User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 2:43:37 PM EDT
[#1]
If we had a man for a President, there would be no "inflection point".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 2:44:57 PM EDT
[#2]
I've never understood why more, smaller carriers isn't an option.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 2:45:01 PM EDT
[#3]
I can see Americans working in prison camps and crying everyday how did we lose America ..
because you stupid liberal idiots ..... Maslow Hierarchy of needs safety or in this case freedom is worth spending every dime we have on national defense because nothing else matters if you have nothing.. Trump understands national defense and the business machine that comes from it..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 2:47:19 PM EDT
[#4]
Did not read. Is this another one of the "cut the budget, give money to social programs" articles?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 2:48:25 PM EDT
[#5]
Carriers are to the 21st century what the battleship came to be for the 20th century: obsolete (as they are currently designed and crewed)
Future warfare needs should focus around drones/stealth drones. This will require a new platform for being able to position the drones anywhere in the world. A Nimitz/Ford class carrier with 5,500 sailors isn't that platform. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 2:48:48 PM EDT
[#6]
Where is this $40 billion supposed to come from?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 2:49:04 PM EDT
[#7]
Maybe if we stopped being the world's policeman our military would have more budget for needed upgrades and training.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 2:54:25 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've never understood why more, smaller carriers isn't an option. You lose a lot of deck space/storage for aircraft with just small reductions in size. Look at the French carrier Charles de Gaulle overall size/airwing complement vs Nimitz/Ford. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 2:59:30 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Carriers are to the 21st century what the battleship came to be for the 20th century: obsolete (as they are currently designed and crewed) Future warfare needs should focus around drones/stealth drones. This will require a new platform for being able to position the drones anywhere in the world. A Nimitz/Ford class carrier with 5,500 sailors isn't that platform. Concur. They've reached the point of being white elephants. Too vulnerable for too much money. The battleships were the same way and after Skagerrak (Jutland), the SMS never challenged the RN again (OK, it tried but the sailors mutinied). The IJN of WW II was still fighting Tsushima and was waiting for the climatic battle that never came. Instead the USN whittled it down bit by bit. Hara (Japanese Destroyer Captain) complained about the sacrifice of the small ships. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 3:01:52 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You lose a lot of deck space/storage for aircraft with just small reductions in size. Look at the French carrier Charles de Gaulle overall size/airwing complement vs Nimitz/Ford. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I've never understood why more, smaller carriers isn't an option. You lose a lot of deck space/storage for aircraft with just small reductions in size. Look at the French carrier Charles de Gaulle overall size/airwing complement vs Nimitz/Ford. I get that part - but with advances in munitions, increased use of RPVs/UAVs (smaller footprint), more, smaller airwings might have its own benefits, no? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 3:01:58 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Carriers are to the 21st century what the battleship came to be for the 20th century: obsolete (as they are currently designed and crewed) Future warfare needs should focus around drones/stealth drones. This will require a new platform for being able to position the drones anywhere in the world. A Nimitz/Ford class carrier with 5,500 sailors isn't that platform. They're working on bringing drone manufacturing onto aircraft carriers. Not obsolete yet. Needs more stealth drones, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 3:02:36 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Concur. They've reached the point of being white elephants. Too vulnerable for too much money. The battleships were the same way and after Skagerrak (Jutland), the SMS never challenged the RN again (OK, it tried but the sailors mutinied). The IJN of WW II was still fighting Tsushima and was waiting for the climatic battle that never came. Instead the USN whittled it down bit by bit. Hara (Japanese Destroyer Captain) complained about the sacrifice of the small ships. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Carriers are to the 21st century what the battleship came to be for the 20th century: obsolete (as they are currently designed and crewed) Future warfare needs should focus around drones/stealth drones. This will require a new platform for being able to position the drones anywhere in the world. A Nimitz/Ford class carrier with 5,500 sailors isn't that platform. Concur. They've reached the point of being white elephants. Too vulnerable for too much money. The battleships were the same way and after Skagerrak (Jutland), the SMS never challenged the RN again (OK, it tried but the sailors mutinied). The IJN of WW II was still fighting Tsushima and was waiting for the climatic battle that never came. Instead the USN whittled it down bit by bit. Hara (Japanese Destroyer Captain) complained about the sacrifice of the small ships. Laser CIWS will change this in a few short years. The Navy should be doubling down on laser research rather than reducing power projection. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 3:16:36 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They're working on bringing drone manufacturing onto aircraft carriers. Not obsolete yet. Needs more stealth drones, though. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Carriers are to the 21st century what the battleship came to be for the 20th century: obsolete (as they are currently designed and crewed) Future warfare needs should focus around drones/stealth drones. This will require a new platform for being able to position the drones anywhere in the world. A Nimitz/Ford class carrier with 5,500 sailors isn't that platform. They're working on bringing drone manufacturing onto aircraft carriers. Not obsolete yet. Needs more stealth drones, though. Nimitz/Ford carriers are an obsolete platform if you deploy an all drone fleet. Production of further Ford CVNs should be halted and effort put into a Next Gen Drone Carrier platform. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 3:22:52 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nimitz/Ford carriers are an obsolete platform if you deploy an all drone fleet. Production of further Ford CVNs should be halted and effort put into a Next Gen Drone Carrier platform. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Carriers are to the 21st century what the battleship came to be for the 20th century: obsolete (as they are currently designed and crewed) Future warfare needs should focus around drones/stealth drones. This will require a new platform for being able to position the drones anywhere in the world. A Nimitz/Ford class carrier with 5,500 sailors isn't that platform. They're working on bringing drone manufacturing onto aircraft carriers. Not obsolete yet. Needs more stealth drones, though. Nimitz/Ford carriers are an obsolete platform if you deploy an all drone fleet. Production of further Ford CVNs should be halted and effort put into a Next Gen Drone Carrier platform. You are probably right but inertia is a bitch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 3:27:38 PM EDT
[#15]
man, you guys are dreaming
do you know how much graft and corruption you can hide in a 40 billion dollar program? i mean damn, you gotta have your priorities straight it will never launch, it will never work, but billions will be spent somewhere and many people will get rich. You guys just gotta get with the time. yeah, we're fucked |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 3:34:22 PM EDT
[#16]
that was the weirdest double tap ever.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 3:35:36 PM EDT
[#17]
I'm surprised at all thr posts considering them obsolete. Carriers do all kinds of jobs that can't be replaced by drones. Their very presence is something that a smaller ship or a drone fleet somewhere does not convey. You have to take planes across the ocean to have a platform for fighting from. I don't see how they're any more vulnerable than they ever were. Unless someone has invented a flying carrier or some way to move a a hundred drones, a flight deck, and ordinance for resupply some other way than using a carrier, I don't se how they're obsolete. Big guns and armor became obsolete because of guided munitions. What has made needing a mobile launch platform for all kind of military and humanitarian missions obsolete? Remote control planes launched from land bases haven't done that. Someone explain??
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 3:46:06 PM EDT
[#18]
The only thing keeping the U.S. dollar afloat is the U.S. military, especially the U.S. Navy. Cut it at your own peril. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 4:01:49 PM EDT
[#19]
We need a link analysis that follows the money of report authors/publisher.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 4:05:55 PM EDT
[#20]
Under the Whiskers plan:
All Federal financial assistance of any kind whatsoever is halted. (Medicaid, and SS are provided to anyone aged 40 or older, however, you also stop paying once you are 40, regardless. Anyone 39 or under continues to pay until you're 40 Sorry.) Military budgets are strictly enforced. Companies bidding must pay for any overages during a project. Companies keep 10% of the amount they are under budget. We actually give the Marines a decent supply line. We flood shipping lanes with Navy vessels. Presidents must have declarations of war. The end. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 4:06:55 PM EDT
[#21]
With no carriers, it's pretty hard to justify much of a surface fleet, period....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 4:10:29 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where is this $40 billion supposed to come from? Defense spending is one of the few legitimate uses of taxpayer dollars the federal government does. And defense spending as a percent of GDP is at a low point in modern history. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 4:12:39 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did not read. Is this another one of the "cut the budget, give money to social programs" articles? Seems like it, though I will not read it either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 4:16:14 PM EDT
[#24]
Negative CNN, the pattern is full and your metrosexual producer's arguments are invalid.
This thread needs a Kenny Login's Video. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 4:16:17 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are probably right but inertia is a bitch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Carriers are to the 21st century what the battleship came to be for the 20th century: obsolete (as they are currently designed and crewed) Future warfare needs should focus around drones/stealth drones. This will require a new platform for being able to position the drones anywhere in the world. A Nimitz/Ford class carrier with 5,500 sailors isn't that platform. They're working on bringing drone manufacturing onto aircraft carriers. Not obsolete yet. Needs more stealth drones, though. Nimitz/Ford carriers are an obsolete platform if you deploy an all drone fleet. Production of further Ford CVNs should be halted and effort put into a Next Gen Drone Carrier platform. You are probably right but inertia is a bitch. You guys are smoking crack. We can barely get the tech on those carriers working as it is. We are no where near ready to make unmanned carriers. The carriers will be well capable of handling drone airplanes when available, but I don't see us being able to field an automated aircraft carrier in the next 30 years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 4:17:39 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Did not read. Is this another one of the "cut the budget, give money to social programs" articles? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 4:20:54 PM EDT
[#27]
Slash the military in order to maintain capability.
