March 11, 2014

More Carriers For The US Navy? Not Anytime Soon.
— DrewM

ussbush.JPG

Mackenzie Eaglen and Bryan McGrath make the case that not only shouldn't the Navy be reducing its carrier fleet but should be expanding it.

The Navy has been trying to keep three aircraft carriers forward deployed in two operational hubs with ten carriers, accomplishing this through lengthening deployments and deferring maintenance, both of which are symptoms of approaching hollowness. People and platforms wear out more quickly, and short-term gains come at the cost of long-term availability.

In spite of these measures, the nation has been caught without aircraft carrier presence in the Mediterranean several times in the past few years, raising the need to once again fill a third deployment hub there.

No American aircraft carrier was in the Mediterranean at the outbreak of the conflict inLibya.  Nor was a US carrier in the Mediterranean when our Ambassador to Libya and three others were murdered. No American aircraft carrier was in the Mediterranean when Syriastepped over President Obama’s “red line” and attacked its own citizens with chemical weapons. And while international conventions would ordinarily limit a carrier’s presence in the Black Sea, the complete absence of one in the Mediterranean surely helped further embolden Mr. Putin in Ukraine.


I spoke with McGrath about this a bit during our podcast a few weeks ago and have written in the past about why I think shrinking the carrier fleet is a bad idea. That said, we're not increasing the number of carriers we buy anytime soon. Not simply because there's no political will to spend the money (which would be an enormous amount, $12 billion or so to build, not to mention millions more to equipped, operate and crew over 50 years) but also because the lead time to build a carrier is so long.

Realistically, there's no help on the horizon in terms of numbers (assuming you can fend off the calls to cut the current force size). So what's the solution?

One question I'd ask is, why do we have to have two carriers in the Persian Gulf at all times? We had two carriers there for well over a decade to enforce the no-fly zones over Iraq. Well, the no-fly zones are gone and yet two carriers are still routinely stationed there.

Yes Iran is still there but so what? It's been clear for quite sometime that we're not going to attack Iran. We might but as supporters of the carriers rightly point out, one major benefit of a carrier is it's mobile. You can take it out of the region but put another one back in if you need to.

Maybe there's some deep reason to keep two carriers in the Gulf forever and always but before asking the nation to make the kind of investment a new carrier would represent, the military needs to make that case. This is especially true given that reducing our presence in the region was one of the supposed side benefits of the Iraq war.

One extra carrier doesn't buy you the third hub Eaglen and McGrath argue for but it's better than nothing and you can get the flexibility/operational relief in a much shorter time frame than any new build will provide.

Instead of advocating for a carrier presence in the Mediterranean that isn't going to happen, advocates of a greater US role in that region are going to have to come up with something else. At the risk of playing armchair admiral, perhaps a combination of increased surface combatants, expeditionary strike groups, and increases in land based aircraft is a more realistic set of possible alternatives. But even these options require greater expense that a majority don't seem to support.

I understand why proponents of a muscular defense posture (especially sea power) are troubled by the direction our politics have taken but it's a necessary state of affairs. The financial path we are on as a nation is unsustainable. Should defense be at the head of the line? Yes, I believe that. But the American people in their wisdom have come to a different conclusion.

What's needed now is a realistic evaluation of what we are willing to pay for and what missions and operations we are willing to forgo. We must also be clear and honest about the risks these choices will entail. Some will say this is accepting a lesser America, I prefer to think of it as a more realistic America.

In the long run I think forcing this kid of choice on the American people will be for the better. Yes there will be costs associated with it (as there are with all choices) but we have to decide what we value as a nation. "Everything" simply isn't an option any longer. The sooner we accept that, the sooner we can we can deal with things the way they are, not how we'd wish them to be.

Posted by: DrewM at 12:26 PM | Comments (306)
Post contains 826 words, total size 6 kb.

1 I'll get the others.

Posted by: rickb223 at March 11, 2014 12:27 PM (E7Zh9)

2 WTF? Disappearing pixels?

Posted by: rickb223 at March 11, 2014 12:28 PM (E7Zh9)

3 I'm concerned that if every sailor stood to one side it would flip over

Posted by: Rep. Hank Johnson at March 11, 2014 12:29 PM (KgN8K)

4 Hellooooooooo?

Posted by: rickb223 at March 11, 2014 12:29 PM (E7Zh9)

5

It's not at the head of the line.


Its the only thing in that line.

Posted by: fixerupper at March 11, 2014 12:29 PM (nELVU)

6 Cutting manpower? Spending more time in pointless classes than training? My my this is starting to sound familiar.

Posted by: Task Force Smith at March 11, 2014 12:29 PM (Aif/5)

7 Too many carriers and how am I gonna pay for all those Obamaphones?

Posted by: Barky O'Genius at March 11, 2014 12:29 PM (8ZskC)

8

Maybe there's some deep reason to keep two carriers in the Gulf forever and always but before asking the nation to make the kind of investment a new carrier would represent, the military needs to make that case.

-

I have watched the tanker superhighway that is the Straits of Hormuz,    which explains the need    for at least one of them.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 11, 2014 12:30 PM (dquK7)

9 I really hope this thread doesn't devolve into another pop-culture discussion. Lord knows we've had more than enough of THOSE lately.

Posted by: ScoggDog at March 11, 2014 12:30 PM (VY12L)

10 This third tier recipe blog just gets lamer by the day.

Posted by: Racist Opposittion Party at March 11, 2014 12:30 PM (Cs2tJ)

11 More Carriers For The US Navy? Not Anytime Soon.

------------------------------------


It's discrimination, I tells ya.

Posted by: Typhoid Mary at March 11, 2014 12:31 PM (8GKDa)

12 In the long run I think forcing this kid of choice on the American people will be for the better. ********** I'm all for The Kids of Choice!

Posted by: Dr. Obama at March 11, 2014 12:31 PM (RJMhd)

13 It'd be nice and all, but we're a bankrupt banana republic. That money needs to go into giving smalltown cops body armor and paying for teachers to fight awful words like 'bossy' in the schoolyard.

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at March 11, 2014 12:31 PM (5TFvk)

14 Bring back the Grecian trireme.

Posted by: Alcibiades at March 11, 2014 12:31 PM (8ZskC)

15 Traditional Carriers? Old and busted.

The new hotness? HELICARRIERS !!!!!!!

Posted by: Fanboys Everywhere at March 11, 2014 12:31 PM (BF+2f)

16 Why do we need to have a carrier in the Med? The Russians will have one there soon, they can take care of it.

Posted by: blaster at March 11, 2014 12:31 PM (4+AaH)

17 utting manpower? Spending more time in pointless classes than training? My my this is starting to sound familiar. Posted by: Task Force Smith at March 11, 2014 04:29 PM (Aif/5) It should. *ahem*

Posted by: Kasserine Pass [/i][/s][/u][/b] at March 11, 2014 12:32 PM (yz6yg)

18 Thanks, Dad.

Posted by: JJ Stone at March 11, 2014 12:32 PM (4oSMi)

19 The SCOAMF is a gutless pussy.

Posted by: Insomniac at March 11, 2014 12:32 PM (DrWcr)

20 Conquer some islands in the Mediterranean and build them up like Diego Garcia.

Posted by: Boss Moss at March 11, 2014 12:32 PM (bitz6)

21 I saw The Kids of Choice open for the Kids of Doom Corn at the Brown Palace.

Posted by: Dr. Obama at March 11, 2014 12:32 PM (RJMhd)

22 Actually we sold the Pacific to the Chinese for an import/export treaty and a Trillion and a half in T bills so, what do we need a Navy for?

Posted by: Daybrother at March 11, 2014 12:32 PM (5MEX3)

23 We, the people of the United States of America, need a warship that can sail right up the Potomac, in case we, the people, need to direct accurate and deadly fires on our enemy.

Posted by: Rear Admiral (Right Cheek) Horatio Fartblower at March 11, 2014 12:33 PM (1/4XQ)

24 Sicily would make a fine aircraft carrier if you removed all those dang Italics.

Posted by: Boss Moss at March 11, 2014 12:33 PM (bitz6)

25 No worries, if we ever need a carrier, Great Britain has one.  It's not like they're using it, right?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at March 11, 2014 12:34 PM (P7Wsr)

26 The President says it isn't in anyone's best interest to go to war, so why do we need a military? Didn't you hear the song? War? Hunh. Good God, now. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing.

Posted by: blaster at March 11, 2014 12:34 PM (4+AaH)

27 @23 Malta much?

Posted by: Rear Admiral (Right Cheek) Horatio Fartblower at March 11, 2014 12:34 PM (1/4XQ)

28 Perhaps Obama could persuade Aluma Craft or Lund to donate boats to the fleet.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 11, 2014 12:34 PM (HVff2)

29 Again, the Barky sucks meme works here too. The guy is a complete fuck - up no matter how you cut it.

Posted by: Killerdog at March 11, 2014 12:34 PM (oq+sa)

30 It takes years to build a new fleet aircraft carrier, equip and train the air wing and crew. In the next war, it will be "come as you are". There will not be the time to build a new fleet such as WWII. There are supposed to be three new carriers (the Gerald R. Ford already built), and the new JFK and the new Enterprise. And then that's it. Nothing more to fill the ways.

Posted by: Ribald Conservative riding Orca at March 11, 2014 12:35 PM (RFeQD)

31 >>>Conquer some islands in the Mediterranean and build them up like Diego Garcia. Like Gibraltar? Brits have that.

Posted by: Bigby's Okey Doke at March 11, 2014 12:35 PM (KgN8K)

32 Does the Texas Navy count?

Posted by: Daybrother at March 11, 2014 12:35 PM (1oD0a)

33 Plus, isn't that whole "gunboat diplomacy" thing kind of, you know, bossy?

Posted by: blaster at March 11, 2014 12:35 PM (4+AaH)

34 If the navy wants a new carrier all they have to do is propose it be named (fill in the blank)

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at March 11, 2014 12:36 PM (R8hU8)

35 The President says it isn't in anyone's best interest to go to war, so why do we need a military? Posted by: blaster at March 11, 2014 04:34 PM (4+AaH) Oh, I don't know. White boys goin' to war worked out OK for me.

Posted by: Kunta Kinte [/i][/s][/u][/b] at March 11, 2014 12:36 PM (yz6yg)

36 Bring back the Grecian trireme. Hell, bring back Grecian Formula. And get off my lawn!

Posted by: rickb223 at March 11, 2014 12:36 PM (E7Zh9)

37 >>@23 Malta much? Also Cyprus, if you could kick out the Greeks and Turks.

Posted by: Bigby's Okey Doke at March 11, 2014 12:36 PM (KgN8K)

38 Aircraft carriers only intimidate our global partners and send the wrong message.  Therefore, I envision a fleet of large RESET buttons that may be sailed to any location in the world whenever there's trouble.

Posted by: Barky O'Genius at March 11, 2014 12:36 PM (8ZskC)

39 As one of those who doesn't see paying more for carriers until we're paying less for Obamaphones (and Obamacare etc. etc.) I would also like to know what the U.S. interest in having two carriers in the Gulf is .. but I would be more interested in how hard it is to move one from the Gulf to the Med. Can our carriers fit through the Suez? I suspect that the reason for "two in the Gulf" is more accurately phrased as "always at least one in the Gulf", y'see, meaning if we move one over to the Med, we will be without cover in the Gulf. Mew Mew

Posted by: acat at March 11, 2014 12:36 PM (4UkCP)

40 We don't have to worry, we live in the 21st Century.

Posted by: King Barakan's Horse at March 11, 2014 12:36 PM (Aif/5)

41

If there are no more carriers..... there better be lots and lots and lots of drones with nasty little capability packages in the bullpen.

Posted by: fixerupper at March 11, 2014 12:37 PM (nELVU)

42 Aircraft carriers are like bayonets. So 19th Century.

Posted by: blaster at March 11, 2014 12:37 PM (4+AaH)

43

I would also like to know what the U.S. interest in having two carriers in the Gulf is .. but I would be more interested in how hard it is to move one from the Gulf to the Med. Can our carriers fit through the Suez?

-

No

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 11, 2014 12:37 PM (dquK7)

44 I think Hillary Clinton has her eye on the island of Lesbos. It's a Greek thing. Just a hunch.

Posted by: Ribald Conservative riding Orca at March 11, 2014 12:37 PM (RFeQD)

45 if we ever need a carrier, Great Britain has one

I thought they scrapped it last year.

Posted by: HR at March 11, 2014 12:37 PM (ZKzrr)

46 Does the Texas Navy count?

Um, nope.  Other than people saying "I'm in the Texas Navy", what have they done lately?

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at March 11, 2014 12:37 PM (P7Wsr)

47 I always get my kids of choice.

Posted by: Harry Reid at March 11, 2014 12:38 PM (DrWcr)

48 This is what they mean when they say there is a lot of ruin in a nation. Brittania used to rule the waves. Not so much anymore. And they are still around, and get free medical care. So no worries, right?

Posted by: blaster at March 11, 2014 12:38 PM (4+AaH)

49 Let's not forget that even President Obama appreciates carrier battle groups. He had one redeployed from the Persian Gulf onto the west side of Africa for his family's $100 million "return to roots" Africa trip a few years ago.

Perhaps the Navy just needs to advertise carriers usefulness for progressive leadership vacations?

Posted by: Multitude at March 11, 2014 12:38 PM (gJDLl)

50 No more carriers?

Fine. Commence construction of the orbital dropships.

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at March 11, 2014 12:38 PM (Y/M/K)

51 >>>there better be lots and lots and lots of drones with nasty little capability packages in the bullpen. There are! They're just deployed right now in the continental US

Posted by: Bigby's Okey Doke at March 11, 2014 12:38 PM (KgN8K)

52 OT Some rioting going on in Istanbul. A young boy who was wounded during protests last year passed away after being in a coma. The funeral is tomorrow so we'll see if it burns out.

Posted by: Adam at March 11, 2014 12:39 PM (Aif/5)

53 43 I think Hillary Clinton has her eye on the island of Lesbos. It's a Greek thing.

Just a hunch. Posted by: Ribald Conservative riding Orca at March 11, 2014 04:37 PM
-----------------------------------

You misspelled tongue.

Posted by: Saint Hillary at March 11, 2014 12:39 PM (8GKDa)

54 First, let me ask this question: What is are our national strategic goals? Yeah, we don't have those except in the mushiest of terms. Second, what are the ways that we can reach them? Third, what are the means that we choose to do so? That third one is more complex than just "more of x" because potential adversaries, technology, and the resources needed to deploy a weapons platform and the human resources to man them must be part of the calculus. Carriers make me nervous because they are such big targets. In the age of satellites, supersonic missiles, and digital communications, if you can find it, you can kill it. No matter what the "it" is. Having said that, the alternatives are more problematic. Drones are of limited use and when engaging a peer or near peer military power, they would be nigh on useless. They cannot carry a large payload, are subject to jamming, and depend on the same basing arrangements that make things so pleasant in Pakistan. As I said in the previous thread, a fully developed land-based global strike capability would work...if only it wouldn't look like a nuclear strike to potential foes. We couldn't inform the potential foe of our intention to strike, say, Iran from the U.S. because...spot the flaw. And no, I don't believe in the eternal survivability/supremacy of stealth. If we are going to go the carrier route, then the "big-ass Navy" to escort them goes along for the ride. Sorry Army and Air Force.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 11, 2014 12:39 PM (659DL)

55 I would also like to know what the U.S. interest in having two carriers in the Gulf is .. but I would be more interested in how hard it is to move one from the Gulf to the Med. Can our carriers fit through the Suez? - No Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 11, 2014 04:37 PM (dquK7) Reality begs to differ http://tinyurl.com/n5lrgww

Posted by: Kunta Kinte [/i][/s][/u][/b] at March 11, 2014 12:39 PM (yz6yg)

56 I'd suggest a couple things:

* Move one of the carriers from the Persian Gulf to the Med. Maybe remove the second one as well.

* Use the Marine small carriers as carrier-substitutes; we have spent a large bit of money developing the Marines version of the JSF, let's put that to use. It wouldn't have been good enough for everything a big carrier task force would have, but it damn sure would have been helpful in Benghazi. (For that matter, so would the Harrier. Or F-16's out of Sicily. So I think that was more of a "don't wanna" problem than "the forces weren't available" IMHO.

Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain at March 11, 2014 12:39 PM (kwc/t)

57 Yuck. Who wants another smelly old boat?

Trains are way better.

Chugga chugga, chugga chugga, woo woo! Yaaaaaaaay!

Posted by: Joey "Choo-Choo" Biden at March 11, 2014 12:39 PM (cLRhC)

58 You Americans have not yet faced the terror of our Ships of the Desert.

Posted by: Hassan Rouhani at March 11, 2014 12:39 PM (8ZskC)

59 How many are in mothballs? Reagan reactivated quite a few ships IIRC during the push for the 100 ship Navy.

Posted by: RS at March 11, 2014 12:39 PM (YAGV/)

60 Enough with trying to police the rest of the world already. We should take a hint from our founders....be on guard and promote business and sell and buy from all comers. If towelhead Babu wants to kill dothead Jabar, sell to both and wish them the best in their dispute-but keep American troops out of it. Putin wants the Crimea-good. Let's sell him gas pipeline supplies and sell the Ukrainians gas masks and ammo. Simple...it's business not personal Sonny.

Posted by: IrishEd at March 11, 2014 12:39 PM (D0NZx)

61 I thought they scrapped it last year.

They're launching a new one this year. Won't be operational for years, of course.

Posted by: Waterhouse at March 11, 2014 12:39 PM (Nksua)

62 RE: Brit carrier: I think its shared with France. So more accurately its an EU carrier

Posted by: Bigby's Okey Doke at March 11, 2014 12:40 PM (KgN8K)

63 I would also like to know what the U.S. interest in having two carriers in the Gulf is .. but I would be more interested in how hard it is to move one from the Gulf to the Med. Can our carriers fit through the Suez? - No Yes, they can. They cannot transit the Panama Canal, however.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 11, 2014 12:40 PM (659DL)

64

"You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916," Obama said in a pointed jab at Romney (the GOP nominee). "Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets because the nature of our military's changed."

Obama continued, "We had these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. So the question is not a game of battleship where we're counting ships. It's 'What are our capabilities?'"

Posted by: Everything Barry says is a Lie at March 11, 2014 12:40 PM (Ojgjr)

65 We have 5 air bases in Saudi Arabia.  Why, indeed, do we need two carriers in the Persian Gulf?  Especially with all the bases in Afghanistan currently?  (All the more reason to keep a presence there)

We have at least one air base in Turkey.  That didn't deter Putin but a carrier in the Mediterranean would?

The problem is we feel the need to be the policemen of the world.  Fuck that.  let France and Germany be the ones to police eastern Europe.  It is their oil and gas supplies that are in danger, not ours.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at March 11, 2014 12:41 PM (Z7PrM)

66 I thought they scrapped it last year.

HMS Illustrious (light aircraft carrier) is still in service.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at March 11, 2014 12:41 PM (P7Wsr)

67 Speak softly and carry a big pen.

Posted by: NCKate at March 11, 2014 12:41 PM (y7PFk)

68 64 It's 'What are our capabilities?'" Obviously golf, golf, golf, because it isn't foreign affairs.

Posted by: Misanthropic Humanitarian at March 11, 2014 12:41 PM (HVff2)

69 We can re-float the one in Corpus Christi Texas.

May the Blue Ghost arise...

Posted by: SouthTexas at March 11, 2014 12:42 PM (Oc7QX)

70 RE: Brit carrier: I think its shared with France. So more accurately its an EU carrier Posted by: Bigby's Okey Doke at March 11, 2014 04:40 PM (KgN8K) No. The Queen Elizabeth carrier is all Brit. The French then took that design and tried to build their own. They then, being French, fucked up the whole program, so it won't be built.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at March 11, 2014 12:42 PM (yz6yg)

71

Something bad will happen somewhere - something really bad - and the USA won't react because it can't react.  Some see that as a good thing, keeping the USA out of things is good for the world and/or good for the USA.

 

 

Me, I think that is a bad thing.  Other nations are a little less altruistic in their actions than the USA and that will be a problem when they start keeping the peace.*

 

 

*Keeping the peace meaning "I'm taking that piece and keeping it."

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Sick of the Snowplow Bills for the Outrage Outlet - Bring Me The Head Of Al Gore! at March 11, 2014 12:42 PM (hLRSq)

72 "I have watched the tanker superhighway that is the Straits of Hormuz, which explains the need for at least one of them."

America thanks to fracking now has the ability to be self-sufficient in fossil fuels. At least for a couple of years.

So securing the Persian Gulf oil routes is something which basically benefits China.

Posted by: torquewrench at March 11, 2014 12:42 PM (gqT4g)

73 Carriers make me nervous because they are such big targets. In the age of satellites, supersonic missiles, and digital communications, if you can find it, you can kill it. No matter what the "it" is. Having said that, the alternatives are more problematic. === True. Doctrine is that a carrier doesn't go it alone, though. Part of the complexity of the issue is that "a carrier" is really "a carrier group"

Posted by: Bigby's Okey Doke at March 11, 2014 12:42 PM (KgN8K)

74 51 OT Some rioting going on in Istanbul. A young boy who was wounded during protests last year passed away after being in a coma. The funeral is tomorrow so we'll see if it burns out. Posted by: Adam at March 11, 2014 04:39 PM
---------------------------------------------------

So they're protesting the riot that injured a child, by rioting?

Posted by: Alrighty, then. at March 11, 2014 12:42 PM (8GKDa)

75 Baraka and congress are spending trillions a year.  12 billion is a drop in the bucket in comparison.  Where are the trillions going?  I'm sure for nothing that'll benefit the USA.

Posted by: Soona at March 11, 2014 12:43 PM (Js/gY)

76 I always thought that one of the benefits of going into Iraq, would be two permanent Airforce Bases (reducing the need for constant carrier fleet in the Gulf).  One in the east to watch over Iran, and one in the west to help defend Israel....  Then the Dems prevented any permanent bases from being built...  If we had built bases away from Bagdad, our losses could have been reduced.

Posted by: phreshone at March 11, 2014 12:43 PM (Q6pxP)

77 We have all of our East Coast carriers in one port: Norfolk. That's not too smart.  Mayport could support a carrier if the channel was deepened.  But the Virginia delegation in Congress keeps sabotaging the necessary federal funding.

Posted by: Mike at March 11, 2014 12:43 PM (Rk8LS)

78 Perhaps the Navy just needs to advertise carriers usefulness for progressive leadership vacations? Posted by: Multitude at March 11, 2014 04:38 PM (gJDLl)

The DNC this year can be moved to South Africa, in honor of Mandela, and stationed on a carrier. I will personally start a crowdsourcing fund to pay for excursions of any and all democrats that want to go play with the great whites. Because environment! And for the children!

Posted by: LizLem at March 11, 2014 12:43 PM (BF+2f)

79 Pull a carrier out of the Gulf? Next you'll be advocating leaving Germany so that the Russkies can roll their tanks through or maybe you want us to pack up and leave Japan, just when they've got back on their feet. No Sir, not as long as John McCain, Lindsay Graham and I have breath in our bodies will we allow you to give back everything we've fought for. Take your Rand Paul military gutting and sell it somewhere else, Buster.

Posted by: jwest at March 11, 2014 12:43 PM (u2a4R)

80 From the 2012 Presidential Debates:

Obama's Revolution-era flashback was one of several attempts by the president to cast Romney as behind the times. Obama also pinned his GOP rival to the 1980s - "they're now calling to ask for their foreign policy back" - for his remark to CNN in March that Russia was the United States' number one geopolitical foe.


http://tinyurl.com/9xedlq2

Posted by: Everything Barry says is a Lie at March 11, 2014 12:44 PM (Ojgjr)

81

Reality begs to differ

-

I stand corrected - the Suez can accommodate a hull depth of 50 feet.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 11, 2014 12:44 PM (dquK7)

82 The Middle Class has no need of aircraft carriers. 

Posted by: Barky O'Genius at March 11, 2014 12:44 PM (8ZskC)

83 29 It takes years to build a new fleet aircraft carrier, equip and train the air wing and crew. -- 7 years is what I've read on that - anyone know if that's accurate?

Posted by: votermom at March 11, 2014 12:45 PM (GSIDW)

84 Does the Texas Navy count? Um, nope. Other than people saying "I'm in the Texas Navy", what have they done lately? Posted by: bonhomme Well there was that little WW II flatop anchored off Corpus Christi. In an emergency we could put Ospreys and F-35s on it, strap a laser and a railgun to its bow and send it over to take back South Padre from the kids.

Posted by: Daybrother at March 11, 2014 12:45 PM (xRBOA)

85 Posted by: Sean Bannion at March 11, 2014 04:42 PM (yz6yg) Thanks

Posted by: Bigby's Okey Doke at March 11, 2014 12:45 PM (KgN8K)

86 "'You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships
than we did in 1916,' Obama said in a pointed jab at Romney (the GOP nominee)."

Still fuming that the Romneybot failed to respond adequately on this, pointing out that the world of 2012 and beyond is _immensely_ different from that of 1916, and that geopolitical demands upon the United States are far greater than they were in 1916.

Instead it was bland mushy platitudes from Mitt about "I agree with the President".

Ugh.

Posted by: torquewrench at March 11, 2014 12:45 PM (gqT4g)

87 What about the Ghost Fleet in Washington State?

Posted by: Boss Moss at March 11, 2014 12:46 PM (bitz6)

88 Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at March 11, 2014 04:41 PM (Z7PrM) So much, so little time. There are no U.S. troops or aircraft in Saudi Arabia. Haven't been since 2003. Afghanistan is a logistical nightmare. Look at the map. That place is not a viable long-term base for anything. 1/3 of our GDP is trade. four or five trillion adds up to "global."

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 11, 2014 12:46 PM (659DL)

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 11, 2014 12:47 PM (659DL)

90 So they're protesting the riot that injured a child, by rioting? Logic.

Posted by: rickb223 at March 11, 2014 12:47 PM (E7Zh9)

91 >>> 69 We can re-float the one in Corpus Christi Texas. May the Blue Ghost arise... Posted by: SouthTexas -------------------- Ya beat me to it.

Posted by: Daybrother at March 11, 2014 12:47 PM (6UdtF)

92 60 Enough with trying to police the rest of the world already. -- Actually, the more America retreats from the world, the less allies & bases we will have, the more our enemies will be emboldened, and therefore we will need more aircraft carriers for self-defense. QED

Posted by: votermom at March 11, 2014 12:47 PM (GSIDW)

93 So they're protesting the riot that injured a child, by rioting?

Posted by: Alrighty, then<<

 

 

 

Fortunately, they aren't protesting  a  rape.

Posted by: Roy at March 11, 2014 12:48 PM (VndSC)

94 I can't argue with the position that we simply cannot afford as big and powerful an army as we once had, but you have to be careful about what you choose to cut and where. Fewer worldwide bases, less spending on pet projects thrown to districts just for votes and campaign funding? Yes. Less pay for soldiers and fewer ships? No.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 11, 2014 12:48 PM (zfY+H)

95 >>>Well there was that little WW II flatop anchored off Corpus Christi. ?? Is that the training one

Posted by: Bigby's Okey Doke at March 11, 2014 12:48 PM (KgN8K)

96 >>> What is are our national strategic goals? Yeah, we don't have those except in the mushiest of terms.

D'Souza covered it well in his 2014 doc: defang the US and make it so we are no longer the ultimate military superpower. And boy is Obama doing a bang-up job of it!

Posted by: LizLem at March 11, 2014 12:48 PM (BF+2f)

97 "7 years is what I've read on [building new CVN] - anyone know if that's accurate?"

We have no way to know at this point how long it'll take, because Big Navy have committed to the new _Ford_ class carriers, the first in class of which is on the builders' ways now. It's behind schedule and over budget, of course.

Really with such enormously big and costly projects, you can't get a good handle on construction costs and times until you are three or so ships into the class. Look at the _Nimitz_ class. They turned out to be good ships and reasonably cost effective, but the early Nimitzes were all over the map on cost and delivery.

Posted by: torquewrench at March 11, 2014 12:49 PM (gqT4g)

98

America thanks to fracking now has the ability to be self-sufficient in fossil fuels. At least for a couple of years.

So securing the Persian Gulf oil routes is something which basically benefits China.

 

--

 

We have actually increased petroleum       consumption   over the past 12 months, while lowering imports, while China has stagnated.

 

The real issue, however is the fungibility of oil.  What we don't import can be purchased by someone else, but the price is based on worldwide production and consumption.  We are now in a supply-constrained market, not a   demand-constrained market.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 11, 2014 12:49 PM (dquK7)

99

America thanks to fracking now has the ability to be self-sufficient in fossil fuels. At least for a couple of years.

So securing the Persian Gulf oil routes is something which basically benefits China.

 

--

 

We have actually increased petroleum       consumption   over the past 12 months, while lowering imports, while China has stagnated.

 

The real issue, however is the fungibility of oil.  What we don't import can be purchased by someone else, but the price is based on worldwide production and consumption.  We are now in a supply-constrained market, not a   demand-constrained market.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 11, 2014 12:49 PM (dquK7)

100 How about we stop building nuclear powered carriers?  That would cut the lead time and cost.

Except for the SSN tagging along with a CBG, none of the CVN's other escorts are nuclear.  So the quick response time and unlimited range without refueling sales point goes out the window.

"But!  Fuel oil bunkerage would reduce weapons load!!!" 

Well yes, but have you seen how the air group has shrunk?  The S-3s are gone from the decks.  And the F-18 is filling every other role except plane guard and AWACs.  And I would not put it past Boeing to figure out a way for an F-18 to do those missions.

The US Navy needs to man up and just kill LCS.  Not even commit to buying all 32.  Just kill it.  Do not need over 10% of the surface fleet being floating targets unable to defend themselves adequately or kill anything.  And get the FFG in production while cranking out more Burke DDGs as gap fillers.

Speaking of white elephants, the three Zumwalt DDGs.  Put them in mothballs.  When the cost is approaching $2 billion and the Navy is reduced to calling them technology demonstrators, they are no longer warships but trophies.

As for a non CVN battle group, time to dust off Iowa class again?  Pull Missouri out of its berth next to USS Arizona?

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 11, 2014 12:49 PM (m1gXb)

101 How about we stop building nuclear powered carriers?  That would cut the lead time and cost.

Except for the SSN tagging along with a CBG, none of the CVN's other escorts are nuclear.  So the quick response time and unlimited range without refueling sales point goes out the window.

"But!  Fuel oil bunkerage would reduce weapons load!!!" 

Well yes, but have you seen how the air group has shrunk?  The S-3s are gone from the decks.  And the F-18 is filling every other role except plane guard and AWACs.  And I would not put it past Boeing to figure out a way for an F-18 to do those missions.

The US Navy needs to man up and just kill LCS.  Not even commit to buying all 32.  Just kill it.  Do not need over 10% of the surface fleet being floating targets unable to defend themselves adequately or kill anything.  And get the FFG in production while cranking out more Burke DDGs as gap fillers.

Speaking of white elephants, the three Zumwalt DDGs.  Put them in mothballs.  When the cost is approaching $2 billion and the Navy is reduced to calling them technology demonstrators, they are no longer warships but trophies.

As for a non CVN battle group, time to dust off Iowa class again?  Pull Missouri out of its berth next to USS Arizona?

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 11, 2014 12:49 PM (m1gXb)

102 "We have all heard the point that this is the smallest fleet the NavyÂ’s had since 1917. But comparing our fleet today to the one in 1917 is like comparing the telegraph to the smart phone. TheyÂ’re just not comparable," - Obama's Navy Secretary Ray Mabus


This is the new Smart Power™ 


Smells "intelligent" doesn't it?



Posted by: Everything Barry says is a Lie at March 11, 2014 12:49 PM (Ojgjr)

103 "We have all heard the point that this is the smallest fleet the NavyÂ’s had since 1917. But comparing our fleet today to the one in 1917 is like comparing the telegraph to the smart phone. TheyÂ’re just not comparable," - Obama's Navy Secretary Ray Mabus


This is the new Smart Power™ 


Smells "intelligent" doesn't it?



Posted by: Everything Barry says is a Lie at March 11, 2014 12:49 PM (Ojgjr)

104 Conquer some islands in the Mediterranean and build them up like Diego Garcia. Posted by: Boss Moss at March 11, 2014 04:32 PM (bitz6) No need to. If we made the proper use of all Israel has to offer and tell the Arabs to go fuck themselves, problem largely solved

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 11, 2014 12:49 PM (t3UFN)

105 Conquer some islands in the Mediterranean and build them up like Diego Garcia. Posted by: Boss Moss at March 11, 2014 04:32 PM (bitz6) No need to. If we made the proper use of all Israel has to offer and tell the Arabs to go fuck themselves, problem largely solved

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 11, 2014 12:49 PM (t3UFN)

106 Have not read comments. Anyone mentioned China's carrier busting missile that the Navy admits it can not stop? Seems that is a problem.

Posted by: Nip Sip at March 11, 2014 12:49 PM (0FSuD)

107 Have not read comments. Anyone mentioned China's carrier busting missile that the Navy admits it can not stop? Seems that is a problem.

Posted by: Nip Sip at March 11, 2014 12:49 PM (0FSuD)

108 The active military is SUPPOSED to be the tip of the iceberg. As in, don't even THINK about doing another Pearl Harbor, cause even if you COULD sink a Nimitz-class carrier, we'll take our superior economy and superior population and swarm on you bastards with a brand new supersize military. Supposedly. When you adopt the "reality" that gosh, we're just not going to build one more Nimitz-class carrier, because we can't afford it, then you actually make it more probable that we're going to lose a Nimitz-class carrier. They're not unsinkable.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at March 11, 2014 12:49 PM (5xmd7)

109 The active military is SUPPOSED to be the tip of the iceberg. As in, don't even THINK about doing another Pearl Harbor, cause even if you COULD sink a Nimitz-class carrier, we'll take our superior economy and superior population and swarm on you bastards with a brand new supersize military. Supposedly. When you adopt the "reality" that gosh, we're just not going to build one more Nimitz-class carrier, because we can't afford it, then you actually make it more probable that we're going to lose a Nimitz-class carrier. They're not unsinkable.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at March 11, 2014 12:49 PM (5xmd7)

110 >>>Enough with trying to police the rest of the world already. We're not gonna do that anymore. Just spy on the world now.

Posted by: Bigby's Okey Doke at March 11, 2014 12:50 PM (KgN8K)

111 >>>Enough with trying to police the rest of the world already. We're not gonna do that anymore. Just spy on the world now.

Posted by: Bigby's Okey Doke at March 11, 2014 12:50 PM (KgN8K)

112 We do not need more carriers. We need the most capable available. Two Nimitz class carriers will give you instant air superiority in, almost, any area on this planet. The key is survivability, within the threat environment. It's one thing to deploy a carrier(China). It's quite another to sustain, protect and effectively employ it. In that respect, no one else even comes close and won't, for quite awhile.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 11, 2014 12:50 PM (0NF7A)

113 We do not need more carriers. We need the most capable available. Two Nimitz class carriers will give you instant air superiority in, almost, any area on this planet. The key is survivability, within the threat environment. It's one thing to deploy a carrier(China). It's quite another to sustain, protect and effectively employ it. In that respect, no one else even comes close and won't, for quite awhile.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 11, 2014 12:50 PM (0NF7A)

114 Oh and we don't really have an 11 Carrier Fleet really since they have decided NOT to fund the mid life refueling of the George Washington, but have put that off till next year which means they might never fund it

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 11, 2014 12:50 PM (t3UFN)

115 Oh and we don't really have an 11 Carrier Fleet really since they have decided NOT to fund the mid life refueling of the George Washington, but have put that off till next year which means they might never fund it

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 11, 2014 12:50 PM (t3UFN)

116
"One question I'd ask is, why do we have to have two carriers in the Persian Gulf at all times?"




Aside from being freeway close to the high-spirited folks that tend to require frequent bombing anyway.....

