America's Incredible Shrinking Navy

[The Rabbi]

Russia can not afford a submarine, much less a navy. China has been building theirs up, and is about at our level in 1932.

You're such a ******* lo-lo waste of DNA.
Russian Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[RandomVariable]

Russia can not afford a submarine, much less a navy. China has been building theirs up, and is about at our level in 1932.

You're such a ******* lo-lo waste of DNA.
Russian Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germany had/has 6 submarines for $8 million each. They had some sales lined up but the buyers backed out. Most countries are smart enough to choose boosting economy over preparing for war.

 

[The Rabbi]

Russia can not afford a submarine, much less a navy. China has been building theirs up, and is about at our level in 1932.

You're such a ******* lo-lo waste of DNA.
Russian Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germany had/has 6 submarines for $8 million each. They had some sales lined up but the buyers backed out. Most countries are smart enough to choose boosting economy over preparing for war.

Another lo-lo chimes in.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/world/asia/china-military-budget.html?_r=0

Russia raises military clout with reforms after Georgian war | Reuters

 

[RandomVariable]

You're such a ******* lo-lo waste of DNA.
Russian Navy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Germany had/has 6 submarines for $8 million each. They had some sales lined up but the buyers backed out. Most countries are smart enough to choose boosting economy over preparing for war.

Another lo-lo chimes in.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/world/asia/china-military-budget.html?_r=0

Russia raises military clout with reforms after Georgian war | Reuters

The Reuters article talks about Russia's military build up in February, before the invasion of Crimea. So Russia built up, invaded Crimea, and now what? They would have been much better off reaping the spoils from the Olympic games than from trying to play war games.

The NYT article reference the South China Sea tensions. First of all we have way more Navy than can fit in that area. That is why we need to update but not expand.

Now this is a combat ship:
[ame=http://youtu.be/Ac4i-k_YLKQ]Lockheed Martin - Fort Worth Littoral Combat Ship 3 (LCS 3) : Full Speed Ahead [1080p] - YouTube[/ame]

 

[The Rabbi]

Germany had/has 6 submarines for $8 million each. They had some sales lined up but the buyers backed out. Most countries are smart enough to choose boosting economy over preparing for war.

Another lo-lo chimes in.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/world/asia/china-military-budget.html?_r=0

Russia raises military clout with reforms after Georgian war | Reuters

The Reuters article talks about Russia's military build up in February, before the invasion of Crimea. So Russia built up, invaded Crimea, and now what? They would have been much better off reaping the spoils from the Olympic games than from trying to play war games.

The NYT article reference the South China Sea tensions. First of all we have way more Navy than can fit in that area. That is why we need to update but not expand.

So you support the Obama line that Russia is acting against its own interests. A line that is a proven fail.

 

[RandomVariable]

Another lo-lo chimes in.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/world/asia/china-military-budget.html?_r=0

Russia raises military clout with reforms after Georgian war | Reuters

The Reuters article talks about Russia's military build up in February, before the invasion of Crimea. So Russia built up, invaded Crimea, and now what? They would have been much better off reaping the spoils from the Olympic games than from trying to play war games.

The NYT article reference the South China Sea tensions. First of all we have way more Navy than can fit in that area. That is why we need to update but not expand.

So you support the Obama line that Russia is acting against its own interests. A line that is a proven fail.

Russia, and the KGB agent who leads her, has a philosophy. That philosophy in includes glory. The quest for glory can cloud the vision for success. The decisions Russia has been making lately would not seem to be achieving either. Russia has played her hand. Is there anything anyone could have done short of a NATO troop buildup in the Ukraine which would have change that hand? I don't think so. The U.S. and the EU are now playing their hand. It would appear that Russia's gamble failed. There are multiple events going on around the world with will have a notice influence on the primary players. The only sure thing about the future is that it is not going to be what it is predicted to be. There will always be countries who make gambles where it would seem extremely unwise for them but they make it anyway and that is why we must remain to be vigilant.

 

[The Rabbi]

The Reuters article talks about Russia's military build up in February, before the invasion of Crimea. So Russia built up, invaded Crimea, and now what? They would have been much better off reaping the spoils from the Olympic games than from trying to play war games.

The NYT article reference the South China Sea tensions. First of all we have way more Navy than can fit in that area. That is why we need to update but not expand.

So you support the Obama line that Russia is acting against its own interests. A line that is a proven fail.

