Re: The case against Ski-Jumps in the Navy
- From: "dott.Piergiorgio" <dott.PiergiorgioNIHON@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2009 11:03:07 +0200
Beausaber ha scritto:
One of the tings you are ignoing is cost. Friedman points out in "US
Aircraft Carriers" that a large ship is cheaper to build and operate
("economies of scale") per aircraft than a number of smaller ships
carrying the same number of aircraft. It's one of the things that has
consistently killed small carriers in the USN every time they've been
mooted since WWII. As fo other nations that do operate small carriers,
it's out of economic neccessity not choice - just ask the RN
.... and when even USN can't afford CVN/CV ?
This seems to me more and more a possibility, aside that everyone and his dog study in their staff & wargaming the best mode of dealing with a CVN....
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: The case against Ski-Jumps in the Navy
- From: Beausaber
- Re: The case against Ski-Jumps in the Navy
- References:
- The case against Ski-Jumps in the Navy
- From: hcobb
- Re: The case against Ski-Jumps in the Navy
- From: Beausaber
- The case against Ski-Jumps in the Navy
- Prev by Date: Re: The case against Ski-Jumps in the Navy
- Next by Date: Re: Israeli submarine sails Suez canal
- Previous by thread: Re: The case against Ski-Jumps in the Navy
- Next by thread: Re: The case against Ski-Jumps in the Navy
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading