From: Jim Calpin <calpinj@mitre.org>
Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
Subject: Re: "Where the Aircraft Carriers Are !"
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2000 10:27:21 -0400

If you look at things from an asymmetric warfare standpoint, the fact
that 6 carriers are in Norfolk or its immediate vicinity might give you
cause to think about sinking a merchie in the channel between Ft. Monroe
and Willougby Spit.  Nothing like bottling up half of the US carrier
force!

-Jim C.

p.s.. And yes, I realize it is only effectively 4 carriers, since Nimitz
and TR are in maintenance...

RudyFr wrote:

> Today's new issue of CARRIER CAPSULES, No. 154, has the quarterly rundown of
> where the 12 U.S. active carriers are.
>
> http://www.carriersg.org   (from home page click on 'LATEST ISSUE' blue button)
> Rudy Friederich
>
> Aircraft Carrier Study Group -  "Where the Aircraft Carriers Are ! "
> http://www.carriersg.org

From: Jim Calpin <calpinj@mitre.org>
Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
Subject: Re: "Where the Aircraft Carriers Are !"
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:53:43 -0400

Steven James Forsberg wrote:

>         The USN undoubtedly has many plans to deal with such a
> contingency. The "block the channel" ploy has been a favorite with
> military fiction writers for a long time. I seem to recall a JO complaining
> in 'Proceedings' years back that a Cuban merchantman could mine the port
> and it would take weeks to get the carriers out since there were "no plans
> on how to deal with it". The general response of the chain-of-command, just
> because we haven't told YOU doesn't mean we don't have plans...

I have developed a somewhat more jaded view of such pronouncements,
particularly when dealing with obviously difficult issues.  There are no
simple answers; that someone says "We have a plan!" lends me little
comfort.  Cut it up and haul it out is the only option, and if you are
the "scuttlerer" you can make life very difficult by having a cargo of
gasoline/high explosive/various other nasties.  The fact that you are
now sitting on top of the I-64 tunnel also would constrain you
significantly.  I have the feeling the "plan" is something on the order
of "get rid of it as expeditiously as possible".

>         I would hate to bet my life that it would take weeks for the USN
> to clear a path out of there.

I don't think you have to bet anyone's life - scuttle the ship, and
you've bought somebody week(s) free of carrier aviation for a relatively
cheap cost.  The point here is that "anti-access" warfare doesn't
require a big investment to neutralize a significant US investment in
symmetric warfare capability.

From: Jim Calpin <calpinj@mitre.org>
Newsgroups: sci.military.naval
Subject: Re: "Where the Aircraft Carriers Are !"
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000 08:42:20 -0400

No, but regardless of whether you are at Newport News, Norfolk, PNSY, or
anywhere else in Tidewater, you still have to exit the same channel.

-Jim C.

Andrew Toppan wrote:

> Jim Calpin <calpinj@mitre.org> wrote:
>
> >p.s.. And yes, I realize it is only effectively 4 carriers, since Nimitz
> >and TR are in maintenance...
>
> And NIMITZ isn't at Norfolk - unless they moved NNSB to Norfolk recently.
>
> --
> Andrew Toppan   ---   actoppan@gwi.net   ---   "I speak only for myself"
> US Naval & Shipbuilding Museum/USS Salem Online - http://www.uss-salem.org/
> Naval History, World Navies Today, Photo Features, Military FAQs, and more