Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!hubcap!gatech!cwjcc!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!goss@cs.umn.edu
From: goss@cs.umn.edu (Kenneth S Goss)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Are Aircraft Carriers Obsolete?
Message-ID: <3233@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 18 Jan 89 22:31:49 GMT
References: <3200@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Reply-To: goss@cs.umn.edu (Kenneth S Goss)
Organization: CSci Dept., University of Minnesota, Mpls.
Lines: 25
Approved: military@att.att.com


>
>Only in a conflict with a third-world nation, like Lebanon or Libya, can 
>sea power have any effect.  And the same effect can be provided by long-range
>land-based bombers.  In the assassination attempt against Khadaffi, our land-
>based bombers actually had enough range to detour around the Iberian
>peninsula and fly over the Strait of Gibraltar!
>
I could certainly see the advantages of having to travel several extra 
thousand miles during wartime to reach a target. Yes, for that strike we 
happened to have only friendlies between us and the target, what if we had 
an enemy between, or should should we detour around the world to protect our    planes?


>Aren't capital ships and carrier battle groups as obsolete as horse cavalry?
>Don't people remember HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales?  How about 
>HMS Sheffield and Gen. Belgrano?  Do you actually have to send an AEGIS ship
>to the bottom in order to prove sea power obsolete?  Or would even that
>be enough?

Interesting to use the Falklands conflict as an example, I suppose the theory   would now be for the British to launch all their planes and amphib. strikes     from Great Britain.

Carriers, and the capital ships that protect them are essential if you wish to  have a worldwide (instead of merely local) presence.

Kenneth S Goss