On Sat, 5 May 2018 17:33:54 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/5/2018 4:04 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:48:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:35:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:23:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:18:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2018 13:41:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/5/2018 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 12:04:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Russia seems like a threat to more than just me. Hopefully the Navy and I are wrong.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I52CJ

... or it is just the military industrial complex feathering their
nest.
Harry is right about one thing. In a real war with the russians, our
surface fleet will last a few days. Zumwalt said that a couple decades
ago and it is still true.
We can certainly **** up some 3d worlders tho ;-)


I don't know how you know that unless it's a nuclear war and then all
bets are off for both sides.

We still hold a very significant technical advantage over Russian
naval capabilities. That said though, the Russians have demonstrated
a tenacity in past wars that few can match.


Naval surface vessels, particularly a flotilla like a CBG are easily
spotted and tracked. They don't really move that fast and they can be
targeted from pretty far away. I know we have capabilities but if
someone launches enough $50,000 missiles at you billion dollar
carrier, some will get through. Of course there are always the subs
too. I don't know how many submariners you knew but they all call
surface vessels "targets".
In a war with a super power, surface vessels are fighting the last
war.
I agree they are great for projecting power into the 3d world tho and
if that is what we think we need, go for it.

Your cheap missiles will be fired from what - another flotilla?

subs

The big nuke guys will be sitting on the bottom somewhere. The attack guys might get off a missile
or two before they come under attack, assuming that hasn't already happened. We do have subs also,
you know.

These things could come down from airplanes or even from space.
We gave up that high ground during the Carter administration when we
put all of our money into his space truck.
The Germans underestimated the russian capacity to build weapons under
pressure and they lost the bet. The russians are not some backward
country without capacity
The bottom line is, should two broke countries really start up another
arms race?
Where do we get the money? Borrow it from China?

I bet you are not willing to eat a tax hike to build a bigger navy.
I am sure the country is not. We won't even tax ourselves enough to
pay our current military expenses. Every dime of the DoD budget along
with the rest of the discretionary spending is borrowed. We spend all
of the revenue on entitlements and interest on the debt.



I certainly am not claiming that our surface ships are invincible but
a tremendous amount of investment has been made in defensive systems,
electronic and optical, that are designed to protect them.

A shot by an old fashioned, unguided missile probably has more of a
chance of getting through because it's unaffected by countermeasures
although even those would be detected early by the Aegis Combat Systems
that are installed in just about all of our surface ships. It's an
integrated system so one Aegis equipped DLG can assume control of the
anti-missile systems on all the ships in the battle group.

I agree a DLG might be able to engage a missile skimming the wave tops
but how does it do on one coming straight down from space?
An analogy would be the difference between shooting down a V1 and
hitting a V2.
You are also assuming the russians have not figured out our
countermeasures. I heard that they were neutralizing our EC130s in
Syria. We don't even have a clue about how many of our secrets were
leaked by spies they haven't caught but when we stopped executing
them, and started making them folk heroes it became a cottage
industry.

On 5/5/18 7:02 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2018 17:33:54 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/5/2018 4:04 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:48:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:35:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:23:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:18:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2018 13:41:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/5/2018 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 12:04:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Russia seems like a threat to more than just me. Hopefully the Navy and I are wrong.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I52CJ

... or it is just the military industrial complex feathering their
nest.
Harry is right about one thing. In a real war with the russians, our
surface fleet will last a few days. Zumwalt said that a couple decades
ago and it is still true.
We can certainly **** up some 3d worlders tho ;-)


I don't know how you know that unless it's a nuclear war and then all
bets are off for both sides.

We still hold a very significant technical advantage over Russian
naval capabilities. That said though, the Russians have demonstrated
a tenacity in past wars that few can match.


Naval surface vessels, particularly a flotilla like a CBG are easily
spotted and tracked. They don't really move that fast and they can be
targeted from pretty far away. I know we have capabilities but if
someone launches enough $50,000 missiles at you billion dollar
carrier, some will get through. Of course there are always the subs
too. I don't know how many submariners you knew but they all call
surface vessels "targets".
In a war with a super power, surface vessels are fighting the last
war.
I agree they are great for projecting power into the 3d world tho and
if that is what we think we need, go for it.

