Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
You don't need a carrier to launch a drone its a waste of time and $100billion dollars.I understand where you're coming from but for me the question is one of cost versus benefit. The lifetime cost of a carrier group runs into hundreds of billions of dollars - whole gobs of money used on an ineffective weapon of doutbful viability in a real conflict. Yes they can pack a punch but so can a swarm of cruise missiles or a flight of UAVs which are unmanned and operate with a high degree of stealth and do not need billions of dollars worth of protective assest just to guard them. Trouble is they ain't sexy.Ultimately the only fighting assest that the carrier has is its aircraft. Take for example your thoughts on NK, there is basically no region of NK that is not capable of being targetted by aircraft from either Kadena or bases in South Korea. Same practise for Iraq and Afghanistan. For me it is just a matter of pride - the Navy wants to have a role in these conflicts to justify its need for carriers therefore it justifies its carriers because it wants a role in combat zones. Its exactly the same here in the UK we are buliding these two useless hunks of steel that are about as much good as a chocolate teapot.The doctrine is outdated
You don't need a carrier to launch a drone its a waste of time and $100billion dollars.
I understand where you're coming from but for me the question is one of cost versus benefit. The lifetime cost of a carrier group runs into hundreds of billions of dollars - whole gobs of money used on an ineffective weapon of doutbful viability in a real conflict. Yes they can pack a punch but so can a swarm of cruise missiles or a flight of UAVs which are unmanned and operate with a high degree of stealth and do not need billions of dollars worth of protective assest just to guard them. Trouble is they ain't sexy.
Ultimately the only fighting assest that the carrier has is its aircraft. Take for example your thoughts on NK, there is basically no region of NK that is not capable of being targetted by aircraft from either Kadena or bases in South Korea. Same practise for Iraq and Afghanistan. For me it is just a matter of pride - the Navy wants to have a role in these conflicts to justify its need for carriers therefore it justifies its carriers because it wants a role in combat zones. Its exactly the same here in the UK we are buliding these two useless hunks of steel that are about as much good as a chocolate teapot.
The doctrine is outdated
