|
What Teabaggerism Begets
On 10/8/2013 5:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
"amdx" wrote in message ... "Mr.Luddite" says... I agree, it's time we got to hell out of the idea that we are the world police. "It's not rocket science. Done. I've dealt with the national debt. Implement it and consider the debt reduction goals in it sacrosanct." So is this the solution to our national debt with you have dealt? Mikek ------------------------ Not sure to whom you addressed your question Mikek, but my point was that our Navy is structured for the Cold War Era when bigger and badder was important. That's not the case anymore. We could cut the size of our Naval battle groups in half and still be 5 times the size of any other Navy in the world. Hank's idea of giving a few away to trusted allies is an excellent idea. Maintains the original overall strength and shares the cost of operating and maintaining the fleets. One of the new carriers currently under construction is the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78). Total cost, including research and development is currently projected to be over $14 billion. When commissioned it will have a *daily* operating cost of $7 million. Might not pay off the national debt, but it's money we really don't need to spend. There are two more scheduled after the Ford. Meanwhile, the last of the Nimitz class aircraft carriers (which the Ford class replaces) won't be taken out of service until 2058. We donate about 25 percent of ex-Navy destroyers and cruisers to allies now, rather than scrap them. Why not give away a few battle groups? My followup was to iboater. I get you want cut military spending. I do think other nations should pick up some of the tab. I don't know how many carriers we can get rid of, I think it has lot to do with whether we have enough ICBM's that are accurate and can reach anywhere. A carrier carries about 80 aircraft with multiple bombs. I don't have the knowledge to tell anyone how many carriers we need and I'm sure those that make the decisions have some saying the world has changed. I have some isolationism in me. Mikek |
What Teabaggerism Begets
"amdx" wrote in message ... On 10/8/2013 5:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: "amdx" wrote in message ... "Mr.Luddite" says... I agree, it's time we got to hell out of the idea that we are the world police. "It's not rocket science. Done. I've dealt with the national debt. Implement it and consider the debt reduction goals in it sacrosanct." So is this the solution to our national debt with you have dealt? Mikek ------------------------ Not sure to whom you addressed your question Mikek, but my point was that our Navy is structured for the Cold War Era when bigger and badder was important. That's not the case anymore. We could cut the size of our Naval battle groups in half and still be 5 times the size of any other Navy in the world. Hank's idea of giving a few away to trusted allies is an excellent idea. Maintains the original overall strength and shares the cost of operating and maintaining the fleets. One of the new carriers currently under construction is the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78). Total cost, including research and development is currently projected to be over $14 billion. When commissioned it will have a *daily* operating cost of $7 million. Might not pay off the national debt, but it's money we really don't need to spend. There are two more scheduled after the Ford. Meanwhile, the last of the Nimitz class aircraft carriers (which the Ford class replaces) won't be taken out of service until 2058. We donate about 25 percent of ex-Navy destroyers and cruisers to allies now, rather than scrap them. Why not give away a few battle groups? My followup was to iboater. I get you want cut military spending. I do think other nations should pick up some of the tab. I don't know how many carriers we can get rid of, I think it has lot to do with whether we have enough ICBM's that are accurate and can reach anywhere. A carrier carries about 80 aircraft with multiple bombs. I don't have the knowledge to tell anyone how many carriers we need and I'm sure those that make the decisions have some saying the world has changed. I have some isolationism in me. Mikek ------------------------- I don't think Iboater was responsible for the quote you responded to. Maybe that's the reason for the confusion. As to firepower on a modern aircraft carrier, I can give you a rough idea. One Nimitz class carrier has more firepower than our entire Pacific fleet had in WWII. One Nimitz class carrier has greater air power than 70 percent of all other nation's entire air forces. |
What Teabaggerism Begets
wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:53:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" nowayalso.jose.com wrote: says... I do agree we have more carriers than we need, unless we actually get in a war with a serious adversary. They are still big targets. When they asked Zumwalt how long our carriers would last in a war with the Soviets, he said "a couple days". ----------------------------- Good grief man, "Z-gram" Zumwalt said that as CNO back when I was bouncing around on a DE commissioned in 1955. A Nimitz class carrier is not your grandfather's carrier. Missle defense systems, both onboard and in the Aegis equipped ships in the battle group can track and simultaneously engage multiple targets. Some versions of Aegis can track 200 targets. These systems are extraordinary and, contrary to popular belief, a modern carrier is far from being a "sitting duck". Additionally, if they do get hit, it's not going to go belly up and sink. It would take an incredible number of direct hits, probably over a period of days to sink one. |
What Teabaggerism Begets
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... What war against a serious opponent have our military forces won since the end of WW II because of troops on the ground? I can't think of one. Iraq certainly wasn't a serious opponent. -------------------------- Maybe you should pose that question to an Iraq war vet who is missing a limb or two. |
What Teabaggerism Begets
wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 22:05:23 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" nowayalso.jose.com wrote: wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:53:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" nowayalso.jose.com wrote: says... I do agree we have more carriers than we need, unless we actually get in a war with a serious adversary. They are still big targets. When they asked Zumwalt how long our carriers would last in a war with the Soviets, he said "a couple days". ----------------------------- Good grief man, "Z-gram" Zumwalt said that as CNO back when I was bouncing around on a DE commissioned in 1955. A Nimitz class carrier is not your grandfather's carrier. Missle defense systems, both onboard and in the Aegis equipped ships in the battle group can track and simultaneously engage multiple targets. Some versions of Aegis can track 200 targets. These systems are extraordinary and, contrary to popular belief, a modern carrier is far from being a "sitting duck". Additionally, if they do get hit, it's not going to go belly up and sink. It would take an incredible number of direct hits, probably over a period of days to sink one. That is true if you are talking about Syria or even Iran The point was a small nuke would take out the whole battle group and it could come in on an ICBM. It might actually go off above the ceiling of most of that defense. A megaton even at 100,000 feet would push that carrier about 50 feet underwater along with all of the support ships. ------------------------ No nation on the planet is prepared to defend against an all-out nuclear war. Only defense is to never have one. Different situation. |
What Teabaggerism Begets
On 10/8/13 10:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... What war against a serious opponent have our military forces won since the end of WW II because of troops on the ground? I can't think of one. Iraq certainly wasn't a serious opponent. -------------------------- Maybe you should pose that question to an Iraq war vet who is missing a limb or two. I'm not minimizing the horrors of that way, but, seriously, Iraq was a fourth or fifth rate military power and was quickly defeated in both Bush administrations. |
What Teabaggerism Begets
"F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 10/8/13 10:07 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... What war against a serious opponent have our military forces won since the end of WW II because of troops on the ground? I can't think of one. Iraq certainly wasn't a serious opponent. -------------------------- Maybe you should pose that question to an Iraq war vet who is missing a limb or two. I'm not minimizing the horrors of that way, but, seriously, Iraq was a fourth or fifth rate military power and was quickly defeated in both Bush administrations. ------------------------- As it should have. Still, it takes a lot of logistics, technology and capability to send military forces halfway around the world to invade, fight and defeat an enemy on their own turf in such a short period of time. Lesson learned from past encounters. Go to win with overwhelming force and technology. Iraq's primary weapons were their Russian and Chinese made battle tanks, including the T-72 which was still Russia's main battle tank at the time. These are not exactly fourth or fifth rate military weapons. Still, US night vision, FLIR, radar and fire control easily made mincemeat out of these modern tanks, much to the embarrassment of the Russians. |
What Teabaggerism Begets
In article , "Mr. Luddite" says...
wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:53:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" nowayalso.jose.com wrote: says... I do agree we have more carriers than we need, unless we actually get in a war with a serious adversary. They are still big targets. When they asked Zumwalt how long our carriers would last in a war with the Soviets, he said "a couple days". ----------------------------- Good grief man, "Z-gram" Zumwalt said that as CNO back when I was bouncing around on a DE commissioned in 1955. A Nimitz class carrier is not your grandfather's carrier. Missle defense systems, both onboard and in the Aegis equipped ships in the battle group can track and simultaneously engage multiple targets. Some versions of Aegis can track 200 targets. These systems are extraordinary and, contrary to popular belief, a modern carrier is far from being a "sitting duck". Additionally, if they do get hit, it's not going to go belly up and sink. It would take an incredible number of direct hits, probably over a period of days to sink one. How soon you forget about the 40 year old French weapon called the Exocet. |
What Teabaggerism Begets
|
What Teabaggerism Begets
"BAR" wrote in message . .. In article , "Mr. Luddite" says... wrote in message ... On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 13:53:28 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" nowayalso.jose.com wrote: says... I do agree we have more carriers than we need, unless we actually get in a war with a serious adversary. They are still big targets. When they asked Zumwalt how long our carriers would last in a war with the Soviets, he said "a couple days". ----------------------------- Good grief man, "Z-gram" Zumwalt said that as CNO back when I was bouncing around on a DE commissioned in 1955. A Nimitz class carrier is not your grandfather's carrier. Missle defense systems, both onboard and in the Aegis equipped ships in the battle group can track and simultaneously engage multiple targets. Some versions of Aegis can track 200 targets. These systems are extraordinary and, contrary to popular belief, a modern carrier is far from being a "sitting duck". Additionally, if they do get hit, it's not going to go belly up and sink. It would take an incredible number of direct hits, probably over a period of days to sink one. How soon you forget about the 40 year old French weapon called the Exocet. ------------------------------------ Deadly accurate, but it would take many, many direct hits to sink a carrier. They are designed for it. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com