Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ncis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ucbvax!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!att!cbnews!rupp@cod.nosc.mil From: rupp@cod.nosc.mil (William L. Rupp) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Are Aircraft Carriers Obsolete? Message-ID: <3290@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 20 Jan 89 05:07:21 GMT References: <3200@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Computer Sciences Corp., San Diego Lines: 69 Approved: military@att.att.com In article <3200@cbnews.ATT.COM> mmm@cup.portal.com writes: >What is the reason for having aircraft carriers? Aren't they a total waste >of money? Well, it may be of interest to consider what the opposition thinks about this. The Soviets have had decades to observe both the use and overhead considerations of attack aircraft carriers. They have now voted with their rubles that these ships are an important part of a national defense (I believe they have two large deck carriers under construction or nearing service). > >In a global conflict, the aircraft carriers would all be destroyed immediately >by missiles. A missile costs a lot less than an aircraft carrier. Why immediately? If that were so why weren't the Argentines able to knock off the Royal Navy in a couple of missile attacks? There are counter measures, you know. > >In a conflict against an industrialized nation, like Argentina, capital ships >must stay far away to avoid being hit by a Silkworm or an Exocet or even a >torpedo. The Royal Navy stayed right where it had to stay, in the Falklands vicinity. It was the Argentine navy that had to pay respect to the British aircraft carriers. > >Only in a conflict with a third-world nation, like Lebanon or Libya, can >sea power have any effect. Are we moving from the particular of carriers to the generalization of whole navies? This seems to be a pretty shakey hypothesis. > And the same effect can be provided by long-range >land-based bombers. Really? How long can a land-based bomber loiter over the middle of the Atlanticocean? >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! Yes, but that was stretching their range, if I am not mistaken. > > >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? I understand submariners say there are two types of ships in wartime; submarinesand targets! But I think I would rather take my chances in a carrier battle group. As for the HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales, those ships were operating without the benefit either of land-based or carrier-based aircraft, so I don't see how their fates are relevant in a discussion of modern carrier battle groups. Actually, when it comes to staying power, there is nothing afloat that can take the punishment an Iowa class battleship can withstand - and still keep fighting with big guns and state-of-the-art missiles! 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. Bill.... disclaimer; these are purely my personal opinions and do not reflect official policy of any institution.