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.

(Daily Mail)   The construction of the USS Gerald R. Ford stumbles forward   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 122
    More: Obvious, USS Gerald R. Ford, Ford Motor Co., airstrike, Michael O'Hanlon, Huntington Ingalls Industries  
•       •       •

9787 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Oct 2013 at 8:07 PM (49 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-01 10:04:28 PM
Building megacarriers in 2013 makes as much sense as building battleships in 1939, except for the advantages of having our own floating islands anywhere at sea to project power from

During a serious war, they'd be big targets and go down fast.
 
2013-10-01 10:07:35 PM

uber humper: Pubby: kyleaugustus: $13 billion.  We could have ~13 Apollo-type moon missions for the cost of this thing.

In 1969 money? Yes.

In 2013 money with the cost of labor, design bids, bureaucracy overhead, design testing, appropriate palms of appropriate members of Congress greased, disputed testing, re-testing of the design, design modification, crew training, mission PR, and finally launch...you're looking at maybe 1 moon landing if you can convince the trained moneys to get out of the lander.

It was $24 billion. The largest investment by any nation in peace time. 400,000 workers http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program#NASA_expansion


Minor threadjack:  in terms of percentage of GDP, the Exploring Expedition (yes, they called it that), was even more expensive:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Exploring_Expedition

I highly recommend Sea of Glory, Philbrick's book about it.
 
2013-10-01 10:09:19 PM

bojon: I wonder what it will have for a nickname?


the Fix Or Repair Daily?
Found On Redsea Dead?
Fast Only Running Downwind?
 
2013-10-01 10:19:15 PM
Millennium Challenge 2002. Sixteenships including one aircraft carrier sunk with over 20,000 US dead in the first attack alone from mass missile attack. Than what was left was sunk using small boats using conventional and suicide attacks.

The US carrier fleet has not be at any risk of being sunk since the end of WWII. They are nothing but large slow moving targets for Zerg rushs and Kamikazes attacks.

George S. Patton said that "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." and some day some one will say that Fleet Carriers are monuments to the stupidity of the US Navy.

Animatronik: Building megacarriers in 2013 makes as much sense as building battleships in 1939, except for the advantages of having our own floating islands anywhere at sea to project power from

During a serious war, they'd be big targets and go down fast.


It did make since to build battleships in 1939. The death of the battleship was November 11, 1940 when the British Navy attacked the Italian Navy lying at anchor with Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers.
 
2013-10-01 10:27:29 PM

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: Daedalus27: Clash City Farker: We have to keep making them or we will forget how to make them.

Unfortunately, this is true to a large extent.  If you don't support the industry that allows the building of these specialized weapons, you lose the capability to make them as the suppliers of materials and expertise needed to construct such complex systems disappears and moves to other projects. The real question is whether these weapons system as we know them have a long term future.

Remember, in 1915, battleships ruled the waves and a mere 25 years later were obsolete and moved to support roles. The carrier era has lasted much longer, but that is also due to the fact that they have never truly been tested in combat operation where they have been at risk.  With cruise missile technology developed as it has and shown to be effective in conflicts like the Falklands war against warships, there is some doubt about the wisdom of these massive ships that place all your eggs in one basket. I am not saying that they are not a powerful tool, but saying this form of warfare is going to last 120 years (1940-2065) is wishful thinking.  The US does need to consider replacing the older ships as many are at the end of their expected service lives, but perhaps bigger isn't necessarily better.

um....WW2 would like a word... pretty sure more than a few carriers were at risk... especially considering several are on the bottom of the freaking ocean.


The U.S. fielded something on the order of 150 aircraft carriers in WWII (look it up, we had about 130 merchant ships that we retrofitted with flight decks).  It's kind of a double-edged sword.  Yes, our carriers have never been threatened by one of our adversaries, but if we ever did face a credible threat to our carriers, and god forbid lose one, we would immediately switch to a war footing economically on par with what we did in World War II.  Yes, we really don't want to risk our carriers, but if we're ever in that position, god help our enemy.

IMO I foresee a future with 4-8 of these Ford class supercarriers, retrofitted with laser weapons and railguns, carrying mostly unmanned drones and a couple of dozen pocket carriers that support VTOL aircraft and helicopter operations.  A carrier battle group is still, by itself, going to stand toe-to-toe with any navy on the planet.  Threatened by small vessels and anti-ship missiles?  Keep further away, send out our submarines to launch cruise missiles and torpedoes against coastal targets and harbors, and other ships.
 
2013-10-01 10:27:38 PM

kyleaugustus: $13 billion.  We could have ~13 Apollo-type moon missions for the cost of this thing.


Better than Apollo-13 type moon missions.
 
2013-10-01 10:29:21 PM
It's time for our empire to pass away anyhow, so we might as well let senile old men in uniforms bankrupt us building huge floating targets, warplanes that carry meat around in them, and other pieces of grotesquely expensive twentieth century tech.
I'm sure they'll be indispensible in fighting our starving goatherd "enemies" of the future.
 
2013-10-01 10:30:46 PM

kyleaugustus: iheartscotch: Pubby: kyleaugustus: $13 billion.  We could have ~13 Apollo-type moon missions for the cost of this thing.

In 1969 money? Yes.

In 2013 money with the cost of labor, design bids, bureaucracy overhead, design testing, appropriate palms of appropriate members of Congress greased, disputed testing, re-testing of the design, design modification, crew training, mission PR, and finally launch...you're looking at maybe 1 moon landing if you can convince the trained moneys to get out of the lander.

That's awfully optimistic of you. I'm pretty sure $13 billion wouldn't even buy the craft for the mission. Hell, we're paying $35 billion per jet fighter; and have yet to have one functional jet delivered.

/ at a mere $13 billion; a new carrier is a steal

You might have nudged a few decimal places.  No single aircraft that I'm aware of costs $35 billion dollars.  The B-2 is the most expensive craft per unit that I can think of and those were $737 million each but those are no longer in production.  The F-35, depending on model, is between $153 million and $200 million.  The F-22 is $150 million each.

I agree that the price would be high per unit/mission in a piecemeal approach.  However, as with most things, the more it's done the cheaper it gets as economies of scale come into play.


The B-2 is more like $2 billion per plane, with the cost of development factored in.  It was supposed to be under $1 billion per plane because the plan was to build 140 of them, but then the Cold War ended.
 
2013-10-01 10:32:14 PM

revrendjim: Stay far enough from the coast and those small boats can't reach you. Granted it's a challenge in Hormuz, but not most places.


It wouldn't even work in Hormuz.
 
2013-10-01 10:33:56 PM

uber humper: It's funny that the USS Lincoln wasn't refueled because the Navy was broke

http://news.usni.org/2013/02/08/navy-lincoln-refueling-delayed-will- hu rt-carrier-readiness


Thank the GOP for that one also.
 
2013-10-01 10:36:29 PM
For the cost of that we could build the entire west coast Hyperloop. Wheee!
 
2013-10-01 10:36:43 PM

Allen262: Millennium Challenge 2002. Sixteenships including one aircraft carrier sunk with over 20,000 US dead in the first attack alone from mass missile attack. Than what was left was sunk using small boats using conventional and suicide attacks.

The US carrier fleet has not be at any risk of being sunk since the end of WWII. They are nothing but large slow moving targets for Zerg rushs and Kamikazes attacks.

George S. Patton said that "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." and some day some one will say that Fleet Carriers are monuments to the stupidity of the US Navy.


Don't read too much into that. Just because the dungeon master game controller allowed it doesn't mean it would work in real life. These things are run to get officers to think, not to test capabilities.

/Hint: it wouldn't work in real life
 
2013-10-01 10:39:24 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: We were there when they laid the keel


Fark is not your personal erotica site.
 
2013-10-01 10:41:28 PM

LordOfThePings: MaudlinMutantMollusk: We were there when they laid the keel

Fark is not your personal erotica site.


It WILL be...

/it will be...
 
2013-10-01 10:44:55 PM

vygramul: Allen262: Millennium Challenge 2002. Sixteenships including one aircraft carrier sunk with over 20,000 US dead in the first attack alone from mass missile attack. Than what was left was sunk using small boats using conventional and suicide attacks.

The US carrier fleet has not be at any risk of being sunk since the end of WWII. They are nothing but large slow moving targets for Zerg rushs and Kamikazes attacks.

George S. Patton said that "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." and some day some one will say that Fleet Carriers are monuments to the stupidity of the US Navy.

Don't read too much into that. Just because the dungeon master game controller allowed it doesn't mean it would work in real life. These things are run to get officers to think, not to test capabilities.

/Hint: it wouldn't work in real life.


It did work.

Millennium Challenge 2002 was a war game conducted by the US armed forces. Blue (US) lost in 2 days. Than the war game was reset and rules of engagement were changed so Blue couldn't lose.
 
2013-10-01 10:47:40 PM

Allen262: Millennium Challenge 2002. Sixteenships including one aircraft carrier sunk with over 20,000 US dead in the first attack alone from mass missile attack. Than what was left was sunk using small boats using conventional and suicide attacks.

The US carrier fleet has not be at any risk of being sunk since the end of WWII. They are nothing but large slow moving targets for Zerg rushs and Kamikazes attacks.

George S. Patton said that "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." and some day some one will say that Fleet Carriers are monuments to the stupidity of the US Navy.

Animatronik: Building megacarriers in 2013 makes as much sense as building battleships in 1939, except for the advantages of having our own floating islands anywhere at sea to project power from

During a serious war, they'd be big targets and go down fast.

It did make since to build battleships in 1939. The death of the battleship was November 11, 1940 when the British Navy attacked the Italian Navy lying at anchor with Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers.


Ha!  You said "Fairey"
 
2013-10-01 10:48:37 PM

Animatronik: Building megacarriers in 2013 makes as much sense as building battleships in 1939, except for the advantages of having our own floating islands anywhere at sea to project power from

During a serious war, they'd be big targets and go down fast.


By the end of WWII, US BBs were essentially immune to air attack. Especially the Iowas. They are probably still immune except maybe to a Sunburn. Maybe.
 
2013-10-01 10:50:13 PM

Allen262: vygramul: Allen262: Millennium Challenge 2002. Sixteenships including one aircraft carrier sunk with over 20,000 US dead in the first attack alone from mass missile attack. Than what was left was sunk using small boats using conventional and suicide attacks.

The US carrier fleet has not be at any risk of being sunk since the end of WWII. They are nothing but large slow moving targets for Zerg rushs and Kamikazes attacks.

George S. Patton said that "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." and some day some one will say that Fleet Carriers are monuments to the stupidity of the US Navy.

Don't read too much into that. Just because the dungeon master game controller allowed it doesn't mean it would work in real life. These things are run to get officers to think, not to test capabilities.

/Hint: it wouldn't work in real life.

It did work.

Millennium Challenge 2002 was a war game conducted by the US armed forces. Blue (US) lost in 2 days. Than the war game was reset and rules of engagement were changed so Blue couldn't lose.


Did you actually read what I said?
 
2013-10-01 10:51:59 PM

rhiannon: Oh I get it, the reason it's virtually invisible to radar is because it's so freaking small:

[img.photobucket.com image 634x335]

Genius.


I do not, for one, think that the problem was that the Navy was down. I think that the problem *may* have been, that there was a aircraft carrier on the stage that was in danger of being *crushed* by a *dwarf*. Alright? That tended to understate the hugeness of the object.
 
2013-10-01 11:06:58 PM

vygramul: Allen262: vygramul: Allen262: Millennium Challenge 2002. Sixteenships including one aircraft carrier sunk with over 20,000 US dead in the first attack alone from mass missile attack. Than what was left was sunk using small boats using conventional and suicide attacks.

The US carrier fleet has not be at any risk of being sunk since the end of WWII. They are nothing but large slow moving targets for Zerg rushs and Kamikazes attacks.

George S. Patton said that "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." and some day some one will say that Fleet Carriers are monuments to the stupidity of the US Navy.

Don't read too much into that. Just because the dungeon master game controller allowed it doesn't mean it would work in real life. These things are run to get officers to think, not to test capabilities.

/Hint: it wouldn't work in real life.

It did work.

Millennium Challenge 2002 was a war game conducted by the US armed forces. Blue (US) lost in 2 days. Than the war game was reset and rules of engagement were changed so Blue couldn't lose.

Did you actually read what I said?


Real ships didn't sink and real people didn't die but Van Riper not only beat the US Navy at it's own game than came back and raped it's dead corpse. His way of beating the US Navy works just as well in the real world as it did in Millennium Challenge 2002 as the US Navy didn't learn a farking thing after being smacked around like cheap hooker.
 
2013-10-01 11:09:49 PM

Allen262: Millennium Challenge 2002. Sixteenships including one aircraft carrier sunk with over 20,000 US dead in the first attack alone from mass missile attack. Than what was left was sunk using small boats using conventional and suicide attacks.

The US carrier fleet has not be at any risk of being sunk since the end of WWII. They are nothing but large slow moving targets for Zerg rushs and Kamikazes attacks.

George S. Patton said that "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." and some day some one will say that Fleet Carriers are monuments to the stupidity of the US Navy.


Isn't the Phalanx gun there to shoot incoming missiles?  Wouldn't the other ships in the fleet take out small boats before they got close?
 
2013-10-01 11:19:16 PM

Allen262: Real ships didn't sink and real people didn't die but Van Riper not only beat the US Navy at it's own game than came back and raped it's dead corpse. His way of beating the US Navy works just as well in the real world as it did in Millennium Challenge 2002 as the US Navy didn't learn a farking thing after being smacked around like cheap hooker.


I spent a decade designing and running these games for the navy. We've adjudicated helos getting shot down by torpedos in order to teach farking lessons about not following procedures.

You're reading too much into MC02.
 
2013-10-01 11:24:48 PM

vygramul: Allen262: Real ships didn't sink and real people didn't die but Van Riper not only beat the US Navy at it's own game than came back and raped it's dead corpse. His way of beating the US Navy works just as well in the real world as it did in Millennium Challenge 2002 as the US Navy didn't learn a farking thing after being smacked around like cheap hooker.

I spent a decade designing and running these games for the navy. We've adjudicated helos getting shot down by torpedos in order to teach farking lessons about not following procedures.

You're reading too much into MC02.


Lol, no shiat.   He acts as if the original outcome wasn't rules based, too.

Anyway, I would be happy if this is the last carrier we build for about 40 years.
 
2013-10-01 11:24:49 PM

Allen262: Millennium Challenge 2002. Sixteenships including one aircraft carrier sunk with over 20,000 US dead in the first attack alone from mass missile attack. Than what was left was sunk using small boats using conventional and suicide attacks.

The US carrier fleet has not be at any risk of being sunk since the end of WWII. They are nothing but large slow moving targets for Zerg rushs and Kamikazes attacks.

George S. Patton said that "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." and some day some one will say that Fleet Carriers are monuments to the stupidity of the US Navy.

Animatronik: Building megacarriers in 2013 makes as much sense as building battleships in 1939, except for the advantages of having our own floating islands anywhere at sea to project power from

During a serious war, they'd be big targets and go down fast.

It did make since to build battleships in 1939. The death of the battleship was November 11, 1940 when the British Navy attacked the Italian Navy lying at anchor with Fairey Swordfish torpedo bombers.


That's the point. Battleships were useful, they just didn't provide much value for the dollar in a big war, because they were headed for obsolescence and could be destroyed using much cheaper tech.

Carriers are extremely useful in regional conflicts just as battleships were useful where there was air superiority, like the night battles around Guadalcanal in 1942.
 
2013-10-01 11:26:15 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Isn't the Phalanx gun there to shoot incoming missiles?


Yes, but the new generation of stealth missiles will pose a significant threat to our carriers.  We'll probably up the ante with laser/rail-gun based missile defense.  Plus if China spammed the Sea of Japan with a couple hundred missiles then that would be a problem, no way the Phalanx can track, let alone shoot down, all of those missiles.

Wouldn't the other ships in the fleet take out small boats before they got close?

Yes.  A CSG is going to have another five or six escort destroyers/frigates, all with anti-ship capabilities that include missiles and deck guns.  Plus we have one America/Tarawa-class assault ship for every supercarrier, loaded with helicopters and anti-ship/anti-submarine capabilities.  And our supercarriers are never going to be very far from our land-based air assets.  Our strategic bombers (the B-1 and B-52 at least, not sure about the B-2) are also capable of deploying anti-ship missiles, or at least capable of being readily converted.
 
2013-10-01 11:33:48 PM

Animatronik: That's the point. Battleships were useful, they just didn't provide much value for the dollar in a big war, because they were headed for obsolescence and could be destroyed using much cheaper tech.


Their vulnerability wasn't the problem, once they respected air power. Sure, HMS Repulse was sunk by air attack. But look at its air defense:

6 × 3, 2 × 1 - 4-inch (102 mm) guns
2 × 1 - 3-inch (76 mm) anti-aircraft guns.

Now compare that to BB-61:

20 × 5 in (127.0 mm)/38 cal Mark 12 guns
80 × 40 mm/56 cal anti-aircraft guns
49 × 20 mm/70 cal anti-aircraft cannons

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure I know which I'd rather go after in a low and slow torpedo bomber.
 
2013-10-01 11:36:50 PM

Hollie Maea: For the cost of that we could build the entire west coast Hyperloop. Wheee!


I work for a civil engineering firm that does a lot of municipal projects:

The day he released the info for the Hyperloop, I ran some of the construction cost numbers. They are WILDLY optimistic. This leads me to believe that the whole plan is utter bullshiat.

Conceptually it's an interesting project, but it's not really grounded in reality.

Since then, I've started working as a sub on some projects for Tesla, and it's the worst managed project I've ever been on.
My prime said he was getting emails every 10 minutes telling him to hurry up. You cannot manage a project by yelling louder.
Also, they're reportedly trying to deploy construction crews before having permits.

I get the feeling that Musk's crowd is a bunch of mechanical engineers living in an idealized world. Dirt and people are messy.
 
2013-10-01 11:43:30 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Allen262: Millennium Challenge 2002. Sixteenships including one aircraft carrier sunk with over 20,000 US dead in the first attack alone from mass missile attack. Than what was left was sunk using small boats using conventional and suicide attacks.

The US carrier fleet has not be at any risk of being sunk since the end of WWII. They are nothing but large slow moving targets for Zerg rushs and Kamikazes attacks.

George S. Patton said that "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." and some day some one will say that Fleet Carriers are monuments to the stupidity of the US Navy.

Isn't the Phalanx gun there to shoot incoming missiles?  Wouldn't the other ships in the fleet take out small boats before they got close?


Shear numbers overloaded the US's ability to handle the attack.
 
2013-10-01 11:44:24 PM

vygramul: Now compare that to BB-61:

20 × 5 in (127.0 mm)/38 cal Mark 12 guns
80 × 40 mm/56 cal anti-aircraft guns
49 × 20 mm/70 cal anti-aircraft cannons

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure I know which I'd rather go after in a low and slow torpedo bomber.


Yep
upload.wikimedia.org

On 11 April, a low-flying kamikaze, although fired on, crashed on Missouri's starboard side, just below her main deck level. The starboard wing of the plane was thrown far forward, starting a gasoline fire at 5 in (127 mm) Gun Mount No. 3. The battleship suffered only superficial damage, and the fire was brought quickly under control. The dent in the side of the ship remains to this day.
 
2013-10-01 11:56:26 PM

Mad_Season: bojon: I wonder what it will have for a nickname?

the Fix Or Repair Daily?
Found On Redsea Dead?
Fast Only Running Downwind?


Farked Over, Rebuilt Destroyer
 
2013-10-01 11:59:34 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Allen262: Millennium Challenge 2002. Sixteenships including one aircraft carrier sunk with over 20,000 US dead in the first attack alone from mass missile attack. Than what was left was sunk using small boats using conventional and suicide attacks.

The US carrier fleet has not be at any risk of being sunk since the end of WWII. They are nothing but large slow moving targets for Zerg rushs and Kamikazes attacks.

George S. Patton said that "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." and some day some one will say that Fleet Carriers are monuments to the stupidity of the US Navy.

Isn't the Phalanx gun there to shoot incoming missiles?  Wouldn't the other ships in the fleet take out small boats before they got close?


According to all my friends in the navy, if you hear the Phalanx go off go ahead and kiss your arse good bye because its not going to get all of them and with most modern anti-ship missiles all it'll probably take is one.

/luckily we are now building laser based close in defense
//theoretically better than simply chucking as much hot lead as can between you and your imminent demise
 
2013-10-02 12:06:42 AM

lack of warmth: BolshyGreatYarblocks: The Navy names a small destroyer after FDR, and a giant carrier after stumblebum; tell me again how the US military is apolitical?

Maybe the other two will be named after William Henry Harrison and James Garfield.  You know, to represent long service.


Not Harrison - I'd prefer it didn't sink after a month in service. And if they name it after Taylor, they can't service cherries in the mess.
 
2013-10-02 12:14:23 AM

Allen262: Real ships didn't sink and real people didn't die but Van Riper not only beat the US Navy at it's own game than came back and raped it's dead corpse. His way of beating the US Navy works just as well in the real world as it did in Millennium Challenge 2002 as the US Navy didn't learn a farking thing after being smacked around like cheap hooker.


I think may be you might be missing another point here. The USN and the entire US Armed Forces train the best officers in the world.

If Russians still had a fleet worth mentioning and had EVER encouraged creativity without the threat of being tried as a traitor and bourgeoise conspirator they might have given us a real run for our money and possibly still could even with their outdated sub and surface fleet.

The Chinese don't have a very high functioning blue water naval force and everyone else who we might possibly ever fight basically runs heavily armed oversized cutters and patrol craft. Not a real surface ship between them.

I think the fact that the USN got beat by one its own should go to show that the only people who outclass the USN are the USN.

That being said, we still need more, newer carriers. They're the ultimate in global force projection. A mobile floating fortress armed to the teeth with all sorts of things that make a helluva lot of mess when they hit their target is not something sane countries fark with and when one parks itself in your waters, you listen real close to what the guy ordering it around has to say.
 
2013-10-02 12:15:17 AM

Rhino_man: Mad_Season: bojon: I wonder what it will have for a nickname?

the Fix Or Repair Daily?
Found On Redsea Dead?
Fast Only Running Downwind?

Farked Over, Rebuilt Destroyer


Floating Oxidized Rudderless Derelict
 
2013-10-02 12:15:37 AM

vygramul: Animatronik: That's the point. Battleships were useful, they just didn't provide much value for the dollar in a big war, because they were headed for obsolescence and could be destroyed using much cheaper tech.

Their vulnerability wasn't the problem, once they respected air power. Sure, HMS Repulse was sunk by air attack. But look at its air defense:

6 × 3, 2 × 1 - 4-inch (102 mm) guns
2 × 1 - 3-inch (76 mm) anti-aircraft guns.

Now compare that to BB-61:

20 × 5 in (127.0 mm)/38 cal Mark 12 guns
80 × 40 mm/56 cal anti-aircraft guns
49 × 20 mm/70 cal anti-aircraft cannons

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure I know which I'd rather go after in a low and slow torpedo bomber.


i14.photobucket.com

I was told there would be no math ...
 
2013-10-02 12:17:26 AM

vygramul: Rhino_man: Mad_Season: bojon: I wonder what it will have for a nickname?

the Fix Or Repair Daily?
Found On Redsea Dead?
Fast Only Running Downwind?

Farked Over, Rebuilt Destroyer

Floating Oxidized Rudderless Derelict


F*ck off, Russian douchebags
 
2013-10-02 12:36:17 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: vygramul: Rhino_man: Mad_Season: bojon: I wonder what it will have for a nickname?

the Fix Or Repair Daily?
Found On Redsea Dead?
Fast Only Running Downwind?

Farked Over, Rebuilt Destroyer

Floating Oxidized Rudderless Derelict

F*ck off, Russian douchebags


Farking Overpriced Reef for Divers... you know, once it goes belly-up.
 
2013-10-02 12:43:34 AM

rhiannon: Oh I get it, the reason it's virtually invisible to radar is because it's so freaking small:

[img.photobucket.com image 634x335]

Genius.


Is this an aircraft carrier... FOR ANTS?
 
2013-10-02 12:44:32 AM

Pubby: That being said, we still need more, newer carriers. They're the ultimate in global force projection. A mobile floating fortress armed to the teeth with all sorts of things that make a helluva lot of mess when they hit their target is not something sane countries fark with and when one parks itself in your waters, you listen real close to what the guy ordering it around has to say.


This. How is any President going to ask "where are the carriers?" whenever an international incident happens, if there aren't any carriers. When the Air Force wanted to contribute to the first Libyan bombing (under Reagan) they had to fly hours out of their way to avoid the airspace of all the European countries that didn't want to get involved in any way. The Navy planes had a 10 minute flight from the bird farm.

In Libya 2.0 the French flew the highest percentage of air support missions, and almost all of the on call missions. Guess which country out of the 14 participating brought a carrier to the party?

And speaking of the Phalanx CIWS, there is a mod out now that enables it to engage small craft. 4,500 rounds per minute of 20mm is going to tear some new orifices in any attackers. The Navy has also been beefing up the small craft defenses of ships deployed over seas, adding extra .50s, hand operated mini-guns (think 'Painless' the Gatling gun from Predator, but mounted) and 25mm auto-cannon to the ships.
 
2013-10-02 01:09:34 AM

Gleeman: Pubby: That being said, we still need more, newer carriers. They're the ultimate in global force projection. A mobile floating fortress armed to the teeth with all sorts of things that make a helluva lot of mess when they hit their target is not something sane countries fark with and when one parks itself in your waters, you listen real close to what the guy ordering it around has to say.

This. How is any President going to ask "where are the carriers?" whenever an international incident happens, if there aren't any carriers. When the Air Force wanted to contribute to the first Libyan bombing (under Reagan) they had to fly hours out of their way to avoid the airspace of all the European countries that didn't want to get involved in any way. The Navy planes had a 10 minute flight from the bird farm.

In Libya 2.0 the French flew the highest percentage of air support missions, and almost all of the on call missions. Guess which country out of the 14 participating brought a carrier to the party?

And speaking of the Phalanx CIWS, there is a mod out now that enables it to engage small craft. 4,500 rounds per minute of 20mm is going to tear some new orifices in any attackers. The Navy has also been beefing up the small craft defenses of ships deployed over seas, adding extra .50s, hand operated mini-guns (think 'Painless' the Gatling gun from Predator, but mounted) and 25mm auto-cannon to the ships.


This is a very good explanation of why carriers are still relevant... but I think the pace of carrier building is perhaps a bit too quick when compared to things like big-deck amphibs.  Seeing as how an LHA can support a Marine medium or heavy helicopter squadron, reinforced with Harrier (or JSF) SVTOL jets, and also establish a ground presence, it's also an extremely effective force projection tool.  When you consider also that we can get 4 America-class LHAs for the price of one Ford-class CVN, I think we should be focusing there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_(LHA-6)
upload.wikimedia.org

/Served with the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit on the USS Bataan in 2009, then took the USS Carter Hall to Haiti after the earthquake in 2010.
 
2013-10-02 01:33:10 AM
... and now I've gotten sucked into the Wikipedia vortex.  Saw the video of the USS Belleau Wood (LHA-3) being used as a target for the USS Mobile Bay.  Something about seeing one of those flat-tops go under just breaks my farking heart.

They may look like shiat, but let me tell you... after months of operations on-shore, the sight of a flat-top amphib launching LCUs and LCACs will bring a tear to your eye.  I distinctly remember sitting in the cab of a 7-ton, riding an LCAC aboard the Bataan after 3 weeks of training in Greece... looking up as we entered the well deck and saying "Bataan, you big beautiful biatch.  It's good to be home."
 
2013-10-02 01:36:53 AM

Rhino_man: Gleeman: Pubby: That being said, we still need more, newer carriers. They're the ultimate in global force projection. A mobile floating fortress armed to the teeth with all sorts of things that make a helluva lot of mess when they hit their target is not something sane countries fark with and when one parks itself in your waters, you listen real close to what the guy ordering it around has to say.

This. How is any President going to ask "where are the carriers?" whenever an international incident happens, if there aren't any carriers. When the Air Force wanted to contribute to the first Libyan bombing (under Reagan) they had to fly hours out of their way to avoid the airspace of all the European countries that didn't want to get involved in any way. The Navy planes had a 10 minute flight from the bird farm.

In Libya 2.0 the French flew the highest percentage of air support missions, and almost all of the on call missions. Guess which country out of the 14 participating brought a carrier to the party?

And speaking of the Phalanx CIWS, there is a mod out now that enables it to engage small craft. 4,500 rounds per minute of 20mm is going to tear some new orifices in any attackers. The Navy has also been beefing up the small craft defenses of ships deployed over seas, adding extra .50s, hand operated mini-guns (think 'Painless' the Gatling gun from Predator, but mounted) and 25mm auto-cannon to the ships.

This is a very good explanation of why carriers are still relevant... but I think the pace of carrier building is perhaps a bit too quick when compared to things like big-deck amphibs.  Seeing as how an LHA can support a Marine medium or heavy helicopter squadron, reinforced with Harrier (or JSF) SVTOL jets, and also establish a ground presence, it's also an extremely effective force projection tool.  When you consider also that we can get 4 America-class LHAs for the price of one Ford-class CVN, I think we should be focusing there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_America_(LHA-6)


/Served with the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit on the USS Bataan in 2009, then took the USS Carter Hall to Haiti after the earthquake in 2010.


Why did they name a ship after Hawkman?
 
2013-10-02 01:52:10 AM
You missed "F-ed over rebuilt Dodge" there.
 
2013-10-02 02:03:11 AM

Animatronik: Building megacarriers in 2013 makes as much sense as building battleships in 1939, except for the advantages of having our own floating islands anywhere at sea to project power from

During a serious war, they'd be big targets and go down fast.


true however the US Navy hasn't fought a 'serious' war in 70 years so it does make sense. Like you said power projection and aerial attacks from sea using airpower Something like this is very useful in the types of war we fight like against 3rd rate enemies such as Iraq, Afghanistan or even Vietnam and Korea with limited naval and air power.
 
2013-10-02 02:28:48 AM

SuperNinjaToad: Animatronik: Building megacarriers in 2013 makes as much sense as building battleships in 1939, except for the advantages of having our own floating islands anywhere at sea to project power from

During a serious war, they'd be big targets and go down fast.

true however the US Navy hasn't fought a 'serious' war in 70 years so it does make sense. Like you said power projection and aerial attacks from sea using airpower Something like this is very useful in the types of war we fight like against 3rd rate enemies such as Iraq, Afghanistan or even Vietnam and Korea with limited naval and air power.


Honestly, the only nation that could make us fight naval battles at this point would be Russia.  Even the Chinese - though they're rapidly increasing the size of their navy - don't have the kind of technology required to best our point-to-point missile defense systems in sufficient quantity to make us fear for the majority of our fleet.

Let's face it, with the Rolling Airframe Missile achieving a 95% first-shot hit rate on incoming antiship missiles, and each of our carriers and amphibs capable of launching at least 42 of them... it would take a MASSIVE number of anti-ship missiles to sink even ONE of our ships... and only the Russians can keep their birds supplied with enough missiles to do that reliably for more than about two weeks.
 
2013-10-02 02:55:09 AM
So, how many $1m (or cheaper) torpedoes is it going to take to this $13B monstrosity?

Two?
 
2013-10-02 02:55:51 AM

starsrift: So, how many $1m (or cheaper) torpedoes is it going to take to sink this $13B monstrosity?

Two?


FTFM.
/ obviously
 
2013-10-02 03:22:53 AM
Tell me again which war you're preparing for?
 
2013-10-02 03:48:39 AM
www.danacarvey.net
 
2013-10-02 04:10:48 AM
Sigh. It feels like the last few decades are all about style over substance. It annoys me that Gerald Ford gets portrayed as some bumbling fool because he stumbled down a set of stairs on camera. He was one of the most athletic Presidents we've had, and, regardless whether you agreed with his politics, was pretty damned sharp - unlike the more recent mouth-breathers he could listen and compromise with those he did not agree with. He knew and did a ton of stuff, much of it behind closed doors. It amazes me that most people don't know he sat on the Warren Commission. And I was not a big Ford fan, but damn, objective reality > titillating perception - give it a try.

As to viability of the Carriers... lol, just before I got out of the service, I had to debrief a VIP regarding the closing of our facility (base closure overseas), standard dog and pony tour followed by debrief/grilling on specifics: who was taking over our mission, and ... stuff. After walking him through the entire facility then giving him the better part of 2.5 hours answering any and every minute freaking question he could think of, he laughed and asked me to speculate on 'the future'.

The Soviet Union had recently collapsed, and he thought the Navy's 'future' for the next century was bright: our ability to sustain Carrier fleets as a forward presence, yada yada; he asked what I thought:I told him he really didn't want to know my opinion; he insisted and I told him. Lol, Freaking ruined his day. :>p

1. Within 100 years (75 now maybe, haven't kept up with the numbers), the muslim population of Russia will be in the majority. It's not particularly unlikely that they will align - at least economically - with all the " 'stans" (ie Uzbekistan, Tadjikstan, etc); controlling a significant portion of the world's more valuable natural resources and the time and technology to build the infrastructure necessary to extract them. A large number... are not our friends and we are not making an effort to change this. The whole Khrushchev 'We will bury you!' could very well happen - not, as usually translated as they'd hand us our ass, but as he intended - that the US would rot from within while they're still going strong - obviously not as a communist entity, but a more younger, motivated populace with more resources at hand. The US needed to aggressively change our mindset/spending or in the long term we were going to get left in the dust.

2. China. We'd started making poor economic decisions (borrowing gobs of money) and I told him they'd freaking own us if we didn't wake up. I said (and still believe) their money/influence will affect economic and military policy, and (short version) not in a good way.

3. The US had consistently avoided maintaining/upgrading its infrastructure - I thought it likely that it was going to bite us in the ass - hard to ask for funding when (I believe I tactfully said) shiat is falling down around your ears.

4. The more complex a system, the easier it is to take it down. I could write gobs on just this alone - iirc I gave him a half dozen scenarios off the top of my head that our fleet was incapable of handling at the time.

/Other things I said were more off the mark - a shifting older US population would make it difficult to man a large fleet, projections on sustainability and economic instability around the world would start more fires than the US could put out, requiring a change in mission - NOW (at the time), before it's needed/too late to adapt. I can't remember the rest, I just remember he was really bummed. And I crushed him when I explained why I thought his 'baby' (SDI) was the final death knell to surface fleets; especially now when the US can't even pretend launch dominance.
 
Displayed 50 of 122 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report