3 ms·
In a serious conflict, within hours either the carrier will be sunk and so maint will be a moot point, or the opfor will no longer have the capability to sink t
by VLM 4y ago
In a serious conflict, within hours either the carrier will be sunk and so maint will be a moot point, or the opfor will no longer have the capability to sink the carrier (at least by air) and again maint will be a moot point.
Kind of like calculating hours of maintenance per hour of cruise missile flight time, admittedly that metric would apply very well to an observation platform like a E-3, but not so much to a wartime interceptor platform.
- ethbr0 4y agoExactly, the F-14 value calculus stems from the carrier's survivability. Keeping a carrier from being sunk was almost invaluable (at least, to the Navy) in many envisioned conflicts. Consequently, in a modern, first-strike-is-primary-strike (limited numbers of exquisite, high-lethality weapons and platforms) scenario, ongoing maintainability is less of an issue than maximizing aerial and combat performance.
- mst 4y agoReminds me of the UK Type 440 destroyer class, which (I'm going from memory here, if somebody fact checks me I expect them to be right, not me) was designed to fire missiles at incoming USSR aircraft ... with an average time from initial engagement to toast of around 7 minutes. But if those aircraft were intending to drop nuclear weapons on British soil, even a single successful kill would have saved far more lives than the crew complement of a 440.