[dahak]

Originally Posted by Daigo

I forgive you. You can say that about any weapon. We are discussing its utility from a combat point of view.

Actually we were discussing why people might build carriers and what capabilities they would build into them. Both currently and in the Macross universe carriers have a valid combat role.

Originally Posted by Daigo

Essentially you are trying to justify the role of the carrier by delegating it to a logistical ship. To which I say, just use a logistical ship then.

Did you read what I wrote? Logistics ships can't fight wars. they are thus frequently underprioritised by the people who vote the funds. these people then like finding other uses for the things they paid for, whose main function is existing as a credible threat in being, because they are available. No sane military organization assumes it will only fight main battle engagements.If for no other reason than they are one of the obvious sources of manpower and C3 facilities to help deal with a large or foreign non military emergency.

The military role of an Aircraft carrier requires it to be a logistics center. That is what it does, it provides logistical and C3 support to its aircraft. Those required capabilities and thier required redundancy make it useful in other roles.

In the end the military have to pursuade politicians the ship is worth the cost. Any marginal adaption to improve such abilities compared with a design that considers only main battle engagement is worth while as the more multifunction design is more likely to be constructed due to the conflicting demands of the politicial classes.

This is all basic strategic analysis. What can you get built. What can it be used for when the politicians are looking for budget cuts.

Originally Posted by Daigo

Basically I could use your same logic and apply it to a battleship.

Historically battleships were used in such roles over a period of a couple of centuries. Currently they don't have much of a valid combat role so no one builds heavy gun combatants. WW2 era ones not as good at emergency relief tasks for example due to not being mobile logistic centers the way carriers are.

You might have noticed my use of the term major combatant rather than carrier on occasions. Any culture less militarized than the Zentradi, has a preference for being able to use their most economically expensive hardware for multiple tasks.

Originally Posted by Daigo

As for attacking pirates or 3rd world countries, ethical issues aside, that's what the orbital weapons are for.

a] No major nation fails to consider ethical issues when designing weapons. A weapon you can't use due to ethical considerations is a costly use of resources. There are two answers to that problem, change your national ethics or design weapons you are willing to use. The second is usually far easier.

b] No Orbital fire support capability exists that can identify and engage Pirates as well as a carrier. None is planned to exist. I doubt any will ever exist that can arrest smugglers or provide low level support to an infantry combat action. Certainly no Orbital weapon is going to be able to evacuate nationals from a foreign country.

If pure combat efficiency were all that mattered the USA would have used nuclear weapons in every conflict it has been involved in since 1945.