RIP F117-A stealth fighter

They're already in the attack role, in limited numbers. They are not, however, supporting many ground forces.

 

Not quite sure I understand the meaning behind your post there, Fen.

 

They're a necessary evil, aren't they? They're a helluva deterrent and a vital force-projection platform.

 

Kinda my thinking too, especially after having served on one. You think a battleship rolling up off your coast would put the fear of God, Allah or whomever into you? Try spying an aircraft carrier packing enough aircraft and weapons to make the entire world forget you ever existed.

 

Don't forget the Marines.

 

How many is too many, though?
The damned things are expensive as hell to build. They require a vast amount to keep and maintain, their maintenance requirements including entire other ships. And how many places at the same time are you suggesting we need to be projecting force?
At least one out of every three carriers is a boondoggle.

 

I think it's a question of how many regions in which we need a presence.

 

Sorry, Fen, but there's not a single bit of evidence or words you could produce that will convince me one out of every three carriers is a boondoggle.

And given the Navy's high op-tempo, plus all the re-qualifications ANY Navy ship must go through prior to a major deployment, it's not like we've got a handful of them just sitting around doing nothing.

 

One for the Med (at all times), one for the Persian Gulf (at all times), one in the Indian Ocean (at all times) and one or two in the Pacific (at all times). That's five carriers actively deployed. In the meantime, the others are either in the shipyards being repaired/maintained, or they're doing smaller, shorter deployments in preparation for a big one.

Anyone who thinks a carrier can just leave port and go on a six-month deployment without nearly two years of qualification and preparation simply doesn't understand what it takes. Not meant as snobbery but as a real insight.

 

I have no doubt they're sailing around the world, but, given the fact that there is no serious naval power in the world to rival us any more, the notion that we need 13 (and counting, with the GHWB coming down the sled fairly soon) of these beasts seems dubious to me.

 

I think we not only need at least 13 aircraft carriers, I also think we need battleships.

You can shoot down planes. If you have a good enough defense system, you can shoot down missiles. It's hard as fuck to shoot down a 16-inch shell.

During the Vietnam War, the North Vietnamese refused to negotiate while one of the battlewagons was prowling off their coast. Plus, battleships can take an enormous amount of punishment compared to an aircraft carrier.

I don't buy the theory of deterring would-be enemies through disarmament. You deter enemies by scaring the living fuck out of them.

 

I asked General Cody a pretty decent question during a Q&A last fall, and I'll pose it to you, as well. Even though there are very few armies in the world that rival us, what are we doing to prepare for war with our traditional rivalries? Are we still prepared for a major European or Asian war?