Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!agate!ucbvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu From: pv04+@andrew.cmu.edu (Philip Verdieck) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Aircraft Carrier Surviveability Message-ID: <5481@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 7 Apr 89 03:05:31 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 31 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Philip Verdieck From: john ralls > >Philip Verdieck writes: >Someone mentioned the danger of having a CBG within range of the >SOVIET RED FLEET up near murmansk. I wouldn't expect much danger >from the Soviets. Their is not much threat from the aircraft >that their mini carriers can launch, and before their boats >are within missile range of us, our air support would have them in >missile range... Umm... how about diesel boats (they have about 200)? And then there's land based air... Any US CVBG that went above GIUK could expect a serious defence-in-depth. I rather doubt that it would accomplish much more than a salutory raid. Our navy is good, but the concentration of forces is heavily against us. In fact, the CVBG might run out of ammo before the Russians ran out of ships and planes. () ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Well, I would assume that up there we would also have land-based aircover.. Either Scotland, Norway, or Sweden. Their subs would be hard to stop, I'd imagine we'd have our own out in front to engage them first, and then ASW picket lines. The resupplying would be a toughie though.... -- ARPA : Philip.Verdieck@andrew.cmu.edu | Carnegie-Mellon University PV04+@andrew.cmu.edu | Do not attend this college BITNET: r746pv04@CMCCVB.KALKIN@DRYCAS |----------------------------- UUCP : ...!harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!pv04