No more Enterprise

[exlude]

I feel safe knowing that retired junior enlisted and civilians have a better picture of worldwide joint service operations than the Admirals, secretaries, chiefs of staff, and highest civilian leaders.

[Forever_frost]

Everytime we cut the military, it has to be rebuilt at much higher price tags. Look at what Bush had to rebuild after Clinton's cuts after 9/11. And with Obama cutting like a blind lumberjack, imagine what the next guy is going to have to rebuild.

You don't equip and build to fight today. You prepare for tomorrow. Unless you've had to depend on those 30 to 40 year old rounds and equipment to bring you home at the end of the day, you have no idea what you're asking for. Cutting the military is saying "Yeah, those round you're using are okay from the 70's. Seriously. So what if a few of them in your magazine don't fire and you have to perform SPORTS. That's only a few seconds of no rounds going down range."

Those few seconds get you killed and worse, get your friends killed. Constitutionally, before you touch a dime in defense, you cut everything not expressly demanded in the Constitution

[Forever_frost]

I feel safe knowing that retired junior enlisted and civilians have a better picture of worldwide joint service operations than the Admirals, secretaries, chiefs of staff, and highest civilian leaders.

We're the ones actually using the equipment day in and day out, see what works and doesn't and pay with our lives when things break in combat. Who are you going to trust to tell you about a weapon system? The politician or general who wants a promotion or the guy using it?

[exlude]

Yeah a carrier is not your individual weapon, that's a horrid comparison.

Compoundedly horrid when you consider that the discussion is not about what anyone thought about the carrier. It's about global strategy, which those people I listed are going to have much better knowledge of.

This is equivalent to private snuffy thinking all his command's decisions and taskings are stupid. To put it in the words of one of my colonels, private snuffy has a sandbox approximately 500 times smaller than his commands sandbox. Essentially, he has a piss poor snapshot of the big picture.

[Chas_svo]

F_F still plays with these

Those guys would kick your ass as well.

I agree that our defense is a bit excessive. It wouldn't hurt to cut the Pentagon's budget and I am all for that as long as none of it comes out of benefits for veterans or anyone in the military. It isn't going to hurt to not make as much hardware.

Here is the flip side of that though, I don't think we have the manufacturing base to start making shit overnight. And these weapons are not easy to manufacture.

Check out lead time on a carrier.

I feel safe knowing that retired junior enlisted and civilians have a better picture of worldwide joint service operations than the Admirals, secretaries, chiefs of staff, and highest civilian leaders.

Everyone on here except Naynay has a better picture that the idiot in chief.

[Downs]

what "war" are you talking about?

The "GWOT"


Sent from my iPhone

[Couver]

Since this thread is wobbling off track I will throw this out there. We can make 9 carriers work at any given time. We have surge capability for a reason. What is killing us right now is the requirement to have 2 in the gulf region at all times. If it was one then ships could be in transit from either coast for a relief and ease up on the whole pipeline.

Plus the 2 months of extra repair the Nimitz needs before it deploys means a lot of suck for those covering the two requirements the Navy wants filled right now.

[Forever_frost]

You know, we do have tons of ships in the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet

[Couver]

You know, we do have tons of ships in the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet

Those are mostly shit though. Old WW2 types rusting away.

Look at the storage in Bremerton and Philidelphia for our carriers. We still have a lot of big decks that could be brought back. Constellation, JFK and Kitty Hawk come to mind. They would take a lot of cash to spin back up and people who know how to run oil fired boilers to start with.

At the end of the day in 3-4 years we will be doing ok. New ships in the mix and hopefully a more relaxed op-tempo. One ship on cruise from each coast with their reliefs on work ups. One or two in re-fit/refuel with the others doing routine training. In theory that will work.

Now think about our aging ass jets we puts on them. That another whole thread about some of the junk we have bought of late (*cough* F-35 F-22)

Still blows my mind the Navy is buying the F-35. We proved single engine jets suck a long time ago. When you lose it even 5 miles from the ship you are going for a swim.

[Forever_frost]

I know they are. Merely pointing out if you want to only look at numbers and expenses, then on paper we have 3 reserve fleet of thousands

[Couver]

Back on topic the reason for having as many carriers as we can is simple. Most the worlds population is close to oceans. If something jumps off we can put an airfield off the coast of a lot of the worlds problems. We don't have to ask "mother may I" to a host nation for our smaller AF jets. The AF heavies can launch from CONUS and hit anywhere.

A carrier battle group or two with their tomahawk carrying small boys can wreck havoc anywhere in the world.

[DallasSleeper]

Nothing says "Greetings" like a carrier battle group off of your coast

[Forever_frost]

And that show of force keeps a lot of peace.

[diablo rojo]

And that show of force keeps a lot of peace.

"A nuclear deterrent, cause that always calms everything right down."
- Tony Stark

I agree with the need 100%. What I don't understand is the blame. This was put in motion before the 2010 legislation.....hell, I remember reading about the new class of carriers in a Popular Science some 15 years ago. Military advisors, Generals, POTUS(s), Congress....they ALL made this decision.

Say you have a trucking company and you've placed an order for a new truck to replace an old one. The old one is costing money left and right to stay viable. The fiscally smart thing to do is let logistics divide the load from that truck across the fleet until the new one comes online. It doesn't always work perfect.

Will it put a minor strain on our fleet for a short period, yes. But, I think our fleet can sustain it's presence globally without a noticeable lag.

For those interested in reading the legislation:

http://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2010

[Downs]

The "Shitty Hawk". That is what I always heard guys that served on it call it. Last oil fired carrier in the fleet till a few years ago wasn't it?