The Gulf is more or less at the center of the Europe/Asia/Africa landmass and their sea access. Quick move from there to other trouble spots in the Eastern Hemisphere.


Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 11, 2014 12:51 PM (kdS6q)

117 With how small and efficient nukes are getting, moving away from them as a power source seems like a strange direction to go.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 11, 2014 12:51 PM (zfY+H)

118
"One question I'd ask is, why do we have to have two carriers in the Persian Gulf at all times?"




Aside from being freeway close to the high-spirited folks that tend to require frequent bombing anyway.....

The Gulf is more or less at the center of the Europe/Asia/Africa landmass and their sea access. Quick move from there to other trouble spots in the Eastern Hemisphere.


Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 11, 2014 12:51 PM (kdS6q)

119 With how small and efficient nukes are getting, moving away from them as a power source seems like a strange direction to go.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 11, 2014 12:51 PM (zfY+H)

120 How about we stop building nuclear powered carriers? That would cut the lead time and cost. No a thousand times. The jet fuel, weapons loads, and additional aircraft from a carrier not having to carry its own fuel is too great of an advantage.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 11, 2014 12:51 PM (659DL)

121 How about we stop building nuclear powered carriers? That would cut the lead time and cost. No a thousand times. The jet fuel, weapons loads, and additional aircraft from a carrier not having to carry its own fuel is too great of an advantage.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 11, 2014 12:51 PM (659DL)

122 Twelve Billion for a carrier or the whole carrier group? Out of a 4 trillion dollar budget, and the bill for the carrier group would be spread out over years.

Ya, twelve billion here and twelve billion there and pretty soon you are talking about several hundred billion out of a 4 trillion dollar budget.

Even NASA's billion dollar shuttle is a drop in the bucket.

Do away with all the political slush funds and you could have that carrier group.

Posted by: Rundalph Frundnez at March 11, 2014 12:51 PM (Tqo/R)

123 Twelve Billion for a carrier or the whole carrier group? Out of a 4 trillion dollar budget, and the bill for the carrier group would be spread out over years.

Ya, twelve billion here and twelve billion there and pretty soon you are talking about several hundred billion out of a 4 trillion dollar budget.

Even NASA's billion dollar shuttle is a drop in the bucket.

Do away with all the political slush funds and you could have that carrier group.

Posted by: Rundalph Frundnez at March 11, 2014 12:51 PM (Tqo/R)

124 Hey, we also have fewer horses and bayonets.....

Posted by: Barry Oblowme at March 11, 2014 12:51 PM (Ojgjr)

125 Hey, we also have fewer horses and bayonets.....

Posted by: Barry Oblowme at March 11, 2014 12:51 PM (Ojgjr)

126 Have not read comments. Anyone mentioned China's carrier busting missile that the Navy admits it can not stop? Seems that is a problem. Posted by: Nip Sip at March 11, 2014 04:49 PM (0FSuD) There is always a problem until there isn't. Put the best and brightest on top of the problem and give them some money to solve it. Of course in this day and age......

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 11, 2014 12:52 PM (t3UFN)

127 ?? Is that the training one I haven't been down there in many years but last I saw of it it was anchored off the beach on the East side. It just sat there while they built the new giant dock. Need some input from a Corpus native.

Posted by: Daybrother at March 11, 2014 12:52 PM (+zA/K)

128 And don't say I'm extremist. The extremist position is a war satellite halfway to the Moon with hypervelocity cannon that can see, sink, and smash anything on 25% of the earth's surface at any given moment, and be 12 hours away from any earthbound weapon. Now, that's extreme. I am just calling for more conventional weapons.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at March 11, 2014 12:52 PM (5xmd7)

129 Hey,  if you want navalized F35s, something has got to give.  We'll figure ou how to get them into theatre later.

Posted by: TFG at March 11, 2014 12:52 PM (eKZp1)

130 Have not read comments. Anyone mentioned China's carrier busting missile that the Navy admits it can not stop? Posted by: Nip Sip at March 11, 2014 04:49 PM (0FSuD) Can we not panic quite just yet? http://tinyurl.com/ldq8po7 Navy is farther ahead on this and other ship defense systems than China and Russia are.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at March 11, 2014 12:52 PM (yz6yg)

131

Posted by: torquewrench at March 11, 2014 04:49 PM (gqT4g)

 

The Ford was launched last year and is fitting out.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Sick of the Snowplow Bills for the Outrage Outlet - Bring Me The Head Of Al Gore! at March 11, 2014 12:53 PM (hLRSq)

132 Enough with trying to police the rest of the world already. Agreed. I say "Fuck 'em". Have a blast defending yourselves, don't call us, we'll watch you die and fucking blow me you inconsiderate, fucking useless wastes of human flesh. Done with that policing bullshit, ... completely.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 11, 2014 12:53 PM (0NF7A)

133 Aircraft carriers ?   You're missing the "big picture" ...

Last week, a daycare called Centre de lÂ’enfant aux 4 Vente suspended two-year-old Faith Murray for three days because she snuck a processed cheese sandwich a few feet onto the premises.

“Faith must have snuck a cheese sandwich into her pocket, into her hand, and nobody saw it, and went into the classroom,” the girl’s father, Randy Murray, said, according to Detroit NBC affiliate WDIV. “And by the time she was two steps in, one of the teachers had saw it, handed it back to me, and the next thing I know, we’re told we’re suspended for three days.”

Posted by: Neville Chamberlain at March 11, 2014 12:53 PM (e8kgV)

134 Carriers make me nervous because they are such big targets. In the age of satellites, supersonic missiles, and digital communications, if you can find it, you can kill it. No matter what the "it" is. Having said that, the alternatives are more problematic. === True. Doctrine is that a carrier doesn't go it alone, though. Part of the complexity of the issue is that "a carrier" is really "a carrier group" I don't know. Aircraft carriers may be one of those weapon platforms whose time has just about come and gone. I know if I were a major country's leader truly in a real hot war and I knew a carrier group was headed my way on the open ocean. I'd lob a few nukes in the general vicinity. No more carrier group. Easy peasy.

Posted by: naturalfake at March 11, 2014 12:53 PM (0cMkb)

135 Piggybacking of Instapundit's article that Ace referenced today, providing for a "standing" navy appeared to be something the founders recognized was necessary - thus in our interest. Armies could only be appropriated for 2 years, but the Navy had no such limitation. I am in favor of expanding our Navy whoever controls the seas controls the global economy. I prefer to be in control. It may be the information age, but product moves through the water. Aircraft carriers are more for a projection of power, but that projection of power is necessary to control all the shipping lanes. I'm in favor of more, yes at the expense of the Army.

Posted by: SH at March 11, 2014 12:53 PM (gmeXX)

136 The world is falling apart politically and economically, or soon will be.  And we want to cut back on defense.  I'm sure there's no history that will  show how bad a mistake this is.

Posted by: Soona at March 11, 2014 12:53 PM (Js/gY)

137 The extremist position is a war satellite halfway to the Moon with hypervelocity cannon that can see, sink, and smash anything on 25% of the earth's surface at any given moment, and be 12 hours away from any earthbound weapon. -- Go on ...

Posted by: votermom at March 11, 2014 12:54 PM (GSIDW)

138 Chinese missile. DF-21 http://tinyurl.com/25alyee

Posted by: Nip Sip at March 11, 2014 12:54 PM (0FSuD)

139 >>>Twelve Billion for a carrier or the whole carrier group? For the carrier. Logistics are complexifying for the group, is all.

Posted by: Bigby's Okey Doke at March 11, 2014 12:54 PM (KgN8K)

140 So this is just the prelude to when a republican becomes President eventually and the world comes a calling, saying "Please Mr. United States, we can't fight the bad guys, will you do it for us?" and we do and the Dims complain at the bodycount because the equipment is subpar or there is not enough of it.

Posted by: Darth Randall at March 11, 2014 12:55 PM (xWgW3)

141 Now more then ever we need the Death Star.

Posted by: Boss Moss at March 11, 2014 12:55 PM (bitz6)

142 No a thousand times. The jet fuel, weapons loads, and additional aircraft from a carrier not having to carry its own fuel is too great of an advantage. Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 11, 2014 04:51 PM (659DL) Heh!! Bring back the Essex-class!

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 11, 2014 12:55 PM (0NF7A)

143 The carrier in     Corpus is the Lexington (Lexington II)

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 11, 2014 12:55 PM (dquK7)

144 @64 Lefty candidates leave their "adult conversations" at the door when it comes to debates.

Posted by: Chairman LMAO at March 11, 2014 12:55 PM (9eDbm)

145 $12B is nothing.  Let's build 5 new carriers.

Posted by: prescient11 at March 11, 2014 12:55 PM (tVTLU)

146 The active military is SUPPOSED to be the tip of the iceberg. As in, don't even THINK about doing another Pearl Harbor, cause even if you COULD sink a Nimitz-class carrier, we'll take our superior economy and superior population and swarm on you bastards with a brand new supersize military.

Supposedly.

When you adopt the "reality" that gosh, we're just not going to build one more Nimitz-class carrier, because we can't afford it, then you actually make it more probable that we're going to lose a Nimitz-class carrier. They're not unsinkable.
..............
That kind of attitude presupposes we will never use nukes in retaliation.  Which begs the question, why do we have them?

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at March 11, 2014 12:55 PM (Z7PrM)

147 The extremist position is a war satellite halfway to the Moon with hypervelocity cannon that can see, sink, and smash anything on 25% of the earth's surface at any given moment, and be 12 hours away from any earthbound weapon. -- That'd be a well armed militia baby.

Posted by: elevenwing plover at March 11, 2014 12:55 PM (GXZgZ)

148 Aircraft carriers are more for a projection of power, but that projection of power is necessary to control all the shipping lanes. I'm in favor of more, yes at the expense of the Army. Posted by: SH at March 11, 2014 04:53 PM (gmeXX) Americans in 1950 rediscovered something that since Hiroshima they had forgotten: you may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life—but if you desire to defend it, protect it and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men in the mud. ” ― T.R. Fehrenbach

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at March 11, 2014 12:55 PM (yz6yg)

149 Every nuclear power has a carrier-busting missile, its just a nuke. It doesn't take particularly special technology to get a nuke close enough to a carrier to destroy it. Even if the basic structure of the carrier survives the wave heat, and pressure, the inhabitants won't.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 11, 2014 12:56 PM (zfY+H)

150 I know if I were a major country's leader truly in a real hot war and I knew a carrier group was headed my way on the open ocean.

I'd lob a few nukes in the general vicinity.

No more carrier group. Easy peasy.

Posted by: naturalfake at March 11, 2014 04:53 PM (0cMkb)

 

 

In that sort of war nukes will be lobbed at more than carrier groups.  Just pointing that out.

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Sick of the Snowplow Bills for the Outrage Outlet - Bring Me The Head Of Al Gore! at March 11, 2014 12:56 PM (hLRSq)

151 I know if I were a major country's leader truly in a real hot war and I knew a carrier group was headed my way on the open ocean. I'd lob a few nukes in the general vicinity. No more carrier group. Easy peasy. Posted by: naturalfake at March 11, 2014 04:53 PM (0cMkb) That's not really a valid argument and I am not sure if your serious or kidding? But in a real war, a nuclear war, such as you are spit balling about, we still have the most and bestest Nukes.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 11, 2014 12:56 PM (t3UFN)

152 although 12B seems odd anyway no time, young alex, gotta pick up the kid

Posted by: Bigby's Okey Doke at March 11, 2014 12:56 PM (KgN8K)

153 83 - Sounds about right these days, can be done in less time if you want to spend even more money though.

Posted by: ThisBeingMilt at March 11, 2014 12:56 PM (7mQyC)

154 I'd lob a few nukes in the general vicinity. That's quite a step up the escalation ladder.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 11, 2014 12:57 PM (659DL)

155 Wasn't there just an announcement in the last week or so that they are finally actually putting a railgun into service on a small cruiser type vessel? That and energy weapons would make carriers nearly indefensible I would think. Hell, I don't know. I'm going to go have an early dinner.

