Replies

Looks like a giant sitting duck to me, but what do I know?

So do aircraft carriers, but with all their high-tech stuff, I'm sure they're pretty safe.

I'd say what COULD wreak havoc on such a platform would be Mother Nature. Ain't no stopping a typhoon!

Possibly not. If you put it reasonably far out to sea, you could just tell all small boats "don't even thinking of coming within a mile of us." A U.S.S. Cole attack would be impossible.

An AEGIS system could shoot down incoming missles.

Internal sabatoge is always a possibility. However, the thing is so big that a dissident sailor could do only so much damage.

Basically, it's like taking a regular base, and surrounding it with miles of water.

Looks like a giant sitting duck to me, but what do I know?

The question I'd like to ask is: Why bother? A conventional aircraft carrier can do the attack role, an LHA, etc. Amphibious group can do the beach attack role, and so on. Why bother joining them all together?

A potential answer is survivability. I think it's relevant that the U.S. did not lose a single fleet carrier in WWII that was launched after December 7, 1941 (Franklin came close, but made it back). Once we learned a bit about designing for damage control (Essex class was much better than Yorktown class) we had a really tough ship.

Part of that is recognizing that the best defense is a good offense, which starts a long way away with Tomcat/Phoenix and proceeds through layers and layers of active defenses. Then we add a lot of armor at the end, plus defensive measures like multiple hull construction to address torpedo attacks.

Considering the restricted mobility, and the vulnerability of the pontoon hulls to torpedo damage (a runway with the middle thousand feet sunk is not much use), it's not clear to me that this is any more survivable than a carrier battle group, nor more versatile than a carrier battle group plus amphibious group, and so on.

And then there's the cost . . . .