Ace of Spades HQ

March 15, 2012

The Great Shrinking Of The US Navy Begins
— DrewM

11 ships, 6 Perry Class Frigates, the aircraft carrier Enterprise and 4 Ticonderoga Class Cruisers, will be decommissioned next year alone.

Now the frigates and the Enterprise are at the end of their useful life. They've done their time and it makes sense for them to go. But 4 Ticonderoga Class Cruisers (CGs), each with at least another decade of useful service left? What the hell.

From Information Dissemination:

In my opinion, unless there are serious undisclosed material condition problems on these ships [the cruisers], this is a Bullshit Popsicle. The over 500 VLS cell missile capacity of these 4 warships exceed the combined missile capacity of the Royal Navy, the French Navy, the Italian Navy, the Spanish Navy, the Dutch Navy, the German Navy, the Turkish Navy, or the Danish Navy. These four ships are about equal in total missile capacity to the existing surface combatant force of the Royal Navy today.

That's a lot of bang going bye-bye in one year.

It's especially puzzling since the Navy is picking up an increased Ballistic Missile Defense mission and 3 of the cruisers can be cost effectively upgraded to the mission while the fourth, Port Royal already is BMD capable (of course Port Royal has it's own problems).

The oceans aren't any smaller and our interests and missions haven't decreased at all, so I'm not sure how shrinking the Navy makes any sense. You can say today's ships are more capable and able to perform multiple-missions than ever before but one thing they can't do is be in more than one place at one time.

History has a way of repeating itself and I'm sure that in due time people will look back at this time as we look back on others and wonder what in the world we were thinking. Of course the answer is...save money. Of course, it's funny how we never hear about these kinds of cuts coming out of any other federal departments.

Priorities.

Posted by: DrewM at 08:01 AM | Comments (162)
Post contains 343 words, total size 2 kb.

1 The Village People are running the Navy now.

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at March 15, 2012 08:04 AM (Qxdfp)

2 I'm pretty sure the Village People would run a stronger Navy than Obama; gotta have enough ships to dance on after all.

Posted by: MG at March 15, 2012 08:06 AM (QH/xq)

3 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 15, 2012 08:07 AM (8y9MW)

4 What's going on with our subs?

Posted by: Y-not at March 15, 2012 08:08 AM (5H6zj)

5 Q: Why decommission all these Navy Ships? A: They can't hit many red states from the coasts, so they're not useful to the Democrats in the upcoming election.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at March 15, 2012 08:08 AM (AGhD+)

6 Not to worry. Naval Treaties will take care of all problems caused by dictators.

Posted by: The Washington and London Naval Treaties of the 1920s & 1930s at March 15, 2012 08:08 AM (YXmuI)

7 What's going on with our subs?

They only cost $5?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 15, 2012 08:10 AM (8y9MW)

8 Obama is without a doubt the worst president in the last 75 years. He has handled none of the crucial problems we face, ballooned the deficit to historic proportions, passed a divisive healthcare shitstain in a party line vote based on lies, and is now gutting the military while we are engaged in a war. Fuck this piece of shit. The words I hope he fails were prophetic.

Posted by: Mr Pink at March 15, 2012 08:10 AM (qblrZ)

9 Suckers of Cock.

Posted by: toby928© at March 15, 2012 08:10 AM (GTbGH)

10 It's almost as if we have an rabid anti-American, left wing radical as president.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 15, 2012 08:12 AM (1Jaio)

11 It is worth remembering that 99% of all government that have ever existed on the face of the Earth failed because they did not have enough military power when they needed it.

Posted by: WalrusRex at March 15, 2012 08:12 AM (Hx5uv)

12 The oceans aren't any smaller

LOL. Of course they are. They started receding when I was elected. We don't need all these typical, evil white man's ships with the new Earth with its receding shoreline. Sure, I canceled land-based missile defense to claim that I was jacking up sea-based missile defense ... but reducing some of our sea-based missiles is EXACTLY sea-based missile defense.

Man, you people are dumb.

Allahu ackbar.

Posted by: Barky the Tardy from Jakarty at March 15, 2012 08:12 AM (X3lox)

13 What's going on with our subs? Posted by: Y-not at March 15, 2012 12:08 PM (5H6zj) they are not being cut as of yet BUT some of the build dates for new Attack subs is being elongated and the New Ballistic Missile sub design may, and I only say may, be in some jeopardy

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 15, 2012 08:12 AM (i6RpT)

14 expect more pirating........

Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 15, 2012 08:13 AM (Ho2rs)

15 Maybe we could compromise and agree to name a new air craft carrier after Whitney Houston.

Posted by: WalrusRex at March 15, 2012 08:13 AM (Hx5uv)

16 Fuck the Navy. Check out my brackets!

Posted by: Commander SCOAMF at March 15, 2012 08:13 AM (UOM48)

17 Women know about shrinkage, right?

Posted by: George Costanza at March 15, 2012 08:13 AM (dpExT)

18 >>The oceans aren't any smaller

But they're lower now than in 2008. Right? Right? What? I was told...

Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 15, 2012 08:13 AM (ZKzrr)

19 Democrat's view of the Department of Defense: Ripe for Plundering.

Posted by: Kaitian at March 15, 2012 08:14 AM (OXg8r)

20 20% of the Budget and 50 % of the cuts

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 15, 2012 08:15 AM (i6RpT)

21 I support traditional navy values, rum sodomy, and the lash.

Posted by: Winston Churchill at March 15, 2012 08:15 AM (Hx5uv)

22 C'mon, who the hell has a blue water navy anymore? We do not need a navy like in the days of old when in war you'd be taking on a major navy.

Posted by: SFGoth at March 15, 2012 08:15 AM (dZ756)

23 For the cost of one ship, I can buy the votes of an entire Congressional district.

Do the math, bitchez.

Posted by: Baraka 0bama at March 15, 2012 08:15 AM (CE2wR)

24 >>The words I hope he fails were prophetic.

Actually, I think he's succeeding. This is what he set out to do.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 15, 2012 08:15 AM (ZKzrr)

25 We won't need the Navy once we have high-speed rail.

Posted by: Capt. Joey Biden, retard at March 15, 2012 08:15 AM (UOM48)

26 Democrat's view of the Department of Defense: Ripe for Plundering.
Posted by: Kaitian at March 15, 2012 12:14 PM (OXg8r)

And yet, just about every single example that idiot libs love to bring up about the benefits to society of government spending were all defense programs (as defense spending is the only government spending that ever contributes anything worthwhile to society, just as it has been on Earth for all of recorded history).

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 15, 2012 08:16 AM (X3lox)

27 1 The Village People are running the Navy now. Posted by: Clutch Cargo at March 15, 2012 12:04 PM (Qxdfp) Just the Cowboy...

Posted by: The Robot Devil at March 15, 2012 08:17 AM (136wp)

28 @28 But more F-22's do not contribute to national security or our economy - Baracka Obama

Posted by: Kaitian at March 15, 2012 08:17 AM (OXg8r)

29 Actually, I think he's succeeding. This is what he set out to do.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 15, 2012 12:15 PM (ZKzrr)

Yup. Barky has succeeded wildly at his destruction and America has let him continue on his path to our ruin. It's beyond pathetic.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 15, 2012 08:18 AM (X3lox)

30 I guess when Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz, the SCOAMF will drop Strongly Worded Letters on them from drones

Then he'll take the girls out for ice cream

Smart Power!

Posted by: kbdabear at March 15, 2012 08:18 AM (Y+DPZ)

31 Who is surprised? You can't be a leftard leader unless you fuck up the military as much as possible given a chance. The USS fucktard is full steam ahead.

Posted by: maddogg at March 15, 2012 08:18 AM (OlN4e)

32 In further Navy budget cuts, rum, sodomy and the lash will be cut back to just sodomy and the lash.

Posted by: nickless at March 15, 2012 08:18 AM (MMC8r)

33 >The Great Shrinking Of The US Navy Begins

hey, that healthcare program ain't gonna pay for itself

Posted by: President Jugears McFuckstick at March 15, 2012 08:20 AM (8sCoq)

34 ....but be sure you don't vote for who ever the nominee is because it can't get worse right?

Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 15, 2012 08:20 AM (Ho2rs)

35 It's simply a matter of values. We can either have a navy or we can subsidize college sport fucking.

Posted by: WalrusRex at March 15, 2012 08:20 AM (Hx5uv)

36 What do we need the navy for? I'm hiring 1 million more TSA agents to keep us safe and secure

Now bend over so I can see your asshoe!

Posted by: Big Sis Napolitano at March 15, 2012 08:20 AM (Y+DPZ)

37 Okay, lunch-time crowd- time for another "AllenG's self-serving shilling" post. I have a blog. I think you should read it. If it ever made enough money to sustain itself, I could even move it to its own domain and I wouldn't have to deal with Blogger (read: Google) anymore.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 15, 2012 08:20 AM (8y9MW)

38 We need a level battlefield. It's only fair.

Posted by: I, Barack, Benevolence-in-Chief at March 15, 2012 08:20 AM (vhwRj)

39 >>Actually, I think he's succeeding. This is what he set out to do.

And that would be why many of us wanted him to fail!

Posted by: Formerly known as Skeptic at March 15, 2012 08:21 AM (91XRk)

40 > I guess when Iran blocks the Strait of Hormuz, the SCOAMF will drop Strongly Worded Letters on them from drones

Couscous summit
duh

Posted by: President Jugears McFuckstick at March 15, 2012 08:21 AM (8sCoq)

41 I know you've sworn a blood oath of hatred, DrewM, but I can't help but point out that there is only one candidate who has been constantly talking about the disastrous shrinking of our naval forces and the paramount importance of continued naval supremacy in an era where China is emerging as our greatest rival...Mitt Romney.

Seems like he did his homework. Again.

Posted by: Jeff B. supports SMOD/Coldcuts '12 at March 15, 2012 08:21 AM (irCrF)

42 In further Navy budget cuts, rum, sodomy and the lash will be cut back to just sodomy and the lash.

****

Ah, the San Francisco plan.

Posted by: WalrusRex at March 15, 2012 08:21 AM (Hx5uv)

43 What, you people surrendering before the first shot? Now you know how we roll.

Posted by: The French at March 15, 2012 08:21 AM (kaOJx)

44 The Great Shrinking Of The US Navy Begins

I WAS IN THE POOL !!!

Posted by: George Costanza, Sec of the Navy at March 15, 2012 08:22 AM (Y+DPZ)

45 hey, that healthcare program ain't gonna pay for itself He can always borrow more money!

Posted by: Kaitian at March 15, 2012 08:22 AM (OXg8r)

46 Thx nevergiveup. I have a friend at General Dynamics. I THINK he is retrofitting boomers.

Posted by: Y-not on the phone at March 15, 2012 08:22 AM (5H6zj)

47 41 We need a level battlefield. It's only fair.

Then you'll need more combat engineers.

Posted by: SFGoth at March 15, 2012 08:23 AM (dZ756)

48 OT:

Vice President Joe Biden is stepping up attacks on Republicans as the party of "privilege" and defenders of an economy that is "rigged" against the middle class, while casting President Barack Obama as a champion of "the workers."

"Stated simply, we're about promoting the private sector. They're about protecting the privileged sector," Biden told a United Auto Workers crowd Thursday morning in the pivotal battleground state of Ohio.

Looks like the "war on womyn" strategy is on the back burner. And Barry will go back to what he knows best - class warfare. Considering how he and Aunt Ester live and spend money the Republicans (if they had any brains and/or balls) would tear him a new one over it

Posted by: TheQuietMan at March 15, 2012 08:23 AM (1Jaio)

49 OK, Allen. I read your blog. You can stop the shameless whoreing now

Posted by: maddogg at March 15, 2012 08:23 AM (OlN4e)

50 At least thank G-D they are not cutting back at all on all that PC Sensitivity Training we have to do!

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 15, 2012 08:23 AM (i6RpT)

51 Seems like he did his homework. Again.

Agrees, but looks for the door nonetheless.

Posted by: pep at March 15, 2012 08:23 AM (YXmuI)

52 This is a twavesty. As you know, I have a gweat wuv for seamen.

Posted by: Bawney Fwank at March 15, 2012 08:23 AM (DrWcr)

53 It's almost as if there is a systematic plan in place to destroy the United States from within. Nah, I'm just being paranoid.

Posted by: McLovin at March 15, 2012 08:24 AM (j0IcY)

54 the Republicans (if they had any brains and/or balls) would tear him a new one over it

Well there's yer problem.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 15, 2012 08:24 AM (8y9MW)

55 24 C'mon, who the hell has a blue water navy anymore? We do not need a navy like in the days of old when in war you'd be taking on a major navy.

Posted by: SFGoth at March 15, 2012 12:15 PM (dZ756)

We are working on it, round-eye!

Posted by: Red China at March 15, 2012 08:24 AM (shsBx)

56 48 hey, that healthcare program ain't gonna pay for itself

He can always ~~borrow~~ print more money! Posted by: Kaitian at March 15, 2012 12:22 PM

FIFY

Posted by: The Bernanke at March 15, 2012 08:25 AM (Y+DPZ)

57 OK, Allen. I read your blog. You can stop the shameless whoreing now

I could. But I probably won't.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 15, 2012 08:25 AM (8y9MW)

58 What about all that money the aliens were gonna give us for the black people?

Posted by: nickless at March 15, 2012 08:26 AM (MMC8r)

59 The idiots making these decisions must be the same ones who designed the Mark 14.

Posted by: Pecos, still yearning for Perry at March 15, 2012 08:26 AM (2Gb0y)

60 Are there replacements coming on line? Will they be online soon? Will there be a gap in capabilities? If so, has the Navy informed Barky of this?

Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at March 15, 2012 08:26 AM (RD7QR)

61 The military is something you will have to pay for. You can maintain it and keep it at a level of readiness for a cost, or you can cut it back, stop maintaining readiness, and when China/Russia/Iran/NoKo deems they are strong enough to take us on ... you'll pay latter.

But you will pay!

Posted by: Al Pipkin (@alpipkin) at March 15, 2012 08:26 AM (l7UaA)

62 The NavyÂ’s next boomer http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/10/20/the-navys-next-boomer/ Maybe?

Posted by: nevergiveup at March 15, 2012 08:27 AM (i6RpT)

63 If you like your ships and dingys...

Posted by: Barnak the Horrible at March 15, 2012 08:27 AM (8ieXv)

64 61 since they can only bring one carry on bag....we can probably sell the rest of their stuff and put it in a fund...... stupidest movie ever

Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 15, 2012 08:27 AM (Ho2rs)

65 And, of course, the Chinese are building ships like a wannabe imperialist warmongering blah blah power. What will we be confronting them with?

Posted by: joncelli, heartless Con and all around unpleasant guy at March 15, 2012 08:27 AM (RD7QR)

66 Jimmy Carter II ist eine dummkopf

Posted by: James Hansen at March 15, 2012 08:27 AM (e8kgV)

67 we will have to become quick to strike and brutal in our follow through.

Yeah... I just don't see that happening, though.
We're too soft-hearted. Which is sad, since it actually leads to greater loss of life.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 15, 2012 08:27 AM (8y9MW)

68 >>the SCOAMF will drop Strongly Worded Letters on them from drones

In a language no one there reads.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 15, 2012 08:28 AM (ZKzrr)

69 Weaker Navy? America more vulnerable? Less ability to harm our enemies?

SIGN ME UP!!!

Posted by: Barack "Motherfucking Traitor" Obama at March 15, 2012 08:28 AM (lrvnD)

It's like the SCoaMT is doing everything he can think of to piss us off. On purpose.

Posted by: wheatie at March 15, 2012 08:28 AM (Izn98)

71 "In a language no one there reads. "

But it won't matter because executive orders can be in any language. So it's all good!

Posted by: Darth Chipmunk at March 15, 2012 08:29 AM (0tRzD)

72 Look they can't find enough girls/homos/transgenders/minorities/illegals to crew all the ships. Solution? Mothballs.

Posted by: USS Diversity at March 15, 2012 08:29 AM (vpe0k)

73 63 The idiots making these decisions must be the same ones who designed the Mark 14.

Posted by: Pecos, still yearning for Perry at March 15, 2012 12:26 PM (2Gb0y)

Given that the Mark 14 torpedo was such a failure because the ordinance board would never do any live-fire testing due to budget constraints, that is a very appropriate comparison.

Posted by: Red China at March 15, 2012 08:29 AM (shsBx)

74 @66 The first one off the line will be the USS Baracka Odingo Obama and it won't even leave dock because it has no money to do so.

Posted by: Kaitian at March 15, 2012 08:29 AM (OXg8r)

75 remember the 84 summer olympics? i ate for free at mcdonald's for a couple of months.......

Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 15, 2012 08:29 AM (Ho2rs)

even in times of peace the Navy keeps the sea lanes open, it is the one branch of the service we just can't afford to cut anymore.

who thinks China will keep the sea lanes open and free for trade?

Obama and the progs are fools, dangerous fools.

Posted by: God-fearing conservative at March 15, 2012 08:30 AM (jdOk/)

77 It's like the SCoaMT is doing everything he can think of to piss us off. On purpose.

I'm pretty sure that pissing us off is just a nice bonus. His goal is to destroy America.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) SMOD 2012 at March 15, 2012 08:30 AM (8y9MW)

78 sorry wrong thread

Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 15, 2012 08:30 AM (Ho2rs)

79 If so, has the Navy informed Barky of this?
---

The haven't had time. They are busy with diversity training now. Plus they need to cut the total number of ships in order to afford to reconfigure berthing on the remainder particularly the submarine fleet.

Posted by: RioBravo at March 15, 2012 08:31 AM (eEfYn)

still yearning for Perry

Me too....more than ever.

Posted by: wheatie at March 15, 2012 08:31 AM (Izn98)

If we can just build algae powered Friggets.

Posted by: Barnak the Horrible at March 15, 2012 08:32 AM (8ieXv)

82 It's not about the money. The entire military budget reduced to zero would not make a visible scratch in our financial doom.

Posted by: Bob Saget at March 15, 2012 08:32 AM (SDkq3)

83 "Stated simply, we're about promoting the private sector. They're about protecting the privileged sector," Biden told a United Auto Workers crowd Thursday morning in the pivotal battleground state of Ohio.

Stated simply - so even Joe Biden could understand it

The SCOAMF pissed on the rule of law and stiffed the bondholders in GM's bankruptcy to hand the portion of the company not owned by the government over to the UAW

Not bad for the "non-priviledged sector"

Posted by: kbdabear at March 15, 2012 08:32 AM (Y+DPZ)

84 And once again, like the 90s, our enemies will see our military downsizing as a sign we won't defend our interests. Not that they haven't been doing that for 3 years already.

Posted by: Yeager at March 15, 2012 08:32 AM (659DL)

85 The remaining fleet simply needs a tune-up.

Posted by: Barnak the Horrible at March 15, 2012 08:33 AM (8ieXv)

86 "In a language no one there reads. "

But it won't matter because executive orders can be in any language. So it's all good!

Posted by: Darth Chipmunk at March 15, 2012 12:29 PM (0tRzD)

I would have issued my executive orders in Bahasa but you idiots let me get away with everything in plain English, so I decided to stick with that. It is more humiliating to an enemy to have them fully understand what you are doing to them. As long as the evil America let's me destroy it in English I'm happy to do it. If it becomes a problem I'll switch to the language of my formative schooling, but so far it looks like America is happy to be killed in open sight and plain language.

Posted by: Barky the Tardy from Jakarty at March 15, 2012 08:33 AM (X3lox)

87 Come to think of it, why do we keep buying guns for the Marines? It's just so unfair to the enemy!

Posted by: Leon Panetta at March 15, 2012 08:34 AM (Y+DPZ)

88 >It's like the SCoaMT is doing everything he can think of to piss us off. On purpose.

Posted by: wheatie at March 15, 2012 12:28 PM (Izn9

in his insulated political world, he's convinced he's making all the right moves

Posted by: President Jugears McFuckstick at March 15, 2012 08:34 AM (8sCoq)

89 damn sock!

Posted by: Jones in CO at March 15, 2012 08:34 AM (8sCoq)

90 >>in his insulated political world, he's convinced he's making all the right moves

And they'd be working better, faster, if we racists didn't keep obstructing him.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 15, 2012 08:35 AM (ZKzrr)

I'm with Barky on this one. The Navy (and the Army, Air Force and Marines) need to be cut. We've got to deal in reality.

Democrats cut the military while in power, we cut the entitlements. Both are necessary.

Posted by: jwest at March 15, 2012 08:35 AM (FdndL)

92 Where are those pussies in the JCoS? Oh that's right, feathering their nests on the backs of the troops and the armaments.

Posted by: USS Diversity at March 15, 2012 08:36 AM (vpe0k)

81....I'm pretty sure that pissing us off is just a nice bonus. His goal is to destroy America.

Well I'm sure that riots and unrest would be a nice little 'crisis' that he would let 'go to waste'.

Posted by: wheatie at March 15, 2012 08:36 AM (Izn98)

94 in his insulated political world, he's convinced he's making all the right moves

Posted by: President Jugears McFuckstick at March 15, 2012 12:34 PM (8sCoq)

No. He loves to antagonize America. He's been doing exactly that at every chance since he began his occupation of the White House.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 15, 2012 08:37 AM (X3lox)

95 I'm with Barky on this one. The Navy (and the Army, Air Force and Marines) need to be cut. We've got to deal in reality.

Democrats cut the military while in power, we cut the entitlements. Both are necessary.

Posted by: jwest at March 15, 2012 12:35 PM (FdndL)

Wanna bet all the staff, classes and materials on Diversity Training will avoid the cuts?

Posted by: Tami at March 15, 2012 08:39 AM (X6akg)

97.....that should read: ....that he would *not* let 'go to waste'.

dammit.

Posted by: wheatie at March 15, 2012 08:39 AM (Izn98)

97 >No. He loves to antagonize America. He's been doing exactly that at every chance since he began his occupation of the White House.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 15, 2012 12:37 PM (X3lox)

I think President Fuckknob sees his presidency as the Left's Big Chance To Finally Cut America Down To Size, Because It's Not Fair That We're So Rich And Powerful

Posted by: Jones in CO at March 15, 2012 08:39 AM (8sCoq)

98 Is the Navy still planning on naming a ship the USS Gabrielle Giffords?

Posted by: Jane D'oh at March 15, 2012 08:40 AM (UOM48)

99 98 in his insulated political world, he's convinced he's making all the right moves. President Stuart Smalley Obama.

