Navy ‘Firmly Committed’ To Keeping 10 Carrier W

[Bluezoo]

Navy ‘Firmly Committed’ To Keeping 10 Carrier Wings

By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS


The U.S. Navy is firmly committed to keeping all 10 of its carrier air wings despite plans to decommission one of its aircraft carriers, said a top service leader.

“We are committed to making 10 wings work because the 10 wings are key to controlling the risks associated with our ability to meet our rotational requirement and meet our surge requirement,” Adm. Robert Willard, vice chief of naval operations, said Feb. 22....

continued:
http://defensenews.com/story.php?F=1555638&C=america

[liberation]

Aircraft carriers are a huge waste of money. They're to vulnerable to ASM's and are difficult to maintain.

Inflight refueling tankers and advanced tactical and strategic aircraft are better power projectors.

[BMF_EOD]

Liberation-

Your lack of understanding of military tactics obviously doesn't deter you from sharing your opinion on them.

In flight refueling? Advanced tactical and Strategic Aircraft? Good things indeed but how the hell can they get the job done if surrounding countries will not let us use their airspace? Besides, would you call CAS to a B-2?

A carrier lets us have a mobile, heavily defended airbase that we can park right off shore. They can be converted to SPECOPs platforms, provide CAP and CAS. War cannot be fought entirely from US soil and 18 hour sorties. Are you aware of the difficulties incountered when Turkey closed it's airpace in the beginning of OIF? There is no greater power projector (short of ICBM) than a complete CBG/ESG group off your coast.

[flanker7]

Aircraft carriers are a huge waste of money. They're to vulnerable to ASM's and are difficult to maintain.

Inflight refueling tankers and advanced tactical and strategic aircraft are better power projectors.


If you "park" a couple of aircraft carries outside a country, that's a pretty effective "power projection"!!!

[ed316]

Aircraft carriers are a huge waste of money. They're to vulnerable to ASM's and are difficult to maintain.

Inflight refueling tankers and advanced tactical and strategic aircraft are better power projectors.

A carrier doesn't go out alone. It has a carrier battle group, with destroyers, missle ships, subs, supply ships, and so on. Think before you post.:backhand:

[liberation]

The head of Dassault has stated that the French Government made an error in constructing the 'Charles De Gaulle' aircraft carrier. He remarked that Paris would have been better of purchasing a large fleet of inflight refuelling tankers, setting up skytrains to keep aloft Rafale fighters and an assortment of other aircraft for as long as is necessary to achieve military objectives.

Aircraft carriers with even the latest IADS are no match for hypersonic Russian ASM's that have extreme agility and low RCS. Carriers are slow and easy to track, and are huge prestige targets. Don't be surprised if the American military runs home crying from the Taiwan straits if a Chinese launched Sunburn missile sinks a US aircraft carrier.

The carrier is an outdated relic cold of war thinking. It has no relevant role to play in modern warfare.

[ed316]

If the head of Dassalt said it so it must be true. US has inflight refueling tanker too. A carrier is a moving airfield andit's a projection of power like Flanker stated. What about reloading up on ammo? Are they going to fly all the way back to the original bases to be rearm and then fly all the way back? Just because it didn't work oout for France doesn't mean it doesn't work for others. Don't Dassault make refuelers? If so I wonder why he said it? Let's think liberation.

[Hydro]

The head of Dassault probably said that because he wanted the money that was spent on the CdG carrier actually spent on his lovely planes.

[liberation]

What does the renowned Australian military expert Carlo Kopp think about aircraft carriers?

Not much.

[FallenAngel]

The head of Dassault has stated that the French Government made an error in constructing the 'Charles De Gaulle' aircraft carrier. He remarked that Paris would have been better of purchasing a large fleet of inflight refuelling tankers, setting up skytrains to keep aloft Rafale fighters and an assortment of other aircraft for as long as is necessary to achieve military objectives.

Aircraft carriers with even the latest IADS are no match for hypersonic Russian ASM's that have extreme agility and low RCS. Carriers are slow and easy to track, and are huge prestige targets. Don't be surprised if the American military runs home crying from the Taiwan straits if a Chinese launched Sunburn missile sinks a US aircraft carrier.

The carrier is an outdated relic cold of war thinking. It has no relevant role to play in modern warfare.

You should email the Department of the Navy with such a brilliant theory. Obviously no one over there has thought about it. p-)

[Durandal]

Aircraft carriers are a huge waste of money. They're to vulnerable to ASM's and are difficult to maintain.

Inflight refueling tankers and advanced tactical and strategic aircraft are better power projectors.

rofl rofl rofl

That has to be the funniest thing I have read in while.

Carrier groups are the core of America's force projection capability. Ultimately they are FAR less vulnerable than any land base in a foreign nation, especially those in our "muslim" allies.

In comparison they are far cheaper, politically.

They also allow the U.S., and in turn, the world, to maintain open sea lanes. Its one of the best benefits most people either ignore or do not understand.

[Durandal]

The head of Dassault has stated that the French Government made an error in constructing the 'Charles De Gaulle' aircraft carrier. He remarked that Paris would have been better of purchasing a large fleet of inflight refuelling tankers, setting up skytrains to keep aloft Rafale fighters and an assortment of other aircraft for as long as is necessary to achieve military objectives.

A) Of course the head of the manufacturer of the Rafale would LOVE to see more defense contracting dollars sent his way rather than a ship building contractor. Man, who would actually use his quote without thinking of that?! He wants the money for a fantasy.

B) This skytrain concept is utterly foolish, unless you can come up with a way for pilots and their aircraft to have "down time" while in the air. Not too sure how you could do maintenance work on an aircraft that requires lots of hours of maintenance a week and while bomber pilots may do extremely long distance/time flights a single pilot in a cramped cockpit is not the same.

C) Lastly, look at the cost in dollars (and risk) to the Brits during the Falklands to get a Vulcan over the islands. Imagine trying to wage an air campaign like you would find in the first Gulf War (just using Naval sorties ONLY).

Craziness...

[siberian tiger]

Ok and if one of this strategic bombers were shot down over enemy territory who would rescue the aircraft crew?
I now just send a Pave Hawk with a Para Rescue team, by the end of the weak and with about twenty air refueling operations they would get them.

But with a Carrier... a Sea Hawk... and a Seal team... ;)
do you get it?

[toad]

no, I don't think he does.

But all good responses.