bush_cheney2004 Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 They aren't fleet carriers, though...20 kts or so only...you need de speed. A carrier battle group is the ultimate in forward power projection without compromise in many more dimensions than what is possible with such an assault ship. This leads to the trite presidential phrase...."Where are the carriers?" Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 I'm sure you might need speed in some applications, although I am hard pressed to think of these in the context of modern asymmetric warfare. However, parking one (or several) off the coast of Libya to launch air strikes from certainly doesn't require speed. In fleet or convoy situations, you need to match ship speed or you all move at the rate of the slowest ship. In carrier ops, slow is obviously not the way to go as high speed helps with launch and recovery of aircraft and general responsivness. Many a Japanese carrier during WW2 was sunk by simply being too slow to slip out of range of the searching US fleets. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 A carrier battle group is the ultimate in forward power projection without compromise in many more dimensions than what is possible with such an assault ship. This leads to the trite presidential phrase...."Where are the carriers?" It's the first question I'd ask, too. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 ...The Japanese were the last go at that. Worthy opponents...especially at night surface combat and torpedo attacks. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 http://www.matrixgames.com/products/216/details/Uncommon.Valor Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) It's the first question I'd ask, too. Here is where they are: 90,000 tons of diplomacy Edited March 10, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Here is where they are: 90,000 tons of diplomacy It's cool ol' 65 is still up and running. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Still my favorite... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Long_Island_(CVE-1) Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 My favorite: The Toasted 'O' Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 My favorite: The Toasted 'O' Dixie Station! That ship had a colourful life...and crew/pilots. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) This is also a favorite. Did the Malta run amongst other ops. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Argus_(I49) Edited March 10, 2011 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 (edited) This is also a favorite. Did the Malta run amongst other ops. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Argus_(I49) Yep...many elements of the modern aircraft carrier came from the Brits. HMS Ark Royal Edited March 10, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Yep...many elements of the modern aircraft carrier came from the Brits. HMS Ark Royal I actually did simulated landings/take-offs on the Argus back in the old CFS2 days. The thing was like a postage stamp. Agreement re: the British. The Japanese developed all their carriers off of the Argus design...the IJN Hosho was the first, I think. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 ...Agreement re: the British. The Japanese developed all their carriers off of the Argus design...the IJN Hosho was the first, I think. Better (or worse) still, the Japanese studied the Battle of Taranto! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Better (or worse) still, the Japanese studied the Battle of Taranto! That they did. The shallow water torpedo attack perfected....and the Kate torpedo bomber wasn't the ol' slow n' creaky Swordfish biplane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_B5N Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Plus the Japanese had the Type 91 torpedo which was the best aerial torpedo of the time with its roll control and such...not to mention big punch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_91_torpedo Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Plus the Japanese had the Type 91 torpedo which was the best aerial torpedo of the time with its roll control and such...not to mention big punch. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_91_torpedo Yes....but like today's presidents, they wanted to know...."Where are the carriers!" Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 Yes....but like today's presidents, they wanted to know...."Where are the carriers!" Yup...they buggered that part of the plan and hadn't the fuel to start hunting for the US carriers @ sea. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bud Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 my apologies for disrupting the military toys circle jerk here, but after much thought, i've come to the conclusion that a 'no fly zone' is wrong to do. why? because it's an act of war. why? because the same thing was imposed in iraq and nothing but negatives came from it. i can't agree more with what ron paul had to say on this topic: Quote http://whoprofits.org/
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 10, 2011 Report Posted March 10, 2011 my apologies for disrupting the military toys circle jerk here, but after much thought, i've come to the conclusion that a 'no fly zone' is wrong to do. Great...the people who know "military toys" were able to so conclude right away. why? because it's an act of war. why? because the same thing was imposed in iraq and nothing but negatives came from it. ...and Serbia, don't forget that little "human rights affair". Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
sharkman Posted March 11, 2011 Report Posted March 11, 2011 The last thing the west needs right now is to get embroiled in a dispute in yet another Muslim country. So why do you suppose Obama and his underlings were making broad pronouncements about what Libya's tyrant should and should not do to his people? It appears to be nothing but lip service and I think Obama has no intent to get involved. He's trying to give the appearance of sabre rattling, talking about a no fly zone and sanctions, but he's faking it. Why not just be open about it and say that the US's interests would best be served by not getting involved. Meanwhile he's trying to come to terms with the rising oil and gas prices. Yesterday they were talking about the oil reserve and wondering if they should use it to provide downward pressure on the price of oil. It's just more lip service, and today the market demonstrated it's on to Obama's behaviour of saying the right things but doing little as the market tanked 228 points. Better try something else Barack. Quote
jbg Posted March 11, 2011 Author Report Posted March 11, 2011 my apologies for disrupting the military toys circle jerk here, but after much thought, i've come to the conclusion that a 'no fly zone' is wrong to do. why? because it's an act of war. why? because the same thing was imposed in iraq and nothing but negatives came from it. So you think the use of helicopter gunships against peaceful demonstrators is a grand idea? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
bud Posted March 11, 2011 Report Posted March 11, 2011 Great...the people who know "military toys" were able to so conclude right away. yeah. i didn't read what you said. ...and Serbia, don't forget that little "human rights affair". good point. no fly zone didn't work there either. Quote http://whoprofits.org/
bud Posted March 11, 2011 Report Posted March 11, 2011 So you think the use of helicopter gunships against peaceful demonstrators is a grand idea? please stop being such an idiot. of course i don't think it's a grand idea. just like i wouldn't support attacking israel for committing war crimes, i wouldn't support attacking ghaddafi and his supporters. ghaddafi is done. it's just a matter of time. he's just buying a little time before he escapes to saudi or one of the gulf states. Quote http://whoprofits.org/
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.