China is looking to establish its own full-spectrum capability to challenge the US directly.

Oh. And BTW. I somehow doubt that Putin et al are following your advice re hydrocarbons. Going the opposite way, if anything. And I’m sure that they didn’t abandon their carrier plans because of a Eureka moment re the uselessness of CVs. Its all about the RUBs.

L/R–Caught most of that. Will write a post on the plane back stateside. Thanks.

Wow. Check this out:

Russian GDP down 11% in May, worse than 10.5% in April.

DOUBLE DIGIT economic contraction for the first five months of 2009.

Industrial production down SEVENTEEN PERCENT in May.

Deputy Finance Minister says Russia will need “heroic achievement” to post “only” 8% contraction by the end of the year.

Gazprom to slash investment by FIFTY PERCENT.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/06/23/ap6576377.html

Re-nukes. Well how were those theories wrong? IF nukes are allowed, then destroying CBG’s becomes really easy. I’d imagine even just a few Tu-95’s would be able to pull it off. The US knows this, which is IIRC its doctrine calls for full nuclear retaliation against military and industrial targets in this scenario.

Re-China wanting carriers. Why? Because there are lots of small, weak countries in south-east Asia and eastern Africa which don’t have the military-technical resources or the will to develop said countermeasures, but which it would like to bring into its sphere of influence.

Re-blue water. You have the Dong Feng 21 for that.

Re-Popular Mechanics dismissal. Frontal infantry assaults and Dreadnoughts were all the rage in 1914.

Re-USN not standing still. I do note that, and probably new developments in energy directed weapons will render a more effective defense against missiles. On the other hand my general impression is that firepower is growing much more rapidly than the defense and a creature as big and prominent as the aircraft carrier is historically doomed.

Re-Iran. I don’t watch TV, and yes it is well know that for obvious reasons its military technology is far subpar to that of Russia or China, let alone the US. On the other hand technology is not everything and even more important is how well the military doctrine fits the technology, because technology by itself is useless. I think that in principle its two diesel subs operating in the Gulf, a few hundred small missile boats, ground-based missile outposts off its rocky coast, supported by drones carrying out reconnaissance, could make life hard for the USN and especially for oil tankers in the Persian Gulf in the event of a war with Iran.

The demise of aircraft carriers has long been predicted. During the immediate post-WWII period, nuclear weapons were believed to doom aircraft carriers, just as they were thought to make conventional ground forces obsolete. “Sitting ducks” as it were. Both predictions turned out to be very wrong, but led to numerous bad decisions re force structure. Attempts to elevate strategic bombing over all other elements of military force led to the Revolt of the Admirals. The revolt, and related issues, led to the development of supercarriers.

FYI, the development of smart weapons has increased the power of CVs by an order of magnitude, and perhaps more. And you are back on drugs again if you think they are only useful for bullying small, weak nations. Evidently the Chinese take a very different view. They are an essential element of power projection and strategic mobility. The Chinese are obsessed with not only defeating CVs, but in developing their own. Diesel subs are dangerous in littorals, far less so in blue water. That said, the USN has been remiss in its attention (or lack thereof) to ASW. Supercavitating torpedoes, hypersonic cruise missiles, etc., are far more the stuff of Popular Mechanics stories than a real threat.

And just figure the cost of developing the “phalanx” you describe. And the time to develop it. If CVs were such a paper tiger useable only for bullying the weak, why would anybody make such an investment? You should also note that USN is not standing still, and by the time that China develops the 2010 technology you mention, in about 2040, CVs will have far different capabilities. (For instance, China is incapable of building a 5th gen fighter any time soon. Their aircraft engine capabilities in particular are notoriously weak.)

Don’t even talk about Iran developing this phalanx. Any credibility you might have had evaporated with such a risible statement. It is well known that Iran develops Potemkin prototypes of “wonder weapons” that upon even cursory examination are clearly anything but wondrous. You may have seen the Iranian state TV propaganda broadcasts in recent days threatening military action in response to outside interference with their internal political troubles. It would have been marginally impressive–in 1975. F-4s and F-14s. Of which, Iran has very few flying due to lack of spare parts.

Re-Iraq as “one of the then toughest militaries on the planet”. I can only lol.

Re-”Green Communism”. I’m pretty sure I said that it isn’t called or about “Green Communism” but about a future history of the 21st century.