Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Talk about sitting ducks (all 5 of US Navy ALT Aircraft Carriers in port)....

page: 3
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 
Thanks for your post. It was enlightening.
Looks like the US Navy has been well-managed for the last few years, eh?





posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
reply to post by strykr619
 


You do know we have 11 aircraft carriers right?


Actually, we have ten.


We have two more being built now for a total of 13. Your title says all five.


We will never reach 13 and it's going to take awhile:

CVN-78 Ford construction at Newport News. Avail 2015, replaces Enterprise.
CVN-79 Kennedy construction at Newport News. Avail 2018, replaces Nimitz.
CVN-80 Enterprise, planned, unfunded, Avail 2024 (maybe), replaces Eisenhower.


Me thinks its more right wing God I am so scared the boogie man will get us so we need to spend more on the military mentality that is the reason our nation is broke.


We spend $1 trillion dollars per year on so-called anti-poverty programs that do nothing but keep people in poverty. They started in the sixties and in the last fifty years the poverty rate has gone up, not down. That's a lot more than the military budget. Perhaps that has something to do with it, too, The Defense Department budget is 19% of the total federal budget. It makes no sense to blame military spending for "why the nation is broke" when it represents less than a fifth of the total budget. It's in the US Constitution that the Feds "provide for the common defense." Little else of what the feds spend money on is mandated by the Constitution.
edit on 2/28/2013 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 05:33 PM
link   
Yeah their there because the government has no money. They can't afford to do much with them right now.

Could be potentially bad, since other countries will be able to notice we don't have the money to have repairs, or have um sailing else where. If another war were to come along soon it would really hurt us financially, and may give enemies incentive to grow more aggressive.



posted on Feb, 28 2013 @ 05:55 PM
link   


This isn't the 1940's. Nothing is going to "sneak up on us". So who would it be? Russia? We would see them coming. China? Doubt it. Sadam maybe comes back from the dead and attacks us with his ghostly wmd's?
reply to post by DerekJR321
 

Ahem what about that Russian sub in the Gulf not too long ago?
And those pesky rubber Chinese subs one of which popped right up in the middle or striking distance of a carrier group undetected until they saw it visually?

Damn right someone will sneak up it they want to.
Regards, Iwinder
edit on 28-2-2013 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)
edit on 28-2-2013 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 02:37 AM
link   
We have been at war for over ten years. The ocean elements are hard on equipment even in peace time. They are good at projecting force, once they reach their objective but really are large slow targets. Overseas air bases are making up the difference.

A carrier has to respond to a threat and that takes time. A really hot war with a major world power would probably be over before the carriers get involved.

Carriers are good for bullying little countries into submission. And that isn't good for our rep right now. They are a tool but a slow blunt one.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 02:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
A carrier has to respond to a threat and that takes time. A really hot war with a major world power would probably be over before the carriers get involved.

Carriers are good for bullying little countries into submission. And that isn't good for our rep right now. They are a tool but a slow blunt one.


Nicely put and accurate imho.

They have their place which will diminish over the long run yet are appropriate presently considering the abilities of smaller or some larger countries yet power projection of these assets strips most still to this day.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by grey580
The CIA needs to give up some of it's illicitly made money and lend it to the DoD.
Either that or we can steal, er I mean confiscate money tied to terrorism.
I bet we can get a few billion out of that.
Or we can just legalize and tax certain banned substances 100% and have enough money for everything.


I suggest 'invading' Mexico and retrieving all those piles of drug dollars, somewhere on ATS there is a picture of a pile estimated at $22 million. its a start.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


The Chinese sub was laying on the bottom and waited for them to pass over head. That's a lot different from sneaking into a harbor. The US used to have subs do that to the Soviets, and they were damn lucky to pull it off. It's not that easy to do, no matter what kind of sub you have.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 10:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Iwinder
 


The Chinese sub was laying on the bottom and waited for them to pass over head. That's a lot different from sneaking into a harbor. The US used to have subs do that to the Soviets, and they were damn lucky to pull it off. It's not that easy to do, no matter what kind of sub you have.



I agree, it probably is very difficult to do.
But the thing is, it did and has happened before and I would guess that it has happened a lot more than what the general public has been told.

Don't get my intentions wrong, the very last thing I want is to hear of a Carrier going down.
That is the last thing anyone needs right now because as other posters have mentioned that would be a very good spark to a short fuse world wide.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by MysterX

Originally posted by DerekJR321
Call me naive.. but WHO exactly would it be that would attack us in port???

This isn't the 1940's. Nothing is going to "sneak up on us". So who would it be? Russia? We would see them coming. China? Doubt it. Sadam maybe comes back from the dead and attacks us with his ghostly wmd's?

I think those carriers are just as safe in port as they are in the Persian Gulf. And besides.. do you know how much it takes to run a carrier group?? If these jerk-offs can't even get the budget right, its no wonder they are sitting at port. Then again, is it possible they are cycling out crew??



Sabre rattling or not, North Korea just threatened to blow the USA away with nukes, only a few days ago.

I would have thought, even if the threat was being considered more of the same old NK nonsense, it would be prudent to come down on the side of caution.

We never stop hearing about Terrorists, wouldn't the bulk of the US carrier fleet be a tempting target for these?

We never stop hearing about Iran either, i'd imagine if they are as bloodthirsty and maniacle as they'd been repeatedly painted over the years, they might fancy a pop at a carrier or so.

The Chinese may decide to stage a preemptive missile strike, claim a missile test malfunction blah blah blah.

There's actually plenty of reasons to not put most of your eggs in one basket, however unlikely the threats might seem.


