"hk" wrote in message
. ..
In addition to the threats to large warships presented by anti-ship cruise
missiles, there's another threat - a land-launched ballistic missile that
converts to a cruise missile but delivers a much bigger wallop.

A hit from a "smart" ballistic missile would destroy an aircraft carrier.

Which sort of makes these "capital" ships...obsolete.


No it doesn't. It simply presents a requirement to develop more advanced
defensive systems. Technology and jobs man, technology and jobs.

A modern aircraft carrier is an amazingly efficient resource to have. A
portable military base.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
In addition to the threats to large warships presented by anti-ship cruise
missiles, there's another threat - a land-launched ballistic missile that
converts to a cruise missile but delivers a much bigger wallop.

A hit from a "smart" ballistic missile would destroy an aircraft carrier.

Which sort of makes these "capital" ships...obsolete.


No it doesn't. It simply presents a requirement to develop more advanced
defensive systems. Technology and jobs man, technology and jobs.

A modern aircraft carrier is an amazingly efficient resource to have. A
portable military base.

Eisboch



Until it is blown out of the water.



--
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."
John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that
the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain
senior moment?

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
In addition to the threats to large warships presented by anti-ship
cruise missiles, there's another threat - a land-launched ballistic
missile that converts to a cruise missile but delivers a much bigger
wallop.

A hit from a "smart" ballistic missile would destroy an aircraft
carrier.

Which sort of makes these "capital" ships...obsolete.


No it doesn't. It simply presents a requirement to develop more
advanced defensive systems. Technology and jobs man, technology and
jobs.

A modern aircraft carrier is an amazingly efficient resource to have. A
portable military base.

Eisboch

Until it is blown out of the water.


--
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."
John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that
the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain senior
moment?

Or an ICBM hits DC.

D.Duck wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
In addition to the threats to large warships presented by anti-ship
cruise missiles, there's another threat - a land-launched ballistic
missile that converts to a cruise missile but delivers a much bigger
wallop.

A hit from a "smart" ballistic missile would destroy an aircraft
carrier.

Which sort of makes these "capital" ships...obsolete.

No it doesn't. It simply presents a requirement to develop more
advanced defensive systems. Technology and jobs man, technology and
jobs.

A modern aircraft carrier is an amazingly efficient resource to have. A
portable military base.

Eisboch
Until it is blown out of the water.


--
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."
John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that
the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain senior
moment?

Or an ICBM hits DC.




Yes, well, I'm not sure how that relates to the efficacy of aircraft
carriers.



--
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."
John McSame, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that
the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McSame
senior moment?

"hk" wrote in message
. ..

D.Duck wrote:

Or an ICBM hits DC.



Yes, well, I'm not sure how that relates to the efficacy of aircraft
carriers.



Because we can bring the conflict to them, rather than hoping (there's that
"Hope" word again) they don't hit us first.

9/11 should have taught us a lesson.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..

D.Duck wrote:
Or an ICBM hits DC.


Yes, well, I'm not sure how that relates to the efficacy of aircraft
carriers.



Because we can bring the conflict to them, rather than hoping (there's that
"Hope" word again) they don't hit us first.

9/11 should have taught us a lesson.

Eisboch




If that concept were ever true...

There's little to nothing an aircraft carrier can do to stop ICBMs
launched from an inland site thousands of miles away. Most of the
Russian ICBM sites are not reachable by carrier-based planes.

Besides, I was discussing the vulnerability of carriers. They are
sitting ducks for ballistic missiles.



--
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."
John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that
the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain
senior moment?

"hk" wrote in message
. ..


If that concept were ever true...

There's little to nothing an aircraft carrier can do to stop ICBMs
launched from an inland site thousands of miles away. Most of the Russian
ICBM sites are not reachable by carrier-based planes.

Besides, I was discussing the vulnerability of carriers. They are sitting
ducks for ballistic missiles.





Not to argue, but far less so than you may think. Carriers don't operate
alone and they are defended with some of the most advanced systems ever
deployed. That's not to say they are invulnerable, but it takes a lucky
shot. Furthermore, it can take quite a hit and survive.

Eisboch

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:53:05 -0400, hk wrote:

I was discussing the vulnerability of carriers. They are
sitting ducks for ballistic missiles.

Not really. A ballistic missile, by definition, can do little or
nothing to alter course after the launch phase. That's why they are
called "ballistic".

An aircraft carrier on the other hand is constantly on the move.
Where it is at launch time is not where it is going to be 15 or 20
minutes later when the missile arrives.