<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Symbolic Iron Yachts</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.isegoria.net/2010/06/symbolic-iron-yachts/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2010/06/symbolic-iron-yachts/</link>
	<description>From the ancient Greek for equality in freedom of speech; an eclectic mix of thoughts, large and small</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Jul 2026 17:19:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Buckethead</title>
		<link>https://www.isegoria.net/2010/06/symbolic-iron-yachts/comment-page-1/#comment-3218</link>
		<dc:creator>Buckethead</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jun 2010 21:24:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.isegoria.net/?p=6297#comment-3218</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Carriers are an odd thing.  They are a workaround to two problems &#8212; the slow speed of battleships and the limited range of aircraft.  In the 1940s, this was a dynamite solution &#8212; get fast moving dive bombers into the general vicinity of enemy capital ships.  The carriers themselves rarely saw an enemy ship.

We&#039;ve maintained that solution at great expense, but for the reasons listed in your post, their days are likely numbered.  No ship can outrun a missile or a plane, and nowadays planes and missiles have intercontinental range.  One reason that the navy is building the &lt;abbr title=&quot;Littoral Combat Ship&quot;&gt;LCS&lt;/abbr&gt; is that it is cheap enough to put in harm&#039;s way &#8212; not that they&#039;d say it like that.

The solution is diffusion &#8212; jeep carriers with a few F35&#039;s, or better whole swarms of UCAVs.  When there&#039;s no single target, asymmetric tactics will have less impact.  There will be no Goliath for their Davids to attack.  Modern communications would allow our commanders to assemble strike packages from drones and planes coming off many decks, and mid-air refueling would give them legs.  And we&#039;d still be able to push in close when we need faster reaction times or a higher tempo.

I don&#039;t think this solution is that far from what we&#039;ll end up with eventually; the question is when the Navy will admit that it&#039;s built its last fleet carrier.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Carriers are an odd thing.  They are a workaround to two problems &mdash; the slow speed of battleships and the limited range of aircraft.  In the 1940s, this was a dynamite solution &mdash; get fast moving dive bombers into the general vicinity of enemy capital ships.  The carriers themselves rarely saw an enemy ship.</p>
<p>We&#8217;ve maintained that solution at great expense, but for the reasons listed in your post, their days are likely numbered.  No ship can outrun a missile or a plane, and nowadays planes and missiles have intercontinental range.  One reason that the navy is building the <abbr title="Littoral Combat Ship">LCS</abbr> is that it is cheap enough to put in harm&#8217;s way &mdash; not that they&#8217;d say it like that.</p>
<p>The solution is diffusion &mdash; jeep carriers with a few F35&#8242;s, or better whole swarms of UCAVs.  When there&#8217;s no single target, asymmetric tactics will have less impact.  There will be no Goliath for their Davids to attack.  Modern communications would allow our commanders to assemble strike packages from drones and planes coming off many decks, and mid-air refueling would give them legs.  And we&#8217;d still be able to push in close when we need faster reaction times or a higher tempo.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think this solution is that far from what we&#8217;ll end up with eventually; the question is when the Navy will admit that it&#8217;s built its last fleet carrier.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
