Here's Why Navy Aircraft Carriers Can't Help Ukraine

[Submariner]

Nimitz-class super-carrier USS Harry S. Truman with a NATO strike group in the mediterranean (U.S. Navy photo by Bela Chambers)

While most of the world is concerned with keeping Russian fighter jets out of NATO airspace, Russian warships have already incurred on NATO territorial waters. So why can’t the US Navy can’t send an Aircraft Carrier into the Black Sea to protect Romania and NATO merchant ships or help Ukraine? According to a UN Treaty, they are too big and heavy.

by Alpaslan Ozerdem (The Conversation) As bad as the Ukraine war is so far, an international agreement signed in 1936 is preventing it from getting even worse.

The Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits gives Turkey control over the water route between the Black Sea – home to a major Russian naval force – and the Mediterranean Sea and beyond.

It sets limits on the passage of civilian vessels and military warships through the Dardanelles and the Bosporus straits, which with the Sea of Marmara between them form the seagoing link between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean.



The international agreement was signed by Australia, Bulgaria, France, Greece, Japan, Romania, Yugoslavia, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and Turkey and has been in effect since November 1936.

Now the Montreux Convention is serving an important role in the Ukraine conflict. Ukraine has asked Turkey to close the straits to Russian warships, highlighting the Turkish role in keeping regional peace. The Turkish government agreed on Feb. 28, 2022. However, several Russian warships entered the Black Sea in early February. And Turkey has said it would not prevent Russian warships from entering the Black Sea if Russia claimed they were returning to their home port.

Four key elements in the Montreux Convention regulate which vessels may enter the Black Sea in wartime:

more >

https://gcaptain.com/us-navy-aircraft-carriers-ukraine/?subscriber=true&goal=0_f50174ef03-7a0a3ba9e9-139804241&mc_cid=7a0a3ba9e9&mc_eid=ddcc8b6ceb

[EYESORE 9001]

1. I'd bet the US Navy is relieved that their carriers can't enter the Black Sea

It looks more treacherous than the Persian Gulf.

[Emile]

2. I was aboard the USS Albany in 1972 and we were close

to the Black Sea when we went to Thessaloniki.

[relayerbob]

3. Irrelevant

US carriers would never go in there, and have no need to.

[Basic LA]

4. You said it.

A carrier in the Black Sea? What are people thinking?

[Lurker Deluxe]

5. I have said it before

There is very little anyone can do to counter a carrier strike group. Quite simply they are very very tough and armed beyond comprehension. Not a single modern carrier, supercarrier, has ever been directly engaged in a naval attack by a foreign force in history.

Not one.

We have sunk two older generation carriers on purpose, Independence and America, to learn how to make them even tougher.

Attacking a supercarrier is suicide. The only chance anyone would have is if someone was stupid enough to park it in a bathtub ... like the Black Sea. In conflict the group will head out to sea, and it is moving very fast, being fool enough to chase it just shortens your life.

[Chainfire]

8. It brings to mind Oddball's line in the movie Kelly's Heroes.

"The only way I can keep an a Tiger (aircraft carrier group) busy is by letting them shoot holes in me."

[Lurker Deluxe]

9. My favorite

Is the Iranian speed boats, smaller than Coast Guard cutters, "swarming" the fake carrier which is standing still less than a mile from a shore line.

Some of the best straight up propaganda of all time ...

[sarisataka]

11. Wait a sec

A couple years ago when our carriers were sailing near China, they were obsolete sitting ducks. China was going to sink each with one shot long before they could launch a single aircraft.

Now they can sail immune to all threats like they are protected by Poseidon's own scrotum?

[Lurker Deluxe]

12. Some have said ...

There are some who believe the carrier is obsolete and a "sitting duck", pretty sure it was not me. During peacetime a carrier could be ambushed if they were to get close enough to land, specifically like the Straight of Hormuz, and could be vulnerable from land based anti-ship missiles.

No one has ever tried, and most likely for good reason.

During an active conflict when on alert and able to "open fire" engaging that strike group is suicide. Are they immune to threat, no ... you could nuke it, and maybe ... maybe sink it. But hell on earth would follow any who try.

Some day, hopefully not in my lifetime, someone will attempt to engage a strike group. After all, no one is absolutely 100% sure what the outcome will be. I hope we never have to find out.

But out in the open waters hundreds of miles from shore it is about as untouchable as anything can ever get.

[sarisataka]

13. I was wondering where all those folks

Who were saying that have gone.

The biggest reason no one has tried attacking a carrier is they can't find them at sea, which is easier in confined waters.

Once you have found it the problem is getting enough hard hitting weapons through the defenses to hit the carrier. A few dozen speedboats with RPGs won't do much more than piss off the damage control party that has to paint the patches.

Maybe a dozen SS-N-19s could put one in drydock with a couple hits.

I recall reading the evaluation of the Essex-class USS Saratoga after the Bikini tests. It was believed that although needing extensive repairs, had it been fully crewed it would have been able to return to port under its own power.

[Lurker Deluxe]

14. A few dozen speedboats ...

I can remember those "discussions" about the speed boat threat.

First, they could not even catch the carrier in open water before being engaged by something unless they started that pursuit in very closed waters. Second a destroyer would make short work of them and be little more than target practice for any automated defense (Phalanx type) chain gun.

Imagine being the captain of the speed boat in that situation ... I can see the carrier, where is it, behind the 2 destroyers, oops.

Once out at sea, even if you find it, it will not be there very long ... and chasing it is beyond stupid.

The Saratoga was sitting still and the nukes sunk it. That boat was, literally, built 100 years ago, the third we ever built. Comparing it to a modern carrier is akin to comparing a Model T to a Tesla.

The America was the last test before the Nimitz class carriers were built and we blew that thing up for a month before scuttling it. That boat was 40 years old when we sank it and was built 60 years ago.

No modern supercarrier, Nimitz/Ford class, has ever been engaged by an opposing navy.

[rockfordfile]

6. I agree

[FakeNoose]

7. I think it's one of the main reasons why Turkey is still allowed in NATO

If it weren't for the Montreux Convention, Turkey would hardly qualify as a "Western ally."

Just sayin'

[Donkees]

10. That's why the USS Harry S. Truman is in the northern Aegean

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216444863

“Conducting enhanced Air Policing from North Aegean waters further illustrates #NATO’s continued ability to share and pool existing capabilities,” said Rear Adm. Curt Renshaw, commander, CSG8. “We set out to prove that this dynamic employment of an Aircraft Carrier—in pretty restrictive waters—could be done, and in doing so, we have demonstrated the enduring U.S. commitment to Allies.”

“The Truman and Carrier Air Wing One sailed into the northern Aegean Sea conducting fixed-wing flight operations to support NATO’s enhanced Air Policing mission, demonstrating our ability to operate dynamically throughout the theater,” said Capt. Gavin Duff

Truman’s commanding officer. “This team performed flawlessly as we continued to send a clear signal of our ironclad commitment to NATO.” .

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet