One Navy flyer explained to me that the aircraft carrier was six acres of sovereign territory that can appear anywhere in the world. Compare this with land-based aircraft, which first must be in striking distance of the target, are subject to the same defense constraints, and are much more easily targeted. We must own the land or obtain basing rights with understanding we intend to attack. Also advance bases located in such places as Guam, Okinawa, South Korea, and Japan come with base housing for families. These six acres at sea can hold a near endless array of weapons. It is passed time they included unmadded aircraft.
To: Retain Mike
They can launch the birds, they can fly and fight the birds. No way they can make recovery in all conditions possible.
2 posted on
09/08/2025 12:33:22 PM PDT by
ibheath
To: Retain Mike
These days, carriers are good for projecting power against relatively weak opponents. Our carriers are giving the PRC a wide berth. If the shiite hits the fan, our surface navy is going to suffer some big losses. I see carriers as just about indefensible, what with today’s missile technology.
To: Retain Mike
To: Retain Mike
When an opponent hacks a craft and takes control, do we have a “Patriot AI” to storm and free it?
To: Retain Mike
20 posted on
09/08/2025 4:24:22 PM PDT by
Does so
("Things will now change in Minneapolis AND AT HOME"....Dem☭¢rat... ∅ one ™ ¿ ¡ ☞ ½¼)
To: Retain Mike
Add large bulk carriers that could contain thousands of drones / long range missiles.
23 posted on
09/09/2025 2:22:10 AM PDT by
minnesota_bound
(Making money now. Still want much more.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson