Member
Banned
Member
Member
Senior Member
The Falklands War was 26 years ago: ....And it was a war against a third rate power.Originally posted by klcarroll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">An important lesson from falklands.
"Smart" weapons have gone through three generations since then.
Any lessons learned there are now, in 2008, ....ancient history!
As I said earlier:
Big carriers are the last gasp of "Gunboat Diplomacy"! .....If a really serious "Shooting War" ever breaks out, ...they will be "The First Against The Wall"!
In 2008, the seas belong to the "Swimmers", ...NOT the "Skimmers"!
klcarroll </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Saying it louder doesn't make you right.
Don't forget any future war would be with a third rate power, and most newer missiles still use radar guidance.
Argentina ma have been a third rate power but the french missiles and the US jets were very modern for the time.
These carriers are still tiny compared with other nations carriers around the world too.
Senior Member
Banned
I wasn't saying it louder: ....I highlighted it to distinguish it as a quote of a previous statement.Saying it louder doesn't make you right.
.....And you have produced no evidence that shows anything in my statement to be untrue.
Personally, I believe that producing huge, expensive targets for use in future "Gunboat Diplomacy" actions is an illogical waste.
Any vessel capable of launching a TLAM-E, or un-manned drone can provide a similar strike threat without requiring a "Carrier Task Force" that costs more than some small countries!
....And as you well know, "Swimmers" have gotten very good with TLAMs!
klcarroll
Senior Member
i just recieved news from my spy ( Secret Link To His Secret Pic)
That tell that SLOVENIA is building a naval,nuclear task force to take ZERP!
Senior Member
I wasn't saying it louder: ....I highlighted it to distinguish it as a quote of a previous statement.Originally posted by klcarroll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Saying it louder doesn't make you right.
.....And you have produced no evidence that shows anything in my statement to be untrue.
Personally, I believe that producing huge, expensive targets for use in future "Gunboat Diplomacy" actions is an illogical waste.
Any vessel capable of launching a TLAM-E, or un-manned drone can provide a similar strike threat without requiring a "Carrier Task Force" that costs more than some small countries!
....And as you well know, "Swimmers" have gotten very good with TLAMs!
klcarroll </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And your evidence is ........
But still, it doesn't matter how much you argue the piont carriers are the capital ships of any navy that has them and give the best offencive fire power of any ship. And the improvment in anti shipping missiles has also seen an improvment in counter measure such as anti missile missiles (sea sparrow i belive is the UK version) and others.
It's all very well saying there vunrable and shouldn't be made as they'll be targets, but when was the last time a carrier was sunk?
And the Argentines did make attacks on British carriers with exocet missiles over the falklands but the counter measures worked.
Although the cost is high and more than that of 'some small countries' it's stil going to be a smaller GNP that that the small countries spend on defence.
Banned
