It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Navy ready to cut carrier/air wing

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   
Word is that the Obama Administration is looking to cut 6-8 major programs from the US military in the next quadrennial review. The US Navy is prepared to offer up a carrier, and corresponding air wing as one of the projects.

The plan currently is to have the Lincoln go in for refueling in 2012, and the Enterprise retire about the same time, cutting the carrier fleet down to 10 Nimitz class ships. That will be the lowest number since 1942. Navy insiders think that the Lincoln would skip refuel/refit, and Enterprise would be retired as planned.

One of the problems with this idea is that Congress mandated that there be no fewer than 11 carriers in the fleet at any given time. Having 10 carriers gives the Navy about half a dozen to respond to any situation.


The word within the Pentagon is that the White House wants to collect 6-8 "scalps" -- major program kills -- in this year's Quadrennial Defense Review. Some of the cuts are already being considered as defense secretary Robert Gates rewrites the 2010 budget. You can expect to hear a lot of rumors about which programs are being targeted between now and when the Pentagon releases details of its budget request in April.

But while most of the military services are scrambling to protect programs, at least one is getting ready to offer up a signature weapons system. The Navy will propose removal of one aircraft carrier and air wing from its posture, dropping the number of carriers to the lowest number since 1942.

www.defense-aerospace.com...


[edit on 3/26/2009 by Zaphod58]




posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 07:30 PM
link   
It makes sens if you have all them hi tech gadgets imo.

same thing happend in the uk. we had the biggest navy, no reason to have ships roaming about when infact the nations who you class as your nmy have nukes just like you.

subs are the new battle weapon imo, and unmanned planes fit right in to that. no need for men if you dont need them to fly planes!!

cost affective and very smart, china has to learn this as they are trying to out match the us navy at the moment.. but the usa has alot of other "toys" in its arsenal to counter the ships that they will scrap.

good post s+f



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:38 PM
link   
God help us, and this coming from an Agnostic.

We have Obama being as informed as a bolt on military matters and Gates with his one track mind on low intensity conflicts dictating procurement and strategy.
Meanwhile China and Russia are rapidly modernizing their forces and seeking to spread such influence in vital areas of the world.

'Hey, we have a fighter shortfall in the Navy, build more aircraft? No, lets lower the capability needs and retire a carrier. This will reduce our overall budget and strike shortfall.'

Way to go guys, keep it up. While we're broke and allegedly cant sustain the military, don't forget to spend another trillion bailing out corrupt corporations.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
It makes a lot of sense from Obama's point of view, actually.

Aircraft carriers are useless tools for an administration whose core focus is on stripping its own people of their rights to self defense and then subjugating them to slavery.

The goal of a military is to strike its enemies, and that's us. There's no water between the government and the people, so there's no real need for so many carriers.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I got no problem with this. Did you know that Russia has only one aircraft carrier that doesn’t even have a catapult system? The planes drive up a ramp at the front of the ship.

This is a huge waste of money. Get rid of the carrier, and give me national health care.


www.mudvillegazette.com...

[edit on 27-3-2009 by finemanm]



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
IMO, armadas of aircraft carriers and wings of stealth bombers are useless in the modern style of low intensity conflicts.

We should re-invest in offshore patrol craft, infantry, special forces, helicopters, light armor/IFVs/APCs.



posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ChrisF231
 


We need to have a mix of both. That's one of the missions of the Virginia class subs (littoral missions), and the new Littoral Combat Ship.

LCS-1 USS Freedom was commissioned November 8th.
LCS-2 USS Independence is under construction, and is scheduled for delivery in September.
LCS-3 USS Fort Worth was scheduled to be turned over to the Navy this year, now by December 2012.

While you'll see a lot of low intensity conflicts, carriers give the military an amazingly flexible response to those conflicts. They have recon platforms, and can perform dozens of missions, while remaining mobile. Air Force bases don't have that option.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by finemanmDid you know that Russia has only one aircraft carrier that doesn’t even have a catapult system? The planes drive up a ramp at the front of the ship. [edit on 27-3-2009 by finemanm]


You might laugh if it WAS a carrier but it ISNT!

The admiral Kuznetsov is an Aviation Cruiser not a carrier.

What that means is that the Kuz has all the firepower of a big battle cruiser and has AC to enhance its fire power even more.
To get a grip of the amount of firepower the Kuz has to bear you must visualise a Carrier Battle Group. Put all the firepower on one ship and hey presto: A Aviation Cruiser with nearly the same firepower of a complete CBG.

Also the lack of a catapult system is irrelevant due to the AC taking off the Kuz: SU-33 and SU-25. The former a navalised SU-27 which is basicaly taking a F-15 to the seas. I can say that it posses a big challenge on the Super F-18. The SU-25 is very good for ASW and it can aid landforces with CAS.

