Skip to content
 
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.

(Defense News)   Trump Pentagon nominee slams Navy shipbuilding plan. Navy: STFU and give us more money   (defensenews.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Aircraft carrier, Warship, United States Air Force, Military organization, Defense News, United States Department of Defense, CAPE's desire, Ship  
•       •       •

790 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Aug 2020 at 12:54 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



22 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-08-05 12:25:17 PM  
Looks like DoD is telling the Navy to build to 355+ ships and the Navy can't do it under the funding profile without sacrificing current readiness so they submitted a plan that hand waves funding after 5 years.
 
2020-08-05 12:55:59 PM  
This is a geek thread why?
 
2020-08-05 1:04:36 PM  

Massively Multiplayer Addict: This is a geek thread why?


If you omit the word "Trump" from the headline it's about military hardware, headlines about which are usually put in the Geek tab.
 
2020-08-05 1:30:23 PM  
So which side is right?  They all make great points.

- The SSBNs are getting old and need a replacement; can they last as long as a B-52?  I don't know, but I don't think we should count on that.
- Readiness seems questionable lately, after the clusterfarks the Navy has experienced since Fat Leonard and various very expensive accidents.
- Having a few, big, expensive, targets seems to be a recipe for disaster.  Having a lot of big, expensive, targets seems to be an even shiattier recipe, because of the other stuff you won't be able to get.

I'm greatly anticipating the analysis of Fark's resident seamen (heh).
 
DVD
2020-08-05 1:43:11 PM  
After we get rid of Putin's puppet in the WH, we'll likely need to be more serious about defending places like Taiwan.  Ya know, rather than Kurding them to the CCP.

So we'll need better readiness on the sea in order to do so.
 
2020-08-05 2:09:27 PM  
Government agencies tend to get antsy when you ask them to spend reasonable amounts of money. They should provide bonuses for people that increase effectiveness and reduce spending. Instead of the current system of...

-Hey, I can make this weapon 2x more effective at only 10% more cost!
-If they wanted it 2x more effective, they would ask. And we will charge them at least twice as much for it if they do!
 
2020-08-05 3:33:20 PM  
Esper told Defense News he wanted to push aggressively toward unmanned and lightly manned ships to get to 355 ships over the next decade.

Realization that even if they can build 355 or more ships they can't find enough people to crew them, short of a draft.
 
2020-08-05 3:35:21 PM  

runwiz: Esper told Defense News he wanted to push aggressively toward unmanned and lightly manned ships to get to 355 ships over the next decade.

Realization that even if they can build 355 or more ships they can't find enough people to crew them, short of a draft.


Nah, just a realization that once a ship is in service personnel costs are really farking high
 
2020-08-05 3:40:28 PM  

johnny_vegas: Looks like DoD is telling the Navy to build to 355+ ships and the Navy can't do it under the funding profile without sacrificing current readiness so they submitted a plan that hand waves funding after 5 years.


Socialism can be a wonderful thing.
 
2020-08-05 3:42:02 PM  

Prussian_Roulette: So which side is right?  They all make great points.

- The SSBNs are getting old and need a replacement; can they last as long as a B-52?  I don't know, but I don't think we should count on that.
- Readiness seems questionable lately, after the clusterfarks the Navy has experienced since Fat Leonard and various very expensive accidents.
- Having a few, big, expensive, targets seems to be a recipe for disaster.  Having a lot of big, expensive, targets seems to be an even shiattier recipe, because of the other stuff you won't be able to get.

I'm greatly anticipating the analysis of Fark's resident seamen (heh).


i'll analyze but i need some public money first.   giggle
 
2020-08-05 3:43:41 PM  

runwiz: Esper told Defense News he wanted to push aggressively toward unmanned and lightly manned ships to get to 355 ships over the next decade.

Realization that even if they can build 355 or more ships they can't find enough people to crew them, short of a draft.


as long as they draft middle and lower class kids, all is well.
 
2020-08-05 3:44:21 PM  

johnny_vegas: runwiz: Esper told Defense News he wanted to push aggressively toward unmanned and lightly manned ships to get to 355 ships over the next decade.

Realization that even if they can build 355 or more ships they can't find enough people to crew them, short of a draft.

