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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hoa Hao who wrote (464317)	1/10/2012 11:14:25 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793958

That's a 1999 article; I would think that satellite surveillance might make it very difficult to hide a carrier task force nowadays. The problem will be to keep the carriers from being threatened by non-nuclear ballistic missiles during their terminal phase. They come in at Mach 4 or 5 and that is very hard to defend against. These weapons are becoming increasingly effective. I am sure counter measures are being prepared but I haven't seen any that are advertised as 100% effective (and that level of effectiveness is what you need if you are going to protect a multi-billion dollar carrier). The only effective defense is to stay away from the missiles' range which makes the use of aircraft very difficult. What good is a carrier whose aircraft are out of range? A fleet of subs with cruise missiles is in my opinion much more effective than an exposed and horribly expensive carrier. But given the choice of spending a ton of money and being effective, the old guard will choose the bigger more expensive weapon systems, ones that keep shipyards busy and politicians happy.