Posted by: Daybrother at March 11, 2014 12:57 PM (JKCdI)

156 The extremist position is a war satellite halfway to the Moon with hypervelocity cannon that can see, sink, and smash anything on 25% of the earth's surface at any given moment, and be 12 hours away from any earthbound weapon. Now, that's extreme. I am just calling for more conventional weapons.

What about Rods from God?  A telephone sized tungsten dart pushed from a satellite.  By the time it hits Earth it's traveling 36,000 feet per second.  Put one of those through China's aircraft carrier and it's going down.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at March 11, 2014 12:58 PM (P7Wsr)

157 F-18's.... We need Boeing cranking out F-18's...  Which if TFG was a Keynesian, and not a Marxist, we would have done as stimulus in 2009.  Not as good as cutting the individual and corporate tax rates, but at least would have been a productive acceleration of needed military spending...

Maybe the Republic of Texas can put in an order with Boeing Ft Worth

Posted by: phreshone at March 11, 2014 12:58 PM (Q6pxP)

158 That's quite a step up the escalation ladder. Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 11, 2014 04:57 PM (659DL) It's stupid. But it's also emotionally satisfying.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at March 11, 2014 12:58 PM (yz6yg)

159 Americans in 1950 rediscovered something that since Hiroshima they had forgotten: NEVER FIGHT A LAND WAR IN ASIA. --Some Guy

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 11, 2014 12:58 PM (659DL)

160 $12B is nothing. Let's build 5 new carriers.

What was Barky's Stimuseless again? $780 billion? And then that magically became fixed spending.

That'd be 65 carriers a year.

But no, cut defense first.

Posted by: Waterhouse at March 11, 2014 12:58 PM (Nksua)

161 I'd lob a few nukes in the general vicinity.

No more carrier group. Easy peasy.

Posted by: naturalfake at March 11, 2014 04:53 PM (0cMkb)

 

 

------------------------------------------

 

 

Then enter the missile  sub.  Oh, wait.  They're listening to whales.  Again, the world is falling apart.  Nukes or no nukes, we need the power of our carrier groups. 

 

Pity the poor nation that nukes one of our carrier groups.  But, again, I'm thinking like an American.  How crude of me.

Posted by: Soona at March 11, 2014 12:58 PM (Js/gY)

162 I suspect there's already a railgun-enabled ship out there doing tests but who knows with this administration.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 11, 2014 12:58 PM (zfY+H)

163 127 So this is just the prelude to when a republican becomes President eventually and the world comes a calling, saying "Please Mr. United States, we can't fight the bad guys, will you do it for us?" and we do and the Dims complain at the bodycount because the equipment is subpar or there is not enough of it. Posted by: Darth Randall at March 11, 2014 04:55 PM (xWgW3) Fuck that. President 98ZJUSMC will post a YouTube of himself telling the requesting nation to go hug a fucking root, you're not worth the blasting cap to blow you to hell and have a nice fucking day, primitive. Done with it.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 11, 2014 12:59 PM (0NF7A)

164 I would agree that 2 carriers are not needed in the Gulf most of the time. We can project our power with one. When times warrant a 2nd carrier group, we can get it there relatively quickly. That being said, my preference is to have at least 2 carriers per Ocean (3 for the Pacific) with a few in reserve. So maybe we have the right amount.

Posted by: SH at March 11, 2014 12:59 PM (gmeXX)

165 141 I'd lob a few nukes in the general vicinity. That's quite a step up the escalation ladder. ------- Yeah you do that you open your own forces up to tactical nuclear retaliation. Things could go strategic real fast and then everybody's fucked.

Posted by: Adam at March 11, 2014 12:59 PM (Aif/5)

166 That's quite a step up the escalation ladder. Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 11, 2014 04:57 PM (659DL) It is and it isn't. It's on the open sea. No one's territory involved. And Barky and company have already talked about NOT retaliating after on nuke on the homeland as we can "absorb" such a hit.

Posted by: naturalfake at March 11, 2014 12:59 PM (0cMkb)

167 @125 still way behind our anti-ship missle technology.

Posted by: Chairman LMAO at March 11, 2014 12:59 PM (9eDbm)

168 How about we stop building nuclear powered carriers? That would cut the lead time and cost. No a thousand times. The jet fuel, weapons loads, and additional aircraft from a carrier not having to carry its own fuel is too great of an advantage. Coal. Forward!

Posted by: rickb223 at March 11, 2014 01:00 PM (E7Zh9)

169 Maybe some of our alleged allies should rearm.

Posted by: Boss Moss at March 11, 2014 01:00 PM (bitz6)

170 Nor was a US carrier in the Mediterranean when our Ambassador to Libya and three others were murdered.

Give me a fucking break. This is what he's going with? Hillary was ready to unleash hell but America failed her by not having a carrier in the Med. Man, I bet she was pissed!

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at March 11, 2014 01:00 PM (+lsX1)

171 Maybe there's some deep reason to keep two carriers in the Gulf forever maybe spying purposes we lend a hand, too: natural disasters (hubby's had to fly out to them at sea from time to time from a mainland disaster), support to other nations (like Canadians piggy backing in our aircraft {e.g. carrying military vehicles} ), and, to just be ready for what ever comes along

Posted by: artisanal 'ette at March 11, 2014 01:00 PM (IXrOn)

172 Posted by: Vashta Nerada Thank you!!!

Posted by: Daybrother at March 11, 2014 01:00 PM (nDv5M)

173 In a nuclear crisis, I envision President Obama turning into the curled up self-wetting waste of space that the president did in the "Sum Of All Fears" book.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 11, 2014 01:01 PM (zfY+H)

174 Circa, a carrier still needs to meet supply ships for its food, parts, JP, and bombs.  A CBG's escorts, except for the SSN, are all conventional powered so they need the fleet train also.

So having nuclear propulsion in a carrier is not that big of a plus.

As for weapons in the magazines.  Smart bombs allows a carrier to get by with a smaller war load.  And reduces the risk the aircrews face because if they hit the target on first go with a smart bomb, means they do not have to keep attacking the Paul Doumer Bridge again and again and again. 

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 11, 2014 01:01 PM (m1gXb)

175 It is and it isn't. It's on the open sea. No one's territory involved. Sorry, not even you know who could ignore that.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 11, 2014 01:01 PM (659DL)

176 Pity the poor nation that nukes one of our carrier groups. Posted by: Soona at March 11, 2014 04:58 PM (Js/gY) New glass parking lot for a Super Wal-Mart. The line was crossed and may, whatever deity you pray to, ...or not, ....have mercy on your worthless soul.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 11, 2014 01:01 PM (0NF7A)

177 How can an aircraft carrier protect you from the dreaded YouTube video?

Posted by: Boss Moss at March 11, 2014 01:01 PM (bitz6)

178 F-18's.... We need Boeing cranking out F-18's... Which if TFG was a Keynesian, and not a Marxist, we would have done as stimulus in 2009. I thought he was a Kenyan.....

Posted by: rickb223 at March 11, 2014 01:01 PM (E7Zh9)

179 In a nuclear crisis, I envision President Obama turning into the curled up self-wetting waste of space that the president did in the "Sum Of All Fears" book. Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 11, 2014 05:01 PM (zfY+H) In a nuclear crisis? Shit, he does that on a daily basis until ValJar kicks him in the ass and tells him to stop whining.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at March 11, 2014 01:02 PM (yz6yg)

180 "a war satellite halfway to the Moon with hypervelocity cannon that can see, sink, and smash anything on 25% of the earth's surface at any given moment, and be 12 hours away from any earthbound weapon."
-----------------

Cut, jib, donate to your presidential campaign.

Posted by: irright at March 11, 2014 01:02 PM (pMGkg)

181 149 I suspect there's already a railgun-enabled ship out there doing tests but who knows with this administration. Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 11, 2014 04:58 PM (zfY+H) Yeah. I thought we were somewhat close to an operational test bed, some years ago.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 11, 2014 01:02 PM (0NF7A)

182
How about we stop building nuclear powered carriers? That would cut the lead time and cost.

No a thousand times. The jet fuel, weapons loads, and additional aircraft from a carrier not having to carry its own fuel is too great of an advantage.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 11, 2014 04:51 PM (659DL)







If I wanted to neuter a conventionally-powered carrier, I'd target the oilers. MUCH softer target. Even worse, imagine that Chinese carrier-killer ballistic missile targeted on the oilers. Kind of hard to project power when your carrier is drifting with empty tanks.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at March 11, 2014 01:02 PM (TIIx5)

183 Aircraft carriers ? You're missing the "big picture" ...Last week, a daycare called Centre de lÂ’enfant aux 4 Vente suspended two-year-old Faith Murray for three days because she snuck a processed cheese sandwich a few feet onto the premises.

Don't forget this also happened: British woman marries her dog, confesses: "I'm totally her b----h." (via New York Daily News)

Posted by: LizLem at March 11, 2014 01:02 PM (BF+2f)

184 Americans in 1950 rediscovered something that since Hiroshima they had forgotten: you may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life—but if you desire to defend it, protect it and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men in the mud. ” --- Don't disagree. But we can mobilize young men quickly. We have done it in the past. And it doesn't take a lot of men to control a region so long as that region is an ally (i.e., Korea). Regardless, our country can mobilize quickly and build ships quickly if necessary. But I prefer that never be necessary. I think you can do that with nukes, aircraft carriers and the best special forces in the world.

Posted by: SH at March 11, 2014 01:03 PM (gmeXX)

185 TOTALLY OT (but too good to keep): Headline over at Puff-Ho: "Mummified Woman Believed To Have Died In 2008 Somehow Voted In 2010" Guess who she voted forÂ… at least a few times, right?

Posted by: J.J. Sefton at March 11, 2014 01:03 PM (olDqf)

186

Reality may say we can't afford more carriers, but reality may also say that we NEED more carriers, just like we need more military capability period.  Both are likely to be true at the same time.

America depends on the free use of the sea for prosperity.  Maintaining a strong navy and air force to maintain use of the seas is a valid and important investment in America (More than most things Obama wants.).  Being able to exert power without stationing American forces in other countries is also a good reason.

The long lead time argument is ttrue but that is also reason to start working on more carriers NOW then wait until we need them, when it will be too late.

We're seeing what reality says we need clash with what we have or can afford, right now.  It's not going to get better anytime soon.  If we want to be prepared when all hell breaks lose, at far less cost in money and lives, we better start preparing a long time before hell breaks lose.  Otherwise, the money you save now will require you to spend far more money and lives to fix later.

Posted by: TKYC at March 11, 2014 01:03 PM (LtJIa)

187 We could build 80 carriers per year on what we spend on     welfare programs.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at March 11, 2014 01:04 PM (dquK7)

188 While I don't agree with all of the ideas presented in this article, and in the comments, I welcome this sort of conversation. Now, when are we going to talk about the Department of Energy, or the EPA, or the Department of Education, HHS?

Posted by: Daniel Simpson Day at March 11, 2014 01:04 PM (aA2hG)

189 Si vis pacem, para bellum Was true for Rome and is true now

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 11, 2014 01:04 PM (t3UFN)

190 "There is always a problem until there isn't. Put the best and brightest on top of the problem and give them some money to solve it. Of course in this day and age......"

We stand ready to serve as always.

Posted by: Top Men at March 11, 2014 01:05 PM (gqT4g)

191 Pity the poor nation that nukes one of our carrier groups.
Posted by: Soona at March 11, 2014 04:58 PM (Js/gY)


Under the present CinC?  Pfft.

They'd get a nice reset button and a lunch with Lurch.

Posted by: Barky O'Genius at March 11, 2014 01:05 PM (8ZskC)

192 We may have to cut the Farm Bill ie. EBT.

Posted by: Boss Moss at March 11, 2014 01:06 PM (bitz6)

193 Don't disagree. But we can mobilize young men quickly. We have done it in the past. And it doesn't take a lot of men to control a region so long as that region is an ally (i.e., Korea). Posted by: SH at March 11, 2014 05:03 PM (gmeXX) No. We can't. And no, we didn't. And you're wrong on the numbers of troops necessary. Unless you think that 300,000 is a small number. Check out America's First Battles by William Stoft for the primer on why your approach is a really, really bad idea.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at March 11, 2014 01:06 PM (yz6yg)

194 They'd get a nice reset button and a lunch with Lurch.

Well judging by what Russia is doing, they took that as an Act of War.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 11, 2014 01:06 PM (m1gXb)

195 vamanos, sock

Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at March 11, 2014 01:07 PM (8ZskC)

196 That'd be 65 carriers a year. Posted by: Waterhouse at March 11, 2014 04:58 PM (Nksua) Not unless you're building Casablanca-class CVEs.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 11, 2014 01:07 PM (0NF7A)

197 We could build 80 carriers per year on what we spend on welfare programs.

80 carriers a year would just be a different kind of welfare program.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at March 11, 2014 01:07 PM (+lsX1)

198 In the nuclear age we are NOT gong to have the luck and time to be able to draft, train, and deploy troops and equipment ( which we don't have but will have to manufacture with foreign parts) in time to matter

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 11, 2014 01:08 PM (t3UFN)

199 Well judging by what Russia is doing, they took that as an Act of War. Wouldn't call it an Act of War myself, but lunch with Lurch can be Revolting ...

Posted by: Adriane... at March 11, 2014 01:08 PM (qoKTg)

200 The flowering buds on my ornamental pear tree  are opening.  Spring is close.  Very close.

Posted by: Soona at March 11, 2014 01:09 PM (Js/gY)

201 Okay WWII time again.

If the US Navy had not started planning the designs for the Fletcher class DD, Iowa class BB, Atlanta class CLAA, Cleveland CL, and Baltimore CA before Pearl Harbor; how would the Pacific battles have turned out?

To put it simply, Pax Nippon.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 11, 2014 01:10 PM (m1gXb)

202 It's in the 80's here.

Posted by: Boss Moss at March 11, 2014 01:10 PM (bitz6)

203 Malta was pretty much an unsinkable Carrier during WWII.

But on the down side, aren't Carriers kinda bossy?

Wouldn't want that now, right?

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at March 11, 2014 01:11 PM (si68n)

204 Okay WWII time again. If the US Navy had not started planning the designs for the Fletcher class DD, Iowa class BB, Atlanta class CLAA, Cleveland CL, and Baltimore CA before Pearl Harbor; how would the Pacific battles have turned out? To put it simply, Pax Nippon. Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 11, 2014 05:10 PM (m1gXb) We are planning the successors to the Ohio Class SSBNs, but G-D only knows if we will actually ever build them?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 11, 2014 01:11 PM (t3UFN)

205 132 $12B is nothing. Let's build 5 new carriers. Posted by: prescient11 at March 11, 2014 04:55 PM (tVTLU) Empty, CAG-less carriers, are worthless. and: Add logistics vessels. Add protection. Add 688-class and above, SSN escorts. on and on..... At least one fast attack is always escorting a CAG.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 11, 2014 01:11 PM (0NF7A)

206 "Yeah. I thought we were somewhat close to an operational test bed, some years ago." --- We are. We're also getting close with the Real Genius stuff too, minus the popcorn of course.

Posted by: ThisBeingMilt at March 11, 2014 01:11 PM (7mQyC)

207 Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 11, 2014 05:01 PM (m1gXb) Back of the envelope: Let's say two Ticos and three Arleigh Burkes per BG (yes, I know I am being generous)--total tonnage to push around without the carrier? About 35,000. With? 135,000. The fuel is a huge difference, not to mention all the moving parts on a turbine engine that are not ther on a reactor. It all means more maintenance and more downtime.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 11, 2014 01:12 PM (659DL)

208 At least one fast attack is always escorting a CAG. Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 11, 2014 05:11 PM (0NF7A) Likely with a female officer on board

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 11, 2014 01:12 PM (t3UFN)

209 191 Okay WWII time again. Pffftttt Soviet Union won that by themselves.

Posted by: Typical CNN.com Commenter at March 11, 2014 01:12 PM (Aif/5)

210 The reality of the situation is that if we are talking about protecting the U.S., our military is far too large and costly. If we're talking about policing the world, our military is marginally correct in size. What no one is talking about is that the U.S. should charge other nations for protection and keeping the peace. Yes, this is what the Mafia does, but the reason the Mafia does it is that they deal in reality and protection is a needed service. Another reason our military is way out of proportion to our needs is that somehow, somewhere, the idea that we can only use force slightly more than the opponent crept into the American way of waging war. It used to be that wars were meant to win and teach lessons of how aggression leads to destruction, but not any more. If a policy of warn, strongly warn then totally obliterate were adopted, military costs would be a fraction of what they are now.

Posted by: jwest at March 11, 2014 01:12 PM (u2a4R)

211 41 Aircraft carriers are like bayonets. So 19th Century. Posted by: blaster at March 11, 2014 04:37 PM (4+AaH) Still incredibly ticked off at Romney for not knowing how to come back from that idiocy. Especially since it was such a low hanging curve ball.

Posted by: Buzzion at March 11, 2014 01:13 PM (DWJ57)

212 The fundamental issue with carriers right now is what is going to go on deck.

A little-realized fact is that the USN spend more money on aircraft than on ships.

Right now, the acquisition roadmap is all about the F-35. Whose costs are insanely out of control. The marine/naval versions of that jet, the B and C models, are clocking in at a _quarter of a billion dollars each_ in this fiscal year.

These things were supposed to be one-for-one replacements for much cheaper jets such as the Harrier which cost under a hundred million per unit. That is NOT happening.

I no longer believe that the F-35 program can be fixed. Inherently flawed design which tried to be too many things to too many different clients.

The only other ready to go option is the F/A-18. A design dating to the 1970s. That just does not have decades of life left in it from a design standpoint -- especially with regard to its lack of stealth -- and whose production line is about to shut down.

It really looks like the only way to save carrier aviation for the USN is going to be with drones. They're the only way to get necessary affordability and stealthy survivability. No crewed aircraft combines those key attributes at this time.

Posted by: torquewrench at March 11, 2014 01:13 PM (gqT4g)

213 The flowering buds on my ornamental pear tree are opening. Spring is close. Very close. It's a trap!

Posted by: rickb223 at March 11, 2014 01:13 PM (E7Zh9)

214 Posted by: jwest at March 11, 2014 05:12 PM (u2a4R) Fortress America in the nuclear age? Yeah buddy nice try. That went out before WW2 if you haven't heard

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 11, 2014 01:13 PM (t3UFN)

215 If the US Navy had not started planning the designs for the Fletcher class DD, Iowa class BB, Atlanta class CLAA, Cleveland CL, and Baltimore CA before Pearl Harbor; how would the Pacific battles have turned out? To put it simply, Pax Nippon. Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 11, 2014 05:10 PM (m1gXb) Too many people, just assume, that that shit appeared overnight, because INDUSTRY!!! Wrong.....

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 11, 2014 01:13 PM (0NF7A)

216 Why do carriers need to be so big?  Wouldn't a larger number of smaller, faster carriers make more sense if keeping a presence in multiple parts of the world simultaneously is import to us?

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at March 11, 2014 01:14 PM (Z7PrM)

217 we still have the most and bestest Nukes.

I've STARTed working on that, twice.

Posted by: Queen Baracky the Petulant[/i][/b][/s] at March 11, 2014 01:14 PM (DL2i+)

218 Why hasn't the Fourth Reich built a Navy yet?

Posted by: Boss Moss at March 11, 2014 01:14 PM (bitz6)

219 Enough with trying to police the rest of the world already. We should take a hint from our founders....be on guard and promote business and sell and buy from all comers. If towelhead Babu wants to kill dothead Jabar, sell to both and wish them the best in their dispute-but keep American troops out of it. Putin wants the Crimea-good. Let's sell him gas pipeline supplies and sell the Ukrainians gas masks and ammo. Simple...it's business not personal Sonny.

Posted by: IrishEd at March 11, 2014 04:39 PM (D0NZx)

 

There's already a nation like that: amoral, greedy, opportunistic and untrustworthy. We call it France.

 

But hey, if we're going to be global scumbags, might as well go all in and invade Poland and then split it with the Russians, amirite?

Posted by: troyriser at March 11, 2014 01:14 PM (O66NZ)

220 184 We could build 80 carriers per year on what we spend on welfare programs.

80 carriers a year would just be a different kind of welfare program.
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at March 11, 2014 05:07 PM
-----------------------------------------------------------

Yes, but it's hard to tell the whole world to fuck off, armed only with legions of free-shitters.

Posted by: irright at March 11, 2014 01:14 PM (8GKDa)

221 Malta?

Do not go looking up the ship loses England incurred keeping that unsinkable carrier in operation.  How many times did the Royal Navy risk its carriers to rush Spitfires to the island.  USS Wasp [CV-7] as a gesture of solidarity did two runs to Malta to deliver Spitfires. 

It was very ugly because Malta had Italy and occupied France to the north and east while to the south in Libya was the Germans.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 11, 2014 01:14 PM (m1gXb)

222 Okay WWII time again. Feels like a little Nip in the air.....

Posted by: rickb223 at March 11, 2014 01:14 PM (E7Zh9)

223

Posted by: TKYC at March 11, 2014 05:03 PM (LtJIa)

 

 

-------------------------------------------

 

 

Another plus for this, and in my lifetime I've seen it.  When the world sees the US building up their forces, be it land, air, or sea, the world seems to quiet itself down.  People  don't  seem to want to take that chance to take over a country that's not their.  A foreign policy that matches that force helps too.

Posted by: Soona at March 11, 2014 01:15 PM (Js/gY)

224 Why do carriers need to be so big? Wouldn't a larger number of smaller, faster carriers make more sense if keeping a presence in multiple parts of the world simultaneously is import to us? Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at March 11, 2014 05:14 PM (Z7PrM) No. You need a multiplicity of different types of planes to adaquately control an area and enought fighter bombers to then enforce that area.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 11, 2014 01:15 PM (t3UFN)

225 Excuse me.  Excuuuuuuuuuuse meeeeeee!  What does any of this have to do with paying for my gas and mortgage?

Posted by: Peggy Joseph at March 11, 2014 01:16 PM (M5T54)

226 We really should have let the Russians play with Germany another year or so before D-Day.

Posted by: Boss Moss at March 11, 2014 01:16 PM (bitz6)

227 95 >>>Well there was that little WW II flatop anchored off Corpus Christi.
?? Is that the training one
113 ?? Is that the training one
I haven't been down there in many years but last I saw of it it was anchored off the beach on the East side. It just sat there while they built the new giant dock. Need some input from a Corpus native.

The Lexington, a WWII survivor, is a museum now.  Docked, grounded, on North Beach CC, Texas.

The training was at NS Ingleside, mine warfare group.  That base is closed now.

Posted by: SouthTexas at March 11, 2014 01:16 PM (Oc7QX)

228 We really should have let the Russians play with Germany another year or so before D-Day. Posted by: Boss Moss at March 11, 2014 05:16 PM (bitz6) Yeah that's pretty much what I said

Posted by: Winston Spencer Churchill at March 11, 2014 01:17 PM (t3UFN)

229 I doubt we could build 80 aircraft carriers per year. I doubt the whole world could build 80 carriers per year.

Posted by: elevenwing plover at March 11, 2014 01:17 PM (GXZgZ)

230
Every nuclear power has a carrier-busting missile, its just a nuke. It doesn't take particularly special technology to get a nuke close enough to a carrier to destroy it. Even if the basic structure of the carrier survives the wave heat, and pressure, the inhabitants won't.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor




Targeting problem.  The overpressure radius falls off pretty quickly, for example the 10 psi line for a 100kt blast is 1.8 km from center. Which means to get a tactical kill you need to get in say a 25 km2 box for a big bomb, even tighter for something Hiroshima sized. 

The Chinese are emphasizing their reconsats for targeting, at which point they can service the target with a non-nuclear warhead anyway.  Doubt Mohamma El Kaboom can pull it off even with nukes, except with salvos.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 11, 2014 01:17 PM (kdS6q)

231 Don't forget this also happened: British woman marries her dog, confesses: "I'm totally her b----h." (via New York Daily News) Posted by: LizLem at March 11, 2014 05:02 PM (BF+2f) Instead of bottles of champagne, the newlyweds had jars of peanut butter delivered to the Honeymoon Suite.

