CDZ Can You Answer These Questions?

[usmbguest5318]

I’ve ask this question several times in the past without any satisfactory answers coming from anyone on a political forum, old Navy vet friends, or letters to my congress critters.

it takes over 2000 crew mwmbers for a single carrier.

Well, did they answer your question? I can't imagine they did because the answer, at least at the level you've framed it, is on the Internet. Congress members and their staff aren't generally given to being someone's, even a constituent's, research service.

• What It Takes To Successfully Attack an American Aircraft Carrier
  
• Essay: The New Strategic Realities of U.S. Carrier Operations - USNI News
  
• Here Is Every Aircraft Carrier in the World
  
• Naval Tactics and the Introduction of the Aircraft Carrier

I'm not a military strategist by any means, but it seems to me:

• The crew required for battleships was also ~2K.
• In the 21st century, there's no sneaking up on an aircraft carrier as the Japanese snuck up on Pearl.
• Planes can reach targets farther away than can 16" guns, thus a carrier has a far larger sphere of influence.
• While the carrier itself need defending, the aircraft carrier strategy is not to defend the carrier but to attack the enemy.
• While airspace is "owned" by the nations whose land it covers, the oceans are not "owned" by anyone.
• A mobile island is far harder to find and hit than is a base on land and it doesn't required a host country's complicity.

All that and more notwithstanding, there is a legitimate argument against the carrier-based strategy; however, that argument is largely, as far as I can tell, political and economic rather than battle focused. I think it's overall a silly argument because it is predicated on the idealism that the U.S. has no adversary who would want to launch a military attack on the "lower 48," Alaska or Hawaii. I think the reality is that the U.S. carrier groups effectively ensure that no nation is going to bring a war to the U.S.' homeland, and that keeps you and me safe from any significant harm.

Sure, a terrorist (group) may take out a "flashy" target here or there, but that will not effect the demise of the U.S., not by a long shot. That leaves the U.S. vulnerable in any real way to weapons coming in from outer space. I think at the end of the day, if one is going to engage in a war, as opposed to the asymmetric conflicts in which the U.S. has engaged for decades, it's more important to win than it is to complain about how much it cost to do so because losing costs more.

 

[jwoodie]

It looks to me that there are no rational answers in opposition to the OP here. I'm not at all surprised. 4 other political forums can't either.

Have you tried the Military Forum? I don't know whether another aircraft carrier will improve our military capabilities, but the feasibility of maintaining overseas military bases on land has greatly diminished in recent years. Perhaps 12 carriers will improve rotational assignments in critical areas, but I suspect that a "newer class" will be smaller drone-base ships with greater defensive capabilities.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

if you want peace , prepare for war . ------------- And here in the USA , at least in red flyover America it is pretty peaceful . I just want an immensely strong USA military so as to keep the Fureign rabble in line through fear and trepidation Robo . [its like carrying a big stick]

How'd the preparing for unending war work out for the Roman Empire?

It worked very well so long as the Romans were actively involved in their conquests. However, as the Roman Senate became ever more corrupt, and the citizenry went ever more on the Dole, then, and only then did the Roman Republic first, then Empire collapse. And they lasted for centuries longer than the USA has. So I would say they did pretty damned good.

Sounds like the Obama admin and liberals who don't study history so, must repeat history. It the only TRUTH that Obama put forth to the US citizenry, to FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSORM AMERICA, thank God the People of the US woke up and voted out the 3rd Obama term.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

It looks to me that there are no rational answers in opposition to the OP here. I'm not at all surprised. 4 other political forums can't either.

Have you tried the Military Forum? I don't know whether another aircraft carrier will improve our military capabilities, but the feasibility of maintaining overseas military bases on land has greatly diminished in recent years. Perhaps 12 carriers will improve rotational assignments in critical areas, but I suspect that a "newer class" will be smaller drone-base ships with greater defensive capabilities.

I will tell you this, some shmuk sitting in their parents basement, smoking dope, and collecting welfare isn't going to improve military capabilities for sure.

After 22 trillion dollars for the War of Poverty, it is time to scrap that program.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, I'm kinda wondering how he's not only going to manage to build another bunch of ships, but my main concern is will he make the same mistake that Reagan made when he called for a 500 ship Navy, but failed to increase the recruiting numbers. There was a time when ships were going on a full deployment at only 80 to 85 percent manning, which meant a LOT of extra work and watches.

