Posted on 08/06/2016 6:32:17 AM PDT by C19fan
What better way is there to project power than a carrier? We don’t have fixed airbases providing worldwide coverage. Carriers may be more vulnerable now due to evolving counter measures but that means defenses must be updated and improved. Carriers aren’t going away just yet.
The USS Cole was in port in Yemen. It should never have been there. It was a stupid decision motivated by politics rather than protecting our personnel.
Your 'Carrier Strike Group' is part of the problem. You put a $13 BILLION carrier out there, but to protect it, you have to put subs, destroyers, etc. that amount to at least in the neighborhood of another $BILLION. Since Hussein has shrunk the military, do we still have these resources and the manpower to operate them?
Our ability to project power around the globe is currently enhanced by carrier strike groups. However, like most great nations in decline, the battle between "guns versus butter" will shape our military force and capabilities. The welfare state is forcing us to rationalize a decline in our military forces. The costs are driving the mission rather than the other way around. Carriers will be a target of cost reductions. There is no doubt about that. But what does that to for our security?
What happens if a suicide bomber on a hijacked tanker makes a run at a carrier? It's not an inconceivable scenario.
How does the tanker penetrate the carrier strike group? A hijacked tanker wouldn't get within 50 miles of a carrier.
I pray you are correct.
It was a stupid decision motivated by politics rather than protecting our personnel.
But I also believed that you answered your own question; of course we'll NEVER have anyone (Madam Benghazi) that doesn't have the best interests of our service personnel in a position of power.[sic]
Perhaps air/sub-orbital craft with a new propulsion energy source which allows global transit endurance; and, also coincidentally allows employing rail gun and laser weaponry???
Specs call for 1000 full energy shots before replacement needed in a deployable weapons system.
Russian tanks versus German tanks argument—build lots of cheap tanks operational life 2 weeks, or limited amount of expensive tanks expected to operate 6 months.
Specs call for ... however last I read they had not passed one tube per shot yet.
Incorrect. The rail gun works if you have enough power. The new DDG 1000 has that. And future versions , are being built) will have the rail gun.
Never said anything about power just about the metallurgy involved in the firing rails which tend to deform after one shot and must be replaced.
I understand ‘why’ we do it. But if the president isn’t prepared for the consequences of losing 5,500 sailors — and this one isn’t — then the Navy needs to trim its sails accordingly. Just by pushing a CVBG through contested waters you are essentially saying, “go ahead, make my day.”
Mistakes like that are always how wars start. Political decisions are made because the Navy lacked at-sea replenishment assets for the local DESRON (another political decision) and so the ship is exposed in a hostile port with a relaxed defensive posture. "BOOM". Politician's should have the good sense to resign after an event like that.
Performance has reached a point such that competing weapons systems contractors, vying through connections within the US government, are trying to kill the program before their systems become obsolete. Power delivery to feed the rail-gun is seen as the critical issue. Follow the money issues brought up in this exposition. Something else for sale to foreign governments Clinton style?
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/06/can-navys-electric-cannon-be-saved/128793/
http://phys.org/news/2016-06-navy-electromagnetic-cannon-sights.html
I would substitute the term decency in the place of common sense.
If Bill could sell it, Hilary will, but for more money ... She’d sell herself if she could make a profit ...
A lot of things. But mostly the fact that you can't sink an airfield.Turkey stopped the 4th ID from transiting their country when we attacked Iraq.
Because Turkey did not view toppling the Iraqi regime to be in its interests. Many Sunni countries would, however, support toppling the Iranian regime.
Of course it does and the Iranians may not pose an imminent threat to a carrier group. But they could eventually. And China and other near peers certainly pose a threat. Not worth the risk.
Eventually Iran will hit a carrier in the straits. Recent reports state they now have the missiles capable of hitting and sinking an American carrier.
One thing I learned rather quickly is that ‘recent reports’ don’t equate to capability in the military arena at all. Ever notice that ‘recent reports’ don’t ever state the cards up our sleeve?
You exercise your rights or lose them. I am surprised at your reaction. We are becoming a nation of pansies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.