Nah, just a realization that once a ship is in service personnel costs are really farking high


so??

the public is paying the bill.

you should learn to relax and smell the socialism roses.
 
2020-08-05 4:50:08 PM  

Linux_Yes: so??

the public is paying the bill.


Over the life cycle of a ship, personnel costs are the single highest bill for that ship
Other than that I am not sure what your point is?
 
2020-08-05 5:00:19 PM  
Maybe 55 of these are hover-carriers, and we can park them high over enemy cities with a giant sign underneath:  'We dare you to shoot down this nuclear cluster bomb onto your own head.'

I assume the other 300 are swan-shaped paddle boats.  For public relations purposes.
 
2020-08-05 6:11:38 PM  

Prussian_Roulette: So which side is right?  They all make great points.

- The SSBNs are getting old and need a replacement; can they last as long as a B-52?  I don't know, but I don't think we should count on that.
- Readiness seems questionable lately, after the clusterfarks the Navy has experienced since Fat Leonard and various very expensive accidents.
- Having a few, big, expensive, targets seems to be a recipe for disaster.  Having a lot of big, expensive, targets seems to be an even shiattier recipe, because of the other stuff you won't be able to get.

I'm greatly anticipating the analysis of Fark's resident seamen (heh).


SSBN Ohio class is being replaced by the Columbia class scheduled to hit the water in a few years. I might be biased but I think subs, especially GNs and fast boats are what we should focus on expanding the numbers for. Definitely double the number of GNs since nothing says don't fark with us like telling country X that we have a few hundred Tomahawks parked off their coast that they can't find. Surface ships just don't have the same effect.

As far as the big surface ships go I don't see why we really need to expand where we're at, most of them would get sunk pretty early on in a Big War anyway. For many of the smaller carrier group type ships their only real purpose is to intercept missiles/torpedoes for the carriers. Maybe some light patrol work in peace time, which is important, but not a reason to build more than replacements. If anything, we could just extend the service life on many of the older ships since they could still easily handle the freedom of navigation and antipirate roles. You really don't need anything state of the art to fend off pirates or intercept drug/human trafficers, or to remind China that we sail our ships where we damn well please.

As it is there are only really two countries we could have a Big War with, from a naval perspective, and the US Navy more than outnumbers them combined already.
 
2020-08-05 6:23:25 PM  

Mail Order American Husband: As far as the big surface ships go I don't see why we really need to expand where we're at, most of them would get sunk pretty early on in a Big War anyway. For many of the smaller carrier group type ships their only real purpose is to intercept missiles/torpedoes for the carriers.


Sort of.

The carriers get sunk early on if they are in the wrong place or if it is a surprise attack (which it could be).
The destroyers do a LOT more to include submarine hunting (though hopefully our SSN's will mostly take care of), attacking surface ships, ballistic missile defense, and overland strike.
 
2020-08-05 6:39:13 PM  

johnny_vegas: Linux_Yes: so??

the public is paying the bill.

Over the life cycle of a ship, personnel costs are the single highest bill for that ship
Other than that I am not sure what your point is?


my point is that the movers and the shakers of this nation tend to be cavalier about spending public money but tighter than a nun's asshole with spending their own.

my other point is that the military is a great example of Socialism in america, but the news media told everyone they should shiat on Bernie Sanders because he's gonna' destroy freedom!!

can't make this stuff up its so stupid.
 
2020-08-05 6:52:08 PM  

Linux_Yes: johnny_vegas: Linux_Yes: so??

the public is paying the bill.

Over the life cycle of a ship, personnel costs are the single highest bill for that ship
Other than that I am not sure what your point is?

my point is that the movers and the shakers of this nation tend to be cavalier about spending public money but tighter than a nun's asshole with spending their own.

my other point is that the military is a great example of Socialism in america, but the news media told everyone they should shiat on Bernie Sanders because he's gonna' destroy freedom!!

can't make this stuff up its so stupid.


Sticking to the article we are ostensibly discussing, I see nothing cavalier with regards to the requirements discussions at all.
Also, I think you are conflating social welfare policies with socialism
 
2020-08-05 6:52:13 PM  

johnny_vegas: Mail Order American Husband: As far as the big surface ships go I don't see why we really need to expand where we're at, most of them would get sunk pretty early on in a Big War anyway. For many of the smaller carrier group type ships their only real purpose is to intercept missiles/torpedoes for the carriers.

