The Nimitz-class aircraft carriers USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74) and USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) conduct dual aircraft carrier strike group operations in the U.S. 7th Fleet area of responsibility supporting security and stability in the Indo-Asia Pacific region. The operations mark the U.S. Navy’s continued presence throughout the area of responsibility. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Alonzo M. Archer/Released)
Reuters: U.S. carriers join up in East Asia for 'complex' warfare drills
TOKYO (Reuters) - Two U.S. aircraft carriers with around 150 fighter jets are conducting “complex” warfare drills in the Philippine Sea, the U.S. Navy said on Thursday, in a show of force in waters south of China and within striking distance of North Korea.
The two carriers, the Japan-based USS Ronald Reagan and the USS John C Stennis deployed from the U.S. West coast, are carrying out air, surface and anti-submarine warfare operations, the U.S. Seventh Fleet said in a news release.
The U.S. Navy has conducted such operations before, including drills by three carriers last year as tensions with North Korea escalated. The latest, which coincides with U.S. Vice President Mike Pence’s visit to the region, comes as denuclearization talks with North Korea show little sign of progress and amid a tit-for-tat trade spat with China.
Read more ....
WNU editor: I suspect North Korea and China are on the purpose for this exercise.
5 comments:
If this is the case, I'm pretty sure the Chinese qnd the North Koreans are colored unimpressed. Aircraft carriers can be useful against countries who either don't have navies or perhaps against those with fourth rate navies. Against countries like China or North Korea they aren't going to be effective and will need to be removed from the battle area or they won't survive.
The future of naval warfare is small, fast, and maneuverable ships and submarines. It's a shame our government has chosen to waste money and more importantly valuable resources on an essentially obsolete weapon system.
I understand your concern but that is only a theory. It took a war to change the Battleship mentality to an Carrier one. However, I suspect with the tech the Air arm and associated escorts these carriers have would neutralize most of your concerns. Don't forget about the Air Force strategic bombers who can bomb these sites as well. Once you take them out then the carrier is just a mobile airport.
Michael,
You are correct. It is a theory. The only way to "know" is to actually have hot war. With that said I think the theory is a sound one. Larger vehicles tend to be less maneuverable than smaller ones and they tend to be more expensive to operate. The smaller more nimble vehicles will likely be able to hit and run before the larger vehicles even know what happened. Adversaries and potential adversaries appear to have developed anti-ship weapons and smaller faster vessels specifically for this purpose.
"I suspect...." I hope that what you suspect is correct and it could be. I have some experience both direct and indirect in dealing with our government and know that these people tend to be incompetent. Additionally, US personnel have the tendency to both overestimate our abilities while underestimating those of adversaries and potential adversaries. For example, they are just now realizing that Russia and China are military peers to America. I figured this out a long time ago. I'm pleased some are FINALLY catching on. While what you suspect could well be correct and I hope it is, I simply do not have this kind of competence in our leadership and they have said or done nothing of late to lead me to gain confidence in these people.
As such, for now I stick with my original theory on aircraft carriers but again the only way to "know" for certain is an actual military conflict and I hope and pray you are correct.
B.P.
what is your direct experience dealing with the govt? in what capacity?
I actually should clarify my post. Generally the personnel within the government are generally quite knowledgeable and competent even if they are overworked. It is the management that can be a problem, however, if one is persistent one can usually find a competent mid level supervisor. As for the top levels who put many of the completely ridiculous policies and procedures in place that the rest of us must follow, complete and total incompetent boobs.
As for my experience with the government, I am a Certified Public Accountant and my goals for clients are as follows: 1.) keep you out of trouble with the government and 2.)legally minimize your tax liability at all levels. In this capacity, I have a great deal of experience in dealing with both the federal government and the state government.
In fairness to the federal government, it tends to be a bit like many large organizations except, in some cases on steroids. These organizations tend to be fat, slow, dumb, and ugly. One key in dealing with this is to be lean, fast, smart, and beautiful. One can generally work within the federal government to achieve a good outcome but it often takes time and persistence. As for the TX government, it tends to be less bureaucratic and top management tends to be more competent.
Additionally, I have a visual challenge. While I have never taken any assistance from this government with regards to this, I can attest from personal experience that the goals of "special services" are create dependents of this government that they can then control. As when dealing with IRS or other tax related issues, one can generally achieve an acceptable outcome but it takes time and persistence. Often on the first attempt things are not successful. The key is persistence and determination as well as having all documentation needed. As for those who set the policies and procedures the rest of us must follow, complete and total incompetence at the top levels of leadership and they think they are oh so smart!!
Additionally, watch and listen to the mind numbingly stupid things some of our military leaders have said of late. This leads me to strongly suspect these people are not much more competent than other government leaders. Hopefully I am wrong.
I hope this answers your question. If not or if you would like me to clarify something, please let me know.
Post a Comment