Taiwan would fall. If the UN didn't establish air superiority during the Korean War, an entire country would have lost its freedom and would now be under a dictatorship.
Nowadays pretty much, if one side can establish air superiority, the other side is relegated to guerilla tactics. In terms of geopolitics in 2018, it's pretty much about air and naval bases.
> If the UN didn't establish air superiority during the Korean War, an entire country would have lost its freedom and would now be under a dictatorship.
This is a little bit silly. South Korea was ruled by various dictatorships for decades after the war. North Korea still is.
> > If the UN didn't establish air superiority during the Korean War, an entire country would have lost its freedom and would now be under a dictatorship.
> This is a little bit silly. South Korea was ruled by various dictatorships for decades after the war. North Korea still is. In South Korea today, you have one of the most vibrant economies in the world.
Sorry, but you're more than a bit silly. South Korea was ruled by dictatorships, post Korean War. However, this was a transitional period to today. In South Korea, you don't have camps where entire families are sent, basically to die, because someone said the wrong thing.
One half of my family is from present-day North Korea. My grandfather was a physician and entrepreneur. He had to move the family south because he could see what was coming. My mother remembers being smuggled in a pitch-black compartment of a freighter. She also remembers walking down the road with the family's belongings strapped to her back. A stack of bills, thick from wartime inflation, likely saved the life of my grandmother.
I and my sister wouldn't even exist, were it not for the Korean War and US intervention. All you have to do, to see the difference between the Koreas, is to look at nighttime pictures from orbit. All of the vibrancy of present-day South Korea was enabled by the intervention. The amount of human happiness that was allowed and the amount of human misery that was avoided by that is vast.
Power-projection is about using our resources to most effectively influence others. Its not about defense, but about offense.
IIRC, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were supported by two Super-Carrier strike-groups stationed in the Indian ocean. Super-carriers, by themselves, can take on multiple foreign army bases.
Super-carriers however, are very weak defensively. If any war were to seriously start vs the US, the super-carriers would almost instantly fall to a series of cruise missiles (aka: suicide drones from the 1970s). I mean, we've got some anti-missile protection ships around them, but its cheaper to build 2000 cruise missiles than 1 super-carrier + its fleet of aircraft.
-------
Anyway, the point of power-projection is that these bases are mobile. As we finish up our job in Afghanistan / Iraq, we can move these super-carriers elsewhere for support. Puerto Rico was serviced by a super-carrier Abraham Lincoln for instance (hospitals on board, + Helicopters delivered supplies), while the Super-Carrier Ronald Regan helped Japan clean-up the Fukashima Nuclear disaster.
Power-projection is more than just killing people. Its about building mobile bases around the world which can help people during disasters.
In fact, I'd argue that these super-carriers primarily deal with diplomatic details and are near useless in a conventional war.
Anyway, the F35 air superiority is an important piece of a super-carrier. Winning any dogfight by destroying approaching aircraft before they're even on the horizon is an important piece of the puzzle... keeping the Super-carriers well defended.
Furthermore, the F35's stealth capabilities project power many miles away. Remember that an F35 looks like a baseball to radar installations, its stealth capabilities are incredibly advanced, and only a few nations can even detect the thing. So the radius that these aircraft project beyond the mobile Super-Carrier Strike Force is huge, and a huge benefit to the USA.
Obviously, no sane person wants to actually use these weapons to kill people. But they can be used to get an edge on diplomacy. In the worst case, if we are forced to use military might to solve a problem, the F35 will be useful.
People forget that gunboat diplomacy is literally a violence deterrent. There is no better solution to geopolitcal mass-murder than to be so god-damn scary we can resolve things without death.
Sure, you can do a lot of bad shit with gunboat diplomacy - but giving up dominance doesn't eliminate bad shit, it just creates a power vacuum - which will be filled either by another geopolitical entity with the capability to do that bad shit or geopolitical violence on a massive scale.
Getting rid of our army does not lead to peace. I can't understand how any adult thinks it will, or is willing to act like it will.
"Anyway, the point of power-projection is that these bases are mobile. As we finish up our job in Afghanistan / Iraq, we can move these super-carriers elsewhere for support. Puerto Rico was serviced by a super-carrier Abraham Lincoln for instance (hospitals on board, + Helicopters delivered supplies), while the Super-Carrier Ronald Regan helped Japan clean-up the Fukashima Nuclear disaster."
I know that's reality but using aircraft carriers for disaster relief is an awfully expensive way to do this.
I'm unsure if any other sea-bearing vessel has a ton of helicopters that can deliver supplies to and from a remote area (ie: Puerto Rico once all the roads were wiped out by Hurricane Maria).
Helicopters need an area to land and refuel. The pilots need an area to sleep. Carriers seem like the ideal service vehicle.
And sure, the Nimitz class carrier, with two nuclear reactors and outfitted with enough weaponry to take on entire countries... is a bit overkill. But there are benefits to a mobile super sea-base.
The alternative is to build a ton of smaller carriers... but smaller carriers can't launch airplanes. You need a large area so that planes can land. Airplanes like Airborne early Warning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_early_warning_and_con...) can be launched from super-carriers.
Once you have radar-dishes in the air however, you now need to think about how to defend those radar-dishes from enemy fighters. And then we get the F35.
While carriers are certainly used in this role, I've taken part in two such missions while deployed with the USS Ronald Reagan, there are ships that are more capable in handling humanitarian and disaster relief, and non-combatant evacuation efforts, such as LHDs -- which also have a larger complement of helicopters/V-22s and ground-troop support than a carrier.
Fair. But still, the point stands. The shorter the runway, the fewer planes you can launch.
And yes, there's a catapult to help launch the planes, but the longer the runway, the less stress you put on the planes, and the more kinds of airplanes can land on your carrier.
I don't believe Britain (which does have fleets of smaller carriers) have any support for such a large cargo-aircraft. They're limited to helicopter delivery. Long-range delivery is most efficient with wing-aircraft.
I'm not an expert on the HMS Queen Elizabeth carrier. Are you aware of any cargo-aircraft ability of the smaller carrier? (And mind you: The Queen Elizabeth is the 2nd largest carrier-class in the world. So even if it can do it, the fact remains that you need to build BIG carriers if you wish to support remote delivery of cargo through aircrafts)
Nowadays pretty much, if one side can establish air superiority, the other side is relegated to guerilla tactics. In terms of geopolitics in 2018, it's pretty much about air and naval bases.