Posted on 03/03/2005 3:02:55 PM PST by Sub-Driver
BUMP! Definitely makes more sense. We are on course for pell-mell dismantlement of our naval superiority while the Chinese are drastically building up in the areas of "asymmetric warfare" to sink our carriers. The risk of the information from this test being acquired by the Chinese is just too high to be doing this. Meanwhile, Bush/Rumsfeld are cutting the Navy still more. 9 Destroyers, 2 more Trident submarines, and of course the USS John F. Kennedy...all slated for deactivation/retirement. This is nuts. The Joint Chiefs of Staff all say we need 15 Carriers not 11. Rumsfeld appears to be betting we can do something we used to do with the SLBMs, Blue and Gold alternate manning, in what is being labeled "Sea Swap". See the following news story, and you might wish to follow the upcoming studies to be conducted on the naval forces issue:
U.S. Navy Future Force Studies To Be Reviewed
Posted 03/04/05 17:07
U.S. Navy Future Force Studies To Be Reviewed
By CHRISTOPHER P. CAVAS
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) will review three new future force architecture studies of the U.S. Navy and present its findings to Congress, said a spokeswoman for Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md.
Two of the studies to determine the future shape of the Navy were commissioned by Congress last year at Bartlett's behest. One, by the Office of Force Transformation, foresees a future fleet of small, fast high-technology craft connected by communication networks to react quickly to threats. The other study, by the Center for Naval Analyses, predicts a future fleet based on current platforms and programs, relying on initiatives such as Sea Swap; switching crews of deployed ships while keeping the ships on station ; to maximize declining ship numbers.
Another study was done on an independent basis by the Center for Strategic Budget Assessments (CSBA). That study lays out four different types of fleets to carry out the variety of tasks foreseen in coming decades.
A number of briefings have taken place in the past two weeks as representatives of all three studies presented their case to congressmen, Capitol Hill staffers and top naval officers. Following those briefings, Bartlett; who originally asked for studies to be done by eight different groups ; agreed to include the CSBA study in the group.
Lisa Wright, a spokeswoman for Bartlett, said March 4 that Ron O'Rourke of CRS will undertake the review of the three studies.
Note: the Sea Swap concept Rummy is pushing, as a pretext to justify the downsizing of the fleet that is being dictated by more or less arbitrary budgetary schemes, will likely have multiple adverse effects on naval force capability that I would postulate as follows:
(1) Less Reserve "surge" capacity.
(2) Less "Cushion" to deal with Pre-emptive attacks against us (too many eggs in too few baskets),
(3) Reduction of U.S. Defense-Support naval industrial base
(4) Over-utilization of existing deployed assets will drastically impair the life-expectancy of those assets
(5) Over-utilization will also degrade operational readiness, as many ships will never get timely refit and overhaul. And
(6) When overhaul is finally permitted, it will be drastically more expensive and lengthy...particularly with a further reduced defense industry base.
Why not turn it into a prison for illegal aliens .. what a waste.
Early in my Navy career I did a NATO cruise (6 weeks) on the America. Just before the end of my NATO career, I did a WESTPAC cruise on the USS Coral Sea, with which I may now be shaving. Either end seems awfully ignominious to me for such great vessels, but there is also the artificial reefs program that almost claimed Forrestal (another of "my" ships) and is waiting to claim Constellation (yep, I was on her, too).
Serving the good old USA to the very end! And no fear, I don't doubt the USS America will live again!
You've still got some confusion. Shinano was sunk by USS Archerfish, under the command of Joseph Enright. And it didn't explode - it had sailed without having its watertight doors installed so there was no compartmentalization. Add to that incompetent attempts at counterflooding, and it Just Sank.
The Cavalla sank the Shokaku, on the same date that the Albacore sank Taiho. Took 3 torps to take down Shokaku, though (better damage control).
Thank you for the clarification.
I have never heard truer words said to me than "You've still got some confusion..."
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.