Its thousands of miles away from most targets though. Getting aircraft on station would take hours, nevermind that time on target would be abysmal.

And most of those ships don’t offer the firepower of a carrier.

Only if our attack subs don’t take theirs out first. You do realize that the exercises Terrell is referring to were designed to give the quiet subs an edge, so as to develop tactics against them right?

The purpose of the exercises with the Saphir and the AIP subs was to develop tactics to counter super silent subs.

They aren’t any more vunerable than any other ship in the fleet however. And most of what Terrell is talking about requires a sneak attack to pull off, and the diesel AIP sub attack that he talks about was specifically an exercise designed to develop tactics to counter the threat of super silent subs.

You do realize how big the world is, right? Guam is pretty far away from a lot of places, plus not every US base has the capability of launch sustained flight operations.

But we can’t get bombers from Kansas there faster than a plane launched from a carrier deck that is already thousands of miles closer.

Those missiles have to be in range first. And they are installed in large ground installations, with large footprints. Which can themselves be taken out with missiles or bombed with a B2.

Except we do. The diesel AIP sub that the article mentions? That exercise was specifically ran to develop tactics to work against super-silent subs.

They did so in Iraq too.

You mean they didn’t launch any planes?

Except every one of those anti ship missiles has a limited range, and is a land based system that requires a large installation to support. Which is something one of our own cruise missiles or a B-2 bomber can take care of. After which, CAS provided from a carrier deck will be very valuable.

So Aircraft carriers did not participate in Iraq, they don’t provide power projection, they don’t do humanitarian work, etc?

That “World Police nonsense” that you are talking about is part of what NATO is. So NATO isn’t important?

No, they aren’t. But you guys hae the idea that somehow Carriers are somehow super vunerable when every ship in the Navy has the same vunerabilities as the Carrier does. We have strategy to work around land based missiles, not to mention that we have missiles of our own. The point is that once a carrier gets closet to…

My problem with your thinking is that a carrier is not especially more susceptible to any of the potential threats you listed then, say, a Cruiser is. Or a Helicopter Landing Dock.

Jesus Albert. A snow blower is $400 at Home Depot. Invest in one already.

What made them mediocre? Their top selling albums, collaborations with top level artists, or general dominance of the top 100?

Gossip was this bad and Trump is president. Something HORRIBLY WRONG is about to happen isn’t it? Like this is calm before the storm type stuff.