All Hokie, All the Time. Period. Presented by

The Lounge Board

Vienna_Hokie

Joined: 09/16/2002 Posts: 12425
Likes: 5471

What's this?

Agree with all that...it's the over-focus and budget driven decisions


It becomes a numbers game. Need to support X number of aircraft in 2 theaters simultaneously. Can be done with 10 med carriers or 4 super carriers. 10 cost a lot more to build and maintain than 4 so that is where we are focused it seems. Problem is if you lose 1 you lose 25% (and 50% of a given theater's capability) vs 10%/20%.

The argument is that our enemy doesn't have the capability to threaten our carriers from their tents in the desert, but the Chinese sure do and we need to be planning for them as the future threat and it takes a decade or more to change direction on something like that.

(In response to this post by EDGEMAN)

Posted: 10/23/2017 at 09:32AM


+0

Insert a Link

Enter the title of the link here:


Enter the full web address of the link here -- include the "http://" part:


75
Hide This

Current Thread:
 
  Ww2 peeps: why was the potential of the cv ignored in favor of battleships? -- HokieDan95 10/22/2017 10:08PM
  That, and the London Naval Treaty. -- Chris Coleman  10/23/2017 12:41PM
  My dad,a sub engineer, said to put $ in subs vs carriers.... -- TD-Tech 10/23/2017 11:54AM
  Thought the Japanese I400 was an interesting idea -- HokieDan95 10/23/2017 1:54PM
  We had three fleet carriers in the Pacific when the war started. -- hokieman842 10/23/2017 09:39AM
  Battleships were old hat by the time of WW1 -- I85Hokie 10/23/2017 07:37AM
  People are resistant to change -- Vienna_Hokie 10/22/2017 10:28PM
  The US already had battleships. It wasn't like you could build a bunch of -- Hokie`79 10/22/2017 10:25PM

Tech Sideline is Presented By:

Our Sponsors







vm307