Posted by: Yeager at March 15, 2012 08:41 AM (659DL)

100 i think so jane and i'm sickened by it.....

Posted by: phoenixgirl at March 15, 2012 08:42 AM (Ho2rs)

101 I got to ask. What is it about the F-35 that is so goddamn special? It's a basically golden turd that doesn't work well as a platform. The AF is better off buying more F-22's at lower cost than the F-35 which is going insanely overbudget due to cost overruns. If it's supposed to be used for CAS, the A-10 fucking does the job well. I know the brass hates it for some unknown reason to me. What's not to like about mowing down talibans in a turkey shoot with a 30 caliber Gauss cannon.

Posted by: Kaitian at March 15, 2012 08:43 AM (OXg8r)

102 Inflate the tires...that will save millions.

Posted by: Barnak the Horrible at March 15, 2012 08:43 AM (8ieXv)

103 @102 They've already done it. It's currently PCU Gabrielle Giffords.

Posted by: Kaitian at March 15, 2012 08:44 AM (OXg8r)

104 Is the Navy still planning on naming a ship the USS Gabrielle Giffords
---
If they are going to why can't they call it the USS Giffords?
Let's rename DDG-68 the 'George, Francis, Joseph, Madison, and Albert Sullivans'

Posted by: RioBravo at March 15, 2012 08:44 AM (eEfYn)

105 Coming to a port near you:

The USS Al Sharpton, CPT Velvet Jones commanding

Posted by: Jones in CO at March 15, 2012 08:44 AM (8sCoq)

106

How dare you question my naval strategy wingnuts!!

Now check out these brackets! What time's the game?

Posted by: Rear Admiral Brackets O'Momjeans at March 15, 2012 08:45 AM (3jGS1)

107 I think President Fuckknob sees his presidency as the ~~Left's~~ Third World's Big Chance To Finally Cut America Down To Size, Because It's Not Fair That We're So Rich And Powerful and Free and Creative

Posted by: Jones in CO at March 15, 2012 12:39 PM (8sCoq)

Now, it's perfect.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 15, 2012 08:45 AM (X3lox)

108 >>I think President Fuckknob sees his presidency as the Left's Big Chance To Finally Cut America Down To Size, Because It's Not Fair That We're So Rich And Powerful

That was pretty much the theme of his "we shouldn't be using more oil than Eritrea!" speech this morning.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 15, 2012 08:46 AM (ZKzrr)

109 " ... missions haven't decreased at all"

Once the Cold War is over .. never mind ...

Posted by: Gerry at March 15, 2012 08:46 AM (+7Trq)

110 >> It's currently PCU Gabrielle Giffords.

She's not dead.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at March 15, 2012 08:46 AM (ZKzrr)

111 105 I got to ask. What is it about the F-35 that is so goddamn special? It's a basically golden turd that doesn't work well as a platform. The AF is better off buying more F-22's at lower cost than the F-35 which is going insanely overbudget due to cost overruns.

If it's supposed to be used for CAS, the A-10 fucking does the job well. I know the brass hates it for some unknown reason to me. What's not to like about mowing down talibans in a turkey shoot with a 30 caliber Gauss cannon.

Let the military worry about which plane they want. They have their reasons, and there's plenty of writing on why they want them. (Some of which may not be available to the general public) They had a shrinking budget, they chose the plane that they thought would be more important to their future needs.

And no, the F-35 doesn't have all the fancy stealth stuff just to be a CAS platform. You'll notice that the F-35 was never billed as an A-10 replacement.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at March 15, 2012 08:47 AM (v3pYe)

112 What is truly bullshittable about this state of affairs is that WE HAVEN'T PASSED A BUDGET in 2+ years. That is, how is the Navy being denied funds for ships when the spending right now is unlimited? argh!

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at March 15, 2012 08:48 AM (QxSug)

113 It annoys me that the democrats have ramped up spending so much while cutting the military.

I accept that cuts are necessary to the military, but the deepest cuts are needed elsewhere... places that are actually seeing increases.

A balanced budget is a national security issue. If you don't believe me, look at the next badass Chinese fighter plane or ground effect vessel.

Posted by: Dustin at March 15, 2012 08:48 AM (wcT+8)

114 US Navy's mission will be redirected toward Muslim outreach and focus on reducing their carbon footprint.

Posted by: Mook at March 15, 2012 08:49 AM (+pY8V)

115 114
H.W. Bush not be dead either.

Posted by: RioBravo at March 15, 2012 08:49 AM (eEfYn)

116 >how is the Navy being denied funds for ships when the spending right now is unlimited?

So let it be written. So let it be done.

Posted by: President Jugears McFuckstick at March 15, 2012 08:49 AM (8sCoq)

117 The SCOAMF and his enablers are doing the same thing that asshole FDR did to the US Navy before WW II. Traitorous scum.

Posted by: Some random moron at March 15, 2012 08:50 AM (sJKFk)

118 US Navy's mission will be redirected toward Muslim outreach and focus on reducingtheir carbon footprint.
---
The Muslim future is in glassification.

Posted by: RioBravo at March 15, 2012 08:50 AM (eEfYn)

119 >US Navy's mission will be redirected toward Muslim outreach and focus on reducingtheir carbon footprint.

Posted by: Mook at March 15, 2012 12:49 PM (+pY8V)

Hey! Islam invented arithmetic, or something.

Posted by: President Jugears McFuckstick at March 15, 2012 08:50 AM (8sCoq)

120 What, our current Military budget is like 17% of what we spend? As far as I know the one thing the federal government is constitutionally bound to is protecting us.

Not food stamps. Not the EPA. Not education. And certainly not bailing out private entities. Barky's taken this drunken frat party to a whole new level.

