![]() Carrier proponents sometimes trash Air Force airpower. Senior officers are guarded in their remarks, but the defense press often picks up and amplifies backstage debates on issues such as the relative effectiveness of carriers and bombers, forward presence, life cycle costs, and the relative merits of new fighter aircraft. The carrier myth has flourished in budget-conscious Washington. This claim gives rise to the notion that advanced stealth aircraft might not be necessary, because the carriers manage to get by without them. In its most extreme form, the myth contains a declaration that aircraft carriers can operate effectively without access to land bases, carry out sustained strikes against targets several hundred miles inland, and generate up to four sorties per strike aircraft per day if the warship and its air wing shift into a surge mode. In official statements, the Navy claims that “the carrier battle group, operating in international waters, does not need the permission of host countries for landing or overflight rights.” They can operate independently and present “a unique range of options” to the President, the service adds. Nathman, commander of Task Force 50 aboard USS Nimitz in the Gulf, actually declared, “I attribute the cessation of Iraqi no-fly zone violations to our presence” in the area. ![]() Carrier effectiveness, though significant, has been inflated to mythic proportions.ĭramatic film footage of carrier-based aircraft being catapulted into the skies frequently dominates televised coverage of periodic US crises with Iraq, even though that image does not reflect actual composition of the joint US force in the region. The carriers have proven their value, but the claims of some carrier proponents frequently defy reality. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |