Egad:
Four days after the initial spark, the fire on a U.S. Navy warship was still burning as firefighting sailors Wednesday inched their way deeper into its compartments in a painstaking search to find every smoldering hot spot.
Experts say the stubborn fire on board the USS Bonhomme Richard illustrates how difficult ship blazes are to put out once they tear through a vessel.
You wonder why I'm befuddled by the notion that American carriers are survivable? I sometimes think I must be on crazy pills when I see people who think our carriers are not expensive targets.
And think about how long Bonhamme Richard will be out of action because of that fire. What have I been saying about that?
I think the notion that something that floats can't be sunk is ludicrous. Some believe that. At least the above defense doesn't go that far. But it fails anyway because even if a carrier truly is unsinkable, that's not the metric to judge carriers by.
In any likely scenario, a mission kill is 99% as good as a sinking. And given the importance of the carrier and the psychological impact of taking one out, you are absofreakinglutely darned right an enemy will make the effort.
The idea that carrier vulnerability "is not supportable with fact" is ludicrous. To repeat, too much of our defense dollars are tied up in big carriers absolutely great for power projection missions but too vulnerable for a sea control contest. The two missions are different.
UPDATE: Our British friends may want to pay close attention, too.
UPDATE: Good Lord, the ship may be "a total loss."
