General Discussion

Alcibiades

(5,061 posts)

16. I know they have been used in disaster relief

Mon Feb 27, 2012, 01:11 PM

Feb 2012

That's not their main job, though. With all due respect, it's laughable to maintain that this is why we maintain the world's largest carrier fleet.

The main job of aircraft carriers is to go forth and kick ass. I didn't need to "research" this: it's common knowledge. But here you go, from the 2010 NOC:

"Aircraft Carriers
Nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (CVNs) and their embarked air wings provide responsive, flexible, sustainable strike capability and capacity that does not require diplomatic access. Aircraft carriers serve as the centerpiece of carrier strike groups (CSGs) during power projection operations. In the event of conflict, multiple CSGs can aggregate, along
with other surge forces if required, to form an expeditionary strike force capable of projecting significant power at-sea and ashore.
The standard CSG force package includes a CVN, air wing, up to five surface combatants, a direct support submarine, and a combat logistics force ship. The ships provide integrated air and missile defense (IAMD) to include ballistic missile defense; and strike warfare, undersea warfare,
surface warfare, maritime security, and sustainment. When not conducting coordinated operations, these ships will often disaggregate to conduct dispersed security cooperation, counter-piracy, counter-terrorism or other maritime security operations in the theater."

It's all about combat, providing "responsive, flexible, sustainable strike capability and capacity that does not require diplomatic access." Humanitarian missions are part of US naval doctrine, but it's not why we have 11 aircraft carriers.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

25 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A Tale of two Ships [View all] unhappycamper Feb 2012 OP

Dear UHC, I love your posts tech3149 Feb 2012 #1

There are a number of reasons weapons costs and the military budget have sky rocketed, Lurks Often Feb 2012 #5

Great post... JSnuffy Feb 2012 #10

Hardly a fair comparison Lurks Often Feb 2012 #2

I was not comparing the utility of these shps, just the COST of these ships. n/t unhappycamper Feb 2012 #8

The costs are not comparable. It really is apples to oranges. NutmegYankee Feb 2012 #9

Still not a fair comparison since they serve drastically different roles n/t Lurks Often Feb 2012 #14

Apples to oranges madokie Feb 2012 #3

Is that all? pintobean Feb 2012 #4

This isn't a fair comparison. NutmegYankee Feb 2012 #6

Tend to agree Red Mountain Feb 2012 #7

A better comparison would be with the Gerald R Ford class Alcibiades Feb 2012 #11

Please do some basic research before posting Lurks Often Feb 2012 #12

I know they have been used in disaster relief Alcibiades Feb 2012 #16

You are the one who stated Lurks Often Feb 2012 #20

Insert the word "defining" Alcibiades Feb 2012 #23

Let's talk about Ford-class aircraft carriers. unhappycamper Feb 2012 #13

And Gas in 1955 (when CV-59 was commissioned) was $0.23 a gallon. NutmegYankee Feb 2012 #15

Don't know enough about the poster Alcibiades Feb 2012 #18

I agree they didn't believe in standing armies NutmegYankee Feb 2012 #19

OK Alcibiades Feb 2012 #24

wikipedia says 9 billion Alcibiades Feb 2012 #17

Because while we have 11, Lurks Often Feb 2012 #21

We've managed to do just fine Alcibiades Feb 2012 #22

Then you have a different interpration then Lurks Often Feb 2012 #25