And no, carriers don't carry around 2000 people for the the crew, the number of ships crew is more like 3000, and when the Airwing gets onboard, the number of people increases to around 6000. Was stationed onboard the USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER and the USS GEORGE WASHINGTON while I was with VFA-131.

So, one carrier is gonna require about 6,000 more people in the Navy, and then when you factor in the support ships that go with the carrier, you can increase that number by another 4000 people.

And that's for just ONE battle group.

And how is he gonna pay for the ships and crew if he's going to cut everyone's tax bill?

 

[Robo]

if you want peace , prepare for war . ------------- And here in the USA , at least in red flyover America it is pretty peaceful . I just want an immensely strong USA military so as to keep the Fureign rabble in line through fear and trepidation Robo . [its like carrying a big stick]

How'd the preparing for unending war work out for the Roman Empire?

It worked very well so long as the Romans were actively involved in their conquests. However, as the Roman Senate became ever more corrupt, and the citizenry went ever more on the Dole, then, and only then did the Roman Republic first, then Empire collapse. And they lasted for centuries longer than the USA has. So I would say they did pretty damned good.

The known world and actual population was a fraction then of what it is today. Thus less complications for the Roman government to deal with. Thus "centuries" of a successful Empire. Travel for armies was grueling and swift today and war machinery and weaponry was antiques compared to today, thus again centuries of world control. I argue today's world moves at warp speed compared to the Roman Empire days, but the same conditions of government corruption and the citizenry is ever more on the dole.

 

[usmbguest5318]

And how is he gonna pay for the ships and crew if he's going to cut everyone's tax bill?

Who knows. If he cuts the stuff that's referred to as "corporate welfare," he can probably pull it off.

 

[ABikerSailor]

And how is he gonna pay for the ships and crew if he's going to cut everyone's tax bill?

Who knows. If he cuts the stuff that's referred to as "corporate welfare," he can probably pull it off.

He won't do that, it would piss off all his billionaire friends.

 

[Robo]

You know, I'm kinda wondering how he's not only going to manage to build another bunch of ships, but my main concern is will he make the same mistake that Reagan made when he called for a 500 ship Navy, but failed to increase the recruiting numbers. There was a time when ships were going on a full deployment at only 80 to 85 percent manning, which meant a LOT of extra work and watches.

And no, carriers don't carry around 2000 people for the the crew, the number of ships crew is more like 3000, and when the Airwing gets onboard, the number of people increases to around 6000. Was stationed onboard the USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER and the USS GEORGE WASHINGTON while I was with VFA-131.

So, one carrier is gonna require about 6,000 more people in the Navy, and then when you factor in the support ships that go with the carrier, you can increase that number by another 4000 people.

And that's for just ONE battle group.

And how is he gonna pay for the ships and crew if he's going to cut everyone's tax bill?

I hope you get answers? If somebody knows how all of this gets done successfully without bankrupting the nation, I'd love to know about it.

 

[jwoodie]

You know, I'm kinda wondering how he's not only going to manage to build another bunch of ships, but my main concern is will he make the same mistake that Reagan made when he called for a 500 ship Navy, but failed to increase the recruiting numbers. There was a time when ships were going on a full deployment at only 80 to 85 percent manning, which meant a LOT of extra work and watches.

And no, carriers don't carry around 2000 people for the the crew, the number of ships crew is more like 3000, and when the Airwing gets onboard, the number of people increases to around 6000. Was stationed onboard the USS DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER and the USS GEORGE WASHINGTON while I was with VFA-131.

So, one carrier is gonna require about 6,000 more people in the Navy, and then when you factor in the support ships that go with the carrier, you can increase that number by another 4000 people.

And that's for just ONE battle group.

And how is he gonna pay for the ships and crew if he's going to cut everyone's tax bill?

I hope you get answers? If somebody knows how all of this gets done successfully without bankrupting the nation, I'd love to know about it.

Ah, the frugality mask comes off. You two want to increase spending on everything but the military, and "pay" for it with the false proposition that raising taxes will not have any negative repercussions on the economy. How simplistically naive.

