Carrier Groups - Necessary or Obsolete?

Sukerkin

Have the courage to speak softly
MT Mentor
Lifetime Supporting Member
MTS Alumni
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
15,325
Reaction score
493
Location
Staffordshire, England
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18237029

This magazine article on the BBC is I think a nice launch platform {Yay! Naval operations pun attack! :D} for a discussion about the role that carriers played and still play in the projection of a nations authority around the globe.
 

Bill Mattocks

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Feb 8, 2009
Messages
15,624
Reaction score
4,429
Location
Michigan
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18237029

This magazine article on the BBC is I think a nice launch platform {Yay! Naval operations pun attack! :D} for a discussion about the role that carriers played and still play in the projection of a nations authority around the globe.

I'm not an expert on the issue, but I hear a lot of things from people who claim to be.

Personally, I see that we (the US) use the heck out of them in our current wars. And the BBC article misses a couple of points, I believe.

In addition to being a mobile launching platform for attack, the AC is also a good platform for high-quality realtime local aerial recon, both fixed wing and helicopter type. In addition to putting bombs on the ground via fighter/bombers, Naval air can put boots on the ground, as well as being a vital link in supply lines and medical evacuations. This applies also to peacetime missions, including supplying humanitarian aid or evacuations of civilians. And, unlike a stationary air base, an enemy attack has to find it as well as hit it. The Six Day War comes to mind as a good reason not to have all one's flying assets on land-based airfields.

I don't know how many we need, but I do think they still serve a very useful role.
 

Xue Sheng

All weight is underside
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
34,271
Reaction score
9,379
Location
North American Tectonic Plate
I don’t know but the Chinese obviously do not think they are obsolete...maybe

New Carrier

131871756_31n.jpg



Chinese Carrier Buster Missles

2010122900389_0.jpg




 

cdunn

2nd Black Belt
Joined
Apr 27, 2007
Messages
868
Reaction score
36
Location
Greensburg, PA
I'm not an expert on the issue, but I hear a lot of things from people who claim to be.

Personally, I see that we (the US) use the heck out of them in our current wars. And the BBC article misses a couple of points, I believe.

In addition to being a mobile launching platform for attack, the AC is also a good platform for high-quality realtime local aerial recon, both fixed wing and helicopter type. In addition to putting bombs on the ground via fighter/bombers, Naval air can put boots on the ground, as well as being a vital link in supply lines and medical evacuations. This applies also to peacetime missions, including supplying humanitarian aid or evacuations of civilians. And, unlike a stationary air base, an enemy attack has to find it as well as hit it. The Six Day War comes to mind as a good reason not to have all one's flying assets on land-based airfields.

I don't know how many we need, but I do think they still serve a very useful role.

The number that we have is about projecting power with rapid response. A carrier has to get there, and it takes a long time to steam from the Gulf of Mexico to the Persian Gulf... If you take the idea that you need them to project power world wide, I can justify about quite a number of full groups in my mind. 8 - 10 on the open waters at all times, 2-3 in dock. Some are more difficult to justify than others, due to domestic land facilities.
 

arnisador

Sr. Grandmaster
MTS Alumni
Joined
Aug 28, 2001
Messages
44,573
Reaction score
456
Location
Terre Haute, IN
They're still useful for projecting power and for operations off the coasts of less-developed nations--but in a WWIII scenario, I don't see them making the same sort of difference.
 

Latest Discussions

Top