Posted by: naturalfake at March 11, 2014 01:17 PM (0cMkb)

232 derp

Posted by: eleven at March 11, 2014 01:17 PM (VhqUZ)

233 SO

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 11, 2014 01:18 PM (t3UFN)

234 WH Official On Why Obamacare “Sign Ups” Dropped February: “There Are Fewer Days In January Than February”… Weasel Zippers: Top men there

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 11, 2014 01:19 PM (t3UFN)

235 The American voters of today are a mix of those who remembered what America was like during the Cold War and the stakes involved versus those who know nothing about the Cold War. 
America must absorb some defeats of significant magnitude before that later group will understand why defense spending can't be slashed for ObamaPhones, food stamps, Obamacare and many other forms of indulgent spending.

Posted by: changey at March 11, 2014 01:19 PM (e1eKc)

236 Why don't we raise the Yamamoto, outfit it with hyperdrive engines and turbo laser cannon?

Posted by: blaster at March 11, 2014 01:20 PM (4+AaH)

237 Have we adopted the Barrackanatten Calendar?

Posted by: Boss Moss at March 11, 2014 01:20 PM (bitz6)

238 No. We can't. And no, we didn't. And you're wrong on the numbers of troops necessary. Unless you think that 300,000 is a small number. Check out America's First Battles by William Stoft for the primer on why your approach is a really, really bad idea. ---- What do you mean, no we can't and no we didn't. Civil War, WWI, WWII - we did. I'm not saying my idea is the best idea. I'm simplying saying that if Defense has to be cut, one area I would cut is troop numbers - for many reasons.

Posted by: SH at March 11, 2014 01:20 PM (gmeXX)

239 203 Why do carriers need to be so big? Wouldn't a larger number of smaller, faster carriers make more sense if keeping a presence in multiple parts of the world simultaneously is import to us? Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at March 11, 2014 05:14 PM (Z7PrM) Primarily, it's a function of capabilities required and, basically, size of the aircraft you are operating.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 11, 2014 01:20 PM (0NF7A)

240 What about those Clittoral Combat Ship thingees?

Posted by: Boss Moss at March 11, 2014 01:21 PM (bitz6)

241 What about those Clittoral Combat Ship thingees? We could do 80 of those a year.

Posted by: eleven at March 11, 2014 01:22 PM (GXZgZ)

242 I'm simplying saying that if Defense has to be cut, one area I would cut is troop numbers - for many reasons. Posted by: SH at March 11, 2014 05:20 PM (gmeXX) Sounds great. Unless you're a soldier or Marine in the first battle of the next war. Then, not so much.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at March 11, 2014 01:22 PM (yz6yg)

243 In the nuclear age we are NOT gong to have the luck and time to be able to draft, train, and deploy troops and equipment ( which we don't have but will have to manufacture with foreign parts) in time to matter ---- This assumes wars won't be fought conventionally. We don't know that. However, this is why I prefer to spend money on nuclear weapons. The more you have the less likely it will be that you will ever need to create a mobilizing force like we did in WWI and II. Doesn't mean it will never happen, just less likely.

Posted by: SH at March 11, 2014 01:22 PM (gmeXX)

244 We could do 80 of those a year week. Posted by: eleven at March 11, 2014 05:22 PM (GXZgZ) FIFY

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at March 11, 2014 01:23 PM (yz6yg)

245 I suspect there's already a railgun-enabled ship out there doing tests but who knows with this administration.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 11, 2014 04:58 PM (zfY+H)



Still in the experimental phase.  The issue is SWaP: Size, Weight, and Power, especially the power part.


However, a laser weapon is being installed operationally in the next year, on a converted amphib.  It's the only thing with enough space (the former well deck) to accommodate the power generation.

Posted by: Country Singer at March 11, 2014 01:23 PM (r/e1Q)

246
I doubt the whole world could build 80 carriers per year.
Posted by: elevenwing



Say a big carrier is 100k tons. South Korea;s shipping building capacity is 53,000k, China's even more.

There's plenty of capacity, it just got unioned/ecoed out of the US.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 11, 2014 01:24 PM (kdS6q)

247 Don't nuclear carriers have turbines to drive their shafts? 

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 11, 2014 01:25 PM (m1gXb)

248 I'm not saying my idea is the best idea. I'm simplying saying that if Defense has to be cut, one area I would cut is troop numbers - for many reasons. Posted by: SH at March 11, 2014 05:20 PM (gmeXX) One thing to keep in mind when your discuss troop levels is: The amount of service and support troops required to sustain one in battle. I doubt very many politicians understand that.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 11, 2014 01:25 PM (0NF7A)

249 This assumes wars won't be fought conventionally. We don't know that. However, this is why I prefer to spend money on nuclear weapons. The more you have the less likely it will be that you will ever need to create a mobilizing force like we did in WWI and II. Posted by: SH at March 11, 2014 05:22 PM (gmeXX) Then you've just confirmed you don't know a lot about strategy, or history. Google the term "Revolution in Military Affairs" and then tell me how many times it's been triedÂ….and failed.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at March 11, 2014 01:25 PM (yz6yg)

250 National security necessitates alliances, and therefore diplomacy. Policing/bombing the world is not a good policy as far as national security goes.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 11, 2014 01:25 PM (9JPz+)

251

 What about those Clittoral Combat Ship thingees?


 

We could do 80 of those a year.

Posted by: eleven at March 11, 2014 05:22 PM (GXZgZ)

 

 

---------------------------------------------

 

 

In that case, we can just lie about building them.  Then tell America how wonderful they are. 

Posted by: Soona at March 11, 2014 01:25 PM (Js/gY)

252 234 Don't nuclear carriers have turbines to drive their shafts? Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 11, 2014 05:25 PM (m1gXb) Still steam turbines, as far as I know.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 11, 2014 01:26 PM (0NF7A)

253 LCS - US Navy admits they are a bad idea.  Still plan to buy 32 of the sea going targets.  Kill them with fire right now.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 11, 2014 01:26 PM (m1gXb)

254 National security necessitates alliances, and therefore diplomacy. Policing/bombing the world is not a good policy as far as national security goes. Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 11, 2014 05:25 PM (9JPz+) True that. There are three elements of national power. Economic, political/diplomatic, and military. No part of the triad works very well without the other two.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at March 11, 2014 01:26 PM (yz6yg)

255

Also, we really should put more of our defense dollars into procuring longbows, the most effective weapon made.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 11, 2014 01:27 PM (kdS6q)

256 154 @125 still way behind our anti-ship missle technology. Posted by: Chairman LMAO at March 11, 2014 04:59 PM (9eDbm) I hope you are correct, but you do know that in the latest war games, the fake Chinese won and destroyed all our carriers by overwhelming them. Story was written up last year somewhere and it was pretty ugly.

Posted by: Nip Sip at March 11, 2014 01:28 PM (0FSuD)

257 "Detente" with Russia is actually possible. The geopolitical challenge of the 21st century is actually the rise of Communist China. Russia is no longer Communist, and its ambitions, at least as far as Europe and the North Atlantic go are quite limited.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 11, 2014 01:28 PM (9JPz+)

258 Don't nuclear carriers have turbines to drive their shafts?

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 11, 2014 05:25 PM (m1gXb)

 

 

-----------------------------------------

 

 

Yes.  Steam turbines, as with most of the larger ships.  Some of the smaller warships go straight to jet turbines.

Posted by: Soona at March 11, 2014 01:28 PM (Js/gY)

259 Sounds great. Unless you're a soldier or Marine in the first battle of the next war. Then, not so much. ----- That is an unfair statement. Choices have to be made at Defense like everywhere else.

Posted by: SH at March 11, 2014 01:28 PM (gmeXX)

260 We can build all the ships in the world. Finding the sailors is going to be the problem.

Posted by: Nip Sip at March 11, 2014 01:29 PM (0FSuD)

261 Then you've just confirmed you don't know a lot about strategy, or history. ---- I know quite a bit. Explain to me why I am wrong. I'm happy to have a debate with you.

Posted by: SH at March 11, 2014 01:29 PM (gmeXX)

262 "Detente" with Russia is actually possible. The geopolitical challenge of the 21st century is actually the rise of Communist China. Russia is no longer Communist, and its ambitions, at least as far as Europe and the North Atlantic go are quite limited.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 11, 2014 05:28 PM (9JPz+)

 

 

--------------------------------------------

 

 

I think you're getting ahead of yourself when talking about Russia.  I really do think that Putin wants to reconstruct the old Soviet.

Posted by: Soona at March 11, 2014 01:30 PM (Js/gY)

263 And Ray Mabus needs to stop buying bio-fuel at $16/gal for the gas turbine ships.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 11, 2014 01:31 PM (m1gXb)

264
What about those Clittoral Combat Ship thingees?
Posted by: eleven




USS *Sigh* Well, at Least He's a Good Father to Our Kids

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 11, 2014 01:31 PM (kdS6q)

265 Russia's main geopolitical challenge in the 21st century, is, coincidentally, also the rise of Communist China, and Chi Com ambitions in Mongolia and the Stans, which constitute Russia's natural Asiatic sphere of influence, and exist independently of China primarily because of Russia.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 11, 2014 01:31 PM (9JPz+)

266 Unless you're a soldier or Marine in the first battle of the next war. You rolls the dice, your takes your chances. That's a given to anyone who joins the Military with eyes open and a basic knowledge of History.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 11, 2014 01:32 PM (0NF7A)

267 That is an unfair statement. Choices have to be made at Defense like everywhere else. Posted by: SH at March 11, 2014 05:28 PM (gmeXX) It's not unfair. It's spot on. It's the exact point. It's easy for politicians and armchair strategists to hand wave reality away. They don't have to pay the price of being wrong. Soliders and Marines pay that price for them. Followed in short order by airmen and sailors. You assume choices at Defense haven't already been made. They have. And I used to think like you didÂ….right up until I served on the staff of a Quadrennial Defense Review. Then you see how hard this stuff really is. That's how I know you're wrong. Well, that and 21 years of uniformed service, 6 years of civilian service in DoD and a Masters degree in National Security Policy.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at March 11, 2014 01:33 PM (yz6yg)

268 Drew, your concern is noted but you know that the moolah saved will get sucked up by Social Security the moment the numbers touch the ledger.

Posted by: JJ Stone at March 11, 2014 01:33 PM (4oSMi)

269 Cheaper carriers? Imagine an all drone carrier with a few people movers.

Posted by: Jean at March 11, 2014 01:34 PM (Aqvh6)

270 Finding the sailors is going to be the problem. Posted by: Nip Sip at March 11, 2014 05:29 PM (0FSuD) Yes. When you look at the sheer number of ships commissioned during WW Big One, down to the smallest auxiliaries, it's a little mind-boggling.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at March 11, 2014 01:35 PM (0NF7A)

271 Cheaper carriers? Imagine an all drone carrier with a few people movers. That gets rid of 200 people of a 5,000 person crew.

Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at March 11, 2014 01:36 PM (659DL)

272 The US Navy by the end of hostilities in WWII had almost 9,600 warships in service from the Essex class carriers down to LSTs and PT boats.

Posted by: Anna Puma (+SmuD) at March 11, 2014 01:36 PM (m1gXb)

273 255 Drew, your concern is noted but you know that the moolah saved will get sucked up by Social Security the moment the numbers touch the ledger. Posted by: JJ Stone at March 11, 2014 05:33 PM (4oSMi) Oh, you wInGnUtZ!!!!1111 noticed that, huh?

Posted by: Leftist Kingmakers INC. at March 11, 2014 01:36 PM (0NF7A)

274 Cheaper carriers? Imagine an all drone carrier with a few people movers.

Posted by: Jean at March 11, 2014 05:34 PM (Aqvh6)



The at-sea environment is extremely harsh on equipment.  Someone has to maintain and repair all that equipment (and the ship itself).  I served on a "minimum manning" ship, and it sucked having 160 guys trying to do the work of 220. 

