Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!xanth!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!military From: military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Useless Carriers? Message-ID: <3491@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 26 Jan 89 14:51:24 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 31 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Ron Miller Are Carriers Obsolete? >From a former bubble-head's perspective: Carriers are big and noisy. That makes them good targets. They also go fast and have annoying aircraft (such as the S-3 ASW aircraft and the Sea King helo -forgot the designation-) to help keep your head down. They are jealously protected by other forces as well as their own. This makes them difficult targes (mobility, hostility) Just because a sub can get close to the carrier, doesn't necessarily imply that the sub can put the carrier OOC. (Give 'em a heart attack, yes! Sink 'em , maybe. It might take an awful lot of weaponry to finish her.) The whole issue is very complex and revolves around the size & mix of the opposing force, the rules of engagement, the intelligence picture for both sides, the specific operations being attempted and so forth. My opinion: For all-out, USSR vs. USA, lightning fast war, the carrier will be hurting. But an awful lot of the hostility going on where carriers can be useful is at a level well below the point that makes carriers useless. BTW, a nuclear powered task force that keeps their speed up can be a real bitch to track and (simulate) sinking. :-) Ron Miller