Posted on 11/23/2001 7:00:03 PM PST by dvwjr
...'The carriers have proven their value, but the claims of some carrier proponents frequently defy reality. Carrier effectiveness, though significant, has been inflated to mythic proportions.
Dramatic film footage of carrier-based aircraft being catapulted into the skies frequently dominates televised coverage of periodic US crises with Iraq, even though that image does not reflect actual composition of the joint US force in the region. In early 1998, Rear Adm. John B. Nathman, commander of Task Force 50 aboard USS Nimitz in the Gulf, actually declared, "I attribute the cessation of Iraqi no-fly zone violations to our presence" in the area.
In official statements, the Navy claims that "the carrier battle group, operating in international waters, does not need the permission of host countries for landing or overflight rights." They can operate independently and present "a unique range of options" to the President, the service adds.' .
.
."Navy carriers are a valuable tool, but their warfighting contribution must be judged against an airpower standard, not just against a sea-control standard. World War II's fast carrier task forces won their place in history because they conducted sustained operations, and their commanders, like Adms. Raymond A. Spruance and Marc A. Mitscher, were masters of air warfare. Until carriers have an all-aspect stealth aircraft, naval aviators will be unable to perform many critical wartime missions. Navy aircraft are not expected to match the penetration and survivability of the F-117, much less the payload of the B-2. The nation will call on aircraft carriers to take the lead in smaller-scale contingencies, to provide presence in locations like the Taiwan Strait, and to add their capabilities to joint operations. For many of the most critical tasks, however, only land-based aircraft from in-theater bases will do."
Since US air attacks began October 10th, most all US Air Force assets have come from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, or from continental US. By the time substantial in theatre tactical air assets are deployed, air ops in Afghanistan might be substantial completed. Thanks to the Brits for their re-fueling capability to get USN strikes to targets in Afghanistan and return. GO NAVY
Carrier-based air is always more "convenient" and more readily available on a short time notice, and without having to "negotiage" with "allianaces" for the "right" to use their land, their concrete, and hteir airbases.....nver-mind whether we built them in the first palce or not.
NO land-based air base in ANY country (Vietnam, Germany, Japan, Formosa, Philllipines, Malaysia, Thailand, Argentia, Falklands, Israel, Egypt, Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc.) has NOT, in the past many years, worked worked very well when assaulted by missiles, bombs, fighter-bombers, or simple mortors.
So take your pick: Cheap (and easily shut-down (if operable at all - the French denied us permission to cross over or land in France when bombing Libya)) or expensive and available.
Tomcats RULE!!!
I think the AF flyboys are suffering from "tomcat" envy.
So what does the government do with a TOTAL WINNER like the Tomcat...pays several million dollars to destroy the tooling so they can never be built again! Thank Dick Chaney personally for that one. (Price for F-14 was $36 Mil each; Price for an F-18 $34 Mil each. It's like a VW bug vs a Cadillac Seville.)
They're also being phsaed out of the fleet. For instance, VF-41, the "Black Aces," that just returned on the Big E have flown their Tomcats for the last time. They're switching to F-18's.
For the life of me, I can't understand why they are being replaced with ratty F-18s. Most of the pilots I've spoken to say there's no comparison. The Tomcat is the pilots choice. The F-18 is run by computer, the pilot is "along for the ride," but the Tomcat is pilot controlled...all the way.
or click here and you'd better plan to have a bunch of time. Lot's there.
Efficiency=10, mobility=0.
As my high school football coach(a 6'4" retired USMC Gunnery Sgt., One of the Chosin Few) used to say...... "How can you say Air Force with any pride?
Semper FI
War game victories do not ensure combat victory.
How can you say Air Force with any pride?Because my uncle was in the US Army Air Corps (precursor to the Air Force) and lost his life as the pilot of a B-26 attacking the Third Reich, flying into the teeth of heavy German AAA defending a bridge, but managed to hold his crippled and burning plane straight and level long enough for 3 crew to bail out. One of the men managed to sneak back to friendly lines with the help of the French Resistance and survived to return home. The other two went MIA and were assumed killed. That's how.
That said, I don't like one service branch trying to promote itself at the expense of another. Heck, haven't we also seen pictures of B-52's and AC-130's? I say, throw everything at them we possibly can!
I know how Marines say it: "Hey Lookit... lookit up dere--airplane up dere!
signed/ B-17 pilot's kid.
A lot of thing have changed. The Air Force.......gee, I guess I just don't get it; and those bus driver looking uniforms...Yuck.
Semper Fi
Walt
WHAT ! I missed that announcement Dumb.
Boy I hate to sound tinfoil. But the more I hear of things like this. The more I think were being set up for a China takeover.
Yeah, but you can't sink Diego Garcia.
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.