View Single Post
  #5  
Old December 11th 04, 05:54 PM
Merlin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Brooks is probably correct = I know nothing about military things.

So my comment that it will only be in conflict whether or not the Super
Carrier is proven becoming obsolete has no validity.
Further lack of validity is the comment that in the next major
war(heaven forbid) the submarine will reign supreme and advanced
torpedo technology will cause the super carrier endless problems. If
the steering system and screws are disabled by an advanced torpedo that
would be a pretty cost effective round ?

It is likely that the lateness and the cost overruns of the F-35 will
give Defence Ministers headaches. There will likely be a gap between
the old systems ending and the new(F-35) beginning).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...craft/f-35.htm

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...?oneclick=true

http://www.strategypage.com/messageb...s/512-4094.asp

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/de...286f e08f6ee0

http://www.vectorsite.net/avf35.html

http://www.afa.org/magazine/april2003/0403F35.html
wrote:
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 13:14:21 -0800, hoarse with no name


wrote:

In article .com,
"Merlin" wrote:

Big Carriers are very vulnerable to the 'Super-Torpedoes' that are
being developed.


Why would a super-torp be more effective against carriers than

against
other surface vessels? It wouldn't. Yet long carriers are more

effective
in the sub-killing role than harrier carriers. Long carriers are

most
likely the most effective surface vessel in sub-killing because the
planes it launches cover so much area so quickly.


This would be true if large deck carriers had fixed wing ASW assets.
But they don't (or soon won't).

The first time a Big Grey Boat gets "tagged" by a sub there will some
very interesting discussions in the Halls of Power.

Bill Kambic

Veteran: VS-27, VS-30, VS-73/VP-93