Navy plans to deploy unmanned aircraft on frigates; orders s
bootlegga @ Mon Aug 20, 2007 10:36 am
saturn_656 saturn_656:
If I had the option of a CBG or a land based fighter force that required massive tanker support I would choose the CBG without a second thought, Simply kill the vulnerable tankers and you limit the enemy's ability to operate. Meanwhile you, with your mobile airfield, can send your fighters where ever you please. With the Americans, British, French, Indians, Russians, Chinese, Italians, etc all developing new carriers I think its a little premature to declare the carrier an obsolete asset.
I would argue that the aircraft carrier is indeed obsolete. While it looks very scary sitting off your coast (just like battleships used to), with the success that submarines (both conventional and nucelar) have against carrier groups in naval exercises these days, I would say that in the next major shooting war, most carriers will wind up on the bottom very quickly. They will be replaced by the new captial ships, submarines.
I know that war and exercises are very different, but in this day and age of nuclear weapons and cruise missiles with huge conventional warheads and ranges of hundreds of kms, the carrier is simply to big a target.
During the Cold War, the Soviets couldn't match the American carrier, so they built and deployed hundreds of submarines and heavy bombers, all armed with lots of cruise missiles (unmanned aircraft in actuality). The Americans, not knowing if the carrier was past its prime, maintained big fleets of subs (to counter Soviet subs) and carriers. I think the fact that the USN is continually shrinking the number of its CBGs says something about whether or not the ship is past its prime.
Yes, nations are building carriers, but they are symbols of prestige and power, not practical weapons systems. When a squadron of B-1s or B-2s (based in the USA) can drop more bombs in a single sortie than all of a CBGs attack planes, you know that the idea of ships with planes are obsolete. I think something like the USN's cancelled Arsenal ship (or a submarine with a the ability to launch 10 cruise missiles simultaneously) would be as effective as a carrier, and at a fraction of the cost of a carrier and its battle group and air wing.
sasquatch2 @ Mon Aug 20, 2007 1:09 pm
Carriers are merely a way to project air-power over vast distances.
They lose importance the instant a land base is secured.
This was the major cause of the bitter fighting around Guadacanal. Aircraft from Henderson Field ruled. The japanese airbase of Rabaul was a constant threat to Allied naval ops.
The tremendous effort to secure an airbase on IWO JIMA merely underlines this.
The lesson of the WW2 Pacific campaigns was that, although it was a "carrier war", carriers were very vulnerable and land bases were the real prizes.
Canada has no requirement to project air-power beyond her own territory so an arctic land base is cheap, effective and reliable. Weather is a factor for any air-base, mobile or stationary. Land based aircraft have greater capability, and greater range than carrier based aircraft----simply because they are not subject to the compromises involved with carrier aircraft.
The US is deploying less and less flat-tops largely because of their obscene cost, as these get bigger and bigger. The major advantage the US enjoys, with it's carriers, in the Gulf, is the advantage of local security.
Winnipegger @ Thu Aug 23, 2007 4:37 am
CBC News story: U.S. pullout in Iraq would spark Vietnam-like violence: Bush
I disagree with what George W. said in this article. Once the U.S. pulls out of Iraq there will be violence, nothing can stop that, only postpone the inevitable. Hillary Clinton said the same thing during the New Hampshire primary debate.
$1:
Bush does not often invoke Vietnam, where the U.S. suffered what many call a humiliating defeat.
On August 18 I wrote:
Winnipegger Winnipegger:
In 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait, and the UN sent a force to remove Iraq in 1991. The orders were to remove Iraq and get out. The US insisted they lead the force, since they provided the most military their demand was granted. President George Bush Sr. wanted to ensure it wouldn't become another Vietnam. He ordered the military to have a clear objective, to achieve that objective then get out. They did so; when General Norman Schwarzkopf said the war was over it was time to go home, that meant the war was over it was time to go home. Unfortunately some damn fools in Washington decided to create "no fly zones". That perpetuated the war. Their excuse was Iraq disobeying the UN, but when they asked the UN for permission to create "no fly zones" the answer was No. Enforcing "no fly zones" anyway was as much a violation of the UN as anything Iraq did. Then George Jr. decided to invade Iraq again, and that has become the Vietnam war that George Sr. was afraid of. D'oh!
Hi George!
