C70:arms-d (07/02/82)
>From HGA@MIT-MC Thu Jul 1 01:31:47 1982
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 0 : Issue 135
Today's Topics:
The Utility of Big Carriers
US defenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 1 July 1982 02:20-EDT
From: James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: The Utility of Big Carriers
In general, I agree with Steve Bellovin's assessment of our defense
priorities. However, I think he errs in at least one important
respect: his opposition to big Nimitz-class carriers.
Some observers of the Falkland Islands conflict have learned the
following lesson: that expensive, modern ships like the destroyer
Sheffield are extremely vulnerable to (relatively) cheap systems like
the Super Ententard/Exocet combination. These people conclude that
Nimitz-like carriers are "sitting ducks." Instead, we should build
smaller, less expensive ships (especially carriers), like the British
carriers in the Falklands expedition. What should have been learned,
however, is the importance of airborne warning systems. There is one
reason, and one reason only, why the Argentine Exocet missiles were so
effective: the British were not able to detect the planes which
launched them in time to do anything about them. British carriers you
see, unlike large American carriers, are too small to carry planes
such as American AWACS, which would have been able to detect Argentine
planes while they were still out of missile range. A modern carrier
battle group is devoted almost exclusively to the job of protecting
the carrier. With the airborne warning systems, carriers are \not/
that easy to kill. Nuclear weapons would do it, of course, but their
use would entail much more serious consequences than the loss of a
carrier battle group. As for offensive capibility, there is nothing
afloat which can rival a Nimitz-class carrier.
Naturally these carriers cost a great deal of money. But in actual
battle it would prove much more costly not to have them.
------------------------------
Date: 1 July 1982 02:30-EDT
From: James A. Cox <APPLE at MIT-MC>
Subject: US defenses
Do we really want to absorb Canada and Mexico into the U.S.? With
regard to the latter, I suspect you spoke without considering all the
important effects such an action would have on our security. And I
see no more reason for the development of a Cuban-style government in
Canada than I do for the development of one in the U.S. Perhaps you
were being facaetious?
------------------------------
End of Arms-D Digest
********************