Your cheap missiles will be fired from what - another flotilla?

subs

The big nuke guys will be sitting on the bottom somewhere. The attack guys might get off a missile
or two before they come under attack, assuming that hasn't already happened. We do have subs also,
you know.

These things could come down from airplanes or even from space.
We gave up that high ground during the Carter administration when we
put all of our money into his space truck.
The Germans underestimated the russian capacity to build weapons under
pressure and they lost the bet. The russians are not some backward
country without capacity
The bottom line is, should two broke countries really start up another
arms race?
Where do we get the money? Borrow it from China?

I bet you are not willing to eat a tax hike to build a bigger navy.
I am sure the country is not. We won't even tax ourselves enough to
pay our current military expenses. Every dime of the DoD budget along
with the rest of the discretionary spending is borrowed. We spend all
of the revenue on entitlements and interest on the debt.



I certainly am not claiming that our surface ships are invincible but
a tremendous amount of investment has been made in defensive systems,
electronic and optical, that are designed to protect them.

A shot by an old fashioned, unguided missile probably has more of a
chance of getting through because it's unaffected by countermeasures
although even those would be detected early by the Aegis Combat Systems
that are installed in just about all of our surface ships. It's an
integrated system so one Aegis equipped DLG can assume control of the
anti-missile systems on all the ships in the battle group.

I agree a DLG might be able to engage a missile skimming the wave tops
but how does it do on one coming straight down from space?
An analogy would be the difference between shooting down a V1 and
hitting a V2.
You are also assuming the russians have not figured out our
countermeasures. I heard that they were neutralizing our EC130s in
Syria. We don't even have a clue about how many of our secrets were
leaked by spies they haven't caught but when we stopped executing
them, and started making them folk heroes it became a cottage
industry.


What will happen when the first time one of our "capital ships" is hit
and sunk by a low tech adversary? The Navy will tell us it has to build
a newer, higher tech fleet. Since WWII, the primary objective of the
military and its defense contractor subsidiaries has been to keep
themselves in uniform and in dollars.

On Sat, 5 May 2018 21:34:06 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 5/5/18 7:02 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2018 17:33:54 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/5/2018 4:04 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:48:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:35:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:23:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:18:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2018 13:41:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/5/2018 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 12:04:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Russia seems like a threat to more than just me. Hopefully the Navy and I are wrong.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I52CJ

... or it is just the military industrial complex feathering their
nest.
Harry is right about one thing. In a real war with the russians, our
surface fleet will last a few days. Zumwalt said that a couple decades
ago and it is still true.
We can certainly **** up some 3d worlders tho ;-)


I don't know how you know that unless it's a nuclear war and then all
bets are off for both sides.

We still hold a very significant technical advantage over Russian
naval capabilities. That said though, the Russians have demonstrated
a tenacity in past wars that few can match.


Naval surface vessels, particularly a flotilla like a CBG are easily
spotted and tracked. They don't really move that fast and they can be
targeted from pretty far away. I know we have capabilities but if
someone launches enough $50,000 missiles at you billion dollar
carrier, some will get through. Of course there are always the subs
too. I don't know how many submariners you knew but they all call
surface vessels "targets".
In a war with a super power, surface vessels are fighting the last
war.
I agree they are great for projecting power into the 3d world tho and
if that is what we think we need, go for it.

Your cheap missiles will be fired from what - another flotilla?

subs

The big nuke guys will be sitting on the bottom somewhere. The attack guys might get off a missile
or two before they come under attack, assuming that hasn't already happened. We do have subs also,
you know.

These things could come down from airplanes or even from space.
We gave up that high ground during the Carter administration when we
put all of our money into his space truck.
The Germans underestimated the russian capacity to build weapons under
pressure and they lost the bet. The russians are not some backward
country without capacity
The bottom line is, should two broke countries really start up another
arms race?
Where do we get the money? Borrow it from China?

I bet you are not willing to eat a tax hike to build a bigger navy.
I am sure the country is not. We won't even tax ourselves enough to
pay our current military expenses. Every dime of the DoD budget along
with the rest of the discretionary spending is borrowed. We spend all
of the revenue on entitlements and interest on the debt.