Sort of.

The carriers get sunk early on if they are in the wrong place or if it is a surprise attack (which it could be).
The destroyers do a LOT more to include submarine hunting (though hopefully our SSN's will mostly take care of), attacking surface ships, ballistic missile defense, and overland strike.


Short of a nuclear strike there isn't anyone that could launch a coordinated surprise attack that would sink or disable more than two carriers, and that is probably being very generous. Destroyers really aren't that effective against submarines, and submarines are arguably better at overland strikes. In a surface ship vs a sub, the sub wins just about every time. Not sure how well a destroy stacks up toe to toe with another surface ship, probably boils down to who can launch the most missiles on target the quickest, assuming each ship could shoot down or evade at least three roughly simultaneous incoming missiles at a time. Obviously things change a lot when talking about whole battle groups engaging.

Point is, subs are more effective at just about everything outside launching airplanes, shooting down airplanes, or landing a Marine battalion and any future Big War on the sea would be largely decided by them, hence why it makes sense to build more of them.
 
2020-08-05 7:04:17 PM  

Mail Order American Husband: johnny_vegas: Mail Order American Husband: As far as the big surface ships go I don't see why we really need to expand where we're at, most of them would get sunk pretty early on in a Big War anyway. For many of the smaller carrier group type ships their only real purpose is to intercept missiles/torpedoes for the carriers.

Sort of.

The carriers get sunk early on if they are in the wrong place or if it is a surprise attack (which it could be).
The destroyers do a LOT more to include submarine hunting (though hopefully our SSN's will mostly take care of), attacking surface ships, ballistic missile defense, and overland strike.

Short of a nuclear strike there isn't anyone that could launch a coordinated surprise attack that would sink or disable more than two carriers, and that is probably being very generous. Destroyers really aren't that effective against submarines, and submarines are arguably better at overland strikes. In a surface ship vs a sub, the sub wins just about every time. Not sure how well a destroy stacks up toe to toe with another surface ship, probably boils down to who can launch the most missiles on target the quickest, assuming each ship could shoot down or evade at least three roughly simultaneous incoming missiles at a time. Obviously things change a lot when talking about whole battle groups engaging.

Point is, subs are more effective at just about everything outside launching airplanes, shooting down airplanes, or landing a Marine battalion and any future Big War on the sea would be largely decided by them, hence why it makes sense to build more of them.


I think you are downplaying the effectiveness of destroyers against submarines and ignoring their role in ballistic missile defense.
You did allude to it, but what surface ships give you that subs don't is presence, one of the primary missions of the navy.  Also destroyers are much more of a multi-mission platform that affords significant flexibility to the wartime commander.
SSN's carry a limited amount of tomahawks.
Regarding carriers I should probably have said mission kill vice sunk.
None of this means I disagree that more submarines would be great.
 
2020-08-06 12:28:02 PM  

johnny_vegas: Looks like DoD is telling the Navy to build to 355+ ships and the Navy can't do it under the funding profile without sacrificing current readiness so they submitted a plan that hand waves funding after 5 years.


Yup.  The Navy is saying the mission is impossible as funded, His Flatulence doesn't care.

Mail Order American Husband: SSBN Ohio class is being replaced by the Columbia class scheduled to hit the water in a few years. I might be biased but I think subs, especially GNs and fast boats are what we should focus on expanding the numbers for. Definitely double the number of GNs since nothing says don't fark with us like telling country X that we have a few hundred Tomahawks parked off their coast that they can't find. Surface ships just don't have the same effect.


Yup.  Surface combatants are old school.  I don't think there's a major ship afloat that can shoot down it's own value in incoming missiles.

I think there's a role for destroyers in show-the-flag and anti-piracy roles, but I can't see anything heavier.
 
2020-08-07 12:15:05 AM  

Loren: Surface combatants are old school.  I don't think there's a major ship afloat that can shoot down it's own value in incoming missiles.


That's an interesting metric, do you mean the cost of the missile it knocks down or the cost of the ship it defended?
 
Displayed 22 of 22 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.