Musings of a GVChamp

I was already suspicious that you didn't know what you were talking about it, but I knew for sure right here.

You took the words from my mouth.

And yet somehow both France and Britain are able to send planes without carriers. And the US is also sending planes in from Italy.

Perhaps it saves fuel, money, etc.

And yet somehow both France and Britain are able to send planes without carriers. And the US is also sending planes in from Italy.

Some planes can be launched from those places, yes, but not all of them. The lack of carriers in the region is a good portion of the reason the US drug our feet so long on establishing a no-fly zone in the first place.

*Assuming they had some desire to wave their dick about on the international scene.

[hint, they don't]

You don't win a war by sitting there and letting the enemy send their stuff at you. At some point you have to attack back. That's when you need carriers.

And yet the US is replacing them.

With the rest of NATO getting rid of theirs, someone has to have them.

Why does the US need 11 carriers in the first place when no other country has more than two? What are those carriers doing in all of those places, just sailing around looking cool? Why is there an aircraft carrier helping in Japan? That's a very odd use of an aircraft carrier.

In fact, why does the United States need to be present in any of these situations? Mind your own business.

Doing what the Navy is best at, and that is to be a show of force. The Navy sends ships around the world every year just kind of on tours to show the world what we have.

Just to nip the Japan carrier thing in the butt. Japan can't carry Aircraft carriers due to their terms in WWII. And they don't carry a big army due to their warrior nature. The US have been trying to get them to increase their military strength but they refuse.

And we carry carriers because they are the big stick. One US aircraft carrier can drop as many bombs as in WWII combined. So yeah we have the big stick so to speak.

Perhaps it saves fuel, money, etc.

It also saves on aircraft carrier.

Some planes can be launched from those places, yes, but not all of them. The lack of carriers in the region is a good portion of the reason the US drug our feet so long on establishing a no-fly zone in the first place.

the US dragged their feet because they didn't want to enter into another middle east conflict. the french and british jumped into it, which made their position unsustainable. it has nothing to do with the lack of US planes in the region, as both Britain and France could enter there anyway.

You don't win a war by sitting there and letting the enemy send their stuff at you. At some point you have to attack back. That's when you need carriers.

You don't "win" a nuclear win.

With the rest of NATO getting rid of theirs, someone has to have them.

"has to"

In order to protect from the ______________

It also saves on aircraft carrier.

Aircraft carriers fuel lasts them a real long time, considering its uranium. I read somewhere it could last them 50 years, not sure if that's true or not, but if they sent in aircraft carriers off the coast line that means less flight time which means less repair time. After each flight they have to re-grease everything etc. Plus with a less flight time you burn less fuel traveling to the designated area, and more time actually doing the job.

You don't "win" a nuclear win.

I really hope you aren't implying we launch nukes from Aircraft Carriers.

Aircraft carriers fuel lasts them a real long time, considering its uranium. I read somewhere it could last them 50 years, not sure if that's true or not, but if they sent in aircraft carriers off the coast line that means less flight time which means less repair time.

I believe it is every 25 years they need to be refueled. Which is more than enough in my opinion.

It would be a god damn time for euros to have some of their own power. Although the carriers are small, they ought to be able to pull together and take care of their own back yard.

Aircraft carriers fuel lasts them a real long time, considering its uranium. I read somewhere it could last them 50 years, not sure if that's true or not, but if they sent in aircraft carriers off the coast line that means less flight time which means less repair time. After each flight they have to re-grease everything etc. Plus with a less flight time you burn less fuel traveling to the designated area, and more time actually doing the job.

I really hope you aren't implying we launch nukes from Aircraft Carriers.

Well, its never been done, but how many nukes have we launched (or rather, dropped) total?

I'm not sure about presently, but nuclear weapons have been taken to sea aboard aircraft carriers in the past, first on the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1950.

Well, its never been done, but how many nukes have we launched (or rather, dropped) total?

I'm not sure about presently, but nuclear weapons have been taken to sea aboard aircraft carriers in the past, first on the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1950.

If we were to launch a nuke it would be from a nuclear sub which at least one is always in the waters near North Korea.

If we were to launch a nuke it would be from a nuclear sub which at least one is always in the waters near North Korea.

Any nukes launched by the US would be either ICBM or bomber based. Sub nukes are for second strikes, not first.

And they don't carry a big army due to their warrior nature. The US have been trying to get them to increase their military strength but they refuse.