Russia, and the KGB agent who leads her, has a philosophy. That philosophy in includes glory. The quest for glory can cloud the vision for success. The decisions Russia has been making lately would not seem to be achieving either. Russia has played her hand. Is there anything anyone could have done short of a NATO troop buildup in the Ukraine which would have change that hand? I don't think so. The U.S. and the EU are now playing their hand. It would appear that Russia's gamble failed. There are multiple events going on around the world with will have a notice influence on the primary players. The only sure thing about the future is that it is not going to be what it is predicted to be. There will always be countries who make gambles where it would seem extremely unwise for them but they make it anyway and that is why we must remain to be vigilant.

Let's see: Russia has successfully annexed Crimea. Russia has troops massed on Ukrianian border. Russia has achieved its objectives without a shot being fired.
Looks like they succeeded to me.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Damn! I can't seem to stay on top of the GOP party line. The last I heard was that Reagan singlehandedly won the cold war by bankrupting the USSR by outspending them on the military. In fact, they lost a nuclear submarine and it was revealed that they were building them using major cost cutting short cuts, making then inherently unsafe. Now, all that is forgotten, and suddenly, we need to go through the whole process again?

 

[The Rabbi]

Damn! I can't seem to stay on top of the GOP party line. The last I heard was that Reagan singlehandedly won the cold war by bankrupting the USSR by outspending them on the military. In fact, they lost a nuclear submarine and it was revealed that they were building them using major cost cutting short cuts, making then inherently unsafe. Now, all that is forgotten, and suddenly, we need to go through the whole process again?

WTF are you jabbering about? Reagan was president over 30 years ago.

 

[Mushroom]

You can always tell who does not understand how the Navy operates by looking at the ships they concentrate on. Typically, they obsess on the capitol ships (aircraft carriers), and completely ignore the rest of the fleet.

The navy for decades has had to rely on less and less ships, and the ships they are relying on are growing older and older. And this can be seen in how many we have of what classes.

Yes, the major ships are our carriers. But these ships can not go out on their own, they need other ships to protect them, because they are not really able to do this for themselves. This is why in WWII we had dozens of ships protecting them.

Then in the 1980's, this was reduced to around 10 ships per carrier.

Today, our carriers are reduced to only around 5 ships for protection. And this is shrinking constantly because the ships we have are reaching the end of their lifespan.

Traditionally, our carriers had 2-3 Cruisers, and 6-7 Destroyers doing this. But our cruisers are all reaching the end of their lifespan.

The only class of Cruisers we have is the Ticonderoga, built with a 35 year lifespan. And they were all built between 1980-1994. So even the newest of these ships is 20 years old, well into middle age. And the first 5 have been retired, and 11 more are scheduled to retire in the next 10 years. That will leave us with only 11.

And we do not have a replacement even on the drawing boards, let alone being built!

And their replacements are the Burke class destroyers. But the older ships in that class are reaching their midlife, and they are not as capable as the Cruisers are.

A large number of the ships in our Navy (as well as the rest of our military) date back to the Reagan Administration. And not only can we only keep these things running for only so long, it becomes more and more expensive to keep them operating.

M1 Abrams, M2 Bradley, PATRIOT, F-15, F-16, Arleigh Burke, Ticonderoga, Ohio and LA class submarines, Whidbey Island, Avenger class, entire classes of ships are 30+ years old, and many do not have replacements.

 

[RandomVariable]

The whole set of military hardware is out of date, out of era. We need rapidly deployable, highly armored, very flexible platforms. We also need the service members trained in such combat situations. Something like sending in a hundred of these platforms to secure an area and work with the locals to ward of aggressions of a hostile adversary. While many places of the world have gone through some of their transitional changes most have not. Such times are going to call upon America's capabilities to intervene and stabilize. Where and when that might be will be with very little warning and with potential for significant escalation in a matter of months, or weeks. The faster we can get in with a show of force the less costly the situation will be in the long run. I have seen some of the prototypes of this type of equipment so I believe the armed forces are on the right path.

 

[bluesman]

You can always tell who does not understand how the Navy operates by looking at the ships they concentrate on. Typically, they obsess on the capitol ships (aircraft carriers), and completely ignore the rest of the fleet.

The navy for decades has had to rely on less and less ships, and the ships they are relying on are growing older and older. And this can be seen in how many we have of what classes.

