Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="sarika406" data-source="post: 29273567" data-attributes="member: 106621">Who told you that, I was referring to how supercarriers are categorised, it's about role, not propulsion or tonnage; supercarriers are not outdated but it's about who presents a more bigger and appealing target to the enemy. By design, CVs and CVNs cannot defend themselves; they have to rely on escorts to provide protection for them. if a country lost one CVN, it would be the end of more than 5,000 lives, how it affects the morale of forces (enemy and friendly) and support to the war effort at home.Warfare evolves, and standards change now a ship to be considered as a supercarrier it should be nuclear powered. Displacement or length does not do anything the designed role does.By design, CVs and CVNs cannot defend themselves; they have to rely on escorts to provide protection for them. without properescorts China can only deploy it in its ISTAR rangeI have no beloved countries; I will tell you how countries formulate their strategies. First, we take the US, no matter how big US is it’s an Island. It depends on the maritime environment for its interactions with other countries so they need a bigger Navy (Whales).Russia is connected to almost all countries by land so it needs to have a bigger Army (Elephants), further, Russia doesn’t have free access to sea every ship coming out of Russia needs to pass the G-I-UK gap, Bosporus Strait or Bering Strait (and some part near Japan couldn't remember) they cannot send big naval fleet from these bottlenecks. Both sea powers like US and land powers like China, Russia, have different characteristics. The funniest thing is no carrier-based aircraft can reach Russian VPs, they simply have no endurance. This is how the game of Elephants and Whales is played.</blockquote>

Verification: Awruddata maasa keeyada?

Top Bottom