The only way to pay for increased (or even current) spending is stimulate economic growth through lower taxes and regulations. This can not only increase tax revenues, but also lower government expenditures by employing more people. Along with inflation/devaluation, this is our only hope of escaping the debt/death spiral we are in.

 

[westwall]

if you want peace , prepare for war . ------------- And here in the USA , at least in red flyover America it is pretty peaceful . I just want an immensely strong USA military so as to keep the Fureign rabble in line through fear and trepidation Robo . [its like carrying a big stick]

How'd the preparing for unending war work out for the Roman Empire?

It worked very well so long as the Romans were actively involved in their conquests. However, as the Roman Senate became ever more corrupt, and the citizenry went ever more on the Dole, then, and only then did the Roman Republic first, then Empire collapse. And they lasted for centuries longer than the USA has. So I would say they did pretty damned good.

The known world and actual population was a fraction then of what it is today. Thus less complications for the Roman government to deal with. Thus "centuries" of a successful Empire. Travel for armies was grueling and swift today and war machinery and weaponry was antiques compared to today, thus again centuries of world control. I argue today's world moves at warp speed compared to the Roman Empire days, but the same conditions of government corruption and the citizenry is ever more on the dole.

Yeah, sure. Considering they were walking everywhere, with all of the attendant delays in getting info from one side of the Empire to the other renders your statement false. When one reads Roman history it becomes quite apparent that when the Republic wasn't corrupt, it was grand. When it became corrupt it decayed very rapidly. That is what caused the birth of the Empire. As an Empire when they had good emperors they did very well, when they had loons they collapsed. But all through that was when the citizenry was involved they did well, when the citizenry were not involved, they fell apart. Kind of like our country today.

 

[william the wie]

The big problem is regulation, taxes are a distant second. Likewise recruitment and retention is the big military problem not hardware. The percentage of jobs in the military that can be done by someone with a room temperature keeps shrinking.

 

[bt404]

 

[bt404]

if you want peace , prepare for war . ------------- And here in the USA , at least in red flyover America it is pretty peaceful . I just want an immensely strong USA military so as to keep the Fureign rabble in line through fear and trepidation Robo . [its like carrying a big stick]

How'd the preparing for unending war work out for the Roman Empire?

It worked very well so long as the Romans were actively involved in their conquests. However, as the Roman Senate became ever more corrupt, and the citizenry went ever more on the Dole, then, and only then did the Roman Republic first, then Empire collapse. And they lasted for centuries longer than the USA has. So I would say they did pretty damned good.

You're joking right...

Military spending IS one of the reasons why the Roman Empire collapsed. They relied too much on military advancement and as such, technological and infrastructural advancement fell into virtual ruin. Now this isn't the only reason, there are much more. But don't give us that bullcrap about how Roman was victorious because they were "actively involved in their conquests." Your comment reeks of fascism. Try again.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The big problem is regulation, taxes are a distant second. Likewise recruitment and retention is the big military problem not hardware. The percentage of jobs in the military that can be done by someone with a room temperature keeps shrinking.

You know, the number of jobs that could be done by room temp. IQ types as you put it, started to go the way of the buffalo in the mid 90's when the military started with a work smarter not harder ethic. In the Navy, it was called the smart ship concept. And, considering the amount of tech that is at even the lower ranks, yeah, you've gotta be fairly intelligent.

When I was working in recruiting from 1999 until 2002, the lowest ASVAB score you could have with a high school diploma was around 37. However, if you didn't have a diploma, you had to score at least a 50, and pass the HP3 profile requirements. A perfect score on the ASVAB is 99.

And, most of the recruiters that I worked with would hardly look at you if your ASVAB wasn't at least 45.

 

[usmbguest5318]

if you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend....Bet you didn't know that did you?

That is utter nonsense. You really need to either read more or get out more. I don't know which...

• Liechtenstein has not had standing army since around the time of the U.S. Civil War. That didn't and still doesn't stop many of the world's richest people from banking there.
  
