Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bentway who wrote (361258)	12/3/2007 6:34:48 PM
From: combjelly	Respond to of 1574489

"a big, expensive target you spend more energy protecting than using." At some point, there are going to be some unhappy admirals.

To: bentway who wrote (361258)	12/13/2007 4:17:24 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574489

Modern anti ship missilery has advanced quite a bit since the Argentines sank a British destroyer with the Exocet in the Falklands war. True but a US carrier task force, even then, and even more so now, would have much better defenses than that British destroyer. Which is not to say that the Iranians might not be able to damage or even sink a US Navy vessel, but any Iranian ships, fixed missile launcher sites, many of their boats, and quite a few of the mobile launching sites would be quickly destroyed in any attack against US naval forces. The more advanced missiles and some other weapons they have acquired and are acquiring change the equation from one where a naval confrontation would be of almost no risk or cost to us, to one where we have risks and may pay a cost, but they don't change the fact that it would be an overwhelming mismatch in our favor. Carriers don't have to get within 300km of the launchers, its smaller ships that are more at risk (not just because their closer but also because its easier to sink a smaller ship, and because they won't have the same level of escort and protection that a carrier has. Submarines would be the main risk to carriers (yes subs can carry missiles as well, but they are still a risk even with torpedoes, esp. since a spread of torpedoes is more likely to sink a carrier than a missile hit or two) Mines might be a bigger risk to smaller ships than these missiles. The sub threat might keep our carriers further away. Further away means deeper water. Deeper water actually helps the few semi-decent subs that Iran has (3 Kilo class subs), but it means they have to move further out to get to the carriers, and they would be tracked, and followed by American hunter killers, and anti-sub aircraft. See informationdissemination.blogspot.com and for general reference en.wikipedia.org