Aircraft Carriers Obsolete

[Speaker to Animals]

Nothing we didn't already discuss a few weeks ago, but it's interesting that others are saying it.

[Smitty-48]

Meh, that's all nonsense, first of all, $14 billion is walking around money for the US, you've literally blown trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan, nobody fucking cares, you just print more money, so they idea that the loss of the carrier would be "too great a financial risk" is silly, second, on the loss of life, it's not that many in the grand scheme of things, it would be sort of a "911" moment, but that would be good for the military, that would just get the public all riled up for more war "Remember the Maine!", in terms of operations, it's going to be difficult to sink a carrier, nobody is going to be sinking them by the dozen, so there's actually enough carriers to sustain some attrition, and finally, to sink an American carrier, for the enemy, that's going to mean all out war, which they are likley to lose, particularly once the Americans get all riled up and willing to unleash the full measure upon them, so it's not something any country is going to do, unless and until they are prepared for the Eagle with Thunderbolts in Talons Grasped, which, who is really prepapred for that? Nobody.

[kybkh]

Sense I am getting nowadays is that think tankers are starting to believe in the Limited Exchange Theory again which is kinda concerning.

[Speaker to Animals]

The loss of a super carrier would be so great that the USN would likely keep them well out of a conflict if such a risk existed. Don't build platforms you cannot afford to lose in a war. We'd have been better off with more Army divisions, Air Force wings, or even just a lot more cruisers and destroyers.

Carriers replaced the battleship because, in a naval battle in those days, air power was more decisive in sinking ships than battleships. But today, air power is not more effective at naval battles than missiles and submarines. Missile cruisers and attack submarines should have been their focus.

[Smitty-48]

The idea that the enemy would expend all its resources and energy on trying to sink a carrier is also flawed, that would be very high risk, and not actually as decisive as implied, if there is a weak link at sea, it's the Ready Reserve Fleet, you don't have to sink the carrier, what you sink are the much more vulnerable supply ships which sustain operations, fuel tankers, munition ships, freighters, that's actually what you go after with submarines, going head to head with a Strike Group would be suicidal for a submarine, so that would only be done as an absolute last resort, the preferred method for submarines, would be to husband the force and go after softer targets.

[Speaker to Animals]

Good thing nobody argued an enemy would expend all their resources doing it.

[Smitty-48]

Good thing nobody argued an enemy would expend all their resources doing it.

It's in the dumb ass video you posted.

[Speaker to Animals]

Good thing nobody argued an enemy would expend all their resources doing it.

It's in the dumb ass video you posted.

Timestamp?

That would be silly, but it doesn't detract from the fact that these things are wasteful, redundant, and represent a strategic liability.

[Speaker to Animals]

I think we should focus more on a navy built around submarines and missile cruisers.

I just don't see the point of capital ships at our current level of technology. Maybe that could change in the future, but right now, missile cruisers and attack submarines are likely the decisive factors in a serious naval battle.

[Smitty-48]

It's just Lolberg clickbait, $14 billion for a carrier and $6 million a day to run it, is chump change for the Pentagon, and nobody gives a shit about deficits, print more money, nobody cares, 5000 American sailors killed, particularly in a major shooting war which is what it would be, totally expendable, Americans would quickly get over it, and operationally, the US could afford to lose three or four carriers, and then when America won the war, build five or six new ones to replace them, ain't no thang.

I mean, heck, somebody knocked down the World Trade Center, and that was an absolute boon for the Pentagon, they dined out on that for years, and America didn't curl up into the fetal position, people were told to go shopping, and that's what they did, you have some memorials, everybody gets all maudlin and patriotic about it, but hey, Americans love that shit, big catastrophes which incite wars and associated memorial parades, that's the national pastime.