Solution to the Carrier - Page 4 - Historum

**Zeno** · March 28th, 2011, 07:12 AM

I think in any case to take out a carrier, best thing a nation would do is doing it by proxy. If they don't know who is the enemy, will the great powers nuke a random country?

**Charlie Bravo** · March 28th, 2011, 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeno

I think in any case to take out a carrier, best thing a nation would do is doing it by proxy. If they don't know who is the enemy, will the great powers nuke a random country?

I'd say it'd be pretty difficult to hide the origin of such an attack.

**Zeno** · March 28th, 2011, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie Bravo

I'd say it'd be pretty difficult to hide the origin of such an attack.

Best thing to do would be doing it from inside the US itself.

**Charlie Bravo** · March 28th, 2011, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeno

Best thing to do would be doing it from inside the US itself.

I can't quite visualize how that would go down.

**Zeno** · March 28th, 2011, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie Bravo

I can't quite visualize how that would go down.

And that's why you should stick to acting, instead of joining the military, Charlie!

**Charlie Bravo** · March 28th, 2011, 07:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeno

And that's why you should stick to acting, instead of joining the military, Charlie!

Study of the military and warfare in general only improves my acting. In fact, studying anything improves it, which is why I constantly cram my brain with new info.

(Besides, I'm too old to join the military.)

**Lord_of_Gauda** · March 28th, 2011, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arras

And what will prevent Indian (or other) command to assign another 40 fighters as escort to those 40 Suchois?

80 fighters to go take out a carrier is assigning atleast 25% of your operational air power to a single target. Unless you do this at the very opening stages of war, it is unfeasable because there are 150 fighters onboard the carrier itself, who can tie up your air power. Not to mention, assigning 80 fighters against a carrier group is a total 'all or nothing' move- if it fails, you've probably lost the war right there. and if you succeed, you've just managed to escalate it to nuclear war or if its America, hardly made a dent (they have a dozen carriers active!!).

**Zeno** · March 28th, 2011, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie Bravo

Study of the military and warfare in general only improves my acting. In fact, studying anything improves it, which is why I constantly cram my brain with new info.

(Besides, I'm too old to join the military.)

I didn't want to belittle acting, for the record. I wish there were more actors, less soldiers.

Admitted: i can't visualize it either, but it is not impossible, and it would solve the retalliation with nukes-problem... Worth a try, no?

**Charlie Bravo** · March 28th, 2011, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeno

I didn't want to belittle acting, for the record. I wish there were more actors, less soldiers.

Admitted: i can't visualize it either, but it is not impossible, and it would solve the retalliation with nukes-problem... Worth a try, no?

Maybe if you could do it a dozen times with 100% success, lol. Otherwise it just strikes me as kicking the hornet's nest.

Fire_Raven · March 28th, 2011, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arras

It is bit expensive for support and rescue craft

True but I was responding to the idea that carriers were useless outside of warfare yet they have been vital in many different roles in US history since WW2. Humanitarian missions, recovery of space capsules, expanding search and rescue efforts by allowing aircraft to cover areas limited to ground based aircraft etc.

In the Indian Ocean tsunami many areas were inaccessible due to debris and roads wiped out. Carriers not only provided their own helicopters but much like in Japan they expanded the range of local military helicopters by giving them closer areas to refuel and resupply.