Comments on: An apology for aircraft carriers

By: Charles

Charles — Sat, 29 Jul 2006 01:48:04 +0000

Been there, done the debate. CVV project. See Carter wanting to have it forward based in places such as Pusan, Suda, Oslo, Degio Garcia as part of his RDF program. See Carter wanted these ships optimized for the ASW mission but could also support the troops ashore with VSTOL aircraft (which were then all the rage in the late 70’s and early 80’s, sort of like some other aircraft hmmm!).
See all the CNO’s from Zumwalt up to Holloway give it half hearted support, see Senator Carl Vinsion (A Democratic Senator no less) quash it and threaten to take all the money away from the Navy if they even think of this again. See the RAND think tank, GAO, CBO all say that it would of been more expensive to buy and operate then the current Nimitz class of ships then being built and it would of been even more expensive to operate then the Forrestall or Midway class carriers over a life time. The numbers with regards to time on station, number of sorties generated, sea states it would of been able to operate in, let alone the effect that one or two of the large Soviet cruise missiles (like the AS-4 Kitchen or AS-6 Kingfish) would of done to the ship or even just a simple torpedo since the ship was being planned to only have 2 rudders and 2 props.

By: Passer By

Passer By — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 01:47:51 +0000

It takes a woman to bring sense to this debate. If any of you were on the debate team in college, you’d see what she was trying to do. Argue a point by showing how silly the other side was. It must be hard to be a woman in the Navy.

By: sid

sid — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:34:27 +0000

This Rand study is here is worth the read:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2006/RAND_MG448.pdf

By: Ima Fake

Ima Fake — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 22:12:10 +0000

This past weekend I was in Boston and made a point to go by our oldest capital ship. Hey, we did not have a lot of money, but heavily armed speed and Florida live oak makes an awesome combination.

The harpies of the shore shall pluck
The eagle of the sea!

By: Subsunk

Subsunk — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 21:43:09 +0000

CAPT Lex,

I note that all the other submariners here have said pretty much the same thing as I will. As long as the American people expect to fight wars with overwhelming force and pinpoint accuracy, the future of the big deck carrier and the fantastic Men and machines they carry will be secure. I echo the comment that you can send a submarine or a destroyer off some far flung coast to announce your presence or intentions, but when you really want to show how much you truly care, you send the best.

And that is a CV/CVN Battle Group with 60+ machines designed to rain absolute Death and Destruction with a mere glance and a flyby.

I always loved to have a CVN in my periscope cross hairs. It made me feel important.

But it also made me realize there is nothing — NOTHING — in this world feared more than the pilots, jets, ships, Men and machines of the United States Navy Carrier Battle Group. Congress (and the Navy leadership) can have the carriers and their weapons systems for the boneyard only when they pry them from my cold dead hands.

God Bless, sir. Pass my highest regards to the Lord while you are up there communing with Him.

Subsunk

By: Ima Fake

Ima Fake — Wed, 26 Jul 2006 20:56:52 +0000

I don’t think I was having you on. If you reframe the debate, the answer becomes obvious; as you all pointed out.

When the question under debate is complicated, one can lose the thread of the idea. Big deck – small deck ect. When you consider what a CV is, a capital ship, then it becomes obvious that a nation dependant upon trade needs a strong blue-water navy able to keep open the trade routes which are our life blood.

I was trying for the opposite of Sophism; simplicity. I said reframe the debate, so that the intellectually correct position is percieved. At least I used the right “capital.”