3 ms·
A loss of a carrier doesn't incur by itself any economic cost, however building it does. Your Soviet analogy makes sense, even though their mistake was buildin
by dmichulke 11y ago
A loss of a carrier doesn't incur by itself any economic cost, however building it does.
Your Soviet analogy makes sense, even though their mistake was building it (and not losing it - I don't know about great losses of the Soviets after 45)
Also, IANA expert but I think carriers today only make sense against pre-missile and pre-jet militaries. IMO a carrier can only operate under air superiority and effective missile defense one of which probably even small countries can contest these days.
- xixi77 11y agoI think opinions also vary on that one, and effectiveness of anti-ship missiles vs carriers has obviously not been combat tested -- a carrier group has a lot of means to defend against cruise missile attacks though, the aircraft themselves being a pretty major one. There have been developments on both sides of that equation, but I doubt anyone who actually knows much about the current state of affairs is going to tell us :) One problem with the missile strategy (which is the one Soviets tried) is that even if you might be able to cost-effectively attack a carrier group with missile cruisers, they are pretty much useless for anything else.
- gaius 11y agoAlso, IANA expert but I think carriers today only make sense against pre-missile and pre-jet militaries. The Falklands war suggests otherwise. The Argentines had the most advanced weapons the French would sell them.