Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnews!cbnews!military
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Carriers in the Gulf: Risky?
Message-ID: <1991Jan19.035922.3855@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 19 Jan 91 03:59:22 GMT
References: <1991Jan18.001959.6230@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: The U. of MD, CP, CAD lab
Lines: 40
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
In article <1991Jan18.001959.6230@cbnews.att.com>, elturner@phoenix.princeton.edu (Edwin L Turner) writes:
>
>I was surprised to learn that CV's Midway and Ranger have been positioned
>in the Persian Gulf.  This strikes me as fairly risky.  Although they are
>no doubt heavily defended, both by their own fighters and by their escorts'
>SAMs, it seems quite possible that a determined Iraqi air strike might
>get through (with heavy losses) to one of them.  Since carriers can
>sink and take a large crew with them, a successful attack on one is much
>more serious in most respects (including political and psychological ones)
>than a similarly successful attack on an airbase.

Not to mention the replacement cost of the carrier...

>Am I missing something here?  Is the Navy that confident that they can
>stop any such potential Iraqi attack (even a pre-emptive one) with
>essentially perfect efficiency?

There are several factors to consider:

     A) The Iraqi Air Force is a miminal threat.
     B) There is, for all practical purposes, no Iraqi Navy
     C) It takes a LOT to kill a carrier. You'd have to score several
        direct hits with large conventional warheads to do any good. 
     D) There are lots of planes, ships, and missiles which you have
        to go through in order to accomplish C)

Since the Navy is undoubtly getting support from the E-3 AWACS, plus various
other assets, a successful attack by Iraqi aircraft is unlikely. 

Having carriers in the Gulf allows shorter flying time for our airplanes, and
faster turnaround time for sorties. My only surprise is that there are two (2)
of them; upon reflection, it makes more sense because you could have more
effective CAP (Combat Air Patrol) over the forces.


 Doug Mohney, Operations Manager, CAD Lab/ME, Univ. of Maryland College Park
			*  Ray Kaplan was right *