I certainly am not claiming that our surface ships are invincible but
a tremendous amount of investment has been made in defensive systems,
electronic and optical, that are designed to protect them.

A shot by an old fashioned, unguided missile probably has more of a
chance of getting through because it's unaffected by countermeasures
although even those would be detected early by the Aegis Combat Systems
that are installed in just about all of our surface ships. It's an
integrated system so one Aegis equipped DLG can assume control of the
anti-missile systems on all the ships in the battle group.

I agree a DLG might be able to engage a missile skimming the wave tops
but how does it do on one coming straight down from space?
An analogy would be the difference between shooting down a V1 and
hitting a V2.
You are also assuming the russians have not figured out our
countermeasures. I heard that they were neutralizing our EC130s in
Syria. We don't even have a clue about how many of our secrets were
leaked by spies they haven't caught but when we stopped executing
them, and started making them folk heroes it became a cottage
industry.


What will happen when the first time one of our "capital ships" is hit
and sunk by a low tech adversary? The Navy will tell us it has to build
a newer, higher tech fleet. Since WWII, the primary objective of the
military and its defense contractor subsidiaries has been to keep
themselves in uniform and in dollars.

We tend to agree there. I certainly think we need a credible defense
but I don't think it needs to be a $900 BILLION defense.

On 5/5/2018 7:02 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 5 May 2018 17:33:54 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/5/2018 4:04 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:48:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:35:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:23:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:18:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2018 13:41:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/5/2018 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 12:04:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Russia seems like a threat to more than just me. Hopefully the Navy and I are wrong.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I52CJ

... or it is just the military industrial complex feathering their
nest.
Harry is right about one thing. In a real war with the russians, our
surface fleet will last a few days. Zumwalt said that a couple decades
ago and it is still true.
We can certainly **** up some 3d worlders tho ;-)


I don't know how you know that unless it's a nuclear war and then all
bets are off for both sides.

We still hold a very significant technical advantage over Russian
naval capabilities. That said though, the Russians have demonstrated
a tenacity in past wars that few can match.


Naval surface vessels, particularly a flotilla like a CBG are easily
spotted and tracked. They don't really move that fast and they can be
targeted from pretty far away. I know we have capabilities but if
someone launches enough $50,000 missiles at you billion dollar
carrier, some will get through. Of course there are always the subs
too. I don't know how many submariners you knew but they all call
surface vessels "targets".
In a war with a super power, surface vessels are fighting the last
war.
I agree they are great for projecting power into the 3d world tho and
if that is what we think we need, go for it.

Your cheap missiles will be fired from what - another flotilla?

subs

The big nuke guys will be sitting on the bottom somewhere. The attack guys might get off a missile
or two before they come under attack, assuming that hasn't already happened. We do have subs also,
you know.

These things could come down from airplanes or even from space.
We gave up that high ground during the Carter administration when we
put all of our money into his space truck.
The Germans underestimated the russian capacity to build weapons under
pressure and they lost the bet. The russians are not some backward
country without capacity
The bottom line is, should two broke countries really start up another
arms race?
Where do we get the money? Borrow it from China?

I bet you are not willing to eat a tax hike to build a bigger navy.
I am sure the country is not. We won't even tax ourselves enough to
pay our current military expenses. Every dime of the DoD budget along
with the rest of the discretionary spending is borrowed. We spend all
of the revenue on entitlements and interest on the debt.



I certainly am not claiming that our surface ships are invincible but
a tremendous amount of investment has been made in defensive systems,
electronic and optical, that are designed to protect them.

A shot by an old fashioned, unguided missile probably has more of a
chance of getting through because it's unaffected by countermeasures
although even those would be detected early by the Aegis Combat Systems
that are installed in just about all of our surface ships. It's an
integrated system so one Aegis equipped DLG can assume control of the
anti-missile systems on all the ships in the battle group.

I agree a DLG might be able to engage a missile skimming the wave tops
but how does it do on one coming straight down from space?
An analogy would be the difference between shooting down a V1 and
hitting a V2.
You are also assuming the russians have not figured out our
countermeasures. I heard that they were neutralizing our EC130s in
Syria. We don't even have a clue about how many of our secrets were
leaked by spies they haven't caught but when we stopped executing
them, and started making them folk heroes it became a cottage
industry.


Aegis uses a fixed, phased array radar. It can search, detect and track
from any direction, electronically controlled. Far cry from the
spinning radar antenna from yesteryear that has a limited angular lobe
pattern.

I don't know but I suspect it is easier for it to detect a missile
coming down from space than one skimming the surface of the water.

What multiplies it's effectiveness is that the majority of the ships
in a battlegroup have Aegis and each ship can simultaneously track
up to 100 incoming missiles. The anti-missile missile launched from
a particular DLG could be under control of another DLG's Aegis system
that is many miles away.

On Sat, 5 May 2018 20:03:21 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote:

John H. wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:35:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:23:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:18:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2018 13:41:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/5/2018 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 12:04:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Russia seems like a threat to more than just me. Hopefully the Navy and I are wrong.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I52CJ

... or it is just the military industrial complex feathering their
nest.
Harry is right about one thing. In a real war with the russians, our
surface fleet will last a few days. Zumwalt said that a couple decades
ago and it is still true.
We can certainly **** up some 3d worlders tho ;-)


I don't know how you know that unless it's a nuclear war and then all
bets are off for both sides.

We still hold a very significant technical advantage over Russian
naval capabilities. That said though, the Russians have demonstrated
a tenacity in past wars that few can match.


Naval surface vessels, particularly a flotilla like a CBG are easily
spotted and tracked. They don't really move that fast and they can be
targeted from pretty far away. I know we have capabilities but if
someone launches enough $50,000 missiles at you billion dollar
carrier, some will get through. Of course there are always the subs
too. I don't know how many submariners you knew but they all call
surface vessels "targets".
In a war with a super power, surface vessels are fighting the last
war.
I agree they are great for projecting power into the 3d world tho and
if that is what we think we need, go for it.

Your cheap missiles will be fired from what - another flotilla?

subs

The big nuke guys will be sitting on the bottom somewhere. The attack
guys might get off a missile
or two before they come under attack, assuming that hasn't already
happened. We do have subs also,
you know.


But if it takes 10 minutes to sink the sub, all their missiles will already
be on the way.

We will have blown them out of the water before they got their hatches open.

On Sat, 05 May 2018 16:04:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:48:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:35:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:23:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:18:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2018 13:41:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/5/2018 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 12:04:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Russia seems like a threat to more than just me. Hopefully the Navy and I are wrong.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I52CJ

... or it is just the military industrial complex feathering their
nest.
Harry is right about one thing. In a real war with the russians, our
surface fleet will last a few days. Zumwalt said that a couple decades
ago and it is still true.
We can certainly **** up some 3d worlders tho ;-)


I don't know how you know that unless it's a nuclear war and then all
bets are off for both sides.

We still hold a very significant technical advantage over Russian
naval capabilities. That said though, the Russians have demonstrated
a tenacity in past wars that few can match.


Naval surface vessels, particularly a flotilla like a CBG are easily
spotted and tracked. They don't really move that fast and they can be
targeted from pretty far away. I know we have capabilities but if
someone launches enough $50,000 missiles at you billion dollar
carrier, some will get through. Of course there are always the subs
too. I don't know how many submariners you knew but they all call
surface vessels "targets".
In a war with a super power, surface vessels are fighting the last
war.
I agree they are great for projecting power into the 3d world tho and
if that is what we think we need, go for it.

Your cheap missiles will be fired from what - another flotilla?

subs

The big nuke guys will be sitting on the bottom somewhere. The attack guys might get off a missile
or two before they come under attack, assuming that hasn't already happened. We do have subs also,
you know.

These things could come down from airplanes or even from space.
We gave up that high ground during the Carter administration when we
put all of our money into his space truck.
The Germans underestimated the russian capacity to build weapons under
pressure and they lost the bet. The russians are not some backward
country without capacity
The bottom line is, should two broke countries really start up another
arms race?
Where do we get the money? Borrow it from China?

I bet you are not willing to eat a tax hike to build a bigger navy.
I am sure the country is not. We won't even tax ourselves enough to
pay our current military expenses. Every dime of the DoD budget along
with the rest of the discretionary spending is borrowed. We spend all
of the revenue on entitlements and interest on the debt.

I didn't say we needed a bigger navy. I said the Navy and I agreed that Russia was a threat. Are
more ships the answer? I don't know. If the 'war' goes nuclear, it won't make much of a **** either
way. The ships can be a help in the little 'big dick' contests.

John H. Wrote in message:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 16:04:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:48:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:35:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:23:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:18:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2018 13:41:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/5/2018 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 12:04:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Russia seems like a threat to more than just me. Hopefully the Navy and I are wrong.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I52CJ

... or it is just the military industrial complex feathering their
nest.
Harry is right about one thing. In a real war with the russians, our
surface fleet will last a few days. Zumwalt said that a couple decades
ago and it is still true.
We can certainly **** up some 3d worlders tho ;-)


I don't know how you know that unless it's a nuclear war and then all
bets are off for both sides.

We still hold a very significant technical advantage over Russian
naval capabilities. That said though, the Russians have demonstrated
a tenacity in past wars that few can match.


Naval surface vessels, particularly a flotilla like a CBG are easily
spotted and tracked. They don't really move that fast and they can be
targeted from pretty far away. I know we have capabilities but if
someone launches enough $50,000 missiles at you billion dollar
carrier, some will get through. Of course there are always the subs
too. I don't know how many submariners you knew but they all call
surface vessels "targets".
In a war with a super power, surface vessels are fighting the last
war.
I agree they are great for projecting power into the 3d world tho and
if that is what we think we need, go for it.

Your cheap missiles will be fired from what - another flotilla?

subs

The big nuke guys will be sitting on the bottom somewhere. The attack guys might get off a missile
or two before they come under attack, assuming that hasn't already happened. We do have subs also,
you know.

These things could come down from airplanes or even from space.
We gave up that high ground during the Carter administration when we
put all of our money into his space truck.
The Germans underestimated the russian capacity to build weapons under
pressure and they lost the bet. The russians are not some backward
country without capacity
The bottom line is, should two broke countries really start up another
arms race?
Where do we get the money? Borrow it from China?

I bet you are not willing to eat a tax hike to build a bigger navy.
I am sure the country is not. We won't even tax ourselves enough to
pay our current military expenses. Every dime of the DoD budget along
with the rest of the discretionary spending is borrowed. We spend all
of the revenue on entitlements and interest on the debt.

I didn't say we needed a bigger navy. I said the Navy and I agreed that Russia was a threat. Are
more ships the answer? I don't know. If the 'war' goes nuclear, it won't make much of a **** either
way. The ships can be a help in the little 'big dick' contests.


The crazy ragheads are our only real threat. We need to develop
thremal energy to turn the desert to glass. Trump knows what
needs to be done and he's working on the problem.

--
x


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

On 5/6/2018 7:23 AM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 16:04:59 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:48:13 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:35:34 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:23:38 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sat, 05 May 2018 15:18:11 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 5 May 2018 13:41:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 5/5/2018 1:25 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 05 May 2018 12:04:29 -0400, John H.
wrote:

Russia seems like a threat to more than just me. Hopefully the Navy and I are wrong.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKBN1I52CJ

... or it is just the military industrial complex feathering their
nest.
Harry is right about one thing. In a real war with the russians, our
surface fleet will last a few days. Zumwalt said that a couple decades
ago and it is still true.
We can certainly **** up some 3d worlders tho ;-)


I don't know how you know that unless it's a nuclear war and then all
bets are off for both sides.

We still hold a very significant technical advantage over Russian
naval capabilities. That said though, the Russians have demonstrated
a tenacity in past wars that few can match.


Naval surface vessels, particularly a flotilla like a CBG are easily
spotted and tracked. They don't really move that fast and they can be
targeted from pretty far away. I know we have capabilities but if
someone launches enough $50,000 missiles at you billion dollar
carrier, some will get through. Of course there are always the subs
too. I don't know how many submariners you knew but they all call
surface vessels "targets".
In a war with a super power, surface vessels are fighting the last
war.
I agree they are great for projecting power into the 3d world tho and
if that is what we think we need, go for it.

