Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!hc!pprg.unm.edu!unmvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!sasbrb@sas
From: sasbrb@sas (Brendan Bailey)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Carrier discussion
Message-ID: <3451@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 25 Jan 89 03:52:16 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 31
Approved: military@att.att.com


                 [ CV discussion deleted]...     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.

     If you mean "concentrate on a larger number of smaller, faster " carriers
"rather than very large flattops", this wouldn't work. 
     It is agreed that we wouldn't be putting "all our eggs in one basket",
but wouldn't each small carrier STILL need a carrier task force of equal size
to that of a large carrier?  It would.  And by reducing the size of each  
carrier would mean that each carrier would carry a smaller number of planes.
Since a certain number of planes are necessary for the protection of the 
carrier and the task force, the reduction in planes in switching from a 
larger carrier to a smaller carrier, would only diminish the offensive
strength of the carrier.                                         

    I've also noticed that everyone has been discussing what it would take
to sink a carrier.  The fact is, once the flight deck is severely damaged,
the carrier is practically useless.  If I remember correctly, during World
War II, most carriers that were damaged had to return to port for repair
and were useless for several months.  There's a damn good chance that WWIII
won't last several months, so a damaged carrier is as good a sunk.
(Although I support carriers, I'm just playing Devil's Advocate...) 

---------------------------
Bren Bailey
204-17 Melville Loop
Chapel Hill, NC  27514
(919) 967-2953
rti!sas!sasbrb