Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: sukhoi-30mki

I sometimes wonder these days if our carriers are too big of a sitting duck. I have no inside information, so I don’t want to cast dispersion where none are warranted.

It is my take that moderate sized gunships with a multitude of guided missiles could possibly cause a massive amount of offensive damage, and with many of those instead of a few aircraft carriers, there might come a time when they would become more of a preference.

I toss this out there, to get some some feedback. I’m not against hearing this would not be as good a plan as I might think.

I just don’t like being in the position of having three or four of our aircraft carriers taken out, and being faced with a severely reduced fleet in short order.


28 posted on 03/23/2017 8:55:49 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (NeverTrump, a movement that was revealed to be a movement. Thank heaven we flushed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: DoughtyOne

It’s the underwater stealth subs that help keep big targets safe.


33 posted on 03/23/2017 10:29:10 PM PDT by chief lee runamok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

To: DoughtyOne
That's a long running argument. I saw one documentary that said FDR preferred to make three Jeep carriers for each of the proposed fleet carriers but deferred to the Navy.

Ever since Midway people have questioned both single large carriers v. multiple small ones and putting multiple carriers together in a fleet as we did for the first Gulf War.

35 posted on 03/23/2017 10:40:59 PM PDT by Rashputin (Jesus Christ doesn't evacuate His troops, He leads them to victory !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson