"Bill Kambic" wrote in message ...

I was not there 70 years ago, so I can only go by what I read. I don't read
it as you do.

Sometimes I feel old enough to have been but I wasn't either. I
haven't found anything online about some of the Gun Club diatribes
against the carriers, but here you can get some sense of the Gun Club
mind set from this piece about Commander[then] Momsen at:
http://www.mediacen.navy.mil/pubs/al...apr00/pg16.htm

"But everything that could possibly save a trapped submariner, new
deep-sea diving techniques, artificial lungs and a great pear-shaped
rescue chamber was a direct result of Momsen's pioneering derring-do,
his own life constantly on the line to prove them out. None, however,
had yet been used in an actual undersea catastrophe. Now they would
be, and under the worst possible circumstances - in fickle weather,
the water frigid, the men beyond the reach of any previously imagined
help.
The Navy was then run by battleship admirals.
"Who does this Momsen think he is, Jules Verne?" one of them
asked...."

But don't believe me. Check out what this USNA academic has to say on
the matter:
http://web.mit.edu/13a/100th/mit13a.pdf

I read it. Boiled down it says, "military organizations are conservative
and always tend to fight the last war." Again, no surprises here.
Or, put another way, what peering too far over the horizon is a good way to
run aground.

And staying too firmly in the box invites defeat.

And you too, Mr. Kambic, have have studiously avoided these odious
facts.

Only in your mind's eye. I don't have the expertise to comment so I did
not. That does not mean that I don't have an opinion (I do) but I choose
not to share it as it is not backed by sufficient fact.

The facts are there to be found. A lack of big wing tankers caused the
Navy to abort flights over Iraq and they considered hot pitting ashore
inbound. F-18s had to land ashore on the way back to the boat because
of inadequate carry back. Carrier air COULD NOT have operated
effectively with out land bases in theater.
Aviation Week reported it. I think thats a fairly repectable and
accurate publication.

Agreed. But if country A says no, there's always country B. Or C. The
idea that every AOE will have to stage out of CONUS is just wishful thinking
for those intent on setting up some sort of "CV airwing out of gas on a CV
filled with starving sailors" strawman.

One lucky hit...or one little lucky baggy of anthrax... and one combat
inneffective AOE. One innefective AOE and CVBG sustainabilty is out
the window in the short term at least.

I say there is NO host country. I can't prove a negative; you have to prove
a positive. Please list the host country(ies) for the CVBGs currently
deployed.

Sure, the CVBG is out there in international waters, but to get its
power ashore means that land based assets MUST be in theater. Where do
you think the E-3s E-8s, various tankers, EC/RC-135s, U-2s, UAVs, all
of which are essential elements of ANY air campaign now, are coming
from? Thumrait, AlUdeid, Prince Sultan, to name a few places that were
bustling and not just for the Air Force.

Last time I looked those were not CVBG assets. They belonged to somebody
else. They supported the airwing, but were part of it.

see above

Does not this depend on exactly what geographical area is involved? With
Afghanistan and Iraq you are looking at lots of complicated issues. With
Libya or Liberia it would seem the issues are much simpler.

True. Except that land based big wing support still needs to be within
range

Forrestal Fire
It was peacetime and there was no serious war pressure in 1969. USS
YORKTOWN had 90 days work done in 72 hours in 1942 because there was serious
war pressure.

Umm-The summer of 1967 was the height of the air war over Vietnam. The
hasty repairs to the Yorktown was a factor in her loss BTW.

The Enterprise was a better example because they learned from the FIDs
misfortune and the potential for disaster was astutely and heroically
avoided in many important ways. Even so, despite the official spin,
she still had to spend a significant amount of time at Pearl before
she was ready to go again.

See above.
Yup, see above. Still a war going on in 1969.

I admit the CV has vulnerabilites. I don't admit that they are
insurmountable.

We agree, but they will become more and more limited in their
operational usefulness. And FALCON's results will inevitably lessen
some of the need for 12 of them. I'm guessing 6 by 2020

http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/acof.pdf

I did not read this. After waiting two minutes for it to load I gave
up.
Its worth the wait. Its entitled "Future of the Aircraft Carrier" by
the Defense Science Board whose members include the likes of Stan
Arthur and Don Pilling. They may know a thing or two about carriers.
You really shoud try to open it up.

I will.
I'm getting some of my "hare brained" ideas from it.

MOAB is not in issue, here, as it is not, and for a long time won't, be a
CONUS launched weapon.

It is in issue here because of its employment in this last little
scrap. Its launch at Eglin was on TV for the specific purpose of
scaring the sh*t out of some swarthy mustachioed folks.

But to answer your question, yes, I think they[carriers] are. They are regularly seen on TV.

Whats the difference? If the perception can be spun from TV for one it
can be spun for all.

The aircraft are seen by the populace. The space based stuff still
looks like it came from Dream Works. It will be a very long time before it
is real to a bunch of third worlders.

Sure, in southern Iraq there was a free airshow for a decade plus, but
that was a special case not likely to be repeated. On your second
point, you sound a whole lot like that Admiral that was dissing Momsen

As long as the first question asked by the C-in-C" is "where is the nearest
carrier" then "marginalization" is not on the horizon. That is the question
that will be asked for at least the next few decades.

A question that will asked less and less as the evolution of war
continues. Fifty years from now Naval Aviation will not be synonymous
with carriers.