Free Republic

Here is the bottom line.

You can’t simply look at numbers of ships, you have to look at their capabilities. The carrier task force is the premier weapon group of the modern Navy.

The US Navy outnumbers both the Russian and Chinese navies 10 carriers to 1. Actually, we outnumber China 10 carriers to 0 since their current carrier can sail but is not truly operational, i.e., it has not completed sea trials and may only be used as a test platform.

It takes at 3-5 years to build a carrier and at least 5 years to complete sea trials and make it operational so we are probably looking at a full decade before either China or Russia brings another carrier online.

Chris Lehman’s article is misleading because it does not provide any of this information. More importantly, he has not discussed the massive costs associated with a modern navy.

You stated:

---

According to whose intelligence? Hard for the gutted US intelligence to tell; and they’re too busy spying on US citizens and ignoring our enemies to know. The NIE that the libs got all heated up over concerning Iran’s status insofar as nuclear weapons was way off.

---

What are you saying here? Are you saying that the current Chinese and/or Russian aircraft carriers are really nuclear and we don’t know it?

If this is what you are claiming than please note that the current Russian Carrier Kuznetsov was launched in 1985 and construction of the Varyag (now the Chinese Carrier Liaonig) began in 1985 as well. Ronald Reagan was President and I don’t believe that our intelligence had been “gutted” as you claim at that time. Are you saying that our intelligence services missed the fact that these carriers were secretly nuclear since 1985?

Or are you saying that either the Chinese or Russians secretly built Nuclear Aircraft Carriers and we did not know about it? An aircraft carrier is one of the largest and most complex weapon system ever built. These are not like the nuclear laboratories in Iran which can be more easily hidden in bunkers and moved. They require a large shipyard and thousands of workers which is pretty easy to see by satellite. By comparison we had photos of the so called “Chinese stealth fighter” pretty soon after it flew and that is just one little plane.

Also, an aircraft carrier is a weapon system. That means that you have to test the ship, its systems and all of the planes that are deployed to the carrier. Building the aircraft carrier and testing all of the systems requires many years. In fact the Kuznetsova required a full decade to become operational and it is not even nuclear. Are you saying that the intelligence services of the US and all of our allies missed the construction and testing of a “secret” nuclear carrier for ten years?

Chris Lehman speaks in generalities but does not provide the information needed to make an informed decision. Moreover, he NEVER defines what he means by China’s “burgeoning” navy. In today’s world, the key ship for any Navy is the aircraft carrier. Let’s compare the US to China and Russia.

As of 2012 when this issue was raised in the Presidential debates, the US had 11 deployable Nuclear aircraft carriers which included 10 Nimitz class carriers and 1 Enterprise Class carrier. The Enterprise has since been retired. However, it will be replaced by the Gerald R. Ford, the first in a new class of carrier which began construction in 2009 and is to be christened in 2013. However, it will not be commissioned until 2016.

Please note that the Russians and Chinese have NO nuclear carriers. That’s correct! Not one. As of today, the Russians have exactly one operational carrier, the “Admiral Kuznetsov”. However, it would be a mistake to say that this ship is in anyway equivalent to any of our carriers. It has had constant repair issues and there are reports that because it has no catapults, it has trouble launching fully loaded fighters. In other words, it can’t really do “force projection”. The Chinese currently have no operational carriers. Their current carrier, the “Liaoning” was originally the Ukranian Varyag, a second ship of the Kuznetsov class. It has been refurbished and is finally doing jet landing and take-off training. However, it is still not operational.

Note: Here is a source that is a little dated but provides info on the problems of the Kuznetsov. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/1143_5.htm.

I suspect that Chris Lehman already knows these numbers and purposely neglected to provide this information which is unfortunate given that he is the former special assistant for national security affairs to President Reagan from 1983 to 1985.

I have read “reports” that China is currently building 2 new carriers, but have yet to see any satellite photos that confirm this. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/08/29/uk-china-carrier-idUKBRE87R15Z20120829
“Note the quote that satellite analysis of Chinese shipyards show no evidence of construction activity.

Even if Russians and Chinese were to embark on a rapid carrier construction program, it would take at least 3-5 years to build a carrier and another few years for it to be deployable. Please note that neither country has our experience or the facilities (Newport News) to build carriers, so it might require even more time.

Additionally, the Chinese and Russians currently have fewer than 50 carrier capable planes each. These planes would also have to be built and pilots would have to be trained. In short, if we pick a 10 year window, the Russians and Chinese together would still not have even one-third as many carriers as we have. In 15 years, they would still probably not have even half as many. Also, the Chinese will be 2-3 classes behind us in Nuclear carrier construction, i.e., we will already be on our 2nd and 3 class of Nuclear carriers before they have any.

By the way if any of you have the opportunity I highly recommend that you take one of the harbor cruises in Norfolk, VA. It is awesome. You get a chance to see numerous Navy ships including Ticonderoga-Class Cruisers, Arleigh Burke class Missile Destroyers, Los Angeles Class attack submarines, and usually, in the last berth, a Nimitz Class carrier.

The United States has far and away the most powerful Navy in the world. Even if this were not the case, it would be difficult for us to increase our Navy to even 400 ships, much less the 500 that I have seen people suggest. Why is that? The costs are staggering. During our harbor cruise we saw somewhere between 7-9 Ticonderoga-Class Cruisers and Arleigh Burke Destroyers. Our harbor guide threw out a cost of $1.2 billion for each of these ships. (see http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=800&ct=4 for the Navy’s estimate). Please note that we have 22 cruisers and 62 destroyers in our current fleet.

The build cost for a Nimitz class Carrier is $4.5 billion each. Note that is build or roll-off cost and not the operating cost over the life of the carrier.

I love our military and want us to win any engagement that we have with an enemy force. However, the costs to maintain our present “blue water” Navy is daunting which is why no other country in the world has one. Also, cruise missiles and similar technologies are cheap which means that there are significant issues around the vulnerability of a $6+ billion carrier task force. As voters we need to be educated to help our elected officials determine the best way to spend our tax dollars. Presenting overall numbers without context does not help.

That is your best response after you pinged my 2006 post? Also, I had not seen your response until recently.

Finally, I noticed you did not address any of the facts that were presented. Do we want to support American athletes in the Olympics or not?

So are you trying to say that Shani Davis is a bad American because he did not have his hand over heart during the national anthem? How do we know what he was thinking?

What about the fact that he skates around the track with a US flag and his teammate, Chad Hedrick, the very person who started this controversy in the first place? See http://www.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/vancouver/speedskating/2010-02-18-oly-speedskaters_N.htm for photo.

(For some reason this photo will not paste, but it shows Shani Davis and Chad Hedrick smiling and skating with a US flag.)

If a picture is worth 1,000 words, which picture should we focus on? This photo this seems to me to reflect well on American sportsmanship. Given that Davis and Hedrick managed to bury the hatchet, it is too bad that so many others can’t seem to do the same.

If you don’t like this guy, there is nothing that will change your mind. The question becomes, is your dislike so strong that you would rather America not win any medals in this event than for Shani to win them?

After all of this time it is too bad that so many focus on personal dislike instead of celebrating American achievement in the Winter Olympics.

Let me start by saying that I do not want Iran to make or have access to nuclear weapons. Also, I don’t have a problem with Israel having them.

However, given the feedback to the posted article, I have a few questions:

How is President Obama’s policy toward Iran on this issue significantly different than his predecessor, former President Bush?

Everything that I have read indicates that for Israel, finding and bombing the Iranian nuclear facilities are significantly more difficult than in Iraq and Syria. It is my understanding that this is why the US, even under President Bush, strongly discouraged Israel from even making the attempt.

Also, what should the US being doing differently to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons capability?

I am not sure why my post is a rationalization and yours is fact. However, you do have a point. The argument could be made that Shani Davis could have skated both the team event and his individual event.

But, it does appear that Shani was asked to participate late in his training cycle. This was after he had tried to qualify both for the short and long track teams, something that no one else was doing. Apparently he would be the first US Skater to qualify for both teams (see below) so I would suspect that training for BOTH teams had to impact his endurance, health, etc.

http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051016/SPORTS/510160553/1002/SPORTS

Heiden seems to echo this concern in the article I quoted in my previous post. BTW, can you point me to Heiden's initial critcisms of Davis?

It still looks to me as though the media has made a rush to judgement here, and I would probably agree with them and you if everyone on the U.S. spoke badly about Shani Davis.
But that fact that Joey Cheeks speaks well of him (and can be seen clapping for him on the podium during the medal presentation) along with Davis's long-time friendship Apolo Anton Ohno seems to support a press rush to judgement more than facts in evidence.

Also, Shani's Gold Medal is a Gold Medal for America. That's how it counts nationally and internationally.

I have always been an admirer of Freerepublic for having balanced viewpoints on both sides so here is my two cents.

When I first heard this story I got the impression that Shani Davis had let his teammates down. However further research shows the following:

1. Shani Davis was not originally selected for the pursuit team.

The articles make it sound as though he backed out and left his teammates high and dry. In fact, he never skated with the pursuit team, never practiced with them and was not an original member of the team. (Thanks to Wikipedia for good info). He was asked to participated, but how soon before the olympics is a matter of dispute.

2. Eric Heiden (Dr. Heiden) Defends Him

I have tremendous respect for Eric Heiden who is considered probably the greatest speed skater in history. Many press articles state that Heiden had "...a few choice words" for Shani Davis. But in Eric Heiden's actual articles he sings a much different tune by saying,

"Davis did the right thing by not skating in the pursuit. His goal was to skate the 1,000 and the 1,500. He was put in a unique position with team pursuit. It's a new race for the Olympics and the format was something that none of the teams were quite sure how to deal with."
see http://ca.sports.yahoo.com/olympics/torino2006/speed_skating/news?slug=eh-heiden021906&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Further in this article he notes that

"Another thing that people may be overlooking is that, in Salt Lake City, Davis was a member of the short-track team for a relay race, but didn't get to skate. So he's been in that situation before, where he didn't get to participate and he didn't want to do that to somebody here. It's tough to fault him for what he did. He may look selfish, but he was in that same position four years ago and didn't want anyone else to be in that position here."

In other words, Shani Davis felt bad about knocking someone out of an Olympic spot in Salt Lake and then not racing. He stated that the would never take a spot from someone again which hardly makes him sound self-centered. see also

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/02/19/SPG3NHBH2G1.DTL&type=printable

The actual quote from Shani in the above article is, ""I'll say this 100 times,'' he said. "... After 2002, when I went to the Olympics but didn't get to skate, I told myself that I would never, ever take someone else's opportunity to skate at an Olympic Games.''

I am sure that this controversy will continue to rage, but given the information I found beyond the basic headlines, I have to wonder if the some of this controversy is not due to the press playing on the competitive nature of two very good athletes, Chad Hedrick and Shani Davis.