posted on Oct, 7 2012 @ 04:24 AM
Originally posted by schuyler
If they didn't not only would you not be driving, you wouldn't be eating, or surfing the Net.
That's nutter, loony, whacko talk. I like the carriers. They're good. Nothing wrong with them at all. Better to have them than not have them. But you
place far too much importance on their role and capabilities.
The US SSN fleet as well as surface ships with the BGM-109 Tomahawk ASMs and SSMs can strike targets with less risk than the current F/A-18C, F/A-18E
and AV-8B carrier fighters which are outclassed in almost all areas of flight performance by the Su-27 Flanker and it's derivatives.
The US also has the most advanced and powerful air force in the world. The USAF. With air assets like the
A-10A, F-15C, F-15E, F-16C, B-52, B-1B, B-2A, E-3, KC-135, C-5, C-17 and the king of fighters the F-22A.
The USAF has superior aircraft, superior capabilities. In WWII in the Pacific the carrier and it's aircraft was the most important asset. Not so
The USAF can hit anything carrier airpower can hit and more with less risk and expense. The carriers are a part of the US military not the centre of
Getting rid of a few CVNs and LHDs isn't going to make much of a dent in the massive 16 trillion dollar debt. I thought that might save the US some
dollars but it turns out they're not quite as expensive as I thought. In fact quite reasonable value for money as long as one doesn't sink which would
be a total disaster.
Classified next generation stealthy hypersonic anti-ship missiles are under development and it's only a matter of time before new technology makes
surface naval combat even faster and more deadly.
edit on 7-10-2012 by JimTSpock because: (no reason given)