I am not so sure. One of the best arguments to be made for carrier platforms is that they are mobile,and negate the need for landbased air forces which are subject to attack and the whim of dictatorial regimes.[the attacks on the Air Forces Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and our very military presence there were cases in point]. Obviously ''special operations ''and smaller frigate-class ships may work with a Middle East,especially in the Gulf,but will have no outcome on any conflict with China,which seeks a Gorshkov [father of the post WWII Soviet Navy],solution by the injection of sheer numbers of craft into the east Asian mix. To confront this,we must have flexibility in one theater,and muscle in the other. Fleet transfer,as in WWII and the Cold War,is one answer. Look to China to conduct client-state conflicts in order to keep the US off-guard. They will begin,with Iran.
- 1
- 2
Sea Power
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
Does the Navy need to reconfigure its fleet, perhaps with smaller, less expensive subs and carriers that can stand way over the horizon and send in drone warplanes? Or picket ships for missile defense off Korea and in the Mediterranean? What is the cost and what is the benefit? What is more important to national security: expanded ground forces or a bigger, modernized Navy (or Air Force)? These are the sort of questions that never get debated in a presidential election—but should be.
From Trafalgar in 1805 to Jutland in 1916—111 years—the British Navy did not fight a single major sea battle. It was an era of immense growth and stability in global trade and a time of relative peace and prosperity for the English-speaking peoples. The United States Navy has not fought a major sea battle since it defeated the Japanese at Leyte Gulf in 1944—some 64 years ago. The wisest goal for policy makers would be to keep that streak alive.
© 2008
- 1
- 2
Discuss