"The Eleven Carrier Fleet Is… Only Seven" Topic
10 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Action Log
19 Dec 2014 1:42 p.m. PST by Editor in Chief Bill
- Changed title from "The Eleven Carrier Fleet Is…Only Seven" to "The Eleven Carrier Fleet Is… Only Seven"
- Removed from Modern Naval Discussion (1946 to 2004) board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
|
Tango01 | 19 Dec 2014 12:59 p.m. PST |
"Over on the excellent Navy Matters Blog there's a little bit of a low-grade panic brewing up over the apparent mismatch of an "eleven carrier fleet" with only nine carrier air wings. Dastardly things are afoot, it seems. With one member of the "eleven-carrier fleet" constantly committed to a three-year refueling/refit cycle, the fear is that the tenth carrier lacks aircraft and is redundant–at real risk of being cut! Thus, an early CVN retirement is inevitable! (Cue gnashing of teeth from their blog readers and some gratuitous bad-mouthing of current naval leadership). I mean….it's hype only the Aircraft Carrier Industrial Base Coalition could love!…" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
Mako11 | 19 Dec 2014 3:35 p.m. PST |
With "peace" breaking out all around the globe, what do we need those for? |
Only Warlock | 19 Dec 2014 5:07 p.m. PST |
Who needs US deterrence or surge ability, after all? Shakes head. |
Charlie 12 | 19 Dec 2014 6:21 p.m. PST |
Snarky comments, notwithstanding, don't forget that out of 3 carriers in service, 1 is on station, 1 is in long term work-up (just got back from a cruise), and 1 is in short term work-up (getting ready for a cruise). Add in refuels and yard time and 9 active wings is more than enough. As the author points out rather well.. |
Lion in the Stars | 19 Dec 2014 7:14 p.m. PST |
Wait, out of 11 carriers, 4 are in the shipyards? In other news, water is wet and politicians are crooks. |
mandt2 | 19 Dec 2014 7:19 p.m. PST |
I wonder if super-carriers have become obsolete. They are two big and expensive to risk in a serious shooting war. And I am not altogether convinced that they serve a purpose that cannot be handled by more numerous smaller ships, subs, land-based aircraft, and drones. China boasts a ballistic missile that can strike a ship from sub-orbit. They claim it is almost unhitable due to its speed and AoA. Should we go toe-to-toe with China would we really be willing to test that claim? Russia's navy is designed to kill carriers by overwhelming the task force's AA systems with dozens of anti-ship missiles. Despite claims that the weapon systems of China and Russia are far inferior to ours, I'm not so sure. We are sending Americans into space and back on Russian spacecraft, and China is hinting at putting men on the moon in the near future. I think we need to start thinking about weapon systems that are smaller, less concentrated, and cheap enough that we can afford a lot of redundancy. |
doug redshirt | 19 Dec 2014 7:58 p.m. PST |
Here is an idea, lets just stay at peace with China. Keep enough ships and planes to deter any one from coming near the continental US borders and call it good. The EU which is as rich as the US can deal with Russia since they share a border. If Japan and South Korea don't trust China let them sign an alliance and raise a force to defend themselves with. Tired of defending the entire world from themselves. |
Deadone | 19 Dec 2014 8:48 p.m. PST |
Wait, out of 11 carriers, 4 are in the shipyards?In other news, water is wet and politicians are crooks. Pretty much.
Most of Tango's articles are crap like this. It's the military equivalent of third rate taboids, but without the Page 3 girl. |
Legion 4 | 19 Dec 2014 10:14 p.m. PST |
No PAGE 3 Gal !?!?!?!? |
Tango01 | 20 Dec 2014 11:24 a.m. PST |
What a pity!. (smile) Amicalement Armand |
|