...what damp, stinky hole did you pull this info out of? They don't have an army because they have a 'self defense force'. That's all they're allowed to have due to the terms of their surrender from WWII. It has nothing to do with their 'warrior nature'. The US also isn't "trying to get them to increase their military strength"...that would be detrimental to our own strategic positioning within mainland Japan, Iwo To, and Okinawa. We don't want to leave the area as it's within striking distance of North Korea and China. Japan wouldn't be able to produce the presence in the Pacific theater that we've continued to have since WWII. The JMSDF consists of Mitsubishi-built F4 Phantom look-alikes and P3 Orion anti-submarine planes, and not much else. Honestly, were another nation to attack the Japanese mainland, they'd be decimated if left to fend for themselves.

Honestly, were another nation to attack the Japanese mainland, they'd be decimated if left to fend for themselves.

That would be true even if we actively defended them. If China wants to invade Japan today they can make Japan one real big mess. Even with our carrier there.

That would be true even if we actively defended them. If China wants to invade Japan today they can make Japan one real big mess. Even with our carrier there.

We have a lot more than a carrier. The entire 7th fleet is forward-deployed to Yokosuka, the second largest Air Force base in the world is on Okinawa (along with 18,000 Marines), we also have AF bases in Yokota (on the Honshu plain) and Misawa (at the very top tip of the main island, just south of Hokkaido). Along with the bombers stationed at Anderson AFB on Guam, the fighters at Osan AFB in Korea, and the Marine Air Station in Iwakuni, I'd say we're doing fine. I'd say an invasion would be the least likely scenario, anyway.

Aircraft have been launched from the USS Enterprise, the Giuseppe Garibaldi, the USS Kearsarge (an amphibious assault ship capable of launching a small number of harrier jump jets) and France is moving the Charles de Gaulle to the area to support the attack. With fighters and other small craft, they only have a relatively short amount of fuel, which really hampers their ability to run combat air patrol missions. Having carriers in the area also greatly increases the response time of aircraft in a combat scenario and increases the overall flexibility of the group. Remember, the mission isn't to bomb Libya; it's to establish a no-fly zone and protect civilians. Most of the bombing so far has been to anti-air and air force facilities, which is pretty important to the establishment of a no-fly zone.

Some planes can be launched from those places, yes, but not all of them. The lack of carriers in the region is a good portion of the reason the US drug our feet so long on establishing a no-fly zone in the first place.

With Sicily and its friendly bases just a few hundred kms away you don't really need carriers to control the Lybian air space (although carriers can certainly be useful).

I am quite ignorant on the subject but in such a situation I'd expect that carriers can be critical when it's about carrying helicopters as near as possible to the zones they have to be deployed to.

With Sicily and its friendly bases just a few hundred kms away you don't really need carriers to control the Lybian air space (although carriers can certainly be useful).

I am quite ignorant on the subject but in such a situation I'd expect that carriers can be critical when it's about carrying helicopters as near as possible to the zones they have to be deployed to.

The combat radius of an F-16 is around 550km, 700km for an F-18 and 750km for an F-15E. It's about 650km from Sicily to Bengazi. About 500km from Sicily to Tripoli. That radius is only for missions in which the fighter leaves base, goes immediately to to the target, engages or spends minimal time patrolling and returns. To enforce a no fly zone, you need to establish combat air patrol missions, which requires spending a large amount of time simply watching the air in case anything comes near. Establishing a no fly zone from Sicily would be next to impossible, since we would be reaching Libya an hour after the enemy air craft were detected taking off. F-15's and F-16's based in Europe will work just fine for the elimination of targets with a pre-determined location but if we want real air suppression capabilities, those carriers have to be there.

The combat radius of an F-16 is around 550km, 700km for an F-18 and 750km for an F-15E. It's about 650km from Sicily to Bengazi. About 500km from Sicily to Tripoli. That radius is only for missions in which the fighter leaves base, goes immediately to to the target, engages or spends minimal time patrolling and returns. To enforce a no fly zone, you need to establish combat air patrol missions, which requires spending a large amount of time simply watching the air in case anything comes near. Establishing a no fly zone from Sicily would be next to impossible, since we would be reaching Libya an hour after the enemy air craft were detected taking off. F-15's and F-16's based in Europe will work just fine for the elimination of targets with a pre-determined location but if we want real air suppression capabilities, those carriers have to be there.

An hour or so from where I live we have 3 B-2's making trips from Whiteman to Libya. (I thought I heard they are making round trips, but that may not be true) Each hour in flight is $10,000. Just throwing that out there

Any nukes launched by the US would be either ICBM or bomber based. Sub nukes are for second strikes, not first.

Call me crazy but I'm pretty sure we've decommed all ICBMs. I'd assume all nuking would be done with a a cruise missile with a nuclear warhead fired from a sub or dropped/fired from a B-2. The sub nukes were used as second strikes in a Cold War scenario but in regards to a country like North Korea or Iran with limited nuclear (if any) capacity I don't think it would be out of the question to use a sub fired nuke.