If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Behold the future, now (if you're the US): Floating, mobile spec-ops bases capable of maintaining peace w/o threat of an allied veto   (nytimes.com) divider line 40
    More: Interesting, Persian Gulf, deputy assistant, water purification, oil platforms, New York Edition, warships, Fifth Fleet, peace  
•       •       •

4936 clicks; posted to Geek » on 12 Jul 2012 at 10:27 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



40 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-12 10:39:54 AM  
I feel safer already.
 
2012-07-12 10:40:43 AM  
So, this is what we've come to now that Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been abolished: SpecOps troops Poncing about.
 
2012-07-12 10:44:22 AM  
www.asitecalledfred.com

Oh, floating in water? I guess that's cool, too...
 
2012-07-12 10:44:32 AM  
Where "maintaining peace" = killing large numbers of brown people with the hope of occasionally hitting a terrorist.
 
2012-07-12 10:46:08 AM  
I betcha Jack Kirby won't see any royalties from this either.
 
2012-07-12 11:03:33 AM  
The future is a 50 year old transport ship?
 
2012-07-12 11:07:08 AM  
Initially I thought floating would mean in the air. But after reading the article it seems the Navy seems to have forgotten it already has floating forward bases with some already based by Bahrain:

www.nowtheendbegins.com

But one thing the military is great at is reinventing the wheel.
 
2012-07-12 11:10:05 AM  
I spent 3 years on that ship.

1994-1997.

We carried a couple different MEU's out of Morehead City, NC.

Went as far north as Odessa Ukrain. As far south as Monvoria Liberia. 2 Med Cruises.

Dropped onboard that ship off the coast of Italy as a Seaman Recruit - left that ship as a BM3.

Ahh... The days!
 
2012-07-12 11:16:00 AM  
you mean the USS Come At Me Bro?
 
2012-07-12 11:27:03 AM  
Subby, are you telling me the US military is now using boats to transport people, aircraft, and even smaller boats? It is a brave new world indeed.
 
2012-07-12 11:27:17 AM  

MadMattressMack: Initially I thought floating would mean in the air. But after reading the article it seems the Navy seems to have forgotten it already has floating forward bases with some already based by Bahrain:

[www.nowtheendbegins.com image 550x413]

But one thing the military is great at is reinventing the wheel.


I'm thinking this is a cheaper way to accomplish more.

Think about it: An aircraft carrier is wholly and completely subsumed to the mission of supporting naval airpower. When you don't have to support a couple fighter wings, strike aircraft, etc., you can make a much more flexible platform that can operate much more cheaply, and unobtrusively. You don't need an entire CBG to carry out that sort of mission.
 
2012-07-12 11:30:41 AM  
Please going forward mission critical the enterprise cloud SpecOps stop it. It sounds "special".
 
2012-07-12 11:42:44 AM  
It's an amphibious warfare ship - those things have been around forever in various shapes and sizes.

Meet the future, same as the past...
 
2012-07-12 11:45:47 AM  

WegianWarrior: It's an amphibious warfare ship - those things have been around forever in various shapes and sizes.

Meet the future, same as the past...


War never changes.......
 
2012-07-12 11:59:50 AM  

dittybopper: MadMattressMack: Initially I thought floating would mean in the air. But after reading the article it seems the Navy seems to have forgotten it already has floating forward bases with some already based by Bahrain:

[www.nowtheendbegins.com image 550x413]

But one thing the military is great at is reinventing the wheel.

I'm thinking this is a cheaper way to accomplish more.

Think about it: An aircraft carrier is wholly and completely subsumed to the mission of supporting naval airpower. When you don't have to support a couple fighter wings, strike aircraft, etc., you can make a much more flexible platform that can operate much more cheaply, and unobtrusively. You don't need an entire CBG to carry out that sort of mission.


This.

A CVN is a great tool, but way overkill for that kind of work. They cost billions of dollars, and that's ignoring the rest of the CBG that is required to support the thing. Keep in mind we only have a small handful of those things and they tend to be pretty well spoken for already in terms of tasking.

A smaller more flexible vessel can go places the full size carrier can't and do it with a much lower profile. It's more cost effective since you don't need a whole flotilla of ships, and since the ship doesn't have any other jobs to do it can be dedicated to the use of the SpecOps teams- plenty of room for workout facilities, briefing and intel spaces, berthing, etc.

That they were able to use a 1960s era ship to do this is great cost savings for the US taxpayer. No need to design and build a new ship from the ground up at the cost of $750m or so. Just refit an older one and get to work.
 
2012-07-12 12:10:17 PM  

dittybopper: MadMattressMack: Initially I thought floating would mean in the air. But after reading the article it seems the Navy seems to have forgotten it already has floating forward bases with some already based by Bahrain:

[www.nowtheendbegins.com image 550x413]

But one thing the military is great at is reinventing the wheel.

I'm thinking this is a cheaper way to accomplish more.

Think about it: An aircraft carrier is wholly and completely subsumed to the mission of supporting naval airpower. When you don't have to support a couple fighter wings, strike aircraft, etc., you can make a much more flexible platform that can operate much more cheaply, and unobtrusively. You don't need an entire CBG to carry out that sort of mission.


That, and it's easier to ask Congress for a $600,000,000 platform than a $9,000,000,000 allowance for another Ford class.

From what I'm reading it's being billed as a minesweeper tender with a special forces group stuck on the back and trying to give it lots of fanfare. While tin cans are what the Navy is really about, it's hard to get worked up about them. As Tom Clancy said in Red Storm Rising (and I'm pretty sure I got the quote wrong), "they lack the glamor of Naval aviation and the secrecy of submarines, but they are what really keeps the goods going". And where it's going is one of the most important areas to maintain freedom of navigation.

it just seems they're trying make a minesweeper tender more exciting by sticking some spec ops guys on it and then giving it lots of press. Maybe a true Nimitz / Ford class carrier is a bad example. It is a dedicated naval aviation ship. Maybe an amphibious assault ship would be a better fit. I just don't see a tender being able to go off on that kind of mission.

I felt let down by the headline and the hopes of giant blimps. Slowly moving south....
 
2012-07-12 12:15:17 PM  
Because everyone knows the best way to "maintain peace" is to park a giant farking aircraft carrier next to the people you want to get along with.
 
2012-07-12 12:20:31 PM  
Good lord, look at the state of that ship, all the rust down the side of it. That is appalling. When I was in the Army, we NEVER let our ships get in that bad of shape.
 
2012-07-12 12:26:16 PM  

jakomo002: Because everyone knows the best way to "maintain peace" is to park a giant farking aircraft carrier next to the people you want to get along with.


We already do - in Bahrain. There's forward deployed carrier strike group there.

canarypapers.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-07-12 12:39:37 PM  
www.futurehead.org
 
2012-07-12 12:49:02 PM  

OldManDownDRoad: [www.futurehead.org image 640x160]


Where have I seen that before? Oh yeah, and isolationism worked so well back then as well.Just let those pesky Germans do whatever they want in Europe.That's over there, not over here.

rpmedia.ask.com
 
2012-07-12 12:51:30 PM  

WegianWarrior: It's an amphibious warfare ship - those things have been around forever in various shapes and sizes.

Meet the future, same as the past...


I think the problem is they need more ships, but can't easily get a bigger budget.
Meanwhile they have lots of perfectly useful old ships that just need a coat of paint and some retooling.

Why waste a perfectly good rust bucket?
 
2012-07-12 12:51:42 PM  

MadMattressMack: OldManDownDRoad: [www.futurehead.org image 640x160]

Where have I seen that before? Oh yeah, and isolationism worked so well back then as well.Just let those pesky Germans do whatever they want in Europe.That's over there, not over here.

[rpmedia.ask.com image 640x419]


Must have gone to a public school, but I'm feeling charitable today: notice any difference between the signs?
 
2012-07-12 12:52:16 PM  
capable of maintaining peace w/o threat of an allied veto

You mean our NATO allies? Is the hull made of some magical diplomacy-proof alloy?

Or do you mean our "allies" like Pakistan, or Iraq, or the mayor of Kabul, etc.?
 
2012-07-12 01:22:52 PM  
Reminds me a bit of Stand On Zanzibar.
 
2012-07-12 01:41:49 PM  

OldManDownDRoad: MadMattressMack: OldManDownDRoad: [www.futurehead.org image 640x160]

Where have I seen that before? Oh yeah, and isolationism worked so well back then as well.Just let those pesky Germans do whatever they want in Europe.That's over there, not over here.

[rpmedia.ask.com image 640x419]

Must have gone to a public school, but I'm feeling charitable today: notice any difference between the signs?


Nope, I went to private. Notice any similarities in the message and mindset they're formed in?

Let me give you a different Washington quote:

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."

This quote, by Washington, is considered the founding framework of non-interventionism. That all we care about is trade and kudos to you if you're pulling of genocide. As long as it doesn't directly threaten us why should we care?

This kind of thinking is what let to the Neutrality Acts and to the US doing everything it could to be removed from possible conflict in Europe prior to WWII. Things might have gone a bit differently if the US had started it's build up in 1936 when there was smoke on the horizon instead of 1940 when the only bastion of Democracy between the US and Germany ware the British.

So I'll give you FDR's response to Germany invading Poland:

"When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger,"
 
2012-07-12 03:31:30 PM  

MadMattressMack: OldManDownDRoad: [www.futurehead.org image 640x160]

Where have I seen that before? Oh yeah, and isolationism worked so well back then as well.Just let those pesky Germans do whatever they want in Europe.That's over there, not over here.

[rpmedia.ask.com image 640x419]


Germany and Japan posed an existential threat to the United States, and that threat needed to be removed. There really aren't that many countries left in the world that pose that same level of threat, and among those that do have the capability to hit us hard, fighting them in an open war would either result in nuclear holocaust (Russia) or worldwide economic collapse (China). Since we're likely to be facing relatively small threats like Al Queda that are best handled via drones and special forces for the foreseeable future, do we REALLY need to have a carrier force that dwarfs the rest of the world combined?

www.worldaffairsboard.com

I'd like to be well defended, and I find the military technology pretty cool stuff, but I think we're at a point where we have swung too far over to the other extreme and are going broke trying to police the rest of the world. What good is it for my grandchildren to be well defended if our current military spending leaves them with a country that is drowning in debt? There is a sane middle ground between isolationism and interventionism, but I don't think we're anywhere near it.
 
2012-07-12 03:45:00 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Since we're likely to be facing relatively small threats like Al Queda that are best handled via drones and special forces for the foreseeable future, do we REALLY need to have a carrier force that dwarfs the rest of the world combined?


If you want to fight someone with special forces and drones, you need to support the vehicles working in that corner of the world. The fewer friends you have in a region, the more support you need to pack into a boat.
The more fronts you open, the more boats you need.

Because war is changing the aircraft carrier just became more important, not less.
 
2012-07-12 05:06:41 PM  
you mean the USS Come At Me Bro?

More like USS Tonkin Gulf.

I've done some work on the 'fixin' up" of this ship, and they seem to advertising this ship and its mission to everyone and anybody. It's like they're sticking it out there as bait....

Folks been trying to get me to go out to Bahrain to do some additional work on the ship, but I ain't going to that Muzzie hellhole....
 
2012-07-12 05:07:45 PM  
What? The military making use of what they've already got? Amazing!

Beats the hell out of yet another $50 Billion toy.
 
2012-07-12 07:06:20 PM  

Mad_Radhu: MadMattressMack: OldManDownDRoad: [www.futurehead.org image 640x160]

Where have I seen that before? Oh yeah, and isolationism worked so well back then as well.Just let those pesky Germans do whatever they want in Europe.That's over there, not over here.

[rpmedia.ask.com image 640x419]

Germany and Japan posed an existential threat to the United States, and that threat needed to be removed. There really aren't that many countries left in the world that pose that same level of threat, and among those that do have the capability to hit us hard, fighting them in an open war would either result in nuclear holocaust (Russia) or worldwide economic collapse (China). Since we're likely to be facing relatively small threats like Al Queda that are best handled via drones and special forces for the foreseeable future, do we REALLY need to have a carrier force that dwarfs the rest of the world combined?

[www.worldaffairsboard.com image 640x810]

I'd like to be well defended, and I find the military technology pretty cool stuff, but I think we're at a point where we have swung too far over to the other extreme and are going broke trying to police the rest of the world. What good is it for my grandchildren to be well defended if our current military spending leaves them with a country that is drowning in debt? There is a sane middle ground between isolationism and interventionism, but I don't think we're anywhere near it.


In FY 2013, mandatory spending is budgeted at 60% of total Federal spending, and 2 1/2 times as much as the military budget.
Link

So no the defense spending is not leaving us drowning in debt. Thats like saying people who owed 2k to a Dr. are facing a medical bankruptcy when they owe 60k on a credit card for pocketbooks and on demand movies.
 
2012-07-12 07:24:31 PM  
My people call it a ship, subby.

Beyond that, yeah, so what. We don't need no stinking permissions to do anything, anywhere because we are EMPIRE.
 
2012-07-12 07:44:57 PM  
This reads like a pitch for a TV series -- Pimp My Boat.

//Why do I get seasick when I read the words "Navy Transport Vessel."
 
2012-07-12 10:36:23 PM  
"The Ponce"? Will the rest of our fleet be The Poof, The Mary, The Pansy, and The Brony?
 
2012-07-13 01:50:40 AM  
See, it's threads like this that make me wish modern seafaring vessels had poop decks.
 
2012-07-13 08:32:06 AM  
Did I read that right? That ship is called The Ponce?

The Ponce?
 
2012-07-13 08:46:08 AM  

mark12A: you mean the USS Come At Me Bro?

More like USS Tonkin Gulf.

I've done some work on the 'fixin' up" of this ship, and they seem to advertising this ship and its mission to everyone and anybody. It's like they're sticking it out there as bait....

Folks been trying to get me to go out to Bahrain to do some additional work on the ship, but I ain't going to that Muzzie hellhole....


images.soleadventure.com

What a Muzzy hellhole might look like.
 
2012-07-13 09:29:17 AM  
I can see the sense in having something like this as part of our forces, but I'd be much happier about paying for it if Congress would stop paying to have aircraft built that the military neither wants nor needs.

Pick one, Congress. The military did.
 
2012-07-13 09:36:07 AM  

geek_mars: I can see the sense in having something like this as part of our forces, but I'd be much happier about paying for it if Congress would stop paying to have aircraft built that the military neither wants nor needs.

Pick one, Congress. The military did.


Its the root of the problem.
The military wants new rifles, armor, and com gear.
The military needs new helicopters, littoral ships and forward bases.
The military gets giant taxpayer sinkholes that are built in all the right states for all the wrong missions.

/One stealth jet program is fine.
/Two is a bit much.
/Three and a half dozen engine options is just crazy.
 
2012-07-14 01:07:58 PM  

MadMattressMack: dittybopper: MadMattressMack: Initially I thought floating would mean in the air. But after reading the article it seems the Navy seems to have forgotten it already has floating forward bases with some already based by Bahrain:

[www.nowtheendbegins.com image 550x413]

But one thing the military is great at is reinventing the wheel.

I'm thinking this is a cheaper way to accomplish more.

Think about it: An aircraft carrier is wholly and completely subsumed to the mission of supporting naval airpower. When you don't have to support a couple fighter wings, strike aircraft, etc., you can make a much more flexible platform that can operate much more cheaply, and unobtrusively. You don't need an entire CBG to carry out that sort of mission.

That, and it's easier to ask Congress for a $600,000,000 platform than a $9,000,000,000 allowance for another Ford class.

From what I'm reading it's being billed as a minesweeper tender with a special forces group stuck on the back and trying to give it lots of fanfare. While tin cans are what the Navy is really about, it's hard to get worked up about them. As Tom Clancy said in Red Storm Rising (and I'm pretty sure I got the quote wrong), "they lack the glamor of Naval aviation and the secrecy of submarines, but they are what really keeps the goods going". And where it's going is one of the most important areas to maintain freedom of navigation.

it just seems they're trying make a minesweeper tender more exciting by sticking some spec ops guys on it and then giving it lots of press. Maybe a true Nimitz / Ford class carrier is a bad example. It is a dedicated naval aviation ship. Maybe an amphibious assault ship would be a better fit. I just don't see a tender being able to go off on that kind of mission.

I felt let down by the headline and the hopes of giant blimps. Slowly moving south....


With the helicopter/special operations capability, it sounds more like an old WWII seaplane tender. Special forces insertion and extraction was a major role for the old seaplanes, on top of their other roles as bombers, scouts and rescue aircraft. One of the PBY pilots even received a medal of honor for making three landings under Japanese naval gunfire to pick up bomber crews.

I'm kind of surprised it took them this long to revive the old concept, but then again aircraft from other platforms pretty much have all the range needed. I guess that's why they're including the minesweeper tender role into the mix.
 
Displayed 40 of 40 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report