Posted on 05/09/2011 7:37:33 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Aircraft carriers gain clout in naval power
By SLOBODAN LEKIC
The Associated Press
6:01 a.m. Sunday, May 8, 2011
ABOARD THE CHARLES DE GAULLE — Despite growing controversy about the cost and relevance of aircraft carriers, navies around the world are adding new ones to their inventories at a pace unseen since World War II.
The U.S. — with more carriers than all other nations combined — and established naval powers such as Britain, France and Russia are doing it. So are Brazil, India and China — which with Russia form the BRIC grouping of emerging economic giants.
"The whole idea is about being able to project power," said Rear Adm. Philippe Coindreau, commander of the French navy task force that has led the air strikes on Libya since March 22.
"An aircraft carrier is perfectly suited to these kinds of conflicts, and this ship demonstrates it every day," he said in an interview aboard the French carrier Charles de Gaulle, which has been launching daily raids against Moammar Gadhafi's forces since the international intervention in the Libyan conflict began March 22.
The 42,000-ton nuclear-powered carrier has been joined in this task by another smaller ship, Italy's 14,000-ton Giuseppe Garibaldi. None of the U.S. Navy's supercarriers have been involved, despite American participation in the war's initial phase.
The U.S. Navy still operates 11 nuclear-powered carriers, mostly Nimitz-class vessels displacing up to 100,000 tons.
The floating fortresses became the backbone of U.S. sea power after WWII, projecting military might around the world in crises and in conflicts such as Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan.
Lee Willett, head of the maritime studies program at the Royal United Services Institute, a London
(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...
It is now 10:30 ... I like how you posted from the future.
Is this article from 1942?
In a “global” event; carriers will be the first to go.
They take years to build, and seconds to destroy with a nuke where civilian collateral damage is minimal. And isn’t China building anti aircraft carrier nukes.
It’s not that the movie was all that bad, it’s just ... nevermind, it really was that bad.
It was the USS Forrestal not not the Enterprise that had the fire in 1967. John McCain was on the flight deck when it happened.
It was final until the ending...a copout, IMHO. Why not change history? Wasn't that the whole point of a film that has dogfights between Tomcats and Zeros?
If I'm not mistaken, our doctrine is that any nation which takes out one of our carriers received a nuclear counter-attack. We don't have a lot of events which trigger a US nuclear response, but I believe sinking a carrier is one of them.
In other words, any foreign nation which seriously attacks a US carrier is going "all-in" and WWIII has begun.
It was the USS Forrestal not not the Enterprise that had the fire in 1967. John McCain was on the flight deck when it happened.
Er, make that "fine".
In a large scale war, an aircraft carrier is a floating target. Especially if you don’t have an AGEIS flotilla or equivelent system protecting it.
And the Chinese and Russians have new ballistic missiles that are designed to attack our carriers.
They are building anti ship missles which will be completely ineffective against aegis systems.
What are you talking about...that movie rocked, especially the dogfight between F-14 Tomcats and Japanese Zeroes !!!
While I believe the current occupant of the White House would give a (limited) nuclear reply if one of our carrier task forces was nuked, if a country somehow took out a carrier with conventional weapons I suspect he would only respond in kind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.