Yes, the major ships are our carriers. But these ships can not go out on their own, they need other ships to protect them, because they are not really able to do this for themselves. This is why in WWII we had dozens of ships protecting them.

Then in the 1980's, this was reduced to around 10 ships per carrier.

Today, our carriers are reduced to only around 5 ships for protection. And this is shrinking constantly because the ships we have are reaching the end of their lifespan.

Traditionally, our carriers had 2-3 Cruisers, and 6-7 Destroyers doing this. But our cruisers are all reaching the end of their lifespan.

The only class of Cruisers we have is the Ticonderoga, built with a 35 year lifespan. And they were all built between 1980-1994. So even the newest of these ships is 20 years old, well into middle age. And the first 5 have been retired, and 11 more are scheduled to retire in the next 10 years. That will leave us with only 11.

And we do not have a replacement even on the drawing boards, let alone being built!

And their replacements are the Burke class destroyers. But the older ships in that class are reaching their midlife, and they are not as capable as the Cruisers are.

A large number of the ships in our Navy (as well as the rest of our military) date back to the Reagan Administration. And not only can we only keep these things running for only so long, it becomes more and more expensive to keep them operating.

M1 Abrams, M2 Bradley, PATRIOT, F-15, F-16, Arleigh Burke, Ticonderoga, Ohio and LA class submarines, Whidbey Island, Avenger class, entire classes of ships are 30+ years old, and many do not have replacements.

Can China Sink A U.S. Aircraft Carrier? - Forbes

 

[Boatswain2PA]

You can always tell who does not understand how the Navy operates by looking at the ships they concentrate on. Typically, they obsess on the capitol ships (aircraft carriers), and completely ignore the rest of the fleet.

The navy for decades has had to rely on less and less ships, and the ships they are relying on are growing older and older. And this can be seen in how many we have of what classes.

Yes, the major ships are our carriers. But these ships can not go out on their own, they need other ships to protect them, because they are not really able to do this for themselves. This is why in WWII we had dozens of ships protecting them.

Then in the 1980's, this was reduced to around 10 ships per carrier.

Today, our carriers are reduced to only around 5 ships for protection. And this is shrinking constantly because the ships we have are reaching the end of their lifespan.

Traditionally, our carriers had 2-3 Cruisers, and 6-7 Destroyers doing this. But our cruisers are all reaching the end of their lifespan.

The only class of Cruisers we have is the Ticonderoga, built with a 35 year lifespan. And they were all built between 1980-1994. So even the newest of these ships is 20 years old, well into middle age. And the first 5 have been retired, and 11 more are scheduled to retire in the next 10 years. That will leave us with only 11.

And we do not have a replacement even on the drawing boards, let alone being built!

And their replacements are the Burke class destroyers. But the older ships in that class are reaching their midlife, and they are not as capable as the Cruisers are.

A large number of the ships in our Navy (as well as the rest of our military) date back to the Reagan Administration. And not only can we only keep these things running for only so long, it becomes more and more expensive to keep them operating.

M1 Abrams, M2 Bradley, PATRIOT, F-15, F-16, Arleigh Burke, Ticonderoga, Ohio and LA class submarines, Whidbey Island, Avenger class, entire classes of ships are 30+ years old, and many do not have replacements.

THIS!!!!!

There are only a FEW actual responsibilities of the federal government (ensuring Sandra Fluke has birth control is NOT one of them.). Having a robust military IS one of these responsibilities, and we are rapidly losing it.

 

[Mushroom]

Can China Sink A U.S. Aircraft Carrier? - Forbes

Sorry, not sure I understand the point of that. It is not telling me anything I do not already know.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Russia and China, six times over, cannot compete equally with our naval and air forces.

Those who argue for expanded military forces are those who want your children harmed and dead in future unnecessary conflicts.

 

[The Rabbi]

Russia and China, six times over, cannot compete equally with our naval and air forces.

Those who argue for expanded military forces are those who want your children harmed and dead in future unnecessary conflicts.

Congress is considering legislation to ban Jake Starkey from posting. Something about incitement to riot.

 

[bluesman]

Russia and China, six times over, cannot compete equally with our naval and air forces.

Those who argue for expanded military forces are those who want your children harmed and dead in future unnecessary conflicts.

Congress is considering legislation to ban Jake Starkey from posting. Something about incitement to riot.

