This question applies US, France, China, India, Britain, Russia, and every other country that has carriers and focuses on carrier battle groups. With the advent of long range missiles, a carrier carrying supples, ammunition, people, and planes can be sunk really easily. That would be a huge waste of time, manpower, and resources. If i was the guy in charge of the navy, i would focus more on smaller carriers(to minimize risk maybe, spread things out, though more costly, if a war happens, i would be less likely to lose it all in a single hit) and surface vessles like destroyers and smaller, and of course submarines, which can be difficult to detect AND launch cruise missiles. I understand the need for a base of operations for fighters, im just concerned about the risk in focusing on super carriers and carrier battle groups, with stealth and missiles and all(a frigate could steam close enuf to fire a missile, and if the CIWS fail to intercept it, its bye bye carrier).
2007-09-30
23:21:45
·
19 answers
·
asked by
JN
3
in
Military