To: dennisw
You read my mind. As impressive as all this weaponry is, I still have my doubts about these types of naval forces when the battle is between countries with advanced weaponry. In terms of force projection for conflicts in which we are unopposed...cool. BUT
I truly believe that a salvo of cruise missiles or longer range types will decimate a conventional naval force.
I see what the tenacious pilots of Argentina were able to do to the Brits in the Falklands and it should make us think before oohing and ahhing.
48 posted on
06/19/2006 1:26:30 PM PDT by
zarf
(John Edwards is a horses ass.)
To: zarf
>I still have my doubts about these types of naval forces...
|
"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force. " |
To: zarf
I see what the tenacious pilots of Argentina were able to do to the Brits in the Falklands and it should make us think before oohing and ahhing.
I understand your perspective but let's try to remember that those tenacious pilots of Argentina lost the war and Britain was victorious.
58 posted on
06/19/2006 1:33:59 PM PDT by
mkjessup
(The Shah doesn't look so bad now, eh? But nooo, Jimmah said the Ayatollah was a 'godly' man.)
To: zarf
I see what the tenacious pilots of Argentina were able to do to the Brits in the Falklands and it should make us think before oohing and ahhing.
When, if ever, did our guys ever loose a dog fight?
60 posted on
06/19/2006 1:35:43 PM PDT by
gipper81
To: zarf
I see what the tenacious pilots of Argentina were able to do to the Brits in the Falklands and it should make us think before oohing and ahhing.From my amateur knowledge of that war:
Argentina ran out of Exocet missiles. Also the Exocet codes were acquired by the English from Mitterand and Exocets were thus sabotaged.
With enough effective Exocets the British would have lost
70 posted on
06/19/2006 2:03:53 PM PDT by
dennisw
(Fate of Nations)
To: zarf
An American nuclear carrier group is several orders of magnitude more capable than the tiny ships the UK sent to the Falklands, even their carriers. For one thing they didn't have any AWACS coverage, which made it possible for the "tenacious pilots of Argentina" to get within missle range. A US carrier battle group can generally "sanitize" an area 300 miles in diameter and NOTHING will get into them under power.
I'm not worried about an exocet or even a cruise missile coming in during a combat action. They've got R2D2s (Phalanx CIWS) to deal with those vampires and they work real good. Even a top line Russian Mig with their best pilots would have a hard time getting into engagement range. And then there's the story about the USS Ronald Reagan having directed energy point defense. The nickname for CVN 76 is "The Ronny Ray Gun." I got a non-denial denial on that rumor from a senior chief involved in the build out of the CIC and the RRs shake down cruise as his final assignment before retirement.
No, I'm worried about a carrier battle group steaming into the Persian Gulf during some conflict and sailing over a previously placed nuke left on the bottom by the Iranians. There's no way to defend against that.
98 posted on
06/19/2006 3:34:15 PM PDT by
Phsstpok
(Often wrong, but never in doubt)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson