sasbrb@sas (Brendan Bailey) (01/25/89)
[ CV discussion deleted]... I don't mean to suggest
that we should crank up 16" gun factories again, but the idea that surface shipsare totally obsolete seems a bit extreme. Perhaps we should concentrate on a
>larger number of smaller, faster ships rather than very large flattops.
If you mean "concentrate on a larger number of smaller, faster " carriers
"rather than very large flattops", this wouldn't work.
It is agreed that we wouldn't be putting "all our eggs in one basket",
but wouldn't each small carrier STILL need a carrier task force of equal size
to that of a large carrier? It would. And by reducing the size of each
carrier would mean that each carrier would carry a smaller number of planes.
Since a certain number of planes are necessary for the protection of the
carrier and the task force, the reduction in planes in switching from a
larger carrier to a smaller carrier, would only diminish the offensive
strength of the carrier.
I've also noticed that everyone has been discussing what it would take
to sink a carrier. The fact is, once the flight deck is severely damaged,
the carrier is practically useless. If I remember correctly, during World
War II, most carriers that were damaged had to return to port for repair
and were useless for several months. There's a damn good chance that WWIII
won't last several months, so a damaged carrier is as good a sunk.
(Although I support carriers, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate...)
---------------------------
Bren Bailey
204-17 Melville Loop
Chapel Hill, NC 27514
(919) 967-2953
rti!sas!sasbrb
military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) (01/26/89)
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) rupp@cod.nosc.mil (William L. Rupp) writes: > >For that matter, why not build some really cheap escort carriers similar >to the converted merchant ships used in WWII. Put a few Harriers, >helos, whatever, on them, and they would be useful in third world scenarios >and not cost much. There you've struck the key; converted. Why build them now, when we can convert them relatively quickly in time of war ? If we build now, then the Navy has to pay for them and maintain and crew them; if we wait, the private shipping companies do that for us 8-) Most importantly, I think, is that these ships would be awfully handy for convoy escort; carrying a few Harriers and lots of ASW choppers. If converted from merchantmen, they wouldn't really be fast enough for much else. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Bill Thacker moderator, sci.military military@att.att.com "War is a matter of vital importance to the State; the province of life or death; the road to survival or ruin. It is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied." - Sun Tzu
rupp@cod.nosc.mil (William L. Rupp) (01/26/89)
From: rupp@cod.nosc.mil (William L. Rupp) In article <3451@cbnews.ATT.COM> sasbrb@sas (Brendan Bailey) writes: > > It is agreed that we wouldn't be putting "all our eggs in one basket", >but wouldn't each small carrier STILL need a carrier task force of equal size >to that of a large carrier? It would. Well, maybe not. Why couldn't two 15,000-20,000 ton carriers, each carrying 20-25 high-performance VSTOL planes (yes, I know that such a beast doesn't yet exist) operate with a single battle group. So maybe you add a frigate or two, but why duplicate the whole group just because you have split your air assets between two hulls (and therefore two targets)? Another advantage would be that if the Atlantic group is on station off Europe, and crises developed both in Norway AND South America, it would be possible to detach one carrier and three or four escorts to go south while the other carrier with the remaining three or four escorts would stay put. For that matter, why not build some really cheap escort carriers similar to the converted merchant ships used in WWII. Put a few Harriers, helos, whatever, on them, and they would be useful in third world scenarios and not cost much. Perhaps the amphibious assault ships (Iwo Jima?) the navy now has qualifies for that. Didn't the RN operate a few harriers off a container ship in a pinch? Bill ------------------------------------- As always, these are my opinions only -------------------------------------