3 ms·
10. That's all we have, not twelve, and definitely not the 15 we had at the height of the Cold War. The problem is that we don't have twelve carriers that can f
by greedo 13y ago
10. That's all we have, not twelve, and definitely not the 15 we had at the height of the Cold War. The problem is that we don't have twelve carriers that can function all at once. Some are being refueled, some are returning from a deployment, some are doing training workups prior to deployment, and there's a lot of ocean out there. That's why talk of cutting the # of CVNs to under the current totals is extremely dangerous. The way to look at it is for each carrier you have deployed, you need two more. So we currently have four carriers deployed, for ready to surge if needed, and three unavailable for maintenance reasons. And it's not as if a carrier can transit from its homeport to the far side of the ocean quickly...
- takluyver 13y agoThe rest of the world put together has 9 active carriers, all smaller than any of the US carriers. That's including the Chinese one, which they're still practising flying from, and the UK one, which doesn't have any aircraft until our JSFs turn up in a few years. Besides the US, only the French have an active nuclear powered carrier. So I don't really agree that discussion of reducing the number of US carriers is "extremely dangerous".
- greedo 13y agoAnd the rest of the world hasn't taken on the obligations that the US has.