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at March 15, 2012 08:50 AM (Qxdfp)

121 If President Cheatsatgolf wants to save some DoD money, bring the Army home from Germany. Let those sausage-eating zitzpinklers fend for themselves

Posted by: Jones in CO at March 15, 2012 08:52 AM (8sCoq)

122 You'll notice that the F-35 was never billed as an A-10 replacement. This may be true in the first place but the brass lately is pushing F-35 to take over CAS in order to get rid of the A-10's. http://tinyurl.com/6p8s465

Posted by: Kaitian at March 15, 2012 08:53 AM (OXg8r)

123

Barcka had better start praying hard if the SHTF and our asses are hanging in the breeze due to this crap.

Posted by: HoundOfDoom at March 15, 2012 08:54 AM (KhioZ)

124

Yes, I can see it now.... back to the days of Sail... wind energy and all that... very Green.

Posted by: Capt. Horatio Hornblower (and no I'm NOT GAY!) at March 15, 2012 08:54 AM (lZBBB)

125 >Not food stamps. Not the EPA. Not education. And certainly not bailing out private entities. Barky's taken this drunken frat party to a whole new level.

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at March 15, 2012 12:50 PM (Qxdfp)

Look. I've talked to the smartest people in the world at their various New England-centric universities, and they all tell me that a combination of hi-speed rail, government subsidized birth control, and properly inflated tires will make America the envy of the powerful forward-thinking countries of the world, like France, Kenya, and Norway.

Posted by: Jones in CO at March 15, 2012 08:56 AM (8sCoq)

126 128 Yes, I can see it now.... back to the days of Sail... wind energy and all that... very Green. Posted by: Capt. Horatio Hornblower (and no I'm NOT GAY!)

I am the very model of the modern major general

Posted by: Buttercup Obama at March 15, 2012 08:57 AM (Y+DPZ)

127 <Barcka had better start praying hard if the SHTF and our asses are hanging in the breeze due to this crap.

Posted by: HoundOfDoom at March 15, 2012 12:54 PM (KhioZ)

he'll say we brought it on ourselves thru decadent capitalistic hedonism

Posted by: Jones in CO at March 15, 2012 08:57 AM (8sCoq)

128 As far as I know the one thing the federal government is constitutionally bound to is protecting us. Constitution Fancy Talk! The National Defense is what I say it is! And that means more food stamps, more printing, more EPA regulations, etc! - Baracka Obama

Posted by: Kaitian at March 15, 2012 08:58 AM (OXg8r)

129 SHTF is a feature, not a bug. Know who you are dealing with here.

Posted by: joeindc44 says come on, guys, no tough questions at March 15, 2012 08:59 AM (QxSug)

130 Obama is just following the Labor Party's plan to ruin the UK in the postwar period.

Gutting Defense...check
Nationalizing or heavily Subsidizing Union Industries...check
Nationalizing Medicine....check

Posted by: BlueFalcon in Boston would be forever alone without AoS at March 15, 2012 08:59 AM (ijjAe)

131 The USN has to pay for its alternative fuel program somehow.

Posted by: Davod at March 15, 2012 09:00 AM (C5U9L)

132 I am the very model of the modern ~~major general~~ MARXIST DICTATOR Posted by: Buttercup Obama FIFY

Posted by: Some random moron at March 15, 2012 09:03 AM (sJKFk)

133 And not one admiral says a word. We have horrible leadership in our military. The constant talk of "honor" is like when I hear a lawyer swear "as an officer of the court" that something is true. I'm sorry but I can't agree to how "great" our military is when the people whose words mean something are such cowards.

Posted by: ejo at March 15, 2012 09:04 AM (j0u/7)

134 136 I am the very model of the modern MARXIST DICTATOR Posted by: Buttercup Obama FIFY Text still off I guess....

Posted by: Some random moron at March 15, 2012 09:05 AM (sJKFk)

135

"134 Obama is just following the Labor Party's plan to ruin the UK in the postwar period.

Gutting Defense...check
Nationalizing or heavily Subsidizing Union Industries...check
Nationalizing Medicine....check"

Sorry mate. He didn't have to go back that far. All he had to do was look at the harsh defence cutbacks implimented by the new UK Tory(Conservative)/Lib Dem government.

Posted by: Davod at March 15, 2012 09:06 AM (C5U9L)

136 @137 They all serve at the pleasure of the President unfortunately. Otherwise, they'll be relieved of command and forced into retirement.

Posted by: Kaitian at March 15, 2012 09:06 AM (OXg8r)

137 One more reason to vote early and often in November, folks.

Posted by: CoolCzech at March 15, 2012 09:07 AM (niZvt)

138 The President and his associates are in Insurrection Against The Constitution. If we win big, we should convene a special hearing in the Senate for such a finding. None of them, according to the Constitution (Amendment XIV, Section 3), could then ever be able again to be elected to any position in our nation. But I'd prefer them to have their citizenship stripped involuntarily and be deported to Cuba via the no-man's land in Guantanamo. Then they should be png'd.

Posted by: Inspector Asshole at March 15, 2012 09:14 AM (AGhD+)

139 Okay, the Democratic Party are traitors. When do we start killing them?

Posted by: Trimegistus at March 15, 2012 09:17 AM (lrvnD)

140 US Navy ship levels:

1988 - 573
1992 - 471
1996 - 375
2000 - 318
2004 - 292
2008 - 282
2011 - 285

It is Obama's fault? What the f---?

Posted by: RioBravo at March 15, 2012 09:18 AM (eEfYn)

141

I'm sorry but I can't agree to how "great" our military is when the people whose words mean something are such cowards.

Posted by: ejo at March 15, 2012 01:04 PM (j0u/7)

We've now had an entire generation of senior officer whose carreers were advanced ONLY if they were Politicly Correct. I saw it myself in the Navy.