I completely agree about North Korea. I believe that is a country who has made DIRECT threats against us. Who apparently DOES have nuclear weapons, and most certainly WOULD use them against us. But.. you don't hear much about us threatening them back do you?

Terrorism.. meh.. I don't think we need carrier groups to deal with terrorism. It boggles my mind when we drop a 2000lb GBU on a building to take out 2 or 3 hadji's hiding in a building. Do you know how much one GBU costs?!

Iran is about as much threat to us as Canada. They haven't threatened us. I seriously doubt they are building a nuke. And even if they were.. I don't see them being stupid enough to attack us.

China at some point will be a problem for us. But not right now. They seem to be gearing up for a go at Japan anyway. Let those two fight it out.

Oh and just to add. The COST of operating JUST a Nimitz class carrier? $1.4 Million PER day. Every single launch from a carrier deck? $80,600. And on average, a carrier does 18 launches and recoveries a day.

That's the cost of 1 carrier. We have 11 Carrier Battle Groups. So yeah.. it's a little pricey to run a battle group.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


There are problems with it happening in Norfolk though. Even with all the mods, the sub used to sneak into Soviet harbors was quieter than any Soviet boats. The Akula is quiet enough to sneak up on a 688(I), but probably not into Norfolk. Their new boat might be, but it's a boomer, so that ain't gonna happen.

The Chinese don't have enough blue water experience to try to sneak a diesel boat across the Pacific, around South America, and into Norfolk. If they went through the Panama Canal, then the entire world finds out, and wonders what the hell a Chinese sub is doing in the Atlantic.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerekJR321
That's the cost of 1 carrier. We have 11 Carrier Battle Groups. So yeah.. it's a little pricey to run a battle group.


Actually we have 10 now. Enterprise is gone, and her replacement isn't due to hit water even for trials for awhile yet.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Iwinder
 


There are problems with it happening in Norfolk though. Even with all the mods, the sub used to sneak into Soviet harbors was quieter than any Soviet boats. The Akula is quiet enough to sneak up on a 688(I), but probably not into Norfolk. Their new boat might be, but it's a boomer, so that ain't gonna happen.

The Chinese don't have enough blue water experience to try to sneak a diesel boat across the Pacific, around South America, and into Norfolk. If they went through the Panama Canal, then the entire world finds out, and wonders what the hell a Chinese sub is doing in the Atlantic.



Not trying to be a smart****. Why do you seem to eliminate transition through the North Pole. Seems like a quicker journey and better escape route. Leave an old, large Russian Nuke on the sea floor, start the timer, and run home as fast as the prop goes, then blame it on NK.

P



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 05:58 PM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


Because transiting the north pole in a diesel sub isn't the easiest thing in the world. Some of the newer boats can do it, but the first crossing under the pole didn't come until Nautilus did it in 1958.

The Soviets tried something similar in 1968 in an attempt to frame the Chinese. It led to the sinking of their boat near Hawaii.
edit on 3/1/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Ok, thanks for that. I would have thought that the disappearance of so much of the arctic ice would have made the transition that much easier today. At the right time of the year the ice coverage is so much less than it used to be and the ice is a great deal thinner than it used to be. I have no problem deferring to your wisdom. Love your posts!

P



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by pheonix358
 


At times it could be done, I'm sure, but again, their lack of blue water experience would come into play. The Chinese military for many years has been a local force. They're attempting to build a military capable of force projection with the new SSBNs, and the carrier, but they're many years away from that.

Thanks, I always appreciate hearing people like my posts. Always better than being a shill.
edit on 3/1/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Iwinder
 


There are problems with it happening in Norfolk though. Even with all the mods, the sub used to sneak into Soviet harbors was quieter than any Soviet boats. The Akula is quiet enough to sneak up on a 688(I), but probably not into Norfolk. Their new boat might be, but it's a boomer, so that ain't gonna happen.

The Chinese don't have enough blue water experience to try to sneak a diesel boat across the Pacific, around South America, and into Norfolk. If they went through the Panama Canal, then the entire world finds out, and wonders what the hell a Chinese sub is doing in the Atlantic.



I hope that your above statements are correct and I always think of the daily improvement in technology that seems unstoppable.

Be it anti sub tech or sub tech every day is going to be different in my opinion only.

They never fully explained that Russian sub that went undetected for who knows how long in the Gulf.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


There's also no actual proof that it did. Just a sensationalized news story that started on some conservative blogs and was run with. Even Russia refused to say that they did it.

This is what I loved about one of the articles:


Cornyn, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has demanded an explanation of the press reports of the submarine incursion, which was apparently accompanied by Russian bomber flights in restricted American airspace. Cornyn points out, as does the account in the Washington Free Beacon, that the Russian military operations so close to American shores constitutes a new, aggressive military stance being conducted by the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Cornyn goes on to express concerns about Obama administration budget cuts that, in his view, will seriously hamper the ability of the United States military to respond to such incursions.

news.yahoo.com...

Sure, if Russian bombers flying near Alaska somehow are accompanying a sub in the Gulf of Mexico. Because you know, the two are right next door after all.



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 

Fair enough and let me say now I am not being combative, but will we ever know how deep the penetrations have gone for anyone?

I say not on your life we will ever hear that some one breached an unbreachable.
Star for your excellent informative posts
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Mar, 1 2013 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


The Gulf has never really been unbreachable, just extremely difficult. After Japan sold the Soviets the tech to build new screws, along with I believe plans for them, the Soviet boats got much quieter. But their plants have always been loud, and SOSUS usually has no trouble finding them. The newest boomers I believe will turn out to be somewhere between a 688(I), and an Ohio in terms of noise. Once they build an SSN along the same design lines, things will get much more interesting out there.






top topics



 
18
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join