• Monaco stopped making military expenditures in the 1600s. The country doesn't even levy an income tax. It's among the most fun places on the planet to live or visit. The country hosts a biennial race that may well be the best adult party-weekend I've ever come by...intensity makes it like a "Spring Break" for grown-ups. It's nonstop socializing, partying, gambling, drinking, etc. for the whole weekend everywhere one goes, and every so often a bunch of cars going really fast pass by where one is partying.
• Highly strategic Panama also has no standing military. I don't see any one chomping at the bit to take over the country, thus control of the canal.
• Vatican City also has no military forces, though Popes used to have their own armies.
• Iceland has no army and yet it occupies a highly strategic position in the North Atlantic.
• Costa Rica, Haiti, and several other nations decided to stop having a military as a way to prevent coups.
• Andorra technically has an army, but its members do nothing but march about looking dashing as they perform a variety of ceremonial duties.

Of course, one thing a country with no military cannot do is boss everyone else around. Instead they have to sincerely be good at "playing well with others." Oh, my, what a novel concept....

 

[jwoodie]

You're joking right...

Military spending IS one of the reasons why the Roman Empire collapsed. They relied too much on military advancement and as such, technological and infrastructural advancement fell into virtual ruin. Now this isn't the only reason, there are much more. But don't give us that bullcrap about how Roman was victorious because they were "actively involved in their conquests." Your comment reeks of fascism. Try again.

Nice try at sarcasm. Now on to facts:

The Roman Empire was defeated precisely because it neglected its military in favor of "social" spending to curry favor with the mobs in the street. As a result they could only try to pay off their enemies in the hope of placating them. When that didn't work, they just threw open their gates and let them in.

Sound familiar?

 

[william the wie]

Give me a break. I couldn't enlist until the file warehouse burned down in August of 72. I waited six months to enlist until the verdict came in as accident. (I was Dad's last chance to get one of his boys in the service because my older brothers were so 4F they couldn't make it through a draft physical during time of war. Believe it or not that is a major league problem in my family.)

 

[yiostheoy]

Being a Navy vet myself, I have to wonder about what I’m seeing from the Trump agenda concerning a rebuild of the military.

I’ve ask this question several times in the past without any satisfactory answers coming from anyone on a political forum, old Navy vet friends, or letters to my congress critters. Why does America have and keep consistently in commission 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers and sometimes just 10 in commission and now Trump is calling for a 12 nuclear carrier Navy and a whole new class of nuke carriers?

As far as I can determine, the rest of the world combined only has 2 nuclear powered aircraft carriers, one in China and France has one. Why the American overkill?

Why aren’t the multi-billion dollar nuclear carriers simply sitting ducks in a world of highly technological weaponry?

As far as I know, it takes at least a dozen other ships just to protect the carrier and it takes over 2000 crew mwmbers for a single carrier.

What in hell is “conservative” about a dozen nuclear powered aircraft carriers?

Since the USSR has been reduced to Russia , the US has now had to pick up the slack for other countries who never contributed to the defense of their nations. With Nuclear powered Aircraft Carriers, they can go farther when needed.
Since the event of Aircraft Carriers, the main reason for their protection is their Aircraft. Since technology has gotten better , so has the defenses of the Carriers also.
So what do you want, to put these guys out of business and put on welfare so they don't protect the US but sit back like a liberal and whine and moan they don't have personal satisfaction.

Cost war on poverty
The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.
The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion - NCPA

By the way if you don't have a military to defend your country then there is no country left to defend....Bet you didn't know that did you?

Good explanation.

In addition a carrier flotilla also has a battalion (500) of Marines nearby as well.

At any given time there are 1000 Marines at sea in the world, with another 180,000 Marines ashore ready to deploy in a couple of hours wherever the JCS or Navy wants to send them.

The US Army takes several months to get ready for deployment. Tanks and tracked arty are very heavy and hard to move.

The USAF could deploy to anywhere on the Earth within hours, but they usually wait for the Navy to get there first. Somebody would have to fish their pilots out of the water for them.

 

[yiostheoy]

...Why does America have and keep consistently in commission 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers and sometimes just 10 in commission...?...What in hell is “conservative” about a dozen nuclear powered aircraft carriers?

You're absolutely right, Why!

[the understanding being here is that you're posing rhetorical questions and you're not interested in gaining new information because you've already made up your mind about this...]

I absolutely love other philosophers and really brilliant people like yourself expat_panama .

I too am constantly striving to education people on fallacies and why they should avoid them.