The funds will end up being transferred to existing social programs and new classes of entitlements. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 4:21:00 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Carriers are to the 21st century what the battleship came to be for the 20th century: obsolete (as they are currently designed and crewed) Future warfare needs should focus around drones/stealth drones. This will require a new platform for being able to position the drones anywhere in the world. A Nimitz/Ford class carrier with 5,500 sailors isn't that platform. If it doesn't work agains Iran due to the signal trail, it won't work against a real enemy. Capability =\= strategy, or at least it shouldn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 4:21:18 PM EDT
[#29]
Cut military spending and spend money on the homeless and children.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 4:22:12 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cut military spending and spend money on the homeless and children. Don't forget immigrants, refugees, and trannies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 4:27:06 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Carriers are to the 21st century what the battleship came to be for the 20th century: obsolete (as they are currently designed and crewed) Future warfare needs should focus around drones/stealth drones. This will require a new platform for being able to position the drones anywhere in the world. A Nimitz/Ford class carrier with 5,500 sailors isn't that platform. It isn't just the message in this case so mush as the messenger. A few drones doesn't put fear in enemy commanders. A carrier battlegroup parked right offshore does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 4:31:04 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It isn't just the message in this case so mush as the messenger. A few drones doesn't put fear in enemy commanders. A carrier battlegroup parked right offshore does. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Carriers are to the 21st century what the battleship came to be for the 20th century: obsolete (as they are currently designed and crewed) Future warfare needs should focus around drones/stealth drones. This will require a new platform for being able to position the drones anywhere in the world. A Nimitz/Ford class carrier with 5,500 sailors isn't that platform. It isn't just the message in this case so mush as the messenger. A few drones doesn't put fear in enemy commanders. A carrier battlegroup parked right offshore does. What CBG? Oh, the one that just went to Davy Jones' Locker? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 4:32:32 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You guys are smoking crack. We can barely get the tech on those carriers working as it is. We are no where near ready to make unmanned carriers. The carriers will be well capable of handling drone airplanes when available, but I don't see us being able to field an automated aircraft carrier in the next 30 years. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Carriers are to the 21st century what the battleship came to be for the 20th century: obsolete (as they are currently designed and crewed) Future warfare needs should focus around drones/stealth drones. This will require a new platform for being able to position the drones anywhere in the world. A Nimitz/Ford class carrier with 5,500 sailors isn't that platform. They're working on bringing drone manufacturing onto aircraft carriers. Not obsolete yet. Needs more stealth drones, though. Nimitz/Ford carriers are an obsolete platform if you deploy an all drone fleet. Production of further Ford CVNs should be halted and effort put into a Next Gen Drone Carrier platform. You are probably right but inertia is a bitch. You guys are smoking crack. We can barely get the tech on those carriers working as it is. We are no where near ready to make unmanned carriers. The carriers will be well capable of handling drone airplanes when available, but I don't see us being able to field an automated aircraft carrier in the next 30 years. No one said anything about an unmanned carrier, rather a carrier designed around a drone strategy. Nimitz/Ford are designed around manned aircraft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 4:37:31 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Defense spending is one of the few legitimate uses of taxpayer dollars the federal government does. And defense spending as a percent of GDP is at a low point in modern history. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Where is this $40 billion supposed to come from? Defense spending is one of the few legitimate uses of taxpayer dollars the federal government does. And defense spending as a percent of GDP is at a low point in modern history. And that's true, but it's all on borrowed $$$. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 4:40:12 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Carriers are to the 21st century what the battleship came to be for the 20th century: obsolete (as they are currently designed and crewed) Future warfare needs should focus around drones/stealth drones. This will require a new platform for being able to position the drones anywhere in the world. A Nimitz/Ford class carrier with 5,500 sailors isn't that platform. I've thought this for quite a while. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 4:42:06 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What CBG? Oh, the one that just went to Davy Jones' Locker? http://khouse.org/images/2016/07/07-04-02-DF-21D-Anti-Ship-Ballistic-Missile-ranges.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Carriers are to the 21st century what the battleship came to be for the 20th century: obsolete (as they are currently designed and crewed) Future warfare needs should focus around drones/stealth drones. This will require a new platform for being able to position the drones anywhere in the world. A Nimitz/Ford class carrier with 5,500 sailors isn't that platform. It isn't just the message in this case so mush as the messenger. A few drones doesn't put fear in enemy commanders. A carrier battlegroup parked right offshore does. What CBG? Oh, the one that just went to Davy Jones' Locker? http://khouse.org/images/2016/07/07-04-02-DF-21D-Anti-Ship-Ballistic-Missile-ranges.jpg That's where laser CIWS comes in:
The tech isn't quite there yet but it's close. It's going to be a huge game changer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2016 4:53:45 PM EDT
[#37]
Firstly, good cancel it. This is just another example of the overly bloated federal government spending money they don't have on something they do not need. There is nothing patriotic about dragging us into more debt for unnecessary spending. And like it or not, this is a fantastic example of Trump's "our government makes terrible deals" motto. There has to be soooo much waste in that. There is no world in which the government can repeatedly spend this much money on individual projects and have a national debt that is kept in check. We have to pick one or the other.
But if you read the article it goes on to say, Those funds would be reallocated for the stealthy B-21 bomber, adding 16 additional submarines, and investing in emerging technologies like high-energy lasers, the CNAS report recommends.... For example, rather than buying two F-35s, the CNAS report suggests purchasing one F-35 and two older F-16s or F-18s. So in other words, the monopoly money is already spent. How should we apply it? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
