The Nimitz-class aircraft carriers USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74), and USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) (rear) conduct dual aircraft carrier strike group operations in the U.S. 7th Fleet area of operations in support of security and stability in the Indo-Asia-Pacific in Philippine Sea on June 18, 2016. Courtesy Jake Greenberg/U.S. Navy/Handout via REUTERS
Alex Lockie, Business Insider: US Navy: We need more aircraft carriers, combat ships to meet rising global threats
The US Navy's new Force Structure Assessment states that the "potential adversaries" have developed advanced capabilities that could "undermine" or "erode" the US military's edge in conventional warfare at sea.
The Navy's answer to the rising challenge is more ships. To be precise, 83 more of them.
The Navy requested the biggest increases in large surface combat ships, attack submarines, amphibious warfare ships, and an additional Ford-class aircraft carrier.
Read more ....
Update: The U.S. Navy Could Get More Aircraft Carriers (David Axe, War Is Boring)
WNU Editor: I would not be surprised if in the coming year (or two) another U.S. aircraft carrier strike force gets mandated.
2 comments:
Given the primary threats against America of an all out Russian nuclear attack, a WMD attack by Isamic terrorists, or an invasion of the US mainland by Russia, China, both of them, and/or some combination of them and their allies of which the US military is likely inadequate to deal with any of this right now, investing in more aircraft carriers seems a bad use of limited resources. Furthermore it seems rather silly to worry about the "world" at this point.
Us carriers are on the way to be indefensible. Smaller ships are the future. More and diverse targets and missle/laser/kinetic weapons platforms are the order of the future. Don't waste more money on large stationary targets. So, 20th Century!
Post a Comment