"s.p.i." wrote in message

snipped for brevity

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...

Your choice of language tells me something about your approach. Could your
prejudices be influencing your judgement? (By the way, I have them too, but
try to keep them in perspective.)

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.

So does going too far outside the box. I note that you ignore the near
disaster brought on by too futurist a program in the late '40s.

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.

Well, sure. So we deploy another AOE and the crew lives without fresh eggs
and salad for while. Agian, though, you ignore that which does not support
your thesis. The FACT is that lots of countries who have a distaste for
U.S. policy show a distinct liking for U.S. dollars. This means that in
EVERY theater there will ALWAYS be a market where we can buy what we need.

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.

Agreed.

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.

You assume that such assets will be required.

Your thesis is, in many ways, reminiscent of those who always fight the last
war. The last two did require deep penetration strikes. Actions in Libya
did not. Actions in Liberia would not. So geography, as well as politics,
will determine requirements.

Presently some bad decisions have been made (IMO) by loading up the deck
with strike aircraft at the expense of support aircraft (based, I'm sure, on
the notion that we can always get somebody to grant us base rights). While
this has been sound so far it has clear problems.

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

What if no land based assets will be used?

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.

And a factor in the loss of 4 Japanese carriers.

Or, as put in an old safety film I once watched, "Snake says, 'Ya gotta
expect losses.'"

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

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.

You know, that's just about what they said in 1948.

Bill Kambic

If, by any act, error, or omission, I have, intentionally or
unintentionally, displayed any breedist, disciplinist, sexist, racist,
culturalist, nationalist, regionalist, localist, ageist, lookist, ableist,
sizeist, speciesist, intellectualist, socioeconomicist, ethnocentrist,
phallocentrist, heteropatriarchalist, or other violation of the rules of
political correctness, known or unknown, I am not sorry and I encourage you
to get over it.