Replies

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.

Of course I find value in what you post; it's why I'm responding. You're speaking from experience, too, which is all too rare in this sort of conversation.

The BBs would need some reconfiguration to provide the kind of defensive capabilities they did in WWII, but I believe this can be done at lower cost than building FFs or DDs from the keel up. In addition, the scenario you propose in your paragraph three, "In exactly the right situation ... " is important to consider. I realize this puts the carrier in a rather unaccustomed supporting role, but as long as we're all fighting on the same side ...

And again, I think BBs and CVs operating together would be situation specific, not SOP.

The last time the BBs were used, I believe they too served as oilers for some of the smaller ships in the group.

When were you in, by the way?