JakeStarkey has a point. Making a personal comment shows you are stumped by it. He is correct. The US has the most dominant navy in the world by a longshot. We have what we need to protect our shores.

 

[RandomVariable]

Russia and China, six times over, cannot compete equally with our naval and air forces.

Those who argue for expanded military forces are those who want your children harmed and dead in future unnecessary conflicts.

We can downsize and modernize. It is not an either/or. More life will be lost by the U.S. not having a creditably military than with.

 

[rightwinger]

You can always tell who does not understand how the Navy operates by looking at the ships they concentrate on. Typically, they obsess on the capitol ships (aircraft carriers), and completely ignore the rest of the fleet.

The navy for decades has had to rely on less and less ships, and the ships they are relying on are growing older and older. And this can be seen in how many we have of what classes.

Yes, the major ships are our carriers. But these ships can not go out on their own, they need other ships to protect them, because they are not really able to do this for themselves. This is why in WWII we had dozens of ships protecting them.

Then in the 1980's, this was reduced to around 10 ships per carrier.

Today, our carriers are reduced to only around 5 ships for protection. And this is shrinking constantly because the ships we have are reaching the end of their lifespan.

Traditionally, our carriers had 2-3 Cruisers, and 6-7 Destroyers doing this. But our cruisers are all reaching the end of their lifespan.

The only class of Cruisers we have is the Ticonderoga, built with a 35 year lifespan. And they were all built between 1980-1994. So even the newest of these ships is 20 years old, well into middle age. And the first 5 have been retired, and 11 more are scheduled to retire in the next 10 years. That will leave us with only 11.

And we do not have a replacement even on the drawing boards, let alone being built!

And their replacements are the Burke class destroyers. But the older ships in that class are reaching their midlife, and they are not as capable as the Cruisers are.

A large number of the ships in our Navy (as well as the rest of our military) date back to the Reagan Administration. And not only can we only keep these things running for only so long, it becomes more and more expensive to keep them operating.

M1 Abrams, M2 Bradley, PATRIOT, F-15, F-16, Arleigh Burke, Ticonderoga, Ohio and LA class submarines, Whidbey Island, Avenger class, entire classes of ships are 30+ years old, and many do not have replacements.

It is difficult to compare the Navy of a generation ago to the Navy of today. You can accomplish as much with five ships where it used to take ten

Surveilance is better as is target acquisition and prioritization. You know where your enemy is and have a much higher probability of making a kill with one shot

 

[Mushroom]

The whole set of military hardware is out of date, out of era. We need rapidly deployable, highly armored, very flexible platforms. We also need the service members trained in such combat situations. Something like sending in a hundred of these platforms to secure an area and work with the locals to ward of aggressions of a hostile adversary. While many places of the world have gone through some of their transitional changes most have not. Such times are going to call upon America's capabilities to intervene and stabilize. Where and when that might be will be with very little warning and with potential for significant escalation in a matter of months, or weeks. The faster we can get in with a show of force the less costly the situation will be in the long run. I have seen some of the prototypes of this type of equipment so I believe the armed forces are on the right path.

The problem here is the contradiction in terms you are mentioning.

"Rapidly deployable" and "highly armored" do not go together, unless you are talking about amphibious assets that are carried by ships. You can't airlift anything without a secure air space and suitable runways. And when you are talking about armor, then it is all about logistics.

The only aircraft we have that can carry the Abrams are the C-5 and C-17, and we have less then 400 of these. And each can carry only a single tank. That is hardly "rapid", since we have to have a lot of other logistical pieces in place before the tanks ever arrive (fuel, ammo dumps, parts and mechanics, crews, and everything else).

By far it has been shown that the only way to move armored assets with everything the need to operate is by sea, via RORO ships. There are 3 of them dating to the mid 1970's stationed in San Francisco at all times for this reason (I drive by 2 of them every day on my way to work).

In fact, our 48 ship RORO rapid deployment fleet predominantly dates to the Nixon and Carter administrations. And these are the ships we depend on to move our armor and other heavy assets in the event that they are needed.

And until the Clinton era, we typically had at least 3-4 fleets of such ships deployed at all times, with enough equipment to supply an entire armor and infantry brigade in combat for 90 days. Fly in the personnel, dock the ships and roll off the equipment.

This was designed for use primarily in Europe for a NATO-Warsaw conflict, but it was shown to work in 1990 for the Gulf War as well.