Quote:
Originally Posted by TheMercenary
An aircraft carrier group can launch 70 aircraft nearly every 30 seconds and launch some 5000 cruise missiles, multiply that time 2.
|
Somehow TheMercenary actually believes those numbers are impressive? During the 1991 Gulf War, four carriers sat in the Persian Gulf. Marines that invaded Kuwait had zero air cover. Where was all that aircraft carrier might? Mythical. When Iraqis surprised the Marines on their left flank, what did the carriers do? Nothing. Marines saved their own ass. Swartzkopf personally said in that daily briefing that he "could not say enough about what the Marines did". Why? Four carriers did nothing to help Marines they were assigned to support.
Eventually, carrier forces were so pathetic as to be removed from most combat missions. Carriers consumed too much tanker support and achieved little. In fact, only 'most useful' functions in that war was an F-14 surveillance package which is why the Navy pilot "Stryker" got shot down in western Iraq, probably captured alive by Iraqis, and was never found.
OK. Carriers have improved abilities. And still its planes have limited range and are completely depended on land based tankers to achieve mission beyond a few hundred miles. What does just as good if not better? What almost toppled Saddam in 1998? Conventional ships and submarines with cruise missiles. Carriers expend so much effort just defending themselves as to be quite impotent. And without land based tankers, then carriers have extremely limited range. Well if the tankers are land based, then planes don't need carriers to launch from.
Why then have carriers? Hype. With 'big dic' thinking, those numbers sound impressive. From the strategic perspective, those carriers are less potent - have limited abilities.
Let's see. Shock and awe took out how many members of Saddam's family and the 52 most wanted characters on playing cards? Zero.
Where on a carrier is anything even approaching what an A-10 can do? Nothing. It planes have maybe ten minutes over a target when warriors need air cover that is available for four hours. Who wins a war? A '10 minute' navy plane - or the grunts? That ten minute air cover does what for those grunts?
What did all the work? Those grunts. Carriers are nothing more than support functions. Those who are easily impressed by numbers: a carrier is to be feared. Then we apply reality. Other things military are far more dangerous. How many carriers will it take to rescue 15 Brits in Tehran? How many carriers can take out bunkers where uranium is being processed? How many carriers can conquer a city or win a war? In each case, apply all the carriers and no objectives are achieved. Where is all this ability? Carriers cannot do anything that defines a military victory here. Carriers are only a support function that 'big dic' thinking never grasps.
Deja vue Nam. If we blow things up, then we will win. Well that was an outright lie promoted by those who also deny military principles from 500 BC. Carriers are nothing more than support function in the Middle East. Overhyped by 'big dics' who even and also forget the basic purpose of war. Marines had to breach Iraq lines to get into Kuwait without support from *four* carriers. How many know without first learning fundamental facts ... such as the purpose of war?
TheMercenary - for someone so enamored in military hype, why do you so easily fall for myths such as carrier power?