No more Enterprise

[talisman]

When you factor in that every company that does business in China must give the
Chinese government their blueprints to their tech, yes it does. Have you not seen the China logo'd F150's and C1500's? Their F22 looks like ours? If you're saying we shouldn't expand our military, fine. However you do not pull ships or shuttles out of rotation until there is a replacement sitting in it's place. Especially with NK firing long range rockets, China fucking around the Pacific, Iran starting more shit, Egypt not being an ally, the Muslim Brotherhood in control of entire countries now and we have a piece of shit apologist in office who doesn't want to seem threatening

Yeah, and they all look like cobbled together jokes. Again, how big is our military compared to the second largest in the world? Compared to the top ten largest combined?

[Forever_frost]

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-similarities-between-the-j-20-heads-up-display-and-that-on-the-f-22-are-striking-2012-6?op=1

[Forever_frost]

Yeah, and they all look like cobbled together jokes. Again, how big is our military compared to the second largest in the world? Compared to the top ten largest combined?

You're under the impression we'd be fighting a one on one, ship to ship, plane to plane fight against one country. We no longer have the capability to confront two enemies at once. Take the countries the Muslim Brotherhood control with either China, Russia or Iran and we have a massive problem.

[talisman]

You're under the impression we'd be fighting a one on one, ship to ship, plane to plane fight against one country. We no longer have the capability to confront two enemies at once. Take the countries the Muslim Brotherhood control with either China, Russia or Iran and we have a massive problem.

So we're going to be taking on the other top 17 countires all at once? Because that is what our military spending is roughly equal to.

[Forever_frost]

Whatever the official nomenclature and symbolism, however, the Liaoning is attracting the world’s attention as a prominent, if modest and incremental in capabilities, indicator of how China will use its growing power. As Major General Qian Lihua declared in November 2008, “The question is not whether you have an aircraft carrier, but what you do with your aircraft carrier.”

Encouragingly, China’s MND lists developing “Far Seas cooperation” and capabilities to address non-traditional security threats as missions for the Liaoning. At the same time, however, it mentions safeguarding national sovereignty as another mission—presumably to address territorial and maritime disputes closer to home.

Despite a statement by Chinese National Defense University Professor and PLA officer Li Daguang that the timing of the Liaoning’s commissioning was designed to demonstrate resolve regarding the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute, for the foreseeable future the vessel cannot pose a direct threat to U.S. or Japanese forces. Yet, even in this modest form, it already worries its smaller South China Sea neighbors. Vietnam, in particular, has reason for concern: It lost skirmishes with Chinese naval forces over disputed islands in 1974 and 1988, even though those forces lacked significant air support. With a vulnerable land border and no U.S. alliance, Hanoi could even conceivably be at risk of suffering defeat in a third clash as it vigorously pursues island and maritime claims vis-à-vis China—this time against a Chinese navy with undeniable airpower from land, and eventually from sea.

China won the Johnson South Reef Skirmish of 14 March 1988, but quickly retreated for fear of Vietnamese air strikes and Soviet retaliation. Rear Admiral Chen Weiwen (PLAN, ret.), commanded the PLAN’s three-frigate force in the conflict with initiative that was temporarily controversial but now widely acclaimed.

In a 2011 interview with Modern Ships, Admiral Chen, who served as a commander in a 1988 conflict with Vietnamese forces in the Spratly Islands, emphasized the difference that an aircraft carrier could make. China had won the battle, but quickly withdrew:

During the Spratly Sea Battle, the thing we feared most was not Vietnam’s surface vessels, but rather their aircraft. At that time, Vietnam had Su-22 fighter aircraft, which had a definite ability to attack ships. The Spratlys are very far from Sanya, and at that time we also lacked airfields in the Paracels. Flying from the nearest airfield, Lingshui [on Hainan Island], our aircraft only had loiter time of 4-5 minutes; in such a short time, they could not solve problems before they had to return, or they would run out of fuel. So we felt deeply that China must have an aircraft carrier: If during the Johnson South Reef Skirmish, we had our own [air] cover from a nearby aircraft carrier, we would simply not have had to fear Vietnam’s air force. Now that the Spratlys have airfields, it is much more convenient. If China’s aircraft carrier enters service relatively soon, and training is well-established, this will solve a major problem. We will seize air superiority; Vietnamese aircraft will not dare to take off.

The idea of using deck aviation to address China’s sovereignty claims is hardly Admiral Chen’s alone. According to “Science of Campaigns,” an authoritative volume written by scholars at China’s National Defense University, carriers can play a crucial role by providing air cover beyond the range of land-based air to support long-range amphibious landing operations against small islands: “Combat in the deep-sea island and reef region is relatively more independent, without support from the land-based force and air force. Under this situation, an aircraft carrier is even more important in winning victory in the campaign.” In a recent interview, Sr. Capt. Li Jie, an expert at the PLAN’s strategic think tank, was quoted as stating that “China’s first aircraft carrier…will play an important role in China’s settlement of islands disputes and defense of its maritime rights and interests.”

Looming Large and Making Waves?

So how might Liaoning ultimately influence Chinese naval operations and future naval procurement? The answers to this question will substantially shape other countries’ views concerning the strategic course China takes.

