To: OXENinFLA
Actually there is no force reduction. There will be less of certain systems, but more of others. We have to look at the impact of new technology in planning.
A recent development allows our Aegis class ships to carrier 4x the number of surface to air missiles as they currently do. Four Aegis class ships could probably hold off the entire ChiCom AF now.
Beyond that, the Navy needs to look at the impact of rail guns on the need for carriers. With a range of 200 miles and a flight time of 6 minutes, the amount of destructive power from a single rail gun can equal the destructive power of an entire F-18 CAW.
40 posted on
12/30/2004 6:56:07 AM PST by
ProudVet77
(2004 is worn out, time to start 2005)
To: ProudVet77; OESY
Why would they decommission the Kennedy (commissioned in 1968) and not the Kitty Hawk (commissioned in 1961)?
Is the Kennedy in that bad of shape?
Also I was just talking to a guy, X-Navy, I work with here in the office and he mentioned something.
The Kitty Hawk and Kennedy are the only Diesel powered carriers left in the fleet and something about Japan will not allow a Nuke powered carrier to dock there. (even though they let nuke subs in)
What is Japan's reasoning for that?
To: ProudVet77
fas.org
Updated Saturday, March 11, 2000
A little old
To: ProudVet77; OESY
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson