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 Hill)   Paul Ryan hits back at Obama's "horses and bayonets" quip: "The ocean hasn't shrunk." ZING   (thehill.com) divider line 295
    More: Hero, President Obama, navy, Budget Control Act, sea lanes, foreign policy, oceans  
•       •       •

2589 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Oct 2012 at 10:34 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-10-23 09:54:47 AM  
Um....

boeingblogs.com

Yes it has, dumbass.
 
2012-10-23 09:57:05 AM  
We have guided missiles that can take out an enemy ship from over the horizon. we don't need a flotilla of cruisers to do the same job as a pile of missiles.
 
2012-10-23 09:57:51 AM  
The ships do go a little farther though don't they you lying pissrag.
 
2012-10-23 09:58:00 AM  
Go on, double down on the stupidity.
 
2012-10-23 09:58:39 AM  
Keep running with this, boys. We need more boats. It doesn't matter what kind, it's the numbers that matter.
 
2012-10-23 09:59:15 AM  
That's really bad, considering he's had all this time with a team to work together on the best thing to say as a soundbite to be their retort to that quip... Sack everyone involved.
 
2012-10-23 10:01:31 AM  
FTFA: The president, if all of these defense cuts go through, our Navy will be smaller than it was in World War I. That's unacceptable."

No. That's actually the opposite of unacceptable. Air power has fundamentally altered the value of a navy, and the navy has been decreasing in size for decades for a reason.
 
2012-10-23 10:01:57 AM  
www.neptunuslex.com

no but the ships have gotten bigger

Class & type: Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate
Displacement: 4,100 long tons (4,200 t), full load
Length: 453 feet (138 m), overall
Beam: 45 feet (14 m)
Draught: 22 feet (6.7 m)

USS Constitution (heavy frigate)
Tonnage: 1,576
Displacement: 2,200 tons
Length: 204 ft (62 m) billet head to taffrail;
175 ft (53 m) at waterline[2]
Beam: 43 ft 6 in (13.26 m)
Height: foremast: 198 ft (60 m)
mainmast: 220 ft (67 m)
mizzenmast:172.5 ft (52.6 m)[2]
Draft: 21 ft (6.4 m) forward
23 ft (7.0 m) aft[4]
 
2012-10-23 10:01:59 AM  
Nine hours and that's the best response. My, oh my.
 
2012-10-23 10:03:09 AM  
"The ocean hasn't shrunk," Ryan said in an interview on CBS's This Morning. "You still have to have enough ships to have the footprint that you need ... to keep our strength abroad where it needs to be."

What exactly is the "footprint" (tactical reach?) of a single carrier group compared to the entire American fleet in 1912?
 
2012-10-23 10:05:53 AM  

Dogberry: Nine hours and that's the best response. My, oh my.


To be fair, he likely hasn't gotten any sleep while trying to come up with it.
 
2012-10-23 10:08:20 AM  
The entire world has shrunk... its called globalization.

Also (I'll accept corrections if i'm wrong) but I understand that our Nimitz class aircraft carriers have two nuclear reactors that allow them to navigate w/o stopping for fuel for about 20 years. It seems that if your ships are faster and don't need to stop as much to refuel and you can cover more ground with less vessels.
 
2012-10-23 10:08:48 AM  
Instead of wasting money and putting lots of ships and sailors on the line, we could invest in those fancy new missiles that can pin a fly to a wall from way the fark out, then explode and wipe out whatever ship that fly was on.

But yeah, keep using the size of the ocean as a reason to waste money on outdated technology.
 
2012-10-23 10:08:57 AM  
It still takes a day to travel to the Cayman Islands by yacht. Suck it Fart.
 
2012-10-23 10:09:49 AM  

Bloody William: "The ocean hasn't shrunk," Ryan said in an interview on CBS's This Morning. "You still have to have enough ships to have the footprint that you need ... to keep our strength abroad where it needs to be."

What exactly is the "footprint" (tactical reach?) of a single carrier group compared to the entire American fleet in 1912?


A single carrier battle group would obliterate the combined navies of the US, Britain and Germany from WWI. If they felt like it they could probably do this without being seen for extra points.
 
2012-10-23 10:09:50 AM  
To be fair, you DO need more ships if they're powered by horses on treadmills, getting poked with a bayonet once in a while to keep them trotting.
 
2012-10-23 10:13:08 AM  
I wonder how many of the GOP's best and brightest it took to come up with that scathing retort.
 
2012-10-23 10:14:01 AM  
Done in one. No more needs to be said.
 
2012-10-23 10:14:13 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: Um....

[boeingblogs.com image 700x500]

Yes it has, dumbass.


The advance in technology is impressive. But its funny that the personnel still wear standard camouflage.

If they really needed to stay hidden in that room the camo should be depictions of computers and electronic equipment.
 
2012-10-23 10:15:21 AM  
Does this mean the GOP is finally acknowledging global warming and rising ocean levels?
 
2012-10-23 10:15:43 AM  
John Paul Jones would not recognize what Fartbama did to the Navy, libs.
 
2012-10-23 10:16:39 AM  

gilgigamesh: DjangoStonereaver: Um....

[boeingblogs.com image 700x500]

Yes it has, dumbass.

The advance in technology is impressive. But its funny that the personnel still wear standard camouflage.

If they really needed to stay hidden in that room the camo should be depictions of computers and electronic equipment.


Its fractal camouflage, now.
 
2012-10-23 10:18:56 AM  
Sounds like someone's doing their best to make sure Virginia doesn't go Democrat...Newport News...Lynchburg...
 
2012-10-23 10:20:06 AM  
The U.S.S Obama (top) vs. the U.S.S Romney (bottom)
 
2012-10-23 10:21:26 AM  

what_now: John Paul Jones would not recognize what Fartbama did to the Navy, libs.


I love you
/that is all
 
2012-10-23 10:24:13 AM  

kronicfeld: Go on, double down on the stupidity.


This.

You'll definitely excite your base with this logic,Mittens.
 
2012-10-23 10:30:49 AM  
The fact that the GOP has to spend the entire next day doing damage control and shoring up Romney's statements tells me all I need to know about who they think won.

That and the laughable coverage by Faux News.
 
2012-10-23 10:30:54 AM  
Dear god, these people might be running this country in a few months.
 
2012-10-23 10:35:15 AM  

kronicfeld: Go on, double down on the stupidity.


This; good God Ryan's a whiny little biatch ain't he.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-23 10:36:10 AM  
Actually the area each ship can control has increased dramatically. Besides, if you want to start dredging up historical irrelevancies, the US has the largest navy in the world now and we were number two in 1917.

There were only about 40 more ships in 1917, and ships today are much larger. I am fairly sure the Navy is larger today than in 1917 in terms of tonnage. Does anyone know where to find total active tonnage for 1917?
 
2012-10-23 10:36:12 AM  
Do you think he went back to his advisers after that line and said, "Nailed it!"
 
2012-10-23 10:36:38 AM  

what_now: John Paul Jones would not recognize what Fartbama did to the Navy, libs.


John Paul Jones was a Commie TRAITOR who gave all of our Naval technology to the RUSSIANS!!1!
 
2012-10-23 10:36:43 AM  

DamnYankees: Dear god, these people might be running this country in a few months.


Florida, Ohio, I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you.
 
2012-10-23 10:37:15 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-23 10:37:19 AM  

Bontesla: kronicfeld: Go on, double down on the stupidity.

This.

You'll definitely excite your base with this logic,Mittens.


The funny thing is that it probably will.
 
2012-10-23 10:37:26 AM  
What's really annoying is Obama has signaled he wants a bigger Navy, namely Flight III Aegis Destroyers, however he wants to keep the Army and Air Force cuts. This Congress just putting our national security at risk so the Rs can try to score points off Obama. Basically Congress is demanding a roll back of all cuts, Obama just wants to adjust the cuts so there is more funding for Aegis hulls.
 
2012-10-23 10:37:50 AM  
They're pandering to voters who remember Pearl Harbor and still call Russia "The Soviet Union." Of course they're sticking with this talking point.
 
2012-10-23 10:37:51 AM  
The ocean hasn't shrunk... and bayonets are still sharp and horsies are still fast yet pretty!

So nyah!
 
2012-10-23 10:38:01 AM  
They slept on it and this is all they could come up with? That's like retorting with: "Oh yeah? Well, your mom!"
 
2012-10-23 10:38:01 AM  
Romney and Ryan have studied this issue extensively, people. They know what they're talking about.

4.bp.blogspot.com

/Hot.
 
2012-10-23 10:38:03 AM  

Dogberry: DamnYankees: Dear god, these people might be running this country in a few months.

Florida, Ohio, I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you.


Florida is a lost cause. Hope for Nevada to do the smart thing.
 
2012-10-23 10:38:25 AM  
Man, I hate to pound the shotglass or just toss out ten lbs of cheddar, but even an environmentally minded dude can see that the President won the last debate.
 
2012-10-23 10:38:31 AM  
Force projection, how does it farking work?

And what's borderline horrifying is, these morons are allegedly the BEST the right-wing can muster right now. No wonder the rest of the world just shakes their collective head at us.
 
2012-10-23 10:38:32 AM  
enhanced.freedomstudios.net

We need more ships!!!!1111
 
2012-10-23 10:38:32 AM  
Relatively, they have.
 
2012-10-23 10:39:03 AM  

kbronsito: The entire world has shrunk... its called globalization.

Also (I'll accept corrections if i'm wrong) but I understand that our Nimitz class aircraft carriers have two nuclear reactors that allow them to navigate w/o stopping for fuel for about 20 years. It seems that if your ships are faster and don't need to stop as much to refuel and you can cover more ground with less vessels.


This is true, but they can only carry enough aviation fuel for about 18 days of continuous flight ops, so that's the limiting factor these days...
 
2012-10-23 10:39:04 AM  
cyberbrethren.com
 
2012-10-23 10:39:06 AM  
Have we stopped making ships?? I was under the impression we had not.
 
2012-10-23 10:39:14 AM  
And if we ever go to war with the ocean that might matter.
 
2012-10-23 10:39:16 AM  
In other news, Paul Ryan has yet to discover satellite technology or GPS.
 
2012-10-23 10:39:25 AM  

vpb: Does anyone know where to find total active tonnage for 1917?


Do you really think Romney or Ryan knows that tonnage is one way to measure these things?
 
2012-10-23 10:39:43 AM  
I expected a better retort from Paul "Numbers Guy" Ryan.
 
2012-10-23 10:39:44 AM  

kbronsito: The entire world has shrunk... its called globalization.

Also (I'll accept corrections if i'm wrong) but I understand that our Nimitz class aircraft carriers have two nuclear reactors that allow them to navigate w/o stopping for fuel for about 20 years. It seems that if your ships are faster and don't need to stop as much to refuel and you can cover more ground with less vessels.


New Super Carriers like the Bush are really only limited by the people onboard. Given an intimate supply of food and creature comfort items, they could really go nonstop for the entire life of it's fuel.

I have a feeling the people would hang themselves or go on murder sprees long before that, though.
 
2012-10-23 10:39:57 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: gilgigamesh: DjangoStonereaver: Um....

[boeingblogs.com image 700x500]

Yes it has, dumbass.

The advance in technology is impressive. But its funny that the personnel still wear standard camouflage.

If they really needed to stay hidden in that room the camo should be depictions of computers and electronic equipment.

Its fractal camouflage, now.


Believe it or not, the Navy NWU is not intended to be camouflage. It is designed to mask the most common paints, oils, and grease used in the maintenance of naval vessels.

We get to be dirty and not look dirty.
 
2012-10-23 10:40:07 AM  
Pair this with his "war on left-handed Irish" comment, it makes you realize Ryan says he's a "numbers guy" not because of anything regarding his number-crunching skills, but because he fails miserably at words.
 
2012-10-23 10:40:10 AM  
"The Ocean hasn't shrunk..." no shiat, Sherlock. Hell, what with global warming, deglaciation, and rising sea levels the ocean has...wait a tick. Romney/Ryan also supports increased fossil fuel use and halting transition to renewables and clean energy.

Holy fark, Romney's plan has a detail, substance, and some coherence! The US rules the seas, and they want to make the seas bigger so we rule more of the Earth with a bigger navy to do it!

Manifest Sea-Destiny!
 
2012-10-23 10:40:10 AM  
By the way, based on the current Navy budget, the Navy is going to end up fielding fewer Aegis cruisers than Congress requires. With CG(X) cut and Congress not providing funding for enough Flight III Burkes, the USN won't have enough hulls. As it stand some of the older cruisers just had their service life extended as a stop-gap measure. Congress has only itself it blame.
 
2012-10-23 10:40:25 AM  

Slaxl: That's really bad, considering he's had all this time with a team to work together on the best thing to say as a soundbite to be their retort to that quip... Sack everyone involved.


i don't have time to dick around with these half measures, how many llamas will be needed to finish the job?
 
2012-10-23 10:40:39 AM  

Renart: Romney and Ryan have studied this issue extensively, people. They know what they're talking about.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 641x361]

/Hot.


I love that game box image. Keep washing those dishes girls til sammich time!
 
2012-10-23 10:40:44 AM  
"The ocean hasn't shrunk," Ryan said in an interview on CBS's This Morning.

What Ryan means is that the ocean hasn't shrunk in his bathtub where he plays "Battleship" with some ships that he got out of a Cracker Jack box.

STFU, Eddie!
 
2012-10-23 10:40:46 AM  
The jerk store called......
 
2012-10-23 10:41:01 AM  
WHY DOES OBAMA REFUSE TO UP THE BUDGET ON OUR COAL REFUELING DEPOTS? WE'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO ATTACK SALAMANCA DURING OUR NEXT TURN WITH OUR IRONCLADS NOW!
 
2012-10-23 10:41:05 AM  
I thought Republicans, especially so-called fiscal wonks like Ryan and rock-ribbed businessmen like Romney. understood the value of efficiency. Isn't controlling more battlespace with fewer, better ships and crew supposed to be a good thing that deficit hawks should applaud, or does productivity zealotry only apply to workers, the destitute, and the old?

/government doesn't create jobs... except when it comes to military procurement, at which point the more money thrown at it the better
//GOP logic
 
2012-10-23 10:41:58 AM  
How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?
 
2012-10-23 10:42:06 AM  

raerae1980: Have we stopped making ships?? I was under the impression we had not.


We put a temporary hold on new carrier groups, though existing groups are being maintained and having their operating life extended. I think that is what Romney and the Republican Defense Industry is complaining about, though I don't know why they are doing so in such a roundabout manner.
 
2012-10-23 10:42:21 AM  
Keep talking.
 
2012-10-23 10:43:09 AM  

that bosnian sniper: "The Ocean hasn't shrunk..." no shiat, Sherlock. Hell, what with global warming, deglaciation, and rising sea levels the ocean has...wait a tick. Romney/Ryan also supports increased fossil fuel use and halting transition to renewables and clean energy.

Holy fark, Romney's plan has a detail, substance, and some coherence! The US rules the seas, and they want to make the seas bigger so we rule more of the Earth with a bigger navy to do it!

Manifest Sea-Destiny!


Water World II!
 
2012-10-23 10:44:06 AM  

what_now: John Paul


I want so badly to make a Led Zeppelin joke, but I'm just not that funny.
 
2012-10-23 10:44:22 AM  
So wow, they really do think it's like Battleship.
 
2012-10-23 10:44:35 AM  
"It's been a story of changing stories by the administration," Ryan said.

What.
 
2012-10-23 10:44:42 AM  
True...but the force-projection 'bubble' (ie, the range at which a given ship or fleet can engage an enemy) of a modern carrier is about 1000km. The force-projection 'bubble' of a WWI fleet was about 50k.

Also: WWI was the height of a naval arms race. After WWI, that race continued right through WWII, when we then had the Cold War to deal with. So in a way, our fleet size has *finally* gotten back to actual peacetime levels and you want to build it up again? Do you maybe not realize how much ships cost?
 
2012-10-23 10:44:51 AM  
Paul Ryan is an idiot on everything but budgets and numbers. Until we found out he was an idiot on that too. So vote for him. He could be president if Romney falls off his dancing horse.
 
2012-10-23 10:44:55 AM  
I support replacing a single carrier with a dozen Zodiacs. It would massively inflate the size of the Navy while cutting down costs significantly. Win/win.
 
2012-10-23 10:45:30 AM  

kronicfeld: Go on, double down on the stupidity.


That's the Teabag (and apparently the GOP) way.
 
2012-10-23 10:45:44 AM  
I'm pretty sure the ground hasn't shrunk much either, but we still have fewer horses.

/bayonets not less deadly either.
 
2012-10-23 10:45:49 AM  

PlatinumDragon: I thought Republicans, especially so-called fiscal wonks like Ryan and rock-ribbed businessmen like Romney. understood the value of efficiency. Isn't controlling more battlespace with fewer, better ships and crew supposed to be a good thing that deficit hawks should applaud, or does productivity zealotry only apply to workers, the destitute, and the old?

/government doesn't create jobs... except when it comes to military procurement, at which point the more money thrown at it the better
//GOP logic


Hawks on the right don't go for efficiency when it comes to the military. That doesn't get them hard. They prefer overwhelming numbers. They prefer the zerg rush.
 
2012-10-23 10:45:49 AM  

Lost Thought 00: raerae1980: Have we stopped making ships?? I was under the impression we had not.

We put a temporary hold on new carrier groups, though existing groups are being maintained and having their operating life extended. I think that is what Romney and the Republican Defense Industry is complaining about, though I don't know why they are doing so in such a roundabout manner.


I assume the Gerald R. Fords will replace the Nimitzes as they're retired. Is Enterprise out of service yet? I recall that ship being first in line for replacement.

Why the fark would the US need more carrier groups? Aren't ten or eleven enough to effectively control the entire freaking surface?
 
2012-10-23 10:46:06 AM  

Mad Morf: kbronsito: The entire world has shrunk... its called globalization.

Also (I'll accept corrections if i'm wrong) but I understand that our Nimitz class aircraft carriers have two nuclear reactors that allow them to navigate w/o stopping for fuel for about 20 years. It seems that if your ships are faster and don't need to stop as much to refuel and you can cover more ground with less vessels.

This is true, but they can only carry enough aviation fuel for about 18 days of continuous flight ops, so that's the limiting factor these days...


i don't see a problem here. aren't most modern wars about 2 weeks long anyway what with the 'shock and awe' and all that?

/oh wait...
 
2012-10-23 10:46:07 AM  
hey, Rmoney/Ryan!

cache.gawker.com
 
2012-10-23 10:46:07 AM  

Shadowknight: kbronsito: The entire world has shrunk... its called globalization.

Also (I'll accept corrections if i'm wrong) but I understand that our Nimitz class aircraft carriers have two nuclear reactors that allow them to navigate w/o stopping for fuel for about 20 years. It seems that if your ships are faster and don't need to stop as much to refuel and you can cover more ground with less vessels.

New Super Carriers like the Bush are really only limited by the people onboard. Given an intimate supply of food and creature comfort items, they could really go nonstop for the entire life of it's fuel.

I have a feeling the people would hang themselves or go on murder sprees long before that, though.


I really, really hope you meant "infinite".
 
2012-10-23 10:46:25 AM  
And..... He totally misses the point.

Thank you, Sarah-Palin-In-Pants
 
2012-10-23 10:46:32 AM  

riverwalk barfly: what_now: John Paul

I want so badly to make a Led Zeppelin joke, but I'm just not that funny.


Yeah, I went back and forth on a "...and john Bonham's dead" joke, but chose not to.
 
2012-10-23 10:46:35 AM  
oblig.

jaypgreene.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-10-23 10:46:36 AM  
"This trillion dollar cut in defense will make us weak, will project weakness abroad"

So, do you regret voting for the sequestration?

Also, maybe you should be busting your ass in Congress to avoid that automatic cut.

Ryan is like someone farking up horribly at work and hoping to find a new job before someone notices and fires him.
 
2012-10-23 10:46:41 AM  
Umm......

You do realize that the more you talk about it, the more permanent it gets in people's mind?
And if have not guessed, it did not go in your way....
 
2012-10-23 10:46:42 AM  

what_now: Keep running with this, boys. We need more boats. It doesn't matter what kind, it's the numbers that matter.


I have a canoe I'm not using. I'll duct-tape a shotgun to it and sell it to the navy for $1.5 million. It's a bargain--call me, Mittens!
 
2012-10-23 10:46:52 AM  

azazyel: that bosnian sniper: "The Ocean hasn't shrunk..." no shiat, Sherlock. Hell, what with global warming, deglaciation, and rising sea levels the ocean has...wait a tick. Romney/Ryan also supports increased fossil fuel use and halting transition to renewables and clean energy.

Holy fark, Romney's plan has a detail, substance, and some coherence! The US rules the seas, and they want to make the seas bigger so we rule more of the Earth with a bigger navy to do it!

Manifest Sea-Destiny!

Water World II!


+1 Internets to the first person to shop Romney & Ryan into a Waterworld pic.
 
2012-10-23 10:46:58 AM  

Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?


We didn't even have the Iowa-classes back in WWI.

/nor did we have any real aircraft carriers, or radar, or GPS...
 
2012-10-23 10:47:03 AM  
Jerk Store! Jerk Store is the line! Jerk Store is gonna SMOKE that guy!
 
2012-10-23 10:48:08 AM  

raerae1980: Have we stopped making ships?? I was under the impression we had not.


The specific issue Aegis fulls. The whole CG(X), next generation cruiser project, was a clusterfark that went over budget and got the axe. As a result we're not building new cruisers and the Ticonderoga cruisers we have are starting to show their age. The plan Obama has is for the construction of more Flight III Burke Class Destroyers and the upgrade of older Flights of Burkes to the III spec (new Aegis baseline, ability to fire the SM-3 and SM-6, etc). The deal is Congress only came up with the funding to modernize 11 ships (there are 62 active) and no money to start building Flight IIIs until 2016. So we have a dead period where no hulls get added and the Tics float around and become even more obsolete.
 
2012-10-23 10:48:09 AM  

Dogberry: DamnYankees: Dear god, these people might be running this country in a few months.

Florida, Ohio, I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you.


Reporting here from Ohio, Fartbama's route to the sea.

Will do all we can to hold the line for Admiral Romney.

MOUNT UP!

FIX BAYONETS!

CHAAAARRRRRGGGEEEEE!!!

i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-23 10:48:19 AM  
Who the fark is this Paul Ryan dick?
 
2012-10-23 10:49:06 AM  

trivial use of my dark powers: what_now: Keep running with this, boys. We need more boats. It doesn't matter what kind, it's the numbers that matter.

I have a canoe I'm not using. I'll duct-tape a shotgun to it and sell it to the navy for $1.5 million. It's a bargain--call me, Mittens!


No you won't - Canada needs its navy back by next week.
 
2012-10-23 10:49:13 AM  
In this scenario, Barack Obama is Indiana Jones, and Mitt Romney is the dude who just got shot.

www.thegeekreport.net
 
2012-10-23 10:49:17 AM  
"Iran is four years closer to a nuclear weapon."

It's also 4 years closer to the election of it's first gay female robot emperor with a cooking show.
 
2012-10-23 10:49:21 AM  

EyeballKid: Pair this with his "war on left-handed Irish" comment, it makes you realize Ryan says he's a "numbers guy" not because of anything regarding his number-crunching skills, but because he fails miserably at words.


He does regularly insert numbers into his speeches, so there's that.
 
2012-10-23 10:49:23 AM  

ha-ha-guy: raerae1980: Have we stopped making ships?? I was under the impression we had not.

The specific issue Aegis fulls. The whole CG(X), next generation cruiser project, was a clusterfark that went over budget and got the axe. As a result we're not building new cruisers and the Ticonderoga cruisers we have are starting to show their age. The plan Obama has is for the construction of more Flight III Burke Class Destroyers and the upgrade of older Flights of Burkes to the III spec (new Aegis baseline, ability to fire the SM-3 and SM-6, etc). The deal is Congress only came up with the funding to modernize 11 ships (there are 62 active) and no money to start building Flight IIIs until 2016. So we have a dead period where no hulls get added and the Tics float around and become even more obsolete.


Obsolete as compared to what?
 
2012-10-23 10:49:31 AM  

rufus-t-firefly: Ryan is like someone farking up horribly at work and hoping to find a new job before someone notices and fires him.


In Wississippi? Not likely.
 
2012-10-23 10:50:06 AM  
And submitter is soundly humiliated. nice work, everyone.
 
2012-10-23 10:50:10 AM  

Renart: Romney and Ryan have studied this issue extensively, people. They know what they're talking about.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 641x361]

/Hot.


Thank goodness Mitt let those women out of their binders and gave them a flexible schedule, so they could go home and do the cooking and cleaning .
 
2012-10-23 10:50:23 AM  

Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?


Negligible. It outranges the Iowas by quite a bit, but has about 10% of the armor. If the Iowa ever got in range, one or two salvos would be all she wrote for the Ticonderoga.

But it's a moot point. Both are prime targets for submarines, and would never operate outside of a task force, which in turn would never operate without air cover. It's so inter-linked that there's just no role for the battlewagons anymore - the sheer range of missiles and carrier air wings has made the naval gun obsolete.Heck, even Reagan knew that - they were refitted for their shore bombardment capabilities and to draw missiles from the carriers, not for their ability to be meaningful fleet force components. Think of them as especially tough decoys, with some littoral utility.
 
2012-10-23 10:50:29 AM  

trivial use of my dark powers: what_now: Keep running with this, boys. We need more boats. It doesn't matter what kind, it's the numbers that matter.

I have a canoe I'm not using. I'll duct-tape a shotgun to it and sell it to the navy for $1.5 million. It's a bargain--call me, Mittens!


I can steal my neighbor's kayaks and we'll invade the coast line that Syria and Iran share.
 
2012-10-23 10:50:32 AM  
To compare modern American battleships and Navy with bayonets, I just don't understand that comparison.

- Paul Ryan, policy genius and the intellectual leader of conservatism.
 
2012-10-23 10:50:35 AM  
Well obviously there have been no significant advances in naval technology in the last 100 years, so Paul Ryan is totally correct.
 
2012-10-23 10:50:50 AM  

PanicMan: "Iran is four years closer to a nuclear weapon."

It's also 4 years closer to the election of it's first gay female robot emperor with a cooking show.


When did Oprah get a cooking show?
 
2012-10-23 10:50:53 AM  

PanicMan: "Iran is four years closer to a nuclear weapon."

It's also 4 years closer to the election of it's first gay female robot emperor with a cooking show.


I would watch the shiat out of that cooking show.
 
2012-10-23 10:51:04 AM  
The Mitt Romney Administration: The Charge of the Light Dressage Brigade!
 
2012-10-23 10:52:29 AM  
Mr. Obama, this dreadnought gap is unacceptable!
 
2012-10-23 10:52:41 AM  

Deneb81: I'm pretty sure the ground hasn't shrunk much either...


But it has, see global warming and coastal erosion. That means the ocean is bigger, and we need a bigger navy to rule it.
 
2012-10-23 10:52:56 AM  
My image of Romney & Ryan:

www.collegefashion.net
 
2012-10-23 10:53:04 AM  

Arkanaut: Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?

We didn't even have the Iowa-classes back in WWI.

/nor did we have any real aircraft carriers, or radar, or GPS...


Good point. How does a Ticonderoga compare to a Nevada-class battlewagon?
 
2012-10-23 10:53:08 AM  
He said what?

Drink!

i171.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-23 10:53:13 AM  
Paul Ryan is right! The ocean hasn't shrunk.

Under Republican administrations, who refused to sign the Kyoto Accords and who denied the existence of global warming, THE OCEAN HAS ACTUALLY EXPANDED!!1! WHAR IZ NEW NAVY SHIPS???

/I never considered the idea that global warming could help the military industrial complex pay out higher cash dividends
 
2012-10-23 10:53:13 AM  

JerseyTim: Do you think he went back to his advisers after that line and said, "Nailed it!"


i48.tinypic.com

oi49.tinypic.com
 
2012-10-23 10:53:17 AM  

tonguedepressor: I love that game box image. Keep washing those dishes girls til sammich time!


Another reason it's good for Romney and Ryan: it illustrates their understanding of naval strategy AND their understanding of women's rights!
 
2012-10-23 10:53:37 AM  
So the size of the ocean has remained stable, while obviously our navy can do a lot more things now than they could almost a century ago.

How exactly is this supposed to counter Obama's point our improved technology allows us to do more with less? Also keep in mind that our military opponents in WW1 had pretty much the same armaments we did, while I have yet to see an insurgent with a single tank, an artillery piece larger than a mortar, or any kind of ship larger than a inflatable speedboat.
 
2012-10-23 10:53:48 AM  

divgradcurl: Mad Morf: kbronsito: The entire world has shrunk... its called globalization.

Also (I'll accept corrections if i'm wrong) but I understand that our Nimitz class aircraft carriers have two nuclear reactors that allow them to navigate w/o stopping for fuel for about 20 years. It seems that if your ships are faster and don't need to stop as much to refuel and you can cover more ground with less vessels.

This is true, but they can only carry enough aviation fuel for about 18 days of continuous flight ops, so that's the limiting factor these days...

i don't see a problem here. aren't most modern wars about 2 weeks long anyway what with the 'shock and awe' and all that?

/oh wait...


Yup.
This, ballistic missiles and satellites are the main reasons the USAF still has a jorb.

/Sustained air campaigns require land based air assets.
//Former USAF NCO.
 
2012-10-23 10:53:49 AM  
The only reason they are pushing for military expansion is because states like Ohio have heavily invested in the manufacturing of all the accessories for war. I have no doubt whole local economies depend on the military buying their planes/ships/tanks whether or not they are needed. It is a sad state of affairs.
 
2012-10-23 10:54:26 AM  

Mad Morf: kbronsito: The entire world has shrunk... its called globalization.

Also (I'll accept corrections if i'm wrong) but I understand that our Nimitz class aircraft carriers have two nuclear reactors that allow them to navigate w/o stopping for fuel for about 20 years. It seems that if your ships are faster and don't need to stop as much to refuel and you can cover more ground with less vessels.

This is true, but they can only carry enough aviation fuel for about 18 days of continuous flight ops, so that's the limiting factor these days...


Oh... that's a cool fact I didn't consider. This will be the one new thing i've learned today.
 
2012-10-23 10:55:05 AM  

urbangirl: Shadowknight: kbronsito: The entire world has shrunk... its called globalization.

Also (I'll accept corrections if i'm wrong) but I understand that our Nimitz class aircraft carriers have two nuclear reactors that allow them to navigate w/o stopping for fuel for about 20 years. It seems that if your ships are faster and don't need to stop as much to refuel and you can cover more ground with less vessels.

New Super Carriers like the Bush are really only limited by the people onboard. Given an intimate supply of food and creature comfort items, they could really go nonstop for the entire life of it's fuel.

I have a feeling the people would hang themselves or go on murder sprees long before that, though.

I really, really hope you meant "infinite".


Well, they can ask and tell these days......

My
Ass
Really
Is
Navy
Equipment

/I keed my squiddy & jarheady friends.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-10-23 10:55:31 AM  

raerae1980: Have we stopped making ships?? I was under the impression we had not.


No, but the trend has been for fewer but larger and more sophisticated ships for many years. An Arleigh Burke class destroyer today displaces 9,200 tons, but a Caldwell class destroyer from 1917 displaces 1,100 tons.

It's that way in everything. The Air Force doesn't have thousands of ultralights like it did in WW I either.
 
2012-10-23 10:56:06 AM  

odinsposse: To compare modern American battleships and Navy with bayonets, I just don't understand that comparison.

- Paul Ryan, policy genius and the intellectual leader of conservatism.


OMG1!

He really did say that. But to be fair, Trig did not understand it either.
 
2012-10-23 10:56:49 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Obsolete as compared to what?


Atago Class, KDX-III Class, Type 052C, Type 45.

They lack the stealth features of many newer warships, their Aegis may or may not be the current baseline (a number of Tics didn't get upgrades because they were supposed to be retired by 2014, whereas now they're in service for longer), and they all have lots of nautical miles on the odometer. They're getting expensive to operate due to age and the fact they lack a lot of the automation the newer Burkes have. They supposedly don't have that long of a lifespan in a hostile environment near China. They can't handle the shore based missile spam.
 
2012-10-23 10:56:51 AM  
The GOP are really upset that they might be allowed to fund more unwanted pork projects with our taxpayer money.
 
2012-10-23 10:57:18 AM  

mayIFark: odinsposse: To compare modern American battleships and Navy with bayonets, I just don't understand that comparison.

- Paul Ryan, policy genius and the intellectual leader of conservatism.

OMG1!

He really did say that. But to be fair, Trig did not understand it either.


Torg got it on the third try, though.
 
2012-10-23 10:59:03 AM  
This is like someone giving you a horribly scathing insult based on complete truth regarding your character that catches you off-guard leaving you with no adequate reply, and then after hours of mental self-torture over the truth of it, you finally think of a reply and call that person up and say, "Nuh uh!"
 
Bf+
2012-10-23 10:59:04 AM  

Renart: Romney and Ryan have studied this issue extensively, people. They know what they're talking about.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 641x361]

/Hot.


jpegy.com
see what you did there.

/a women's place is in the binder!
 
2012-10-23 10:59:25 AM  
"The ocean hasn't shrunk." ZING

This, right here, is why I can never be in politics. When I hear or read something like what the President said last night, my first reaction is always to try and think up the GOP rejoinder that will resonate with their derp-class base. And every single time, I fail at it.

This "zing" is so patently, absurdly stupid that it would simply never occur to me that a responsible adult would permit such a thing to leave his mouth. And yet, there it is... and it is perfect. This is exactly the sort of come-back that a profoundly dumb person will think sounds clever. All I can do is shake my head in wonder.


Idiocracy is a documentary from the future. And the ocean does, in fact, have electrolytes.
 
2012-10-23 11:00:06 AM  
Technology has most certainly shrunk time and space. That is the whole point. Technology closes spatial distance, literally.
 
2012-10-23 11:00:34 AM  
He then said he had to be at the gym in 22 minutes.
 
2012-10-23 11:02:12 AM  
SICK BURN

/seriously, Paul? That's your farking counterargument?
 
2012-10-23 11:02:40 AM  
cdn04.cdn.socialitelife.com

Hold up babe, I've been investing in these two Howitzer's for the last 45 minutes.


/And yet the media still try to portray Biden as the dumb meathead, and Ryan as the "serious" policy guy.
 
2012-10-23 11:03:13 AM  
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-10-23 11:04:16 AM  

Dogberry: Nine hours and that's the best response. My, oh my.


He was busy running three marathons.
 
2012-10-23 11:05:16 AM  
"Oh yeah? Well, the Jerk Store called; they're outta you!!"
 
2012-10-23 11:05:20 AM  
i632.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-23 11:06:13 AM  

Fark It: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x1076]


Russia only has 1 aircraft carrier?!?!
 
2012-10-23 11:06:27 AM  
*facepalm*
 
2012-10-23 11:06:33 AM  

Fark It: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x1076]


imageshack.us 

I spent like 15 seconds making it, might as well wring out as much use as possible
 
2012-10-23 11:06:45 AM  

what_now: trivial use of my dark powers: what_now: Keep running with this, boys. We need more boats. It doesn't matter what kind, it's the numbers that matter.

I have a canoe I'm not using. I'll duct-tape a shotgun to it and sell it to the navy for $1.5 million. It's a bargain--call me, Mittens!

I can steal my neighbor's kayaks and we'll invade the coast line that Syria and Iran share.


That was a far bigger stumble on Romney's part than the 1916 Navy comment, IMHO. Like Sarah Palin level of geographic blundering. In fact the 'horses and bayonets' comment was Obama's sarcastic response rather than Romney's gaffe.

I don't know why that one got so much traction but his WTF geography gaffe got no love at all. I guess I will never get memetics.
 
2012-10-23 11:06:54 AM  

devilEther: And submitter is soundly humiliated. nice work, everyone.


Mr_Fabulous: "The ocean hasn't shrunk." ZING

This, right here, is why I can never be in politics. When I hear or read something like what the President said last night, my first reaction is always to try and think up the GOP rejoinder that will resonate with their derp-class base. And every single time, I fail at it.

This "zing" is so patently, absurdly stupid that it would simply never occur to me that a responsible adult would permit such a thing to leave his mouth. And yet, there it is... and it is perfect. This is exactly the sort of come-back that a profoundly dumb person will think sounds clever. All I can do is shake my head in wonder.


Idiocracy is a documentary from the future. And the ocean does, in fact, have electrolytes.


i411.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-23 11:08:06 AM  
The oceans will be getting much bigger if his handlers have their way.
 
2012-10-23 11:08:26 AM  

sprawl15: Fark It: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x1076]

[imageshack.us image 850x1076] 

I spent like 15 seconds making it, might as well wring out as much use as possible


World's Active Duty Ninja Battalions chart looks identical.
 
2012-10-23 11:08:54 AM  

gilgigamesh: That was a far bigger stumble on Romney's part than the 1916 Navy comment, IMHO


Yes, but Obama didn't run with it. I'm not sure if he didn't hear, he ignored it, or what.

I have to imagine that Barack Obama's mental map of the Middle East is more clear than mine, but I thought to myself "...wait...what? Iran is on the ..what? " and then I googled mapped to make sure *I* wasn't the crazy one.
 
2012-10-23 11:09:01 AM  

sprawl15: Fark It: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x1076]

[imageshack.us image 850x1076] 

I spent like 15 seconds making it, might as well wring out as much use as possible


Nice, took me a second, but nice.
 
2012-10-23 11:09:48 AM  

sprawl15: Fark It: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x1076]

[imageshack.us image 850x1076] 

I spent like 15 seconds making it, might as well wring out as much use as possible


you got a chortle out of me
 
2012-10-23 11:11:06 AM  
If I remember correctly, in World War 2 Japan's aircraft and German u-boats showed us the effectiveness of battleships. They have their place, but it doesn't historically look like a place where we need more of them. Sure, battleships have evolved, but so have planes, submarines and long range ballistics.
 
2012-10-23 11:11:12 AM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-10-23 11:12:06 AM  
Romney and Ryan understand the true threat Iran poses to our navy:

Why has Obama not funded superior flying boat technology?!
 
2012-10-23 11:12:13 AM  

please: Technology has most certainly shrunk time and space. That is the whole point. Technology closes spatial distance, literally.


That sounds almost..... scientific.

And therefore socialistic.

RINO!!!
 
2012-10-23 11:14:11 AM  

bonefish: If I remember correctly, in World War 2 Japan's aircraft and German u-boats showed us the effectiveness of battleships. They have their place, but it doesn't historically look like a place where we need more of them. Sure, battleships have evolved, but so have planes, submarines and long range ballistics.


Battleship do have their place. As museums.

www.pearlharborhistoricsites.org
 
2012-10-23 11:14:14 AM  

what_now: gilgigamesh: That was a far bigger stumble on Romney's part than the 1916 Navy comment, IMHO

Yes, but Obama didn't run with it. I'm not sure if he didn't hear, he ignored it, or what.

I have to imagine that Barack Obama's mental map of the Middle East is more clear than mine, but I thought to myself "...wait...what? Iran is on the ..what? " and then I googled mapped to make sure *I* wasn't the crazy one.


I don't know why Obama didn't hit that either. It was ripe for picking, seeing as we've had at least 2 or 3 confrontations (and I believe at least one rescue) involving Iranian vessels in the Gulf of Oman this year alone.

I guess Obama felt he had to pick his battles. Still, it is weird that the media and the meme-o-sphere isn't giving it more love.
 
2012-10-23 11:14:21 AM  
Force projection. How the fark does it work?

Seriously, a guy who is running to be the nation's presidential spare tire should not be this dumb.
 
2012-10-23 11:15:32 AM  

tonguedepressor: oblig.


I can't look at that picture without thinking "What's Jack Donaghy doing on that ship with Sen. Fred Thompson and the butler from The Nanny? "
 
2012-10-23 11:15:39 AM  
Monsieur Ryan, the esprit de l'escalier has found you again.
Touche.
Dumbass.
 
2012-10-23 11:16:23 AM  
"This trillion-dollar cut in defense will make us weak."

No.

It.

Farking.

Won't.

Jeebus, can we dispense with the whole "if we ever cut a single dollar from the military spending we'll be overrun by terr'ists and commies" mantra?
 
2012-10-23 11:17:15 AM  
public.dcexp.com

Our fleet of Navy Attack Dirigibles has been decimated by Obama's policies, and the sky hasn't shrunk!
 
2012-10-23 11:17:41 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: Um....

[boeingblogs.com image 700x500]

Yes it has, dumbass.


And we're done. Sure, it's the same area size, but tech has made it easier to see more of it with fewer boats. This goes for all brances of the military, tech is making it unneccessary to have huge standing armies IMHO. Yes, we will always need ground troops and what not, but we don't need as many. The powers that be need to get out of the meat grinder mentality and embrace technology.
 
2012-10-23 11:18:48 AM  
Boy these debate threads have sure gotten quiet from one side of the political aisle.

Anyone want to run over to the right side of the thread and make sure they're ok over there?
 
2012-10-23 11:19:08 AM  

sprawl15: Fark It: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x1076]

[imageshack.us image 850x1076] 

I spent like 15 seconds making it, might as well wring out as much use as possible


Well played, sprawl, well played.
 
2012-10-23 11:19:40 AM  

Fark It:


For the record, China is believed to be building two aircraft carriers, to be completed in 2015.
 
2012-10-23 11:21:12 AM  

zedster: [www.neptunuslex.com image 850x606]

no but the ships have gotten bigger

Class & type: Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigate
Displacement: 4,100 long tons (4,200 t), full load
Length: 453 feet (138 m), overall
Beam: 45 feet (14 m)
Draught: 22 feet (6.7 m)

USS Constitution (heavy frigate)
Tonnage: 1,576
Displacement: 2,200 tons
Length: 204 ft (62 m) billet head to taffrail;
175 ft (53 m) at waterline[2]
Beam: 43 ft 6 in (13.26 m)
Height: foremast: 198 ft (60 m)
mainmast: 220 ft (67 m)
mizzenmast:172.5 ft (52.6 m)[2]
Draft: 21 ft (6.4 m) forward
23 ft (7.0 m) aft[4]


DDX violates the Washington Naval Treaty capping heavy-cruiser sizes. It's pretty amusing.
 
2012-10-23 11:21:24 AM  

gilgigamesh: Boy these debate threads have sure gotten quiet from one side of the political aisle.

Anyone want to run over to the right side of the thread and make sure they're ok over there?


They're glued to Fox, at least until the trembling quells somewhat.
 
2012-10-23 11:21:52 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: Um....

[boeingblogs.com image 700x500]

Yes it has, dumbass.


Doesn't matter how good the room is if the missile is still 25 years old.
 
2012-10-23 11:21:55 AM  

riverwalk barfly: what_now: John Paul

I want so badly to make a Led Zeppelin joke, but I'm just not that funny.


♪ ♫Wanna whole lotta boats!♪ ♫

*shrugs shoulders**
 
2012-10-23 11:22:22 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: bonefish: If I remember correctly, in World War 2 Japan's aircraft and German u-boats showed us the effectiveness of battleships. They have their place, but it doesn't historically look like a place where we need more of them. Sure, battleships have evolved, but so have planes, submarines and long range ballistics.

Battleship do have their place. As museums.

[www.pearlharborhistoricsites.org image 654x307]


It belongs in a museum! indy.jpg
 
2012-10-23 11:22:53 AM  

Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?


Assuming there are no escorts for either ship the sheer force of firepower doesn't matter, the cruiser launched a helo that gave the Ticonderoga an over-the-horizon fix on the Iowa. Tico took out the Iowa's fire-control radars and some topside gear with a few SM-2ER missiles, followed by a wave of anti-ship Tomahawks and Harpoons well before she was within the effective range of Iowa's guns. Theoretically speaking, of course.

The ocean is definitely smaller.
 
2012-10-23 11:22:57 AM  

ha-ha-guy: Philip Francis Queeg: Obsolete as compared to what?

Atago Class, KDX-III Class, Type 052C, Type 45.


Ally, friendly, limited number in service, ally.
I'm not seeing the urgency unless the goal is "be better than everyone else, even our friends, combined... forever".


They supposedly don't have that long of a lifespan in a hostile environment near China.

Oh? How frequently does China blow them up? You are speaking of theoreticals and using words which invoke reality.
 
2012-10-23 11:23:32 AM  

Bloody William: "The ocean hasn't shrunk," Ryan said in an interview on CBS's This Morning. "You still have to have enough ships to have the footprint that you need ... to keep our strength abroad where it needs to be."

What exactly is the "footprint" (tactical reach?) of a single carrier group compared to the entire American fleet in 1912?


Nowhere near as big. That CVN and escorts will dominate everything in-theater. The 1912 navy will have presence in every theater.
 
2012-10-23 11:23:51 AM  
The distance from my ranch to town hasn't shrunk either, but it doesn't still take 2 days on horseback to get there, pinhead.
 
2012-10-23 11:24:13 AM  

sprawl15: mayIFark: odinsposse: To compare modern American battleships and Navy with bayonets, I just don't understand that comparison.

- Paul Ryan, policy genius and the intellectual leader of conservatism.

OMG1!

He really did say that. But to be fair, Trig did not understand it either.

Torg got it on the third try, though.


What about the Romney boys: Tagg, Flip, Scrunch, Herk, and Frrrrrrrp?
 
2012-10-23 11:24:28 AM  
So our ships have anti-ship missiles that have a range of 125km right? And anti air missiles that have a range of 300km. And we have 11 carriers with F-18 squadrons which can carry all our sexy weapons and have a range of 2000km...

A F-18 with a 50ft bayonet would be pretty baddass tho
 
2012-10-23 11:24:34 AM  

gilgigamesh: Boy these debate threads have sure gotten quiet from one side of the political aisle.

Anyone want to run over to the right side of the thread and make sure they're ok over there?


Rush isn't on yet, once the derping points have been downloaded I'm sure they'll all be here.
 
2012-10-23 11:24:45 AM  

Dogberry: Nine hours and that's the best response. My, oh my.


That and "the Perez is mean"
 
2012-10-23 11:25:20 AM  

gilgigamesh: Boy these debate threads have sure gotten quiet from one side of the political aisle.

Anyone want to run over to the right side of the thread and make sure they're ok over there?


They're probably gathering in fallout shelters as we speak since (turns off lights, sticks flashlight under face) IRAN IS FOUR YEARS CLOSER TO A NUCLEAR BOOOOOOOOMB!!!!
 
2012-10-23 11:25:26 AM  
Nine hours and that's the best he's got?

pictat.com
 
2012-10-23 11:25:44 AM  

urbangirl: Shadowknight: kbronsito: The entire world has shrunk... its called globalization.

Also (I'll accept corrections if i'm wrong) but I understand that our Nimitz class aircraft carriers have two nuclear reactors that allow them to navigate w/o stopping for fuel for about 20 years. It seems that if your ships are faster and don't need to stop as much to refuel and you can cover more ground with less vessels.

New Super Carriers like the Bush are really only limited by the people onboard. Given an intimate supply of food and creature comfort items, they could really go nonstop for the entire life of it's fuel.

I have a feeling the people would hang themselves or go on murder sprees long before that, though.

I really, really hope you meant "infinite".


Farking auto correct. Wow, that really makes that sentence kind of creepy, doesn't it?
 
2012-10-23 11:26:29 AM  

Charlie Freak: Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?

Assuming there are no escorts for either ship the sheer force of firepower doesn't matter, the cruiser launched a helo that gave the Ticonderoga an over-the-horizon fix on the Iowa. Tico took out the Iowa's fire-control radars and some topside gear with a few SM-2ER missiles, followed by a wave of anti-ship Tomahawks and Harpoons well before she was within the effective range of Iowa's guns. Theoretically speaking, of course.

The ocean is definitely smaller.


Modern anti-ship missiles are not designed to penetrate armor. The Iowa is also faster. It's only a matter of time before the Tico is dead in that match-up.

Oh, and the Iowa has its own air assets to help find the Tico, and I doubt the Sea Sparrow can lock onto a biplane.
 
2012-10-23 11:26:50 AM  

EyeballKid: gilgigamesh: Boy these debate threads have sure gotten quiet from one side of the political aisle.

Anyone want to run over to the right side of the thread and make sure they're ok over there?

They're probably gathering in fallout shelters as we speak since (turns off lights, sticks flashlight under face) IRAN IS FOUR YEARS CLOSER TO A NUCLEAR BOOOOOOOOMB!!!!


I CANT STAND THAT COMMENT!!!!

what does that even mean? We're also 4 years closer to 2020. I was mostly surprised that Obama didnt just ask him when Iran would have Nuclear weapons if he knew we were 4 years closer.
 
2012-10-23 11:28:16 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: bonefish: If I remember correctly, in World War 2 Japan's aircraft and German u-boats showed us the effectiveness of battleships. They have their place, but it doesn't historically look like a place where we need more of them. Sure, battleships have evolved, but so have planes, submarines and long range ballistics.

Battleship do have their place. As museums.

[www.pearlharborhistoricsites.org image 654x307]


BBs are not cost- and personnel- effective. Beyond that, they are still be incredibly formidable ships, even today.
 
2012-10-23 11:29:28 AM  
cyclesc.org

What a nine-hour debate comeback strategy session might look like at Romney HQ.
 
2012-10-23 11:29:31 AM  

Ricardo Klement: Charlie Freak: Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?

Assuming there are no escorts for either ship the sheer force of firepower doesn't matter, the cruiser launched a helo that gave the Ticonderoga an over-the-horizon fix on the Iowa. Tico took out the Iowa's fire-control radars and some topside gear with a few SM-2ER missiles, followed by a wave of anti-ship Tomahawks and Harpoons well before she was within the effective range of Iowa's guns. Theoretically speaking, of course.

The ocean is definitely smaller.

Modern anti-ship missiles are not designed to penetrate armor. The Iowa is also faster. It's only a matter of time before the Tico is dead in that match-up.

Oh, and the Iowa has its own air assets to help find the Tico, and I doubt the Sea Sparrow can lock onto a biplane.


This is the key to defeating the modern US Navy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OS2U-2_Kingfisher_in_flight_1942.jp g

We have no defense against this superior technology!
 
2012-10-23 11:29:41 AM  
"The ocean hasn't shrunk," Ryan said in an interview on CBS's "This Morning." "You still have to have enough ships to have the footprint that you need ... to keep our strength abroad where it needs to be."

I know it has been covered but since I am here. Due to technology, the footprint per ship has gotten bigger.
 
2012-10-23 11:30:09 AM  
Bears repeating; old steel cannon pointed out the portal really does not compare to a deck full of Cruise Missiles
 
2012-10-23 11:30:49 AM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Ricardo Klement: Charlie Freak: Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?

Assuming there are no escorts for either ship the sheer force of firepower doesn't matter, the cruiser launched a helo that gave the Ticonderoga an over-the-horizon fix on the Iowa. Tico took out the Iowa's fire-control radars and some topside gear with a few SM-2ER missiles, followed by a wave of anti-ship Tomahawks and Harpoons well before she was within the effective range of Iowa's guns. Theoretically speaking, of course.

The ocean is definitely smaller.

Modern anti-ship missiles are not designed to penetrate armor. The Iowa is also faster. It's only a matter of time before the Tico is dead in that match-up.

Oh, and the Iowa has its own air assets to help find the Tico, and I doubt the Sea Sparrow can lock onto a biplane.

This is the key to defeating the modern US Navy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OS2U-2_Kingfisher_in_flight_1942.jp g

We have no defense against this superior technology!

 

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-10-23 11:31:44 AM  
Either Mr Ryan thinks we are all too stupid to understand why we don't need as many ships as we had 100 years ago, or he is that stupid. Nether would get my vote.
 
2012-10-23 11:31:54 AM  
The total displacement of the US Navy exceeds that of the next 13 navy's combined, of which include 11 of our NATO allies.

But we TOTALLY need to keep buying more and more ships because we'll never be safe if we don't.
 
2012-10-23 11:34:12 AM  

Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?


Part of the consideration is that the 5"/54 is an excellent weapon, and fires so rapidly that, iirc, the weight of shell it delivers per barrage hour is more than an Iowa. Of course, a 16" shell will do things that no number of 5" shells can do, but there's still a benefit to quantity. (Which also applies to quantity of ships.)
 
2012-10-23 11:34:27 AM  
So wait, if he says the Ocean hasn't shrunk, did he acknowledge global warming?
 
2012-10-23 11:34:53 AM  

Raharu: PanicMan: "Iran is four years closer to a nuclear weapon."

It's also 4 years closer to the election of it's first gay female robot emperor with a cooking show.

I would watch the shiat out of that cooking show.


HUMAN ATTENDANCE IS MANDATORY.
 
2012-10-23 11:36:23 AM  

Ricardo Klement: The Iowa is also faster.


Eh? I know it's more complicated than simple power/displacement ratios but the Tico has about twice as much SHP per displaced ton than the Iowa class. How's that work out to being slower?
 
2012-10-23 11:36:25 AM  

Adam West for President: DjangoStonereaver: gilgigamesh: DjangoStonereaver: Um....

[boeingblogs.com image 700x500]

Yes it has, dumbass.

The advance in technology is impressive. But its funny that the personnel still wear standard camouflage.

If they really needed to stay hidden in that room the camo should be depictions of computers and electronic equipment.

Its fractal camouflage, now.

Believe it or not, the Navy NWU is not intended to be camouflage. It is designed to mask the most common paints, oils, and grease used in the maintenance of naval vessels.

We get to be dirty and not look dirty.


I suppose that explains why the most usage I've gotten out of my Air Force ABUs is that they cover up coffee stains really well.
 
2012-10-23 11:36:39 AM  

spiderpaz: The total displacement of the US Navy exceeds that of the next 13 navy's combined, of which include 11 of our NATO allies.

But we TOTALLY need to keep buying more and more ships because we'll never be safe if we don't.


We probably need to cut back simply because we cannot afford to do it anymore. But we need to recognize what the difference in capability is, and not simply hand-wave it away as not being relevant to the discussion. One has to decide what a nation should be able to do and how we want to do it, and recognize what options leave the table at the current replacement rate.
 
2012-10-23 11:38:18 AM  

costermonger: Ricardo Klement: The Iowa is also faster.

Eh? I know it's more complicated than simple power/displacement ratios but the Tico has about twice as much SHP per displaced ton than the Iowa class. How's that work out to being slower?


Hydrodynamics seriously favors longer/larger ships. iirc, they looked at adding 1m SHP to the Iowa and found out it would add 1kt of speed.
 
2012-10-23 11:39:03 AM  
Ryan: "to compare modern american battleships and navy with bayonet's, I just don't understand that comparison"

Do you know why you don't understand? Because bayonets were being compared to the 1917 navy.

DUMBASS! (even if he is pretending to mis-remember the comparison.
 
2012-10-23 11:40:46 AM  

DamnYankees: Dear god, these people might be running this country in a few months.


We need a "Not Funny" button
 
2012-10-23 11:41:04 AM  
In 1916, the U.S. Navy had 245 active ships, a number that eventually peaked during World War II, then fell, then peaked again more modestly during the Korean War, followed by a slow, consistent decline over the next five decades.

In 2011, the number was 285. More than any of the last four years under President Bush. But suddenly now it's a problem.
 
2012-10-23 11:41:25 AM  
We have planes that are stationed in Missouri that attack Afghanistan and come back 3 days later.
We have single carrier groups that can singlehandedly take out the entire combined navies from WWI.

Hell, one or two carrier groups could probably take on the entire combined navies from WWII if they wanted to try. What in the f*ck is the Yamato or Bismark going to do against a bunch of missiles that they have no chance of shooting down when launched from 600 miles away? And, a bunch of zereos are going to do dickall against the defenses of a carrier.

The ocean has shrunk. We shrunk it through technology. That's why one nation is able to be the single greatest naval force the world has ever seen. And, it isn't even freaking close.
 
2012-10-23 11:42:11 AM  

Cythraul: This is like someone giving you a horribly scathing insult based on complete truth regarding your character that catches you off-guard leaving you with no adequate reply, and then after hours of mental self-torture over the truth of it, you finally think of a reply and call that person up and say, "Nuh uh!"


Link 

He always looked French to me....
 
2012-10-23 11:43:55 AM  
Is that supposed to be Republican humor or something? Because as a zing! rejoinder, it's a big failure.
 
2012-10-23 11:45:11 AM  

whistleridge: Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?

Negligible. It outranges the Iowas by quite a bit, but has about 10% of the armor. If the Iowa ever got in range, one or two salvos would be all she wrote for the Ticonderoga.


That's a big if -- the 16" gun has a maximum range of 38km*, while the maximum range on a Harpoon missile is 124km. And the Harpoon is likely to be more accurate at that range than the 16" gun. And while its charge may be weaker than a direct hit from a 16" shell, it's still a nearly 500lb warhead, and I believe the Harpoon has the flight profile that allows it to pop up when it approaches the target ship so it impacts on the weaker-armored top of the deck.

*The 14" gun used on WWI-era US Navy ships -- which would be more relevant to Romney's claim -- "only" has a range of 33 km.
 
2012-10-23 11:45:44 AM  

InmanRoshi: Hold up babe, I've been investing in these two Howitzer's for the last 45 minutes.


/And yet the media still try to portray Biden as the dumb meathead, and Ryan as the "serious" policy guy.


I saw that and "Sexy And I Know It" popped into my head.
 
2012-10-23 11:45:57 AM  

Ricardo Klement: costermonger: Ricardo Klement: The Iowa is also faster.

Eh? I know it's more complicated than simple power/displacement ratios but the Tico has about twice as much SHP per displaced ton than the Iowa class. How's that work out to being slower?

Hydrodynamics seriously favors longer/larger ships. iirc, they looked at adding 1m SHP to the Iowa and found out it would add 1kt of speed.


FWIW Wiki (I know, I know) has them at the same top speed.
 
2012-10-23 11:46:37 AM  
Actually, Congressman Ryan, you're incorrect. The ocean has actually risen due to global warming, a subject that you and your running mate refuse to talk about. Still want to go with that defense? I have some lovely followup questions to ask you.
 
2012-10-23 11:47:09 AM  

IXI Jim IXI: Dogberry: Nine hours and that's the best response. My, oh my.

That and "the Perez is mean"


And near.
 
2012-10-23 11:47:17 AM  

Arkanaut: whistleridge: Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?

Negligible. It outranges the Iowas by quite a bit, but has about 10% of the armor. If the Iowa ever got in range, one or two salvos would be all she wrote for the Ticonderoga.

That's a big if -- the 16" gun has a maximum range of 38km*, while the maximum range on a Harpoon missile is 124km. And the Harpoon is likely to be more accurate at that range than the 16" gun. And while its charge may be weaker than a direct hit from a 16" shell, it's still a nearly 500lb warhead, and I believe the Harpoon has the flight profile that allows it to pop up when it approaches the target ship so it impacts on the weaker-armored top of the deck.

*The 14" gun used on WWI-era US Navy ships -- which would be more relevant to Romney's claim -- "only" has a range of 33 km.


I think that to hit anything at that range they would have to have forward spotters, at least for the WWII setup which had no RADAR targeting and used analog fire control with visual inputs.
 
2012-10-23 11:51:04 AM  
"The ocean hasn't shrunk".

These guys are clown-shoes.
 
2012-10-23 11:51:20 AM  

whistleridge: If the Iowa ever got in range, one or two salvos would be all she wrote for the Ticonderoga.


Considering the Iowa would never get within 75km of the Tic, then you should be agreeing with everybody that it is pointless.

What's the Tic gonna do, let the Iowa get in range just for the fun of it? The Iowa would never get within 50km of its max range.
 
2012-10-23 11:52:37 AM  

PsyLord: Fark It: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x1076]

Russia only has 1 aircraft carrier?!?!


Russia only has one aircraft carrier in service. It's 22 years old.

China has two.

The US has eleven, plus two in construction and one more planned. Graphic is a bit out of date.

These things cost us about $5 billion each when all is said and done.
=Smidge=
 
2012-10-23 11:54:07 AM  
to be fair on horses, they'd actually be more effective than rolling around in tanks in afghanistan
 
2012-10-23 11:55:10 AM  
choosepp.net
 
2012-10-23 11:56:02 AM  

dudemanbro: what_now: John Paul Jones would not recognize what Fartbama did to the Navy, libs.

I love you
/that is all


You stoled my sentiment!
 
2012-10-23 11:56:05 AM  

Smidge204: PsyLord: Fark It: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x1076]

Russia only has 1 aircraft carrier?!?!

Russia only has one aircraft carrier in service. It's 22 years old.

China has two.

The US has eleven, plus two in construction and one more planned. Graphic is a bit out of date.

These things cost us about $5 billion each when all is said and done.
=Smidge=


Re: China, does it count as an aircraft carrier if they don't have any aircraft on it?
 
2012-10-23 11:58:03 AM  

Arkanaut: whistleridge: Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?

Negligible. It outranges the Iowas by quite a bit, but has about 10% of the armor. If the Iowa ever got in range, one or two salvos would be all she wrote for the Ticonderoga.

That's a big if -- the 16" gun has a maximum range of 38km*, while the maximum range on a Harpoon missile is 124km. And the Harpoon is likely to be more accurate at that range than the 16" gun. And while its charge may be weaker than a direct hit from a 16" shell, it's still a nearly 500lb warhead, and I believe the Harpoon has the flight profile that allows it to pop up when it approaches the target ship so it impacts on the weaker-armored top of the deck.

*The 14" gun used on WWI-era US Navy ships -- which would be more relevant to Romney's claim -- "only" has a range of 33 km.



Also as the Navy has been working on VTOL drones, the range delta between then and now becomes even more pronounced, also as the explosive power of the warheads have also changed quite a bit the comparison becomes even greater. We are talking orders of magnitude.
 
2012-10-23 11:58:44 AM  

Paul Baumer: Ricardo Klement: costermonger: Ricardo Klement: The Iowa is also faster.

Eh? I know it's more complicated than simple power/displacement ratios but the Tico has about twice as much SHP per displaced ton than the Iowa class. How's that work out to being slower?

Hydrodynamics seriously favors longer/larger ships. iirc, they looked at adding 1m SHP to the Iowa and found out it would add 1kt of speed.

FWIW Wiki (I know, I know) has them at the same top speed.


Well, the Iowa has more fuel, so the Tico would run out first. :)
 
2012-10-23 11:58:50 AM  

choo: [choosepp.net image 543x340]


My friend's kid has a toy plane with twin chain saws mounted on the front.

Your picture is therefore the second most Awesome Thing in the Universe.
 
2012-10-23 11:59:18 AM  

Raharu: Man, I hate to pound the shotglass or just toss out ten lbs of cheddar, but even an environmentally minded dude can see that the President won the last debate.


Oooooo!

Pretty! +1!!eleventy!


/THE saying of the politics tab. Substitute your point after "...can see that..."
//satire yellow looks good on ya
 
2012-10-23 11:59:25 AM  

spiderpaz: The total displacement of the US Navy exceeds that of the next 13 navy's combined, of which include 11 of our NATO allies.

But we TOTALLY need to keep buying more and more ships because we'll never be safe if we don't.


Is displacement really the right metric when there are 100-foot submarine vessels that technically put out like four orders of magnitude greater overall firepower in ten minutes than a thousand-foot aircraft carrier with a hundred times the personnel can muster in half an hour?

Just sayin', we've kinda been in the age of automation since the middle of the cold war, and we've recently taken that shiat to the next level with drones. Size maybe not the important metric anymore.
 
2012-10-23 12:00:11 PM  

gilgigamesh: what_now: trivial use of my dark powers: what_now: Keep running with this, boys. We need more boats. It doesn't matter what kind, it's the numbers that matter.

I have a canoe I'm not using. I'll duct-tape a shotgun to it and sell it to the navy for $1.5 million. It's a bargain--call me, Mittens!

I can steal my neighbor's kayaks and we'll invade the coast line that Syria and Iran share.

That was a far bigger stumble on Romney's part than the 1916 Navy comment, IMHO. Like Sarah Palin level of geographic blundering. In fact the 'horses and bayonets' comment was Obama's sarcastic response rather than Romney's gaffe.

I don't know why that one got so much traction but his WTF geography gaffe got no love at all. I guess I will never get memetics.


I did laugh my ass off when they put up a map on MSNBC after the debate and outlined Iran and Syria. Rachel Maddow commented something like "they don't share a border, and Iran has coastline".
 
2012-10-23 12:00:43 PM  
What with all those paths to the sea being created even as we speak, one could argue that the ocean is getting even bigger.
 
2012-10-23 12:01:20 PM  

sdd2000: Arkanaut: whistleridge: Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?

Negligible. It outranges the Iowas by quite a bit, but has about 10% of the armor. If the Iowa ever got in range, one or two salvos would be all she wrote for the Ticonderoga.

That's a big if -- the 16" gun has a maximum range of 38km*, while the maximum range on a Harpoon missile is 124km. And the Harpoon is likely to be more accurate at that range than the 16" gun. And while its charge may be weaker than a direct hit from a 16" shell, it's still a nearly 500lb warhead, and I believe the Harpoon has the flight profile that allows it to pop up when it approaches the target ship so it impacts on the weaker-armored top of the deck.

*The 14" gun used on WWI-era US Navy ships -- which would be more relevant to Romney's claim -- "only" has a range of 33 km.


Also as the Navy has been working on VTOL drones, the range delta between then and now becomes even more pronounced, also as the explosive power of the warheads have also changed quite a bit the comparison becomes even greater. We are talking orders of magnitude.


Yabut modern weapons are not designed to penetrate armor. Back in the '90s some analysts discussed the value of armoring DDs because, while it's expensive, we were able afford to do it a lot more than our enemies could afford to upgrade their anti-ship weapons.
 
2012-10-23 12:02:20 PM  
From a surface fleet perspective, I just realized that the ocean is, in fact, getting larger.
 
2012-10-23 12:03:04 PM  

UberDave: Sounds like someone's doing their best to make sure Virginia doesn't go Democrat...Newport News...Lynchburg...


This might have something to do with it too.
Ohio Defense Contracts

Stupid like a fox. Pandering Bastards.
 
2012-10-23 12:03:55 PM  

burndtdan: gilgigamesh: what_now: trivial use of my dark powers: what_now: Keep running with this, boys. We need more boats. It doesn't matter what kind, it's the numbers that matter.

I have a canoe I'm not using. I'll duct-tape a shotgun to it and sell it to the navy for $1.5 million. It's a bargain--call me, Mittens!

I can steal my neighbor's kayaks and we'll invade the coast line that Syria and Iran share.

That was a far bigger stumble on Romney's part than the 1916 Navy comment, IMHO. Like Sarah Palin level of geographic blundering. In fact the 'horses and bayonets' comment was Obama's sarcastic response rather than Romney's gaffe.

I don't know why that one got so much traction but his WTF geography gaffe got no love at all. I guess I will never get memetics.

I did laugh my ass off when they put up a map on MSNBC after the debate and outlined Iran and Syria. Rachel Maddow commented something like "they don't share a border, and Iran has coastline".


Seeing as Iran is acknowledged by both sides as the #1 foreign policy challenge, you'd think this would be a bigger issue.
 
2012-10-23 12:04:26 PM  

Smidge204: PsyLord: Fark It: [4.bp.blogspot.com image 850x1076]

Russia only has 1 aircraft carrier?!?!

Russia only has one aircraft carrier in service. It's 22 years old.

China has two.

The US has eleven, plus two in construction and one more planned. Graphic is a bit out of date.

These things cost us about $5 billion each when all is said and done.
=Smidge=


Plus, as per the graphic posted above, the US has a pile of mini-carriers in all but name for USMC air assets. You wanna talk about overkill...
 
2012-10-23 12:07:05 PM  

Slaxl: That's really bad, considering he's had all this time with a team to work together on the best thing to say as a soundbite to be their retort to that quip



Well, the ocean called and it's running out of YOU!
 
2012-10-23 12:09:27 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Yabut modern weapons are not designed to penetrate armor.


Yabut who has armored warships that would necessitate those weapons?
 
2012-10-23 12:12:14 PM  

DjangoStonereaver: gilgigamesh: DjangoStonereaver: Um....

[boeingblogs.com image 700x500]

Yes it has, dumbass.

The advance in technology is impressive. But its funny that the personnel still wear standard camouflage.

If they really needed to stay hidden in that room the camo should be depictions of computers and electronic equipment.

Its fractal camouflage, now.


You missed the joke I see.
 
2012-10-23 12:15:13 PM  

MrBallou: UberDave: Sounds like someone's doing their best to make sure Virginia doesn't go Democrat...Newport News...Lynchburg...

This might have something to do with it too.
Ohio Defense Contracts

Stupid like a fox. Pandering Bastards.



That's an excellent site. Ohio may have something to do with it but their awards are paltry compared to Virginia. And without examining closely, Virginia has a shiat-ton of Navy related work.
 
2012-10-23 12:16:28 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: DjangoStonereaver: gilgigamesh: DjangoStonereaver: Um....

[boeingblogs.com image 700x500]

Yes it has, dumbass.

The advance in technology is impressive. But its funny that the personnel still wear standard camouflage.

If they really needed to stay hidden in that room the camo should be depictions of computers and electronic equipment.

Its fractal camouflage, now.

You missed the joke I see.


I may have missed your joke, but you obviously missed mine.
 
2012-10-23 12:17:38 PM  
"The ocean hasn't shrunk," Ryan said in an interview on CBS's This Morning. "You still have to have enough ships to have the footprint that you need ... to keep our strength abroad where it needs to be."

oh yeah? well you can't make footprints in water unless you're Jesus. Are you Jesus Ryan? Are you?
 
2012-10-23 12:22:50 PM  

UberDave: MrBallou: UberDave: Sounds like someone's doing their best to make sure Virginia doesn't go Democrat...Newport News...Lynchburg...

This might have something to do with it too.
Ohio Defense Contracts

Stupid like a fox. Pandering Bastards.


That's an excellent site. Ohio may have something to do with it but their awards are paltry compared to Virginia. And without examining closely, Virginia has a shiat-ton of Navy related work.


True, but they're not winning in Ohio and they absolutely have to. The kind of reasoning that this thread has been laughing about has nothing to do with why they're saying we need a bigger navy.
 
2012-10-23 12:26:04 PM  
What is with the people who think the Iowa would trash a Tic or anything else? When the Tic's radar detected the Iowa (hours before the Iowa got into range), all they would need to do is send the SH-60 up. A couple of torpedoes dropped off the pylons of the Seahawk and scratch one Iowa. Did people miss the parts of WWII where biplanes crippled the Bismarck or Japanese naval bombers swarmed and killed British warships like the HMS Repulse/HMS Prince of Wales/etc? One Seahawk dropping a couple modern torpedoes would be the end of it.

Failing that the Tic can prevent the Iowa from closing for a long period of time and take it out with missiles. You don't have to sink a BB to cripple it, just sweet the decks clean. That also happened to Bismarck, the British BBs and CAs didn't sink her, but they swept her decks clean of working guns and then sent units in for torpedo attacks to finish the deal. At that point either the Germans scuttled her or a torpedo took her out (depending on which theory you like). A TSAM hitting between the A and B currents, followed by a TSAM hitting between the C and D turrets, and suddenly the Iowa is short on teeth.

/with the explosion occurring underwater, you have the water attempting to push the explosion upwards and into the hull of the ship, it is very hard to armor against that or channel the blast around it
//above water armor belts are easy to do because it is easy to channel the force of the explosion into thin air
 
2012-10-23 12:29:32 PM  

Ricardo Klement: From a surface fleet perspective, I just realized that the ocean is, in fact, getting larger.


Got that one already.

Of course, the converse of that is that the ocean is invading US shores and beaches. We cannot tolerate this, and need a larger Navy to withstand ocean aggression.
 
2012-10-23 12:30:24 PM  

zedster:

www.neptunuslex.com

no but the ships have gotten bigger

 

Ha! You just proved Ryan's point--I just measured those two ships with my fingers, and the Constitution is definitely bigger!
 
2012-10-23 12:34:50 PM  

Renart: Romney and Ryan have studied this issue extensively, people. They know what they're talking about.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 641x361]

/Hot.


I love how the mom and sister are doing chores in the background.
 
2012-10-23 12:35:33 PM  

Arkanaut: Ricardo Klement: Yabut modern weapons are not designed to penetrate armor.

Yabut who has armored warships that would necessitate those weapons?


Sorry - thought that was part of a different thread of conversation.
 
2012-10-23 12:38:38 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Ricardo Klement: From a surface fleet perspective, I just realized that the ocean is, in fact, getting larger.

Got that one already.

Of course, the converse of that is that the ocean is invading US shores and beaches. We cannot tolerate this, and need a larger Navy to withstand ocean aggression.


www.the-romans.co.uk

Sees what you did there.
 
2012-10-23 01:03:22 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Philip Francis Queeg: Ricardo Klement: Charlie Freak: Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?

Assuming there are no escorts for either ship the sheer force of firepower doesn't matter, the cruiser launched a helo that gave the Ticonderoga an over-the-horizon fix on the Iowa. Tico took out the Iowa's fire-control radars and some topside gear with a few SM-2ER missiles, followed by a wave of anti-ship Tomahawks and Harpoons well before she was within the effective range of Iowa's guns. Theoretically speaking, of course.

The ocean is definitely smaller.

Modern anti-ship missiles are not designed to penetrate armor. The Iowa is also faster. It's only a matter of time before the Tico is dead in that match-up.

Oh, and the Iowa has its own air assets to help find the Tico, and I doubt the Sea Sparrow can lock onto a biplane.

This is the key to defeating the modern US Navy!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OS2U-2_Kingfisher_in_flight_1942.jp g

We have no defense against this superior technology! 

[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x578]


Iran:

www.popsci.com

USA:

upload.wikimedia.org

XCOM:

xcom2.addicted-gamer.com
 
2012-10-23 01:05:39 PM  

give me doughnuts: Dogberry: DamnYankees: Dear god, these people might be running this country in a few months.

Florida, Ohio, I just want to tell you both good luck. We're all counting on you.

Florida is a lost cause. Hope for Nevada to do the smart thing.


An Ohioan here. I did my part and mailed in my ballot last week.
 
2012-10-23 01:09:08 PM  

KarmicDisaster: [public.dcexp.com image 600x400]

Our fleet of Navy Attack Dirigibles has been decimated by Obama's policies, and the sky hasn't shrunk!


Actually, dirigible use has expanded greatly under Obama. They're using unmanned ones as observational platforms now; real heavy use of them in Afghanistan.
 
2012-10-23 01:11:59 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Charlie Freak: Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?

Assuming there are no escorts for either ship the sheer force of firepower doesn't matter, the cruiser launched a helo that gave the Ticonderoga an over-the-horizon fix on the Iowa. Tico took out the Iowa's fire-control radars and some topside gear with a few SM-2ER missiles, followed by a wave of anti-ship Tomahawks and Harpoons well before she was within the effective range of Iowa's guns. Theoretically speaking, of course.

The ocean is definitely smaller.

Modern anti-ship missiles are not designed to penetrate armor. The Iowa is also faster. It's only a matter of time before the Tico is dead in that match-up.

Oh, and the Iowa has its own air assets to help find the Tico, and I doubt the Sea Sparrow can lock onto a biplane.


I disagree. The Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile is a beam rider. It follows a Continuous Wave Illumination (CWI) from a fire control system. Those systems use the I and K band for acquisition and track. If that fails, you can also lay the FCS with optics, paint it with CWI and the ESSM will follow it all the way in.
 
2012-10-23 01:14:28 PM  

riverwalk barfly: I want so badly to make a Led Zeppelin joke, but I'm just not that funny.


Furthermore JPJ has probably the least comedy potential of any Led Zeppelin member.

Including Sandy Denny.
 
2012-10-23 01:16:20 PM  

Charlie Freak: Assuming there are no escorts for either ship


So, assuming reality is not real...

Got it. I like to change the goal posts in my arguments too. I can win every time that way.
 
2012-10-23 01:17:45 PM  
The real reason Romney is for a bigger navy. Also, the idiot wants to buy more F-22's.
 
2012-10-23 01:23:32 PM  

InmanRoshi: [cdn04.cdn.socialitelife.com image 600x450]

Hold up babe, I've been investing in these two Howitzer's for the last 45 minutes.


/And yet the media still try to portray Biden as the dumb meathead, and Ryan as the "serious" policy guy.


if those '40' are true than I'll have to admit Ryan is a pretty strong guy. Not many people can curl 90ibs dumbells so easily
 
2012-10-23 01:33:25 PM  
But our enemies' navies have, which is what matters to the size of our navy.
 
2012-10-23 01:33:29 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?

Part of the consideration is that the 5"/54 is an excellent weapon, and fires so rapidly that, iirc, the weight of shell it delivers per barrage hour is more than an Iowa. Of course, a 16" shell will do things that no number of 5" shells can do, but there's still a benefit to quantity. (Which also applies to quantity of ships.)


hhhmmm way to skewed the point... he said firepower. he didn't say guns. Unlike WW1 and WW2 there is the is this invention call missiles. In terms of firepower just 1, ONE, UNO tomahawk fitted with a nuclear warhead has more firepower than ALL the Iowa battleships put together... not to mention the reach is literally 50X more than any Iowa.

Even with conventional warheads, each Aegis ship has a lot more firepower, can deliver them much more accurately and at a much further distant than any battleship can even hope for in WW2.

Romney and Ryan are totally out of touch and has ZERO credibility with foreign affairs or even military hardware.
 
2012-10-23 01:38:46 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: Ricardo Klement: Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?

Part of the consideration is that the 5"/54 is an excellent weapon, and fires so rapidly that, iirc, the weight of shell it delivers per barrage hour is more than an Iowa. Of course, a 16" shell will do things that no number of 5" shells can do, but there's still a benefit to quantity. (Which also applies to quantity of ships.)

hhhmmm way to skewed the point... he said firepower. he didn't say guns. Unlike WW1 and WW2 there is the is this invention call missiles. In terms of firepower just 1, ONE, UNO tomahawk fitted with a nuclear warhead has more firepower than ALL the Iowa battleships put together... not to mention the reach is literally 50X more than any Iowa.

Even with conventional warheads, each Aegis ship has a lot more firepower, can deliver them much more accurately and at a much further distant than any battleship can even hope for in WW2.

Romney and Ryan are totally out of touch and has ZERO credibility with foreign affairs or even military hardware.


Nuclear weapons are a completely different issue and one that's essentially irrelevant here. We don't have Battleships because of cost and personnel issues, not technological ones.
 
2012-10-23 01:39:48 PM  

Ricardo Klement: SuperNinjaToad: Ricardo Klement: Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?

Part of the consideration is that the 5"/54 is an excellent weapon, and fires so rapidly that, iirc, the weight of shell it delivers per barrage hour is more than an Iowa. Of course, a 16" shell will do things that no number of 5" shells can do, but there's still a benefit to quantity. (Which also applies to quantity of ships.)

hhhmmm way to skewed the point... he said firepower. he didn't say guns. Unlike WW1 and WW2 there is the is this invention call missiles. In terms of firepower just 1, ONE, UNO tomahawk fitted with a nuclear warhead has more firepower than ALL the Iowa battleships put together... not to mention the reach is literally 50X more than any Iowa.

Even with conventional warheads, each Aegis ship has a lot more firepower, can deliver them much more accurately and at a much further distant than any battleship can even hope for in WW2.

Romney and Ryan are totally out of touch and has ZERO credibility with foreign affairs or even military hardware.

Nuclear weapons are a completely different issue and one that's essentially irrelevant here. We don't have Battleships because of cost and personnel issues, not technological ones.


Really? You don't think we have fewer battleships because they're completely obsolete now? REALLY?
 
2012-10-23 01:42:50 PM  

Wrongo: [cyclesc.org image 641x361]

What a nine-hour debate comeback strategy session might look like at Romney HQ.


I had not thought about that... he had 9 hours and a team of campaign advisors and this is the best comeback they developed.

How about... Hey Obama the Jerk Store called and they are running out of you.
-or- I slept with your wife!
-or- Yeah, the president is a naval expert. His mom knew all the sailors in Hawaii.
 
2012-10-23 01:57:31 PM  
Just had a conversation with the vice principal and one of the secretaries at my school. It was segueing from free food being available at some school events...

Me: ...Yes, I was at the election (sp) potluck dinner one of the clubs was holding last night.
Sec: Oh, who won?
Me [realizing my mistake]: Er, debate. I think Obama won the debate, but the election's still two weeks away.
VP: Did you see the reaction shots? During one line where Romney was saying we have the fewest ships since 1916, and Obama said "Well we have these things called aircraft carriers", and he was being so sarcastic. Romney was giving him a death glare.
Me: Right, and he said "We also have the fewest horses and bayonets we've ever had." The kids were cheering.
Sec: Well, I saw the fact check. There were three things on the fact check, and the first was a Marine called in and said they still use bayonets. So there were three things, that, the auto industry, and one other, and on all three Romney was right and Obama was wrong, so--
image.shutterstock.com
Sec [continues]: I can't stand Obama, I hate him so much.
 
2012-10-23 01:59:36 PM  

RminusQ: Sec [continues]: I can't stand Obama, I hate him so much.


And to think that I'm going to have to move if I can't get my daughters into that school.

/not serious
 
2012-10-23 02:09:02 PM  
That was our problem in Afganistan...not enough battleships.

//...or snowmobiles.
 
2012-10-23 02:12:42 PM  
Hell with the ice caps melting, the ocean is actually GETTING BIGGER. That's why we need more ships, because those damn Libs made up global warming!
 
2012-10-23 02:18:49 PM  

PanicMan: "Iran is four years closer to a nuclear weapon."

It's also 4 years closer to the election of it's first gay female robot emperor with a cooking show.


Is it though? I thought SUTXNET set them back a bit.
 
2012-10-23 02:18:52 PM  

Arkanaut: whistleridge: Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?

Negligible. It outranges the Iowas by quite a bit, but has about 10% of the armor. If the Iowa ever got in range, one or two salvos would be all she wrote for the Ticonderoga.

That's a big if -- the 16" gun has a maximum range of 38km*, while the maximum range on a Harpoon missile is 124km. And the Harpoon is likely to be more accurate at that range than the 16" gun. And while its charge may be weaker than a direct hit from a 16" shell, it's still a nearly 500lb warhead, and I believe the Harpoon has the flight profile that allows it to pop up when it approaches the target ship so it impacts on the weaker-armored top of the deck.

*The 14" gun used on WWI-era US Navy ships -- which would be more relevant to Romney's claim -- "only" has a range of 33 km.


The Harpoon won't do squat against an Iowa's armor belt. It's not armor-piercing. It would do considerable damage to the upper works, but considering how honeycombed the internal construction is - ships at Jutland took 40 and 50 direct hits from 12 - 14 inche shells and kept moving, and the Iowas are a generation better - it's highly unlikely even a blown turret would sink it or stop it from fighting.

And if you're talking post-upgrade, well...that Iowa would have missiles of her own. She couldn't catch the Ticonderoga (Iowas are faster, but lose too much speed in maneuvering), but I guarandamntee you that cruiser would do everything in its power to stay well out of range, just in case.
 
2012-10-23 02:24:07 PM  

JerseyTim: RminusQ: Sec [continues]: I can't stand Obama, I hate him so much.

And to think that I'm going to have to move if I can't get my daughters into that school.

/not serious


Well she's just one of the secretaries. And I try not to bring too much politics up during math team.

/are they applying now?
//not on the admissions committee, so I can't put in a farker's good word, just curious
 
2012-10-23 02:26:13 PM  

AttawaYawattA: A F-18 with a 50ft bayonet would be pretty baddass tho


It can be surprisingly effective.

Link
 
2012-10-23 02:32:56 PM  

bulldg4life: whistleridge: If the Iowa ever got in range, one or two salvos would be all she wrote for the Ticonderoga.

Considering the Iowa would never get within 75km of the Tic, then you should be agreeing with everybody that it is pointless.

What's the Tic gonna do, let the Iowa get in range just for the fun of it? The Iowa would never get within 50km of its max range.


The original question wasn't how likely that scenario is - impossible - but how would the firepower compare if it did. That's the question I answered.

Put another way: in the extremely unlikely possibility that these two ships were 1) fighting each other and 2) doing so without accompanying vessels or air support, if the Tico was in range of the Iowa, they had best get as many missiles off as possible ASAP as well as a helo with torpedoes, because that hull can neither dish out nor take even a fraction of the damage that the Iowa can.

But I agree: it's a stupid question. Why not ask 'if the Constitution were in boarding range of the Iowa, could her crew board and seize the upper decks in time to keep their ship from being sunk?'
 
2012-10-23 02:33:30 PM  

RminusQ: /are they applying now?
//not on the admissions committee, so I can't put in a farker's good word, just curious



My girls are 4 and 2. I was just kidding. That was my best impression of an overzealous Bergen County parent.
 
2012-10-23 02:44:28 PM  

Holfax: That was our problem in Afganistan...not enough battleships.

//...or snowmobiles.


Mts of Afghanistan have lots of snow. There used to be a ski resort there til the Taliban tore it down.
 
2012-10-23 02:48:54 PM  

raerae1980: Have we stopped making ships?? I was under the impression we had not.


Okay, somebody restrain what_now. Okay, she's down? Good. Okay...

The USS Gerald Ford is the lead ship in a new class of aircraft carrier. She's currently undergoing sea trials. They plan to build ten of these to replace our current Nimitz-class carriers.
 
2012-10-23 02:51:13 PM  

AttawaYawattA: A F-18 with a 50ft bayonet would be pretty baddass tho


Every Marine is a rifleman... even the pilots!
 
2012-10-23 02:51:16 PM  

Sgt Otter: raerae1980: Have we stopped making ships?? I was under the impression we had not.

Okay, somebody restrain what_now. Okay, she's down? Good. Okay...

The USS Gerald Ford is the lead ship in a new class of aircraft carrier. She's currently undergoing sea trials. They plan to build ten of these to replace our current Nimitz-class carriers.


Using female pronouns to refer to ships is sexist.
 
2012-10-23 02:51:28 PM  

Rich Cream: Slaxl: That's really bad, considering he's had all this time with a team to work together on the best thing to say as a soundbite to be their retort to that quip


Well, the ocean called and it's running out of YOU!


lol, that would have been the best reply.
 
2012-10-23 02:51:43 PM  

Sgt Otter: The USS Gerald Ford


hearts!!
 
2012-10-23 02:53:56 PM  

Sgt Otter: raerae1980: Have we stopped making ships?? I was under the impression we had not.

Okay, somebody restrain what_now. Okay, she's down? Good. Okay...

The USS Gerald Ford is the lead ship in a new class of aircraft carrier. She's currently undergoing sea trials. They plan to build ten of these to replace our current Nimitz-class carriers.


The USS Gerald Ford sailed today. He was delicious.
 
2012-10-23 02:59:10 PM  

JerseyTim: RminusQ: /are they applying now?
//not on the admissions committee, so I can't put in a farker's good word, just curious


My girls are 4 and 2. I was just kidding. That was my best impression of an overzealous Bergen County parent.


Overzealous Bergen County parents? I know of nothing of the sort!
 
2012-10-23 02:59:47 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: SuperNinjaToad: Ricardo Klement: Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?

Part of the consideration is that the 5"/54 is an excellent weapon, and fires so rapidly that, iirc, the weight of shell it delivers per barrage hour is more than an Iowa. Of course, a 16" shell will do things that no number of 5" shells can do, but there's still a benefit to quantity. (Which also applies to quantity of ships.)

hhhmmm way to skewed the point... he said firepower. he didn't say guns. Unlike WW1 and WW2 there is the is this invention call missiles. In terms of firepower just 1, ONE, UNO tomahawk fitted with a nuclear warhead has more firepower than ALL the Iowa battleships put together... not to mention the reach is literally 50X more than any Iowa.

Even with conventional warheads, each Aegis ship has a lot more firepower, can deliver them much more accurately and at a much further distant than any battleship can even hope for in WW2.

Romney and Ryan are totally out of touch and has ZERO credibility with foreign affairs or even military hardware.

Nuclear weapons are a completely different issue and one that's essentially irrelevant here. We don't have Battleships because of cost and personnel issues, not technological ones.

Really? You don't think we have fewer battleships because they're completely obsolete now? REALLY?


We don't have battleships because they're too expensive, not because there isn't a useful role for them.
 
2012-10-23 03:01:53 PM  

bbfreak: The real reason Romney is for a bigger navy. Also, the idiot wants to buy more F-22's.


www.wired.com

i.imgur.com

i.imgur.com 

Sorry, couldn't resist
 
2012-10-23 03:11:19 PM  

Ricardo Klement: cameroncrazy1984: Ricardo Klement: SuperNinjaToad: Ricardo Klement: Wellon Dowd: How does the firepower of a Ticonderoga-class cruiser compare with an Iowa-class battleship before the latter were upgraded?

Part of the consideration is that the 5"/54 is an excellent weapon, and fires so rapidly that, iirc, the weight of shell it delivers per barrage hour is more than an Iowa. Of course, a 16" shell will do things that no number of 5" shells can do, but there's still a benefit to quantity. (Which also applies to quantity of ships.)

hhhmmm way to skewed the point... he said firepower. he didn't say guns. Unlike WW1 and WW2 there is the is this invention call missiles. In terms of firepower just 1, ONE, UNO tomahawk fitted with a nuclear warhead has more firepower than ALL the Iowa battleships put together... not to mention the reach is literally 50X more than any Iowa.

Even with conventional warheads, each Aegis ship has a lot more firepower, can deliver them much more accurately and at a much further distant than any battleship can even hope for in WW2.

Romney and Ryan are totally out of touch and has ZERO credibility with foreign affairs or even military hardware.

Nuclear weapons are a completely different issue and one that's essentially irrelevant here. We don't have Battleships because of cost and personnel issues, not technological ones.

Really? You don't think we have fewer battleships because they're completely obsolete now? REALLY?

We don't have battleships because they're too expensive, not because there isn't a useful role for them.


If there was a truly useful role for them, nobody would consider them "too expensive"

See: Aircraft carriers.
 
2012-10-23 03:27:38 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: If there was a truly useful role for them, nobody would consider them "too expensive"

See: Aircraft carriers.


The Marines didn't want to see the BBs go. They were asked if they'd rather lose an air wing. The BBs went.

It's not that they couldn't do useful stuff, it's that we get more out of other things, despite the fact that those things can't quite reproduce what the Iowa could do. This isn't a case of being obsolete from a weapon point of view.
 
2012-10-23 03:30:37 PM  

Ricardo Klement: cameroncrazy1984: If there was a truly useful role for them, nobody would consider them "too expensive"

See: Aircraft carriers.

The Marines didn't want to see the BBs go. They were asked if they'd rather lose an air wing. The BBs went.

It's not that they couldn't do useful stuff, it's that we get more out of other things, despite the fact that those things can't quite reproduce what the Iowa could do. This isn't a case of being obsolete from a weapon point of view.


The Marines need to accept that they are never going to make an opposed beach landing again.
 
2012-10-23 03:39:40 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: They slept on it and this is all they could come up with? That's like retorting with: "Oh yeah? Well, your mom!"


Came here to post pretty much this.

/Does Ryan still have a bedtime? Because I'm starting to think he might be a bit young for this.
 
2012-10-23 03:40:52 PM  
So does Paul Ryan realize that a Pearl Harbor style attack couldn't happen today? It is literally impossible to hide a surface fleet in this day and age. Even subs aren't as stealthy as they used to be. Our planes have a wider range allowing them to attack any target anywhere in the world. The modern carrier task force allows for a degree of force multiplication that would make Admiral Halsey die of priapism. Oh yeah, and we have cruise and intercontinental ballistic missiles that can be fired from pretty much anywhere. No, Congressman, the ocean isn't smaller but our reach is much much bigger.
 
2012-10-23 03:41:18 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Ricardo Klement: cameroncrazy1984: If there was a truly useful role for them, nobody would consider them "too expensive"

See: Aircraft carriers.

The Marines didn't want to see the BBs go. They were asked if they'd rather lose an air wing. The BBs went.

It's not that they couldn't do useful stuff, it's that we get more out of other things, despite the fact that those things can't quite reproduce what the Iowa could do. This isn't a case of being obsolete from a weapon point of view.

The Marines need to accept that they are never going to make an opposed beach landing again.


They probably already do. This argument was had a while ago.

Another example of why the Iowa isn't obsolete: when the HMS Sheffield sank, the Captain of the New Jersey was asked what he would have to do if the NJ was hit by an Exocet. "Break out the mop and paint buckets," was his reply. Now, that's a bit of an exaggeration, as the superstructure would be having a really bad day. But, I say again, modern anti-ship weapons are not designed to penetrate armor. That won't last much longer as the lethality and delivery systems are changing a lot - a completely different kind of terminal ballistics - but so far, you'd be hard-pressed to do something to an Iowa with the weapons that are currently deployed.
 
2012-10-23 03:44:10 PM  

Mentat: So does Paul Ryan realize that a Pearl Harbor style attack couldn't happen today? It is literally impossible to hide a surface fleet in this day and age. Even subs aren't as stealthy as they used to be. Our planes have a wider range allowing them to attack any target anywhere in the world. The modern carrier task force allows for a degree of force multiplication that would make Admiral Halsey die of priapism. Oh yeah, and we have cruise and intercontinental ballistic missiles that can be fired from pretty much anywhere. No, Congressman, the ocean isn't smaller but our reach is much much bigger.


When 9/11 happened, there were five CVNs tied to the pier in Norfolk. One wonders how things might have gone if the terrorists had managed to smash four airliners into four carriers. They wouldn't have sunk (and Pearl Harbor showed you really don't want to sink them at anchor unless it's a war-ending move) but they would have been under repair so long one wonders if we would have invaded Iraq in 2003.

/Of course, they're much harder to hit properly than a building.
 
2012-10-23 03:45:38 PM  

Ricardo Klement: When 9/11 happened, there were five CVNs tied to the pier in Norfolk. One wonders how things might have gone if the terrorists had managed to smash four airliners into four carriers. They wouldn't have sunk (and Pearl Harbor showed you really don't want to sink them at anchor unless it's a war-ending move) but they would have been under repair so long one wonders if we would have invaded Iraq in 2003.

/Of course, they're much harder to hit properly than a building.


So we'd have been better off then?
 
2012-10-23 03:47:25 PM  

Ricardo Klement: cameroncrazy1984: If there was a truly useful role for them, nobody would consider them "too expensive"

See: Aircraft carriers.

The Marines didn't want to see the BBs go. They were asked if they'd rather lose an air wing. The BBs went.

It's not that they couldn't do useful stuff, it's that we get more out of other things, despite the fact that those things can't quite reproduce what the Iowa could do. This isn't a case of being obsolete from a weapon point of view.


So what you're saying is, they're not obsolete, they were just replaced by newer, better technology.

*snerk*
 
2012-10-23 03:48:13 PM  

Mentat: It is literally impossible to hide a surface fleet in this day and age.


Ricardo Klement: When 9/11 happened, there were five CVNs tied to the pier in Norfolk.


oh ok
 
2012-10-23 03:56:24 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Ricardo Klement: When 9/11 happened, there were five CVNs tied to the pier in Norfolk. One wonders how things might have gone if the terrorists had managed to smash four airliners into four carriers. They wouldn't have sunk (and Pearl Harbor showed you really don't want to sink them at anchor unless it's a war-ending move) but they would have been under repair so long one wonders if we would have invaded Iraq in 2003.

/Of course, they're much harder to hit properly than a building.

So we'd have been better off then?


Probably.
 
2012-10-23 06:03:11 PM  

that bosnian sniper: Ricardo Klement: From a surface fleet perspective, I just realized that the ocean is, in fact, getting larger.

Got that one already.

Of course, the converse of that is that the ocean is invading US shores and beaches. We cannot tolerate this, and need a larger Navy to withstand ocean aggression.



Difficulty: Ships displace water, so putting more ships into the ocean causes the ocean levels to rise.

This is, of course, Obama's fault.
=Smidge=
 
2012-10-23 06:19:11 PM  

vpb: Actually the area each ship can control has increased dramatically. Besides, if you want to start dredging up historical irrelevancies, the US has the largest navy in the world now and we were number two in 1917.

There were only about 40 more ships in 1917, and ships today are much larger. I am fairly sure the Navy is larger today than in 1917 in terms of tonnage. Does anyone know where to find total active tonnage for 1917?


I wonder what sailors from 1917 would think of a Supercarrier.

Given the size of a period South Carolina class battleship, a Nimitz class supercarrier is twice as long and 50% wider at the waterline and so high above it they couldn't see onto its deck.
They'd likely laugh at a guided missile cruiser if they got close enough to it to actually see it. "heh. where are all the guns, is that some futuristic paint sprayer?"
 
2012-10-23 06:32:53 PM  

vpb: Actually the area each ship can control has increased dramatically. Besides, if you want to start dredging up historical irrelevancies, the US has the largest navy in the world now and we were number two in 1917.

There were only about 40 more ships in 1917, and ships today are much larger. I am fairly sure the Navy is larger today than in 1917 in terms of tonnage. Does anyone know where to find total active tonnage for 1917?


Heck - the difference between 1914-1942 is huge. Here's the hulk of the USS Oklahoma (the one that rolled over) next to the USS Wisconsin:

www.bitlogic.com 

Both of those ships are "Battleships"
 
2012-10-23 06:59:40 PM  
He wanted to talk about the economy...

in a debate about foreign policy
 
2012-10-23 09:02:14 PM  

DjangoStonereaver: Um....

[boeingblogs.com image 700x500]

Yes it has, dumbass.


Done in one.
 
2012-10-23 09:31:02 PM  
depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu
upload.wikimedia.org
www.waterencyclopedia.com
 
2012-10-23 10:42:51 PM  
How are we in terms of pylons? Do we need to build more pylons? The South Koreans could help
 
2012-10-23 10:43:01 PM  

give me doughnuts: what_now: John Paul Jones would not recognize what Fartbama did to the Navy, libs.

John Paul Jones was a Commie TRAITOR who gave all of our Naval technology to the RUSSIANS!!1!


wasn't he the bassist for Led Zeppelin?
 
2012-10-24 03:18:49 AM  

whistleridge:
The Harpoon won't do squat against an Iowa's armor belt. It's not armor-piercing. It would do considerable damage to the upper works, but considering how honeycombed the internal construction is - ships at Jutland took 40 and 50 direct hits from 12 - 14 inche shells and kept moving, and the Iowas are a generation better - it's highly unlikely even a blown turret would sink it or stop it from fighting.

And if you're talking post-upgrade, well...that Iowa would have missiles of her own. She couldn't catch the Ticonderoga (Iowas are faster, but lose too much speed in maneuvering), but I guarandamntee you that cruiser would do everything in its power to stay well out of range, just in case.


There are currently none, ZERO, Iowa class battleships left operational. Nor have there been any successor classes. Obviously, Romnoids would consider this an absolute travesty.

On the other hand, those ships that planes can land on? AKA Nimitz class aircraft carriers? We've got nearly a dozen of them. Know how many ships of a similar or better class any OTHER country has? ZERO. Know why? Because these days we're all into precision strikes, not just Stuff Blowing Up Somewhere Over There (like we did back in the days of B-52 bombings carpet bombings and nine-ton battleship broadsides) -and a formation of Hornets guided by an AWACS and backed up by a tanker can intrude further into enemy territory before dropping smart bombs.

Ships racing EACH OTHER? Quaint. Did you think ships still shot GUNS at each other from over the quarterdeck? Hell no, and there's no ship that can outrace a Harpoon or Exocet...which is exactly why no Nimitz ever goes out alone, they always move in battle groups loaded with guided missile destroyers and antiaircraft frigates whose entire job is to intercept incoming missiles and their launch platforms.

Obama really missed the main point to the argument, that the Navy isn't what we are currently using. Are we fighting any enemy that has a blue-water navy right now? Nope. On the other hand, do our land warfare personnel still tool around in open-topped Jeeps? Nope. Seems to me that we have a lot less horses and bayonets, but a lot more fifteen ton Marine Corps Juggernauts
 
2012-10-24 06:56:52 AM  

Ishidan: Know how many ships of a similar or better class any OTHER country has? ZERO


One, soon to be three. France has a supercarrier and the Brits are building two. (Although to call the French one a supercarrier is admittedly... aggressive - not to offend our French friends.)

We also no longer have Carrier Battle Groups - we don't really have enough ships for them. Harpoon is also an old weapon and we really ought to hope we're not going to have any surface engagements anytime soon. And our DDs are more responsible for air defense than our frigates.
 
2012-10-24 05:43:21 PM  

monoski: Holfax: That was our problem in Afganistan...not enough battleships.

//...or snowmobiles.

Mts of Afghanistan have lots of snow. There used to be a ski resort there til the Taliban tore it down.


I suspected that might have been the case. I should have went with pogo-sticks.
 
2012-10-24 09:32:22 PM  

Rwa2play: kronicfeld: Go on, double down on the stupidity.

This; good God Ryan's a whiny little biatch ain't he.


You'd rather have someone in office who will just lie back and continually take it?
 
2012-10-24 10:49:27 PM  
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd swear capacity has increased. Who gives a shiat how many ships we have as long as we have the capacity to get our armed forces where they're going?
 
Displayed 295 of 295 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report