"Pechs1" wrote in message
...

ya mean third or fourth world nations who's economy is a fraction of
California's??


I mean the nations that don't have carriers yet still manage to engage in
international trade.



See confliuct, worlkd war, etc...If it weren't for the 'sea lines of
communication', the UK would be speaking German.


I'm speaking of the present.



Faster, more versatile, more effective, cheaper...


Carrier aircraft are faster than land-based aircraft? Why would operating
from a carrier deck give an aircraft a speed advantage?

How are carrier aircraft more versatile than land-based aircraft? It would
seem that freed of the constraints imposed by having to be operable from a
carrier could only result in greater versatility.

Why does operating from a carrier render an aircraft more effective than a
land-based aircraft? It would seem that the same would hold true for
effectiveness as for versatility, freed of the design constraints imposed by
having to be operable from a carrier could only result in greater
effectiveness.

Cheaper? Perhaps so, many land-based aircraft are considerably larger than
carrier aircraft so undoubtedly cost more to operate. But if you include
the costs of operating the carrier itself and the operations costs of the
various support ships one would think the advantage would swing towards
land-based aviation.



How would a TacAir wing be any more anything, please explain..Your
clue-lessness is fast approaching 'troll' status...


So why don't you clue me in, then? I'm asking a lot of questions, but not
getting many answers.