And about number of Aviation Cruisers: Russia plans to have 4 to 7 of those by 2020-25.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As for cutting the amount of carriers by one, If it was neccesary i would Retire the oldest of the bunch and upgrade/replace the others.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by James R. Hawkwood
 


You give way to much credit to old soviet technology.

Quick comparisson:

The Admiral Kuznetsov v. the USS George H.W. Bush:
Displacement: 66,000 v. 97,000 tons full load.
Air Craft carried: 44 v. 90
Crew: 1,993 v. 3,200

Russian Navy v. US Navy
less than 150 ships v. more than 250 ships.

And Russia was the other superpower until about 18 years ago. Most of their ships are soviet era ships that have 1980's capabilities in the new milienium.

The US spends WAY TOO MUCH on the military.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Good on him for scaling back our fleet. Once you look past the jingoism, it makes sense. Any opponent we would REALISTICALLY engage in the next several years isn't going to be one that we could actually use an aircraft carrier against effectively.

Right now, the United States is the premier naval superpower. Theres no arguing that. China couldn't support a blue water navy large enough to engage ours, Russia could if they used a fleet of cold war era ships, and neither is foolish enough to engage the US in direct warfare. So the only thing losing two aircraft carriers means is that we have a bit less projection capability, and it hardly compromises our nation.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by finemanm
reply to post by James R. Hawkwood
 
You give way to much credit to old soviet technology.


WOW!!! That is a lot of Ignorance with capital I.
Like most US ships are made a day ago


May i remind you that most US ships that havent been upgraded to latest standards still cant defend themselves from the infamous SS-22 "Sunburn".

(Modern US Tech made that threat useless).



Displacement: 66,000 v. 97,000 tons full load.
Air Craft carried: 44 v. 90
Crew: 1,993 v. 3,200


The George is a big ship indeed and indeed carries more planes but there the comparison ends... Fact is that the basic performance of the planes on the Kuz are better then the Super F-18. And that is aside from the crazy arsenal the ship it carries since it is a Cruiser instead of a "simple" carrier.


Russian Navy v. US Navy
less than 150 ships v. more than 250 ships.


Right now that is true but you should think about the future since Russia is prepping to build "normal" cruisers and destroyers besides Aviation cruisers again and in masse to replace the older stuf.

And that is aside the fact that the average Russian vessel has loads more firepower then most western equivelants.



And Russia was the other superpower until about 18 years ago. Most of their ships are soviet era ships that have 1980's capabilities in the new milienium.


Most US ships are also from the 80's and have those capabillities from that time if you dont infactor upgrades which the Russians are also doing...

Example: US Arleigh Burke cruisers get the Pac 2 or Pac-3 upgrades the Ageis systems in the 90's or in the 2000's.

Russian Battle cruisers get upgrades from navalised S-300 to navalised S-400...

If you only would see what is rolling of the drydocks lately in Russia, then you would not approve Obama's deceision since a lot of ships in Russia are getting upgraded or are about to be replaced.

And Russia is slowly becoming a Superpower once again...


The US spends WAY TOO MUCH on the military.


That is correct but not from "socialist" "hippie" standpoints but rather efficiency due to heavy corruption and greed in the US army.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by James R. Hawkwood
You might laugh if it WAS a carrier but it ISNT!

The admiral Kuznetsov is an Aviation Cruiser not a carrier.

What that means is that the Kuz has all the firepower of a big battle cruiser and has AC to enhance its fire power even more.
To get a grip of the amount of firepower the Kuz has to bear you must visualise a Carrier Battle Group. Put all the firepower on one ship and hey presto: A Aviation Cruiser with nearly the same firepower of a complete CBG.

Also the lack of a catapult system is irrelevant due to the AC taking off the Kuz: SU-33 and SU-25. The former a navalised SU-27 which is basicaly taking a F-15 to the seas. I can say that it posses a big challenge on the Super F-18. The SU-25 is very good for ASW and it can aid landforces with CAS.





This is too absurd to ignore. Aside that this "flagship of the Russian navy" continually runs into financial and technical difficulties, let's discuss your "CBG all in one" commentary.

The Aviation Cruiser has:

Armament:
8 × AK-630 AA guns (6×30 mm, 6,000 round/min/mount, 24,000 rounds)
8 × CADS-N-1 Kashtan CIWS (each 2 × 30 mm Gatling AA plus 16 3K87 Kortik SAM)
12 × P-700 Granit SSM
18 × 8-cell 3K95 Kinzhal SAM VLS (192 missiles; 1 missile per 3 seconds)
RBU-12000 UDAV-1 ASW rocket launchers (60 rockets)

Aircraft carried: 12-15 × Sukhoi Su-33 fighters
5 × Sukhoi Su-25UTG/UBP aircraft
4 × Kamov Ka-27LD32 helicopters
18 × Kamov Ka-27PLO helicopters
2 × Kamov Ka-27S helicopters

A CBG: [Example]
The carrier:
2 NATO Sea Sparrow launchers,
2 × 20 mm Phalanx CIWS mounts,
2 RAM launchers
70-90 Aircraft

USS Princeton:
Armament: 2 × 61 cell Mk 41 vertical launch systems
122 × RIM-66 SM-2, RIM-162 ESSM, BGM-109 Tomahawk, or RUM-139 VL-Asroc
8 × RGM-84 Harpoon missiles
2 × Mark 45 5 in / 54 cal lightweight gun
2 × 25 mm
2–4 × .50 cal (12.7 mm) gun
2 × Phalanx CIWS
2 × Mk 32 12.75 in (324 mm) triple torpedo tubes
Aircraft carried: 2 × Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk LAMPS III helicopters.

USS Chaffee:
Armament: 1 × 32 cell, 1 × 64 cell Mk 41 vertical launch systems, 96 × RIM-66 SM-2, BGM-109 Tomahawk, RIM-162 ESSM or RUM-139 VL-Asroc, missiles
1 × 5″/62 in (127/62 mm), 2 × 25 mm, 4 × 12.7 mm guns
2 × Mk 46 triple torpedo tubes,
1 × Phalanx 1B CIWS Mount
Aircraft carried: 2 × SH-60 Sea Hawk helicopters

USS Higgins:
Armament:

1 × 29 cell, 1 × 61 cell Mk 41 vertical launch systems with 90 × RIM-66 SM-2, BGM-109 Tomahawk or RUM-139 VL-Asroc missiles
1 × Mark 45 5/54 in (127/54 mm)
2 × 25 mm chain gun
4 × .50 caliber (12.7 mm) guns
2 × 20 mm Phalanx CIWS
2 × Mk 32 triple torpedo tubes
Aircraft carried: 1 SH-60 Sea Hawk helicopter can be embarked, no hanger

And all that is spread out between multiple targets, and all with multiple defense systems which can work with one-another.

It'd have been better to say the russian ship is a typical carrier plus an AAM system. And an extra few tidbits.

Given, the U.S. system costs an exhorbitant amount more, but to claim one ship somehow fulfills the role of four or five is absurd and ignorant at best.



posted on Mar, 28 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by James R. Hawkwood
 


I am soooooo not a hippie, that its not even funny.

The US currently spends $651,163,000,000 on defense annually. The real number is actually closer to a trillion when you factor in the two wars and defense research. I read that in an article that I can't find right now.

But if you take just the $651 Billion, that is 56% of global defense spending. Thats nuts. The next highest budget is China with $70,242,645,000 in annual spending. That is slightly more than 10% of the US defense budget.

It is rediculous that we spend that much on "defense" when kids in school don't have books, teachers can barely afford to live, and millions of middle and working class americans have no health coverage.

If we cut our defense budget by one third, we would still outspend the next nine countries COMBINED.


[edit on 28-3-2009 by finemanm]



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 11:59 AM
link   
If we could streamline the cost-overruns by contractors, that would actually save more money than cutting a handful of programs alltogether. But alas the MIC is firmly entrenched and set in its ways and I don't think Obama has enough hutzpah to dare and try for real "change" in the MIC.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

The Littoral Combat Ship aka Little Crappy Ship?

What we need is more USCG National Security Class cutters and US Navy Cyclone Class patrol vessels. It's time for the US military to learn how to defend our borders and coastal waters instead of going off thousands of miles away to fight a few guys in caves. We have a far more serious threat much closer to home called Mexican instability.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   
At the same time were dropping the Enterprise, which, lets admit it, is a maintenance nightmare, and the only reason shes still around is because Rickover said that the ship would last 50 years. That thing needs to just go, we just rolled out the HW Bush, and we have the Ford class carriers coming. Its not like were destroying our fleet or messing up our ability. Were still rolling out Virginia classes, the DDG-1000's...well nevermind those. But then we got done with the Ohio refit to be SSGN's. I don't think were really killing off our navy. If we start retiring multiple carriers, then I'll worry, but 9 CBG's is enough to go out and take care of whatever we need to take care of IMO.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ChrisF231
 


The cost per NSC has shot up. In June 2002, the cost for the first two ships was $516.8M. After the design changes instituted by the Coast Guard, it jumped to $960M in 2007. $123M of the increase is just from Hurricane Katrina, $49.2M just for inflation, the other $261M is from changes and other requirements.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
We could buy 2 NSC's for the cost of a single LCS ... I believe the current estimated cost is over $600 billion per ship.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of the LCS but for the cost I think we can go with cheaper alternatives.



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Makes total sense Obama wants to pare down the official military, to make room for his own private military which will be just as powerful, strong, and well funded as the official military but have total allegiance to Obama:


"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
- Barack Obama | 2 July 2008 | Colorado Springs, Colorado



posted on Mar, 29 2009 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ChrisF231
 


I think there was a slight typo there. USS Freedom is at $600M right now. The design is complete now, after the reworks and changes, and they are working towards getting the cost to the cap of $460M per ship.




top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join