Its what you would excpect the rah rah rah, bombs away type rhetoric. But some interesting comments can be found around the web. You can find them yourself. ;)
Its what you would excpect the rah rah rah, bombs away type rhetoric. But some interesting comments can be found around the web. You can find them yourself. ;)
I've been saying this since the start. These ships have to make port to resupply, there is no aerial or naval resupply method during operation.
The limits of the US navy are its ammunition capacity. If you exhaust the on-board stocks, you have effectively defeated it.
The naval equivalent of carrying a .44 and no extra rounds
It's effectively like deploying a squad. In most troop to troop combat if you can pin down the enemy and exhaust their supplies you can defeat the opponent by way of making them use up all their ammunition, effectively rendering them unable to fight back. At that point they effectively have to either retreat or surrender. The difference with a front line though is that you can have supply lines keeping them operating.
The same applies to these ships, except there's no resupplying them while in operation, so you don't have a frontline+supply lines scenario, you just have to exhaust them to cause their withdrawal.
I'm not sure where they would resupply... Maybe Cyprus or Malta is a viable place? Malta has a US base while Cyprus has a UK base. I think it's reasonably likely they would use C130s to transport missiles to one of these bases for resupply.
That C130 pilot has the opportunity to do something really funny and also morally upright
Don't they have a base at Djibouti?
Yes but there's no way they are making these ships stationary targets so close to Yemen.
It seems like "A ship's a fool to fight a fort" still rings true if we understand "fort" to be various missile installations on land.