Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Drew68
Don't field an asset you can't afford to lose. The loss of even one of our carriers would be such a staggering blow to the Navy that they'd never let the rest of them leave port.

What is the mission of the carrier force? The idea that we would be engaging in just conventional warfare against the Chicoms or the Russians is ludicrous. Look at the wars we have engaged in since the end of WWII. We have not been putting our carriers at risk. Nor would we. We know what the capabilities of our potential enemies are and act accordingly. There is no way Iran will be able to take out a carrier and what would be the consequences if they tried?

I served on an LPH during Vietnam. We had air cover from the carriers. How do we protect our amphibious forces and support vessels?

97 posted on 05/28/2015 8:36:48 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]


To: kabar
We have not been putting our carriers at risk. Nor would we. We know what the capabilities of our potential enemies are and act accordingly.

No. We won't deploy carriers within enemy assets that could take them out of the fight. At the same time, carriers are useless outside the effective range of their fighter/attack squadrons.

As the article mentions, land-based anti-ship weapons are increasing in effectiveness, concealment and numbers, pushing our carriers farther out to sea. Payload on an F/A-18 is a zero-sum game. The more fuel it needs to carry, the less ordnance it can carry.

As the article also points out. These land-based weapons are proliferating. How long before Iran (or ISIS) gets ahold of them?

125 posted on 05/28/2015 9:49:44 AM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson