patrick.net

So he simultaneously doesn't want British carrier deployed to Asia AND wants Japan spending more on defense?

And wasn't the whole "restraint above all" Obama's thing? As well as the whole "pivot to Asia" thing.

RWSGFY says

So he simultaneously doesn't want British carrier deployed to Asia AND wants Japan spending more on defense?

And wasn't the whole "restraint above all" Obama's thing? As well as the whole "pivot to Asia" thing.

The British carrier is an albatross on the US Navy.

Fucking Brits built a carrier. A real one, not the bullshitty floating ski ramps just about everyone else has. But they decommissioned most of their cruisers and destroyers. So they asked it to be deployed with one of our carrier task forces.

In other words, in order to deploy it WE HAVE TO protect it with our destroyers, etc. And it barely has any F-35Bs to launch because the Brits cheaped out on that, too. And it has all kinds of other problems that make and it's sister ship a fucking lemon.

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/02/the-queen-elizabeth-class-aircraft-carrier-nightmare-just-wont-end/

Is Obama fucking POTUS right now? No?
.

MolotovCocktail says

Is Obama fucking POTUS right now? No?

But his foreign policy somehow lives on with that Colby guy, it seems.

MolotovCocktail says

So they asked it to be deployed with one of our carrier task forces.

In other words, in order to deploy it WE HAVE TO protect it with our destroyers, etc.

I'm not a navy guy and haven't stayed in Motel6 for years, but doesn't carrier group get protected as a whole? Destroyers are basically floating IAD, so what difference one more hull in the group makes when the objective is to create air defense bubble around the whole flotilla?

Eric Holder says

I'm not a navy guy and haven't stayed in Motel6 for years, but doesn't carrier group get protected as a whole? Destroyers are basically floating IAD, so what difference one more hull in the group makes when the objective is to create air defense bubble around the whole flotilla?

Because in carrier groups the objective is to protect the carriers, period. And you didn't read that article, did you?

MolotovCocktail says

Eric Holder says

I'm not a navy guy and haven't stayed in Motel6 for years, but doesn't carrier group get protected as a whole? Destroyers are basically floating IAD, so what difference one more hull in the group makes when the objective is to create air defense bubble around the whole flotilla?

Because in carrier groups the objective is to protect the carriers, period. And you didn't read that article, did you?

I did. They don't make a very good case wrt one carrier added to the group making it somehow extra-hard to protect the whole thing. They say the carrier itself doesn't have good AD, but we're talking about destroyers protecting the whole group. Is it implied that one more hull in the water makes the "bubble" so much bigger as to be unmanageable?

Eric Holder says

did. They don't make a very good case wrt one carrier added to the group making it somehow extra-hard to protect the whole thing. They say the carrier itself doesn't have good AD, but we're talking about destroyers protecting the whole group. Is it implied that one more hull in the water makes the "bubble" so much bigger as to be unmanageable?

Because they have to protect two carriers at once and the Brits aren't contributing to any of that.

There is no 'bubble'. It's not a shield like in science fiction.

MolotovCocktail says

Eric Holder says

did. They don't make a very good case wrt one carrier added to the group making it somehow extra-hard to protect the whole thing. They say the carrier itself doesn't have good AD, but we're talking about destroyers protecting the whole group. Is it implied that one more hull in the water makes the "bubble" so much bigger as to be unmanageable?

Because they have to protect two carriers at once and the Brits aren't contributing to any of that.

There is no 'bubble'. It's not a shield like in science fiction.

Eh? Air defence system the US destroyers have (Aegis) works at distances (100-1500 miles) which are much bigger than the size of the carrier group (10 miles in peacetime, under 5 in combat). Effectively they are protecting a dot, so one more ship to protect doesn't change anything. They either get saturated or not and it all depends on how many incoming missiles the destroyers can shoot down, not how many carriers - 1 or 2 - they have to protect.

RWSGFY says

one more ship to protect doesn't change anything...not how many carriers - 1 or 2 - they have to protect.

That's where you are full it. It matters.