Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
... docks, you couldn't argue that the Navy could engage in humanitarian relief without landing platform docks.

As with JakeS point in the parent diary:

Escort carriers can still do a lot of mischief, and frankly I don't see a role for them in defending our own territorial waters. I can't see a reason that we shouldn't be able to protect our territorial waters with land-based aircraft and light ASW squadrons.

Its not that light carriers cannot do a lot of mischief, but that the difference between wanting light and heavy carriers is precisely being dissatisfied with how much mischief can be accomplished with light carriers.

Similarly, its not the landing platform docks ... especially if supported by light carriers or helicopter carriers ... cannot get into mischief, but it looked to me like the chief reason for wanting an amphibious assault vessel instead is in order to be prepared to cause mischief.

But I'd been thinking of escort duties more in blue water terms ... the Horn of Africa, the Straits of Malacca ... I hadn't thought about the appeal of being able to be a fast missile boat carrier, in place of the landing craft they are designed for.

Nobody's talked me down yet on why y'all need heavy carriers (or why we need so many, but I take the insanity of the Pentagon-driven US foreign policy as a given).


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

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Wed Oct 15th, 2008 at 03:22:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Occasional Series