Posted by: Country Singer at March 11, 2014 01:38 PM (r/e1Q)

275 So, Russia to the north, protecting the Stans and Mongolia, and monopolizing Siberia and its part of Manchuria, both of which Communist China would certainly like. A remilitarized Japan to the east defending South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, with additional security guarantees, of course. And India to the south west protecting the states which border both it and China. And Vietnam defending French Indochina.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 11, 2014 01:38 PM (9JPz+)

276 What about those Clittoral Combat Ship thingees?

Can't resell em to the Middle East.  Can't find em in the dark.  Too many sailors won't believe they exist and many of the rest don't care.

Posted by: DaveA[/i][/b][/s] at March 11, 2014 01:39 PM (DL2i+)

277 Tibet will never be free though. There is no scenario in which that can be brought about.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 11, 2014 01:40 PM (9JPz+)

278
Google the term "Revolution in Military Affairs" and then tell me how many times it's been triedÂ….and failed.
Posted by: Sean Bannion



Seeing that "Nothing has Changed" argument getting tossed around a lot at the moment.  Not very persuasive.  Their are technological leaps and just pretending they haven't happened ends up with Polish cavalry charging against German tanks.

The telecommunications revolution and precision targeted weapons makes one bomb/one target a reality. Work from there.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 11, 2014 01:40 PM (kdS6q)

279 So, Russia to the north, protecting the Stans and Mongolia, and monopolizing Siberia and its part of Manchuria, both of which Communist China would certainly like. A remilitarized Japan to the east defending South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, with additional security guarantees, of course. And India to the south west protecting the states which border both it and China. And Vietnam defending French Indochina.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 11, 2014 05:38 PM (9JPz+)

 

 

---------------------------------------------

 

 

With a set-up like that, what could go wrong?

Posted by: Soona at March 11, 2014 01:40 PM (Js/gY)

280 Short of a Christianized China just letting the Tibetans go.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 11, 2014 01:41 PM (9JPz+)

281 And Vietnam defending French Indochina. Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 11, 2014 05:38 PM (9JPz+) Heh.......

Posted by: Zombie Ho Chi Mihn at March 11, 2014 01:42 PM (0NF7A)

282 And the Mediterranean can only be saved by Rechristianizing the Arabs. But that would require not hating Christ/God 24/7.

Posted by: Mirror-Universe Mitt Romney at March 11, 2014 01:43 PM (9JPz+)

283 The telecommunications revolution and precision targeted weapons makes one bomb/one target a reality. Work from there. Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 11, 2014 05:40 PM (kdS6q) Think larger context. What does this mean when you put a human in the loop? What you're talking about is killing people faster. I'm all for that. But technology is not a panacea, and ignoring all the times the people in the past have said it was is as wrong-headed as the old cavalry officers who on the eve of WWII thought the horse would be part of warfare forever. You also haven't addressed how high-tech can be countered by both high-tech and low-tech. The enemy gets a vote too.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at March 11, 2014 01:44 PM (yz6yg)

284 The telecommunications revolution and precision targeted weapons makes one bomb/one target a reality. Work from there.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 11, 2014 05:40 PM (kdS6q)



Not in a peer-to-peer or peer-to-near peer fight.  Those precision munitions are impressive when utilized against third- and fourth-rate militaries lacking the technology for countermeasures.  And telecom is very, very vulnerable to targeting by relatively low technology.

Posted by: Country Singer at March 11, 2014 01:44 PM (r/e1Q)

285
Well, that and 21 years of uniformed service, 6 years of civilian service in DoD and a Masters degree in National Security Policy.
Posted by: Sean Bannion




Appeal from authority.  Informed or experienced does not necessarily mean correct. A modest man accepts that.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 11, 2014 01:44 PM (kdS6q)

286 Appeal from authority. Informed or experienced does not necessarily mean correct. A modest man accepts that. Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at March 11, 2014 05:44 PM (kdS6q) Oh, I clearly recognize that. It wasn't like I was setting that up as a QED clincher though. I'm open to persuasion (not that my opinion matters all that much) but I am not up to ignoring a complete said of the argument with a blithe dismissal. But I do recognize my personal experience is more valuable than someone who has an uniformed, or underinformed, opinion. That's not hubris, that's reality. You can't have an argument on a blog unless everyone proceeds from the same basic set of facts. Ignoring history and how all these trends have played out in the pastÂ…and WHY they didÂ…isn't going to advance the argument. That's not what we have here.

Posted by: Sean Bannion [/i][/s][/u][/b] at March 11, 2014 01:49 PM (yz6yg)

287 Late to the party, but you'd save yourself an aircraft carrier for the Persian Gulf if the Empty Suit hadn't pissed the possibility of a major American base in Iraq completely out the window.

I personally would have actually seized a 10 mile by 10 mile box of sea-facing rocks as "American Soil" during the active war period, then required the new government to agree to the new map before relinquishing control of anything.

Instead of massive corruption upgrading the green zone, you get massive corruption upgrading your box-of-rocks into a major air/sea port. But $12 billion (one-aircraft-carrier's worth) of work in this new American zone ... well, it did good things for the Green Zone and Bagram I hear.

Posted by: Al at March 11, 2014 01:50 PM (9ynpo)

288 If I were king I'd add carriers CV-A thru Z and let the rest of the globe wonder what's up.

Posted by: Big Ol Fat Guy at March 11, 2014 01:51 PM (BpQmM)

289 Malta?

I never said that it could be re-supplied effectively.
Just that it's pretty much unsinkable.

And If you think about it, Malta could fall under an air protection umbrella coming out of Sig pretty easily.

Had a chance to spend almost seven months there during two Repair periods.
August in Malta Dry Docks is no fun.

But had a chance to bike ride all over the Island.
And met many a wonderful Islander.

And Mrs VIA got to spend three weeks at the Weston Resort hotel there.
While I was in the Dry Dock.

Gibraltar really doesn't have the usable footprint to support air ops easily.
Airport is too small.

Best that could happen during an attack would be everyone scurrying into the tunnels in the rock.
Great for observation, almost impossible to be dug out of, but offensively not so much.
Rode my Mountain Bike to the top of the peak once.
2.5 hours riding up
12 minutes coming down.

Had a personal tour of the inner guts of the rock by a nice gentleman from one of  Her Majesty's  smaller military units.

Suda Bay, and the nearby airbase have a good presence.
But again, it's too far west to really dice it up over the Middle East.



 

Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at March 11, 2014 01:51 PM (si68n)

290 $ 12 billion is not an "enormous amount". Not these days. It is a drop in the ocean of spending. Stop pretending that carriers are this incredibly expensive thing. There are government programs you never heard about that nobody would miss that cost as much and more. Michelle Obama's school lunch thing was supposed to cost almost as much, and who would miss that?

Posted by: El Gordo at March 11, 2014 01:54 PM (fDmea)

291 More carriers are a great idea, even with costs involved. Begin building asap and then retire or lend/lease to allies. If there were more "online" could they have been utilized to relieve transportation/withdrawal issue in Afghanistan?

Posted by: bopiddy at March 11, 2014 02:06 PM (P1VPw)

292 Retire lend/lease oldest vessel in existing fleet, that is.

Posted by: bopiddy at March 11, 2014 02:10 PM (P1VPw)

293

Only two kinds of ships:  Submarines and ... targets.

Posted by: Hyman at March 11, 2014 02:16 PM (Xv7f/)

294 "Only two kinds of ships: Submarines and ... targets."


There never was a day go by at sea where I wasn't operating at test depth.


Posted by: Village Idiot's Apprentice at March 11, 2014 02:18 PM (si68n)

295 It is over. We are in decline. America voted for it. Everyone wants free shit that nobody wants to pay for. Meanwhile we import tens of millions of new democrat voters and wonder why the fuck we can't win any elections in a sustained fashion that will lead to ACTUAL changes in terms of the size and scope of government.

Posted by: Dan at March 11, 2014 03:09 PM (COpZ4)

296 Are we referring here to those boats that have planes going down on them? What about ships that go under water? I remember Barry saying something about those.

Posted by: Jellytoast at March 11, 2014 03:16 PM (rZgTv)

297 What is the budget for the Department of Education, Energy? How many carriers can we get for that?

Posted by: eman at March 11, 2014 04:41 PM (AO9UG)

298 Here is a strategic question you have not asked of yourselves. How can America be turned into a defenseless third-world nation if they have a bunch of aircraft carriers capable of projecting power? Don't forget the prime directive of the Washington City government in its current permutation. When you, as scoamf, wake up ask yourself 'What can I do today to fcuk up America? Michelle! Did you hear me? Oh, Reggie, it's you. Could you hand me my dressing gown?'

Posted by: Erowmero at March 11, 2014 06:23 PM (1gcFZ)

299 In the nuclear age we are NOT gong to have the luck and time to be able to draft, train, and deploy troops and equipment ( which we don't have but will have to manufacture with foreign parts) in time to matter

Posted by: Nevergiveup at March 11, 2014 05:08 PM (t3UFN)


Oerlikons and Bofors were foreign guns.  Amazing what you can do when you license (and don't care what the licensee says so long as you send the checks.)

Posted by: Mikey NTH - Sick of the Snowplow Bills for the Outrage Outlet - Bring Me The Head Of Al Gore! at March 11, 2014 06:31 PM (gmoEG)

300 Carriers work in pairs if conducting full-cycling operations, working 12-hour shifts.  One is launching and recovering, while the second stands down for rest and repairs.  12 hours is about the max pace a carrier can stand.  Otherwise the deck crews burn out quick.

If things are relatively quiet and all they're sending up is a few planes on patrol, not a problem.

Posted by: Funky Kat at March 11, 2014 07:38 PM (PXnNl)

301 Carriers work in pairs if conducting full-cycling operations, working 12-hour shifts.  One is launching and recovering, while the second stands down for rest and repairs.  12 hours is about the max pace a carrier can stand.  Otherwise the deck crews burn out quick.

If things are relatively quiet and all they're sending up is a few planes on patrol, not a problem.

Posted by: Funky Kat at March 11, 2014 07:38 PM (PXnNl)

302 One question I'd ask is, why do we have to have two carriers in the Persian Gulf at all times?
Posted by: DrewM. at 04:26 PM

We don't have two carriers in the gulf. We have one in the Arabian sea/Gulf of Oman to perform strikes on terrorists and support the Air Force in Afghanistan the other one is either in the gulf or elsewhere, you see the Air Force is having a really hard time meeting their missions also thanks to decades of cut backs. Yes the hollow force is coming and the bad actors like Putin know this. But hey at least we grew the food stamp program by 30% and welfare by 60% and Democrat/Obamacare will finish off the rest, never mind none of that is in the constitution as a function of our Government but national defense is.

Posted by: Oldcrow at March 11, 2014 07:47 PM (3ok9V)

303 We are a very rich and a very silly nation, comparatively. If we also seek to be very weak, we will be wiser and poorer. A nation that tries to import everything and pretend that insurance and insuring the insurers and loaning to insurance companies makes up for it in "balance of payments" cannot yield control of the seas, without learning that cargo has a physical presence, it can be interdicted, and it can be held to a ransom measured not in dollars but %GDP.

Posted by: Chris_Balsz at March 11, 2014 08:28 PM (6QQyg)

304 X be 47 will greatly increase the carrier power.

Posted by: jrcobbstr at March 12, 2014 12:42 AM (OGuBw)

305 "277 $ 12 billion is not an "enormous amount". Not these days. It is a drop in the ocean of spending. " I've got to agree with this. If another carrier is needed then that really isn't that much. And it's not like the government is going to spend $12 billion less because we don't build a carrier. They'll just "invest" it in underground solar panels or magic health-care beans.

Posted by: galosgann at March 12, 2014 05:32 AM (T3KlW)

306

Carriers are just BIG floating targets.  FDR was a big navy man, so the Navy always got what ever it wanted.  I had college professors in 1963 who told me that they regretted not being able to vote for FDR.  For the Democratic Party, FDR was GOD!  He still is! Of all the services, the navy is still number one.

 

Posted by: burt at March 12, 2014 07:51 AM (1+kJ5)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
248kb generated in CPU 0.1869, elapsed 0.3342 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.287 seconds, 434 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Support





Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact

Change the At to "@" and the DOT to "."




Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Search Thingy



Archives

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 100545
  • Files: 484
  • Bytes: 3.3G
  • CPU Time: 188:23
  • Queries: 3874017

Content

  • Posts: 22824
  • Comments: 5953260

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0