Post by griffin on Sept 14, 2012 14:52:24 GMT -5
Recent attacks on US and even German embassies in the Middle East and North Africa shows how important it is to have CVN and LHD's etc. operating in the 'Med' and Indian Ocean, etc. The need to quickly respond to attacks on embassies cannot be done in a timely fashion from afar. The firepower a CVN and a Marine Battlion Landing Team being deployed from an LHA or LHD - about 1,800 marines with tanks, artillery, etc. - are also capable of supporting friendly governments or others that are friendly to the democratic west, and in particular the USA.
The fact is that while the USN has far greater capability with a single carrier over that of their predecessors in WWII, I am concerned about reducing the US carrier forces. If one adds up all the various parts of the world that require a US naval task force presence, consider the fact that as one carrier leaves a patrol area like the 'Med' another has to replace it, and you need down time for the crew and refits, etc. If you had one carrier each for the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, another stationed out of Japan, another in the Indian Ocean this would come to five carriers on station. Multiply by a factor of 3 to cover off CVN etc. in port getting ready to releave the on station units, and allow for R&R, training and refit of a carrier in port, that is 15 carriers, not 12, or less.
Most certainly advances in aircraft capabilities has also advanced so bombers can fly from the USA to hit targets, however they simply do not have the immediate capability a carrier task force has in troubled waters or near nations where rescue of diplomatic staff and their families may be needed, in having the ability to send in helicopter rescue forces, and of course unleash aircraft, tomahawks, etc. to attack enemy forces.
The fact is that while the USN has far greater capability with a single carrier over that of their predecessors in WWII, I am concerned about reducing the US carrier forces. If one adds up all the various parts of the world that require a US naval task force presence, consider the fact that as one carrier leaves a patrol area like the 'Med' another has to replace it, and you need down time for the crew and refits, etc. If you had one carrier each for the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, another stationed out of Japan, another in the Indian Ocean this would come to five carriers on station. Multiply by a factor of 3 to cover off CVN etc. in port getting ready to releave the on station units, and allow for R&R, training and refit of a carrier in port, that is 15 carriers, not 12, or less.
Most certainly advances in aircraft capabilities has also advanced so bombers can fly from the USA to hit targets, however they simply do not have the immediate capability a carrier task force has in troubled waters or near nations where rescue of diplomatic staff and their families may be needed, in having the ability to send in helicopter rescue forces, and of course unleash aircraft, tomahawks, etc. to attack enemy forces.
