5 ms·
> Carriers themselves should be phased out for smaller more expendable ships Good luck prying those out of the Navy's cold, dead hands. Just look how long it
by dmoy 8y ago
> Carriers themselves should be phased out for smaller more expendable ships
Good luck prying those out of the Navy's cold, dead hands. Just look how long it took to finally get rid of battleships.
You'd think that after the complete shitshow that was mc02 they would have started to see the light. But I think instead they're just burying their heads in the sand a bit farther.
- twic 8y ago> Just look how long it took to finally get rid of battleships. The last time the US Navy built a battleship was in 1941. It was decommissioned in 1958 - the last of its kind. If you take World War II as the proof that carriers had eclipsed battleships, that doesn't seem like long at all. The battleships were recomissioned in the '80s by Reagan as a bizarre act of cold war willy-waving. And once you've paid the money to get them working and put some missiles on them, you might as well keep using them until they fall apart.
- twic 8y agoReaders may enjoy this old-school semi-crank page about the idea of reactivating the battleships yet again: http://www.g2mil.com/battleships.htm http://www.g2mil.com/battleships.htm
- dmoy 8y ago> The last time the US Navy built a battleship was in 1941. It was decommissioned in 1958 - the last of its kind. If you take World War II as the proof that carriers had eclipsed battleships, that doesn't seem like long at all. WW2 was definitely un-ignorable proof that battleships were done. Imo though, given the essentially complete lack of actual success wrought by battleships in ww1, someone should have seen the light in the interwar period. I guess I shouldn't be too harsh, at least we aren't building much else new that's bigger than a destroyer (except carriers).
- jabl 8y agoThere's been inflation. A modern destroyer is, in terms of tonnage, more like a cruiser.
- twic 8y agoReminds me of how the Soviets had ships called "aircraft carrying cruisers" that were actually aircraft carriers, so that they could sail them between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_the_Regime_of_the_Straits#Aircraft_carriers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreux_Convention_Regarding_... And the Royal Navy had "through-deck cruisers" that were actually (tiny) aircraft carriers, so that they could get them built under a government which wanted to keep defence spending under control: http://www.godfreydykes.info/THE%20PROMISED%20TWO%20NEW%20AIRCRAFT%20CARRIERS.htm http://www.godfreydykes.info/THE%20PROMISED%20TWO%20NEW%20AI...
- toomanybeersies 8y agoAircraft carriers are more than just a floating airport though. They symbolise American might, a physical manifestation of big stick diplomacy. There's no surer way to get a tinpot dictatorship to start dancing to your fiddle than to park a carrier battle group outside their territorial waters. As Bill Clinton said: > When word of a crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident that the first question that comes to everyone's lips is 'Where's the nearest carrier?' Most of the time, a submarine or destroyer with Tomahawk cruise missiles will get the job done. But parking a nuclear submarine off the coast doesn't have the same diplomatic effect.
- TheForumTroll 8y agoThe problem is that in a real war (as in not a war with jets versus people in caves) the carriers will be lost in days. Look how easy targets they are to even old diesel subs. They get sunk in pretty much all realistic training against any foe with a sub. Otherwise it only takes one ballistic anti-ship missile per carrier. They need to go the way of the battleships.
- foldr 8y agoI don't think that's necessarily inevitable. None of the British carriers was sunk during the Falklands war, despite the Argentines having diesel subs and exocet missiles.
- gaius 8y agoNone of the British carriers was sunk during the Falklands war Yes and no. The Atlantic Conveyor, a makeshift helicopter carrier, was sunk, taking the UK’s Chinooks with it, leading to the famous “yomp” across the island. But you are right that both of the Harrier carriers were OK.
- foldr 8y agoAh, yes, fair enough, but of course the Atlantic Conveyor neither didn't have the defenses of a modern carrier, and wouldn't have been as much of a defense priority.