Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-lcc!ames!xanth!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!ugthomps@cs.buffalo.edu From: ugthomps@cs.buffalo.edu Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Are Aircraft Carriers Obsolete? Message-ID: <3425@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 24 Jan 89 03:00:19 GMT References: <3200@cbnews.ATT.COM> <3289@cbnews.ATT.COM> <3354@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: SUNY/Buffalo Computer Science Lines: 29 Approved: military@att.att.com In article <3354@cbnews.ATT.COM> ricko@rosevax.Rosemount.COM (Rick O'Brien) writes: >I have to disagree with you on this one point ( Although I agree on all of >the others) It's my understanding that most American attack boats have >a photo collection of every American carrier, taken throuch the crosshairs >of a periscope. I don't want to get into an argument about how there's >only two types of ships, targets and submarines (because I think all such >statements are too simplistic.) The carriers can be damaged, and can >absorb a great deal of damage, but they can also be sunk. Even slowing >on down can be extremely important in a combat situation. > >Rick O'Brien Rick, Since I've never talked to a bubble head, or had much knowledge (post WWII) on submarine operations I really can't comment from that side of the coin. However, being on an ASW platform in the past, I can comment from that side. The ship I was on was surprised by a russian sub only once, and we surprised many a russian sub. The one time we were surprised we were attempting to find an american sub, and the russian sub appeared "out of nowhere". However, this happened during a time period when our propellers were damaged due to a stupid egyptian harbor pilot. Thus we were noisy as hell. I'm not saying it's impossible for carriers to be attacked by a sub, i'm merely stating that there are stories from the other side as well on how effective surface ships are against subs. [even still, I would MUCH rather be on a sub than a carrier] - G