"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
news

"Giz" wrote in message
...

What conflict have gotten into recently that didn't have a build up
period?


None. What conflict have we gotten into recently that didn't have bases
available for land-based aircraft?

So we agree. The CVBG's transit isn't a factor.



Planes that aren't allowed by the host nation to takeoff armed are
pretty
useless.


Reconnaissance, cargo, electronic, tankers, etc., are useless?

Nice try. The thread has been about exerting force. While very valuable
(I'm crew on one), those assets cannot, by themselves, exert force while
unarmed. The fact is, CV aviation requires no diplomatic efforts to launch
armed. That will always be an advantage over Land-based air. If you
can't see that yet the only question left is: Exactly how short was that
bus?

Aren't armed planes that can't reach the target from their departure
point,
such as a carrier, pretty useless

Name a target that has been out of reach of CV aviation. There are
"potential"
targets that "may" be out of the CV's range of influence, but this thread is
about
the utility of CV aviation. Not it's suitibility against some fictional
target chosen
by you.



I haven't seen a ordnance tanker yet.


Nor have I. Having a large weapons payload would then seem to be another
advantage of land-based aviation over carrier aviation. Would it not?

CV aviation by itself? Hopefully not. The only Tacair that we can count on
in
all cases? Probably. Large weapons payload? Have you seen an F-16 lately?
Former SAC platforms have large payloads have the large payloads that you
speak
of, but aren't the answer to all missions. Ask that USMC 2Lt if he would
like some
B-52 CAS. If nothing else were available he might take it, but he rather
have a
platform that is better suited. Often the USAF will be able to provide
this, but
the USN has always been able to provide it.





Can you see this point yet?


No, but I'm confident I will just as soon as someone actually makes that
point.

I'm confident that not even Airman would make that statement. You do
realize
that the Air force even quit trying to fight this fight decades ago?



Do you
think we would launch armed without permission?


Nope.

Me either.



History is against you on this one.


How so?

You have that much faith in our diplomatic community? I think
that bus must have been shorter than you're letting on.



We do seek such permission, and it is sometimes not given.
Turkey, Saudi Arabia, ect.


As I recall that didn't prevent the use of land-based aircraft from other
bases.

Yup, and for the Northern Iraq targets, those bases were either farther from
the target than the CV's, or over SAM threat for the entire transit to the
target.
Tell me again how is that good?



Partially, much lengthier would be more accurate, and does seem that it
was a political move to involve the USAF/UK. The carriers could have
launched more strikes to cover any targets not taken in the initial.
Just
my 2 cents here.


Right. The carriers on the scene were not able to hit all the targets in
one strike and nultiple strikes were deemed too risky. Politics had
nothing
to do with it.

Assumption, Ronnie didn't confer with me prior to ordering the strike, but
I doubt he spoke with you either. I at least identified my opinion as such.

Giz