Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!uwvax!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!henry@zoo.toronto.edu
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Are Aircraft Carriers Obsolete ?
Message-ID: <3349@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 23 Jan 89 02:24:14 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 25
Approved: military@att.att.com

Normal Friedman, in his book "Carrier Air Power" [I think], pointed out
that carriers have a few vulnerabilities not normally understood.

First, it simply isn't true that it's impossible for a single hit to kill
them, although it is arguably unlikely.  Almost anything that penetrates
to their magazines will blow the whole carrier to shrapnel.  Aircraft
doing active combat flying eat munitions at a horrendous rate.  The weight
of *non-nuclear* explosive in a supercarrier's magazines is measured in
kilotons.  The magazines are mostly underwater and are armored, but hit
one and it's bye bye carrier.

Second, the standard supercarrier is crippled without its radars, and at
least some of them are carrier-unique.  A carrier is a marvellous target
for passive radar homing.

And third, carrier doctrine for dealing with chemical attack and nuclear
fallout is to button up tight, get through the contaminated area, and
then clean up and resume operations.  This was done because experiments
with operating in protective clothing etc. had truly dismal results.
Now, consider:  at least some persistent chemical agents are quite
difficult to clean off metal surfaces.  One cruise missile armed with
a spray tank instead of a warhead and the carrier is as good as sunk.

                                     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
                                 uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu