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  
•       •       •

9781 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Oct 2013 at 8:07 PM (43 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
 
2013-10-02 05:13:38 AM
My pops used to chopper Gerald Ford around in Marine One back in the day and he tells me Ford was a nice guy who would come up and say howdy to the pilots and such. It was before his time so he never witnessed it first hand, but apparently LBJ used to take a dump on the Executive Helicopter with the door open.

/CSB
 
2013-10-02 05:25:38 AM

biscuitsngravy: My pops used to chopper Gerald Ford around in Marine One back in the day and he tells me Ford was a nice guy who would come up and say howdy to the pilots and such. It was before his time so he never witnessed it first hand, but apparently LBJ used to take a dump on the Executive Helicopter with the door open.

/CSB


LBJ didn't just do that on the helicopter, he did it EVERYWHERE.  It was a negotiating tactic.  He would invite the opposition over, then drop a deuce with the door open while talking to them.  Farker wasn't known for his manners, he was known for having the most imperious Presidency in modern times, and it's because he knew how to keep his opposition so uncomfortable with the idea of actually OPPOSING him that all of Congress was rushing to do whatever the fark he wanted them to do.
 
2013-10-02 06:41:36 AM
"virtually invisible to enemy radar"...

...because Daily Fail readers will believe anything
 
2013-10-02 06:46:58 AM

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


Ford was a WW2 Navy veteran and hero. FDR was a cousin-marrying, rich kid, career politician.

I can't really find fault with the ship naming here.
 
2013-10-02 07:13:27 AM

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

Two?


Self sealing compartment technology is another area that has improved over the years.  It can be very difficult to sink a large USN ship these days.

Beyond that though, you know how hard it is to get a torpedo within striking distance of a carrier?  Its not like they're out there by themselves.. they've got an entire fleet dedicated to assisting the carrier.
 
2013-10-02 07:42:05 AM

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

Two?

Self sealing compartment technology is another area that has improved over the years.  It can be very difficult to sink a large USN ship these days.


I've heard that before.
 
2013-10-02 08:38:02 AM
$13 billion to build.  And how many thousands of dollars in torpedoes and missiles to sink it?
 
2013-10-02 08:44:07 AM

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?


F*cker Only Runs Downstream
 
2013-10-02 08:53:59 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.


Welcome to AEGIS.

This is why carriers travel in task forces; they are the quarterbacks, with a defensive line.
 
2013-10-02 09:03:04 AM

Tired_of_the_BS: 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.


I agree. Ford was probably the right man at the right time for the right reasons. He's not the best president you could ask for, but I think that given the situation into which he was thrust, he handled things pretty well.

Tired_of_the_BS: 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.


They've got a long way to bounce back, having fallen almost to their WWII population. And in 75-100 years, a lot can change, including the energy situation, and power projection may simply be too expensive for anyone.

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.

The question about China is whether they can achieve any real power projection to advance from a regional hegemon to a world power before the oil runs out. They're beginning to consider it. But, to be honest, if they play their cards right, they don't have to. China's rather satisfied with the status quo. Most US adventurism is in service to keeping a stable flow of oil to EVERYONE, so why spend all that money on power projection just to do what the US is doing for you? There are few sticking-points anymore, and one (North Korea) is just becoming more of a nuisance than it's worth.

Tired_of_the_BS: 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.


Yeah, but to be honest, the infrastructure is not all that expensive. One less supercarrier and we could be living on streets paved with gold. (OK, exaggerration. You're right and we're doing the bare minimum, if that. There's really no excuse for it, but the public is too busy worrying about the gender-arrangement of marriages between people they will never meet, much less know.)

Tired_of_the_BS: 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.


Navies tend not to be very good against threats they've not dealt with in a while. So on the one hand, if the Soviet Union suddenly appeared a la Final Countdown, we'd be in some serious difficulty despite the considerable technological advantages. On the other hand, the other navies are even worse. But unlike land warfare, in naval warfare defense has been a more challenging problem than attack, so our navy has capabilities that need to be improved. Luckily, hypotheticals tend to develop scenarios that assume zero preparation time and zero reaction to increasing hostilities. Those tend to get people to start changing their ways, and the flat-footed situations rarely develop.

/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.

It's nigh impossible to predict more than 15 years out, and at 15 years you're pushing it. Technology changes too fast, not to mention the geopolitical situation. In 1988, 2003 was all but inconceivable. Russia barely a world player, the start of a decade-long land-war in the Middle-East with fewer than 5,000 dead, 6th graders going to class with smartphones able to sext real-time videos of themselves to friends in Australia, and the New England Patriots winning a Superbowl? Absurd.

Push predictions out to 25 years, and you may as well be Jules Verne ever since the industrial revolution. 1950 looked nothing like 1925 which looked almost nothing like 1900 which looked substantially different from 1875 which saw significant changes from 1850. The pace hasn't really slowed but accelerated. Throw in the wild-card of climate change, and 25 years from now might see the world in for a bumpy ride in ways no one thought possible.

So the fact that you were even close in some your predictions is laudable.

Some predictions are really not going out on a limb. 25 years from now, there will be conflict in the Middle East. (OMG, really? Will sand be involved?) We will suffer a recession. (Like every decade.) The US will be in decline. (It's ALWAYS in decline.) But only Ron Paul can be considered brilliant for making THOSE predictions.
 
2013-10-02 09:05:15 AM

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


Tell me who ever claimed it was?
 
2013-10-02 09:07:17 AM

runwiz: $13 billion to build.  And how many thousands of dollars in torpedoes and missiles to sink it?


Several thousand of thousands of dollars. Assuming it was unaware of your presence.
 
2013-10-02 09:28:08 AM
Mad_Season:I get the feeling that Musk's crowd is a bunch of mechanical engineers living in an idealized world. Dirt and people are messy.

But over at SpaceX their approach seems to be paying off bigtime. Any idea what the difference is?
 
2013-10-02 10:05:11 AM

Lord Howard Hurtz: 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?

F*cker Only Runs Downstream


This one.  I like it.
 
2013-10-02 10:21:57 AM

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

Tell me who ever claimed it was?


Certainly should name more ships after Democrats since they start all the wars:

WWI
WWII
Korea
Vietnam
 
2013-10-02 10:46:11 AM
I agree that carriers like this are needed in the long term but what about these scenarios?

lh6.ggpht.com
graphics8.nytimes.com

/not very effective against evil transforming robots from outer space
//or world-ending tsunamis...
 
2013-10-02 11:02:07 AM

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


Gerald Ford served in the Navy during a war. So you shut it.
 
2013-10-02 11:29:51 AM

peterthx: I agree that carriers like this are needed in the long term but what about these scenarios?

[lh6.ggpht.com image 480x200]
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x340]

/not very effective against evil transforming robots from outer space
//or world-ending tsunamis...


You forgot locusts.
 
2013-10-02 11:30:43 AM

Beowoolfie: Mad_Season:I get the feeling that Musk's crowd is a bunch of mechanical engineers living in an idealized world. Dirt and people are messy.

But over at SpaceX their approach seems to be paying off bigtime. Any idea what the difference is?


I suspect it's because that's where their expertise lies. I'm sure they're great rocket engineers. Once you start creeping out of your scope of knowledge, it's very easy to make basic mistakes.

I did some more research on the Hyperloop, and the critics are saying are that they missed a realistic cost estimate by a factor of 10 to 20.

In terms of their project management style, I don't really know. They may be used to faster development cycles . They're also focused on ONE project, and not dealing with subcontractors that are running 5 or 10 at the same time.

// Thanks for asking the question: It's an interesting thought experiment.
 
2013-10-02 12:00:56 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.


OpFor used speed boats and zodiacs when the rules explicitely stated that Blue forces could not fire upon them because they were non-military. Additionally, zodiacs can not carry, much less fire multiple Silkworms as General Ripper had them do. Add in other shenanigans like teleporting bike messengers, and it was a giant temper tantrum thrown by a man tired of being passed over for promotion. As for Blue being refloated, the entire point of the exercise was testing communications between multinational forces. Should they really have let one man cheating rob our and other nation's sailors of valuable training and experience?
 
2013-10-02 02:31:31 PM

Foundling: peterthx: I agree that carriers like this are needed in the long term but what about these scenarios?

[lh6.ggpht.com image 480x200]
[graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x340]

/not very effective against evil transforming robots from outer space
//or world-ending tsunamis...

You forgot locusts.


mimg.ugo.com

I also forgot to ask if the USS Ford will have a time travel drive to enable the USA to win battles it previously had lost...
 
2013-10-02 08:34:27 PM

peterthx: I also forgot to ask if the USS Ford will have a time travel drive to enable the USA to win battles it previously had lost.


Take it back to 1774?   General Washington having close ground support would be an amazing development.
 
Displayed 22 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