... why the push toward either big carriers or amphibious assault vessels, instead of SCS? The big carriers can slot into a rotation shared with US carriers, and the amphibious assault vessel can be added to a group of amphibious assault vessels for the NATO ally's "contribution" to the landing force.

Looking ahead to the day when the US inevitably does not have the seapower to control sea lanes plus fight all the wars our militarists will wish to fight with our big carriers ... that's outside the frame, but when it comes, Europe can rest assured that the prioritizing will be in terms of the sealanes that are seen as strategic for the US.


I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.