Replies

I understand that it had been customary to use them as plane guards in the past, but we always used a helo for plane guard.

Could be we're talking about different periods. I was on board Chicago from '73 to '76. Like I said, we had a near miss with Kitty Hawk (I think it was the Kitty. I know it was a near miss). I don't believe an unrep was involved. As far as I know, we never did anything like that with a carrier -- only various supply ships.

The BB can provide a considerable amount of defensive fire, even in a carrier battle group. As for air ops vs. shore bombardment, that would be an excellent reason to have different groups.

We could well have a couple of more-or-less ad-hoc situations pictured, but there they are.

CVN's have a lot of extra space, so it isn't uncommon for small boys to urep fuel from them.

What do you see as the added defensive capabilities that the BB would provide? It certainly has a lot of anti-surface capability inside of gun range, but that is of very limited value (yet great in the right situation). I don't think they ever mounted even a short range SAM, and the Phalanx can't provide much in the way of supporting firepower.

In exactly the right situation, I could see a CV being tasked with setting up an umbrella to protect a BB. Say you really needed to pound the coastal area, or perhaps wanted to force a seaway, where you expect to be fired on, but want to minimize losses. But in a modern environment, the air wing could certainly deliver an enormous amount of bombs on target as well, instead of flying CAP.

Again, I'm not professing to be the final authority on this. I was curious as to what the tactical benefit would be, as I couldn't see much. I appreciate your inputs. I hope you find some value in mine.