en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/966309 Comments by CubJ3 http://defensetech.org/2010/04/14/managing-the-navys-strike-fighter-gap/#IDComment68521444 False debate. Nimitzes were intended to breach USSR's sophisticated defenses and destroy naval targets. The Navy wanted high perf F/A-18s because they could fight their way in and back out again, in theory. Now, our major strategic goal (except WMD defense) must be creation of an export-based economy without which we can't prosper or afford any defense we need. Thus, access to resources and markets and alliances to assure this are our main strategic needs. The Navy must be calibrated to these tasks, which mostly does not include the need for Nimitz CAGs. Byron S is right. See also PBS docu "Carrier," which followed the Nimitz's 2005 deployment to the Gulf and back, when its air wing did not fire a shot. In most places we can get air/strike dom cheaply with COIN planes, A-10s, A7s or helicoptors operating off ships. The need for the Nimitzes is largely limited to the border between the West and Russia, the Chinese littoral including Taiwan and the South China Sea, and perhaps Iran. This being the case, it is a reasonable estimate that we do not need to fill the so called "fighter gap" and can wait for the F-35Cs. Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:04:47 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2010/04/14/managing-the-navys-strike-fighter-gap/#IDComment68521444