ANY dissent from the 'Group think' means you get a less than perfect score on 'Equal Opportunity'... which is the kiss of death to your carreer.

Ergo... 30 or 40 years later? All you have are overly PC Senior Officers... because anyone with any Nads got weeded out along the way.

Case in point? our current CNO... who says the PRIMARY mission of the Navy is "Equal Opportunity and Diversity"... not war fighting... which is why its now more important to overpay for Green Fuel, than to keep Ships Maintained, so they are ready to go in harms way... (Maintenence standards are at very low levels in the fleet right now, due to a 50/50 deployment schedule, and lack of funds).

Posted by: Romeo13 at March 15, 2012 09:20 AM (lZBBB)

142 They all serve at the pleasure of the President unfortunately. Otherwise, they'll be relieved of command and forced into retirement.
Posted by: Kaitian at March 15, 2012 01:06 PM (OXg8r)

Half of them should have resigned over the blatant America-hate and idiocy coming out of the White House, but they have no integrity. Not even when Barky made a total mockery of the military by claiming that the first strategic review he tasked the Pentagon with came in obsolete because it took months to compile and "circumstances on the ground have changed" - though Barky implied that he knew what the circumstances on the ground were and the pentagon didn't and just handed him an obsolete report, anyway. Then Barky solved that "problem" by reissuing a "strategic review" that would take another few months to complete .. after which Barky mostly ignored the recommendations, anyway. And I don't remember a single staff officer resigning over that insane hackery and intentional dickery with the military.

And we ALL know exactly what Barky was doing - just intentionally delaying and stopping and constraining ... all in an attempt to make it impossible to fight in Afghanistan and for America to beg Barky to bring the troops home. This was obvious from the start and is exactly what has been happening. Meanwhile, all of the military brass are on board with this. Idiots. Truly.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at March 15, 2012 09:31 AM (X3lox)

143 This may be true in the first place but the brass lately is pushing F-35 to take over CAS in order to get rid of the A-10's.

http://tinyurl.com/6p8s465

Posted by: Kaitian at March 15, 2012 12:53 PM (OXg8r)

Read your own link:

Â“Is the F-35 going to be as good a close-air support platform as an A-10? I donÂ’t think anybody believes that,Â” Winnefeld said, Â“But is the A-10 going to be the air-to-air platform that the F-35 is going to be? So again, the Air Force is trying to get as much multimission capability into the limited number of platforms itÂ’s going to have.Â”

As far as the military is cutting back on programs, it's because we, the people, have failed to constrain our gov't and make it live within fiscal sanity. One effect is that our military loses cool toys and its capability. All the more reason to vote Obama out, after which we need to fix spending.

If we fail, we don't have the money to pay for a competent military, and "we" (as a nation) deserve what follows.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at March 15, 2012 09:37 AM (sGtp+)

144 144 US Navy ship levels:

1988 - 573
1992 - 471
1996 - 375
2000 - 318
2004 - 292
2008 - 282
2011 - 285

It is Obama's fault? What the f---?

We can blame Obama for not breaking the trend, and also for his current decisions. Navy ships take a few years to build.

The headline doesn't make sense in light of those stats, though. Great shrinkage started way earlier.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at March 15, 2012 09:40 AM (sGtp+)

145 Hey, anyone consider this Obama fellow might be a socialist fucking traitor?

Posted by: Clubber Lang at March 15, 2012 09:41 AM (ZPrif)

146 149 Hey, anyone consider this Obama fellow might be a socialist fucking traitor?

Posted by: Clubber Lang at March 15, 2012 01:41 PM (ZPrif)

Raaaaaacist. I denounce myself.

Posted by: ConservativeMonster at March 15, 2012 09:43 AM (sGtp+)

147 I'm just a dumb infantryman that likes to make fun of the squids, but even I know that this is a disaster in the making. To be an economic powerhouse, you have to be able to control the international lines of communication. If you don't, someone will shut them down and "poof" there goes your economy. Not only that, but there is a lot of historical examples of why we need more, not fewer, AEGIS class ships out there protecting our interests (Royal Navy, Falklands Islands War) against surface to surface and air to surface missile threats. Then there is the additional level of ABM protection also. The Navy should be expanding it's fleet through diversification of platforms (lots of the PC and Littoral class ships would be perfect for anti-piracy and counter-smuggling operations) while maintianing it's core blue-water capabilities. Most of the free nations of the world depend on the US to protect the sea-lanes, because they don't have that ability. This is a force-projection and economic freedom issue. Before those idiots in D.C. start sharpening the butcher knives for use on the DoD budget, maybe they should start with the DoT, DHHS, EPA, ATF, etc. Like I said, i'm just a dumb grunt that likes to jump out of airplanes and blow stuff up, what could I possibly know about national security and international economic imperatives?

Posted by: Assassin6 at March 15, 2012 09:43 AM (FfukH)

148

I'm peripherally involved with this - meaning I have a second-row seat to these decisions being made. The Frigates were all supposed to decommission years ago, but were held on due to problems with LCS. The Big E is both old and unique, meaning E X P E N S I V E to maintain in both materiel, personnel, and logistical support. The cruisers were originally supposed to get a next-generation combat system upgrade but that went away about a year ago. So they're looking like the easiest to lose since it would be a least loss of capability - the assumption is that the new DDGs (113+) being built will more than make up for the capability lost (there will be more missile tubes gained than lost). The Port Royal's "other problems" are exactly why the newest Cruiser is going away first.

These decisions are pre-sequestration, meaning they are only meeting the requirements of the last round of cutting. If sequestration goes forward, stand the fuck by.

Posted by: Jeff Weimer at March 15, 2012 09:47 AM (tuOLO)

149 Feh, the frigates and the Big E were getting old, and had to go. But where are their replacements? he loss of the Port royal was a disappointment, but if it was damaged enough, it was a liability. Once again though, where is its replacement? And why indeed scrap 3 valuable, powerful missile cruisers that could still be of use?
The answer to my questions is that there is no consideration being made for defense. Obaka is cutting the Navy to show he can, and weaken the USA as part of his idiotic strategy of making the USA the "same" as everyone else. I don't care if I have to vote for the Mormon, four more years of Obaka in power will wreck us as a first-rate, or even a second-rate nation.

Posted by: exdem13 at March 15, 2012 10:02 AM (1GunI)

150

The underming of our Navy is even worse than that. female Naval officers will now be permitted on submarines so that officers will have a shot at an occassional piece of ass http://tinyurl.com/3fqenbt during deployment.. but the enlisted personnel who run the sub? No women allowed. The enlisted men can go fck themselves as far as the dictator is concerned because open homosexuality is permitted and protected.

Posted by: Mook at March 15, 2012 10:07 AM (+pY8V)

151 Holy sh*t! I can't believe they are going to decommission those Aegis Cruisers. I worked on all four of those ships and I'm only 49 years old! Those ships are practically babies! this blows my mind that we're going to take these powerful ships out of service. This is insane!

Posted by: OxyCon at March 15, 2012 10:10 AM (ur8o6)

152 148 We can blame Obama for not breaking the trend, and also for his current decisions. Navy ships take a few years to build.
--
Agreed.

They want to start counting Coast Guard Cutters (a legitimate inclusion perhaps) in the fleet size totals. They will ignore this change in definition to argue they are not cutting the fleet. The press will let them get away with it.

So, problem fixed. Nothing else to see here.

Posted by: RioBravo at March 15, 2012 10:19 AM (eEfYn)

153 Actually, the "upgrade" that gets bandied about for making the 3 Ticos BMD-capable involes ripping out the ENTIRE Aegis system (from radar emitters to the CIC consoles, and everything in between), and replacing them with the latest gear. It essentially involves disassembling and then reassembling the ship. Cheaper to just build an extended-hull DDG.

Posted by: Cobalt Shiva at March 15, 2012 10:29 AM (1iauC)

154

Hey, now, come on folks. The 'two major theater war' strategy was from the 80's. Now that we have the Peace Dividend in the 90's, we don't need that huge military anymore, right? When are we ever going to need to fight two major theater wars at the same time?

The Libya thing a couple years ago required some shuffling of naval forces, including a carrier that was supposed to be heading back home at the time. That kind of thing will never happen again, right? Because our Preznit is a Nobel Peace Prize winner, right?

/sarc

Posted by: Penultimatum at March 15, 2012 10:34 AM (EEUs4)

155 From globalfirepower.com:

"Includes navy ship vessels of all forms including surface and submarines as well as smaller patrol boats and logistical types.

1. US - 2384
2. China - 972"

I think we've got a ways to go before we have to worry about cuts in the number of US naval ships.

Posted by: JEA at March 15, 2012 10:55 AM (4kpbt)

156 As long as there's enough to keep the PLA Navy guys doing the Now?, No not Now? simulation over Taiwan.

Posted by: DaveA at March 15, 2012 10:57 AM (058ss)

157 Too high the price gasoline is, they tell me. So, we drain the Strategic reserve, flood the markets with crude, they say. Lower the price, it will. Good for Obama. Then we start a war with Iran, yes? Don't need navy. Need great machine, to see the future. Zaastraas fix. Nobody listens to Zaastraas.

Posted by: Zaathraas at March 15, 2012 11:18 AM (tYybj)

158 The U.S. government is doing so much that it shouldn't be doing that it doesn't have the money to do what it should be doing.

Of course, the actual amount of money in the Treasury is not a consideration for the SCOAMF.

Posted by: Arms Merchant at March 15, 2012 11:41 AM (is/83)

159 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at March 15, 2012 11:54 AM (7W3wI)

160

My son has been in the Navy for almost 5 years and has never been on a ship outside of training. He's got more experience as a ground force grunt than as an actual Sailor.

He's a Corpsman in Afghanistan.

Posted by: digitalbrownshirt at March 15, 2012 01:27 PM (eHwT1)

161 @157 Please do not comment on something you obviously know little about and thereby mislead people. Replacing the Aegis system absolutely would not, as you stated, "essentially involve disassembling and then reassembling the ship. Cheaper to just build an extended-hull DDG." TOTAL BS. I served 2.5 years on USS Bunker Hill (CG-52), qualified SSWC, TAO, OOD U/W. This type of overhaul is typical for extending the life of a ship & is something the navy has routinely done throughout its history. Also, I doubt if there would be ANY major structural reconfigurations. Once the old (& hence bigger) equipment from CIC and the computer room directly beneath CIC have been removed, I'd bet a pretty penny the newer, more advanced equipment & computers will be lots smaller in size (so no need to rearrange bulkheads). I have seen this very same thing happen before when electro-mechenical fire-control systems were replaced by digital computers. It created lots of room. What the navy has NOT done throughout its history is purchase new ships to save on the cost of an overhaul on a relatively new ship.

Posted by: tincanman at March 15, 2012 02:28 PM (q72+j)

162 @159 Comparing total vessels is utterly, completely meaningless. Have you ever heard of the expression "comparing apples to oranges." If not, then I'll give you 200 tugboats, 500 landing craft, 780 motor whale boats, and as many oilers and cargo ships as you want and I'll take one single itty bitty Iowa class BB (battleship) or even a single Tico-class Aegis CG, since that's the topic.

Posted by: tincanman at March 15, 2012 02:38 PM (q72+j)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

152kb generated in CPU 0.0803, elapsed 0.2882 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.237 seconds, 290 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.