Your cheap missiles will be fired from what - another flotilla?

subs

The big nuke guys will be sitting on the bottom somewhere. The attack guys might get off a missile
or two before they come under attack, assuming that hasn't already happened. We do have subs also,
you know.

These things could come down from airplanes or even from space.
We gave up that high ground during the Carter administration when we
put all of our money into his space truck.
The Germans underestimated the russian capacity to build weapons under
pressure and they lost the bet. The russians are not some backward
country without capacity
The bottom line is, should two broke countries really start up another
arms race?
Where do we get the money? Borrow it from China?

I bet you are not willing to eat a tax hike to build a bigger navy.
I am sure the country is not. We won't even tax ourselves enough to
pay our current military expenses. Every dime of the DoD budget along
with the rest of the discretionary spending is borrowed. We spend all
of the revenue on entitlements and interest on the debt.

I didn't say we needed a bigger navy. I said the Navy and I agreed that Russia was a threat. Are
more ships the answer? I don't know. If the 'war' goes nuclear, it won't make much of a **** either
way. The ships can be a help in the little 'big dick' contests.



Technology has advanced greatly in the past two decades. I agree with
Greg that two decades or more ago the naval philosophy was planning more
for a war (non-nuclear) of attrition with a focus on offensive
capabilities and less on defensive capabilities. Many of the smaller
ships (like the ones I was on) were considered "disposable" or
sacrificial in terms of protection of a battle group. So, the more you
had, the better off and stronger you were.

That began to change in the mid 70's as warships were equipped with more
advanced sensor systems and radar (leading to the Aegis System) and more
advanced defensive and offensive systems, particularly anti-missile
systems. It has evolved to the point were today the WWII concept of
having many classes of ships for various purposes, including destroyers,
fast frigates, cruisers and the old battleships has been replaced with
one class of smaller surface ship ... the modern DLG's. DLG's combine
the mission capabilities of all the previous classes of small warships.
They are also equipped with the primary task force defensive systems and
are interconnected to each other when operating in a battle group or can
operate independently. Different Navy compared to the ships that were
still of a WWII design concept. today's ships are more at risk tied to
a dock (like the USS Cole) than when engaged in warfare at sea.

Currently the USA has about 64 Arleigh Burke class DLG's in commission,
most with the Aegis System. We still have about 20 larger, Ticonderoga
class cruisers commissioned but they are being phased out as they are
decommissioned and no new ones are being built. The cruiser is being
replaced by more advanced DLG's.

The rest of the Navy is made up of 11 aircraft carriers, subs (both
ballistic and attack), amphibious landing ships and numerous classes of
auxiliary purpose ships and patrol craft along with a few
experimental type ships of the future like the USS Zumwalt.

When Zumwalt made the comment over 20 years ago that Greg and Harry
cite, it was a warning to change the thinking about ship design, mission
and purpose. Much has been changed since and I disagree with them ...
it's not so true anymore. I witnessed the beginning of that design
evolution during the years I was in the Navy from 1968 to 1977 and
then worked in the private sector afterwards on some of the defense
systems under development and test. Doesn't mean the Navy is totally
invincible or unsinkable but we have some very sophisticated systems
that are not advertised.

justan

John H. Wrote in message:Â*

- show quoted text -

"The crazy ragheads are our only real threat. We need to developÂ*
Â*thremal energy to turn the desert to glass. Trump knows whatÂ*
Â*needs to be done and he's working on the problem."Â*



Wow, Justine!
Maybe we need to keep a dossier on y'all.
Now we just need s9meone to identify y'all do we can shine a light on your roach nest and set you scurrying.
Â*Â*

On Sunday, May 6, 2018 at 9:21:07 AM UTC-4, True North wrote:
justan

John H. Wrote in message:Â*

- show quoted text -

"The crazy ragheads are our only real threat. We need to developÂ*
Â*thremal energy to turn the desert to glass. Trump knows whatÂ*
Â*needs to be done and he's working on the problem."Â*



Wow, Justine!
Maybe we need to keep a dossier on y'all.
Now we just need s9meone to identify y'all do we can shine a light on your roach nest and set you scurrying.
Â*Â*

Try again, and this time in English.