China’s maritime neighbors in Southeast Asia, as well as Japan, India, South Korea, Russia, Australia and the U.S. will pay especially close attention. With Liaoning officially in the fleet, the next questions that China’s military and civilian leaders must grapple with are, first, how to use the ship; second, how many more carriers to build; and third, how to protect it from the increasingly capable anti-ship weapons being acquired by neighbors such as Vietnam, which is due to take delivery of its first Russian Kilo-class diesel attack submarine by the end of 2012. The Liaoning’s existence will likely impel China to develop more advanced surface combatants and anti-submarine forces to protect the symbolically valuable, but operationally vulnerable, asset.

At present, the Liaoning remains first and foremost an emblem of future Chinese sea power. All of its 10 sea trials to date have occurred well within Chinese waters. Chinese naval aircraft have not achieved the basic milestone of landing on its deck with the help of arrestor wires, or “traps,” a process that their American counterparts have been perfecting for decades.

Yet, while the Liaoning’s capabilities will remain modest for the foreseeable future, it will be watched carefully as an important symbol of Beijing’s intentions. As Rear Admiral Yang Yi wrote in a commentary published immediately after the commissioning was made public: “In order to counterbalance the theory that its new aircraft carrier is a threat, China must not only continue to make clear its strategies and policies, it must also take practical actions to convince the world that with the development of China’s military strength, especially the strengthening of its overseas projection capability, it will enhance its role as a defender of regional stability and world peace.”

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2012/09/25/introducing-the-liaoning-chinas-new-aircraft-carrier-and-what-it-means/

[Forever_frost]

So we're going to be taking on the other top 17 countires all at once? Because that is what our military spending is roughly equal to.

We have ships and aircraft that are 20 years old. We have rifles that are vietnam era equipment and we're still using missiles and rockets from Vietnam. I know this for a fact because I've fired TOW missiles that had been stored since Vietnam. We need to equip our forces with the best tech on the planet and other countries are increasing their abilities while we're not. We're in trouble.

[talisman]

We have ships and aircraft that are 20 years old. We have rifles that are vietnam era equipment and we're still using missiles and rockets from Vietnam. I know this for a fact because I've fired TOW missiles that had been stored since Vietnam. We need to equip our forces with the best tech on the planet and other countries are increasing their abilities while we're not. We're in trouble.

So does everyone else. Junk gets old. Like the original article says, we're replacing it. You're talking about how antiquated our equipment is while complaining that they just took a fucking 51 year old carrier out of service!

[Couver]

It would have been cost prohibitive. To refuel it you have to rip the whole ass end off. They actually got one more cruise out of it then originally scheduled. Budgets and orders for carriers are done years out Frost can't stick all this one on the comrade.

[Forever_frost]

You don't take it out of commission until you have a replacement. Remember the shuttles being mothballed before we have a replacement and now we have to depend on the Russians? Yeah. Like that but with defense.

Couver, even if the order was given, she shouldn't be gutted until her replacement is in the water. Hell, during the World Wars we were fielding ships that had been in service long before. We have entire floating islands of ships off the coast of California.

[Couver]

You don't take it out of commission until you have a replacement. Remember the shuttles being mothballed before we have a replacement and now we have to depend on the Russians? Yeah. Like that but with defense.

Couver, even if the order was given, she shouldn't be gutted until her replacement is in the water. Hell, during the World Wars we were fielding ships that had been in service long before. We have entire floating islands of ships off the coast of California.

I agree with you absoulty on having the replacement ready. But trust me that ship is in rough shape and needed to be decommissioned. We used to be a 12 carrier Navy until we proved we could do it with 10. Now we will make do with nine and people will ask why we need 10. They don't think of the Sailors out there for scheduled 9-10 month cruises. That shit sucks.

Oh yeah and it puts way more wear and tear on our current gear aging them faster. And down the rabbit hole we go. Don't forget the military gets to eat a lot more cuts when we drive off this fiscal cliff....

[Forever_frost]

Yep. Defense gets 50% of the cuts while making up less than 25% of the budget. Fucking hippy bastards

[68RR]

Frost..

Do you ever do a thorough search before you post?? The ship was activated in Nov 1961.. It was originally expected to be in service for 25 years. Mods doubled it's life. The cost to refurbish AND refuel it are not worthwhile. It was scheduled to be decommissioned in late 2013/early 2014. The Bush is scheduled to be active in 2015.
Its flat worn out...

[Sean88gt]

Good to know that Star Trek will endure.

In all seriousness, this PO(S)TUS is going to leave us wide open. We'll get hit with 911 x 2356.

[Sgt Beavis]

Already did. Reduction of military force has been his call. Along with destroying our space program

Sorry but the space program is one of the few things he has gotten half way right. Anything fucked up (the SLS rocket for instance) was due to a compromise forced on him by the Senate.

[Forever_frost]

I am aware of when it entered service as well as the projected service life. She shouldn't have been left in service that long but she was. Point is, you don't pull a weapon until you have something to replace it with. If we had another carrier on the line to maintain readiness, then I'd not have an issue. Same with the shuttles. If there had been another shuttle to use to replace the ones mothballed, then there's not an issue.

Point is removing gear from service without a replacement.