Here's a cost savings plan: Stop letting the Air Force deploy to hotels, make them live like the rest of us scrubs. And eliminate the comp pay that even an E-1 AF goon gets for having to slum in a facility run by a non-AF service branch.
Here's a cost savings plan: Stop letting the Air Force deploy to hotels, make them live like the rest of us scrubs. And eliminate the comp pay that even an E-1 AF goon gets for having to slum in a facility run by a non-AF service branch.
I don't doubt for a second our need to maintain a carrier fleet.
I do doubt whether we need a fleet of our current size. At...11?...we have like half the aircraft carriers in the world. No other country has more than 2 (and only a couple have 2). Maybe we could get by with 8?
This seems like a vague call. What leads you to believe that 11 is too much and 8 is the magic number?
If we want to cut down on the number of bases, which seems to be the general consensus, then cutting down fleet size at the same time seems unwise.
And as has been said before in here, our carriers are really the key element in our ability to wage war abroad, we reduce their number at our peril.
Our ability to wage war abroad is, at present, excessive. The only reason we're even stretched is because we're currently occupying and waging anti-insurgent campaigns in two foreign nations.
And I believe eleven is too much because it's as many as the rest of the world has combined. I mean, I think it's super-cool that we're maintaining a military that can go to war on every continent and in every ocean at once...but is it necessary?
Well I sort of like it, and if we want to cut down on the expense and size of the military, which is a good idea to be sure, we can certainly do that without long term reductions in our ability to wage war, which seems a better idea.
We can't get our military expenditures down to a level I'd find acceptable without long-term reductions in our ability to make war. Because our current ability to make war is ridiculous. And it's not just so much our ability to make war, it's our ability to make war at the drop of a hat. If WWIII breaks out, it's not like we can't ramp up production of systems ranging from tanks to carriers. Since our current starting point will be "as much as the rest of the world combined*," I have faith we'd win that battle.
* - Sorry, correction. I'm arguing for "marginally less than the rest of the world combined." Point still holds.
Here's a cost savings plan: Stop letting the Air Force deploy to hotels, make them live like the rest of us scrubs. And eliminate the comp pay that even an E-1 AF goon gets for having to slum in a facility run by a non-AF service branch.
And I believe eleven is too much because it's as many as the rest of the world has combined. I mean, I think it's super-cool that we're maintaining a military that can go to war on every continent and in every ocean at once...but is it necessary?
Our military can't really do that. 11 carriers is more or less the minimum we need to be able to meet all of our strategic commitments.
Keep in mind that about 1/3 of your carriers are always going to be unavailable as they're being refiitted and maintained.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
Seriously, I have never been deployed so I don't know. But doesn't the air force stay in tents like everyone else? Maybe better, air force tents, just to piss everyone else off, but tents. Oh and I am sure officers and pilots get something super awesome, but that is really to be expected.
Oh and merging the Air Force with the Navy and Army would be massive, cost billions and still manage to be just as inefficient.
How are 1/3 of our carriers unavailable, that means we have more carriers not available than most countries have all together.
The eleven aircraft carriers is the number of flatdeck supercarriers the US has. You know the Nimitz Class. If you take the Helicopter carriers, the LPD ships and others like it, the US is up to about 20-25. Which is as many carriers as the rest of the world has combined.
Note, Helicopter carriers with ski jump ramps are the kind of carriers most of the world has. The Russians and the British use such carriers. The Nimitz and the upcoming Ford class are leagues ahead of those ships, I think its like 5 Heli carriers to 1 Nimitz.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Seriously, I have never been deployed so I don't know. But doesn't the air force stay in tents like everyone else? Maybe better, air force tents, just to piss everyone else off, but tents. Oh and I am sure officers and pilots get something super awesome, but that is really to be expected.
The Air Force guys on our FOB were staying in 2-man CHUs, when nobody below O-3 on the Army side was in less than 4-man. They had their own AFN satellite and internet satellite hookups just for their handful of CHUs. Additionally, they supposedly still got comp pay for "substandard" conditions.
On the Air Force base, it was a toss-up. Air Force stayed in like 12-man buildings, but had more space per man than our 4-man CHUs. They also had big-screen TVs provided for each building with AFN service...only place Army guys were watching TV was at the dining facility (or DVDs in their rooms, obviously, on the televisions they had to buy with their own money).
Go pick any base, stateside or deployed, and compare Air Force accommodations to Army (or Navy). They spend more money keeping their troops comfortable, down to the lowest man.
How are 1/3 of our carriers unavailable, that means we have more carriers not available than most countries have all together.
You have refit/maintenance cycles. Basically for every X years a carrier can spend at sea, it has to spend Y in port. For us, that means we really only have like 7 or 8 available at any given time.
Keep in mind that the rest of the world combined still only has like 10 or 11; so presumably they also only have 7 or 8 available.
And I believe eleven is too much because it's as many as the rest of the world has combined. I mean, I think it's super-cool that we're maintaining a military that can go to war on every continent and in every ocean at once...but is it necessary?
Our military can't really do that. 11 carriers is more or less the minimum we need to be able to meet all of our strategic commitments.
Keep in mind that about 1/3 of your carriers are always going to be unavailable as they're being refiitted and maintained.
This is worth repeating. 11 carriers total doesn't mean 11 carriers available anywhere, anytime.
Seriously, I have never been deployed so I don't know. But doesn't the air force stay in tents like everyone else? Maybe better, air force tents, just to piss everyone else off, but tents. Oh and I am sure officers and pilots get something super awesome, but that is really to be expected.
Oh and merging the Air Force with the Navy and Army would be massive, cost billions and still manage to be just as inefficient.
How are 1/3 of our carriers unavailable, that means we have more carriers not available than most countries have all together.
When a carrier comes back from a 6 month deployment it enters a massive dry dock phase to fix up and do various work on. After that it goes back to it's home port where more silly work is done. After that you have war games, ramp up, ect, and then you deploy again.
So for each 6 month deployment you get out of a carrier you spend a ton of time just working on the thing, training and ramping up.
It's really a huge ordeal to prep a carrier for a full 6 month deployment, and that's to say nothing of the crew and air wing.
And I believe eleven is too much because it's as many as the rest of the world has combined. I mean, I think it's super-cool that we're maintaining a military that can go to war on every continent and in every ocean at once...but is it necessary?
Our military can't really do that. 11 carriers is more or less the minimum we need to be able to meet all of our strategic commitments.
Keep in mind that about 1/3 of your carriers are always going to be unavailable as they're being refiitted and maintained.
This is worth repeating. 11 carriers total doesn't mean 11 carriers available anywhere, anytime.
And the 8 or so you have at sea are usually hundreds, if not thousands, of miles away from each other. A carrier in the Med, for example, is going to be useless if the North Koreans cross the DMZ.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
And I believe eleven is too much because it's as many as the rest of the world has combined. I mean, I think it's super-cool that we're maintaining a military that can go to war on every continent and in every ocean at once...but is it necessary?
Our military can't really do that. 11 carriers is more or less the minimum we need to be able to meet all of our strategic commitments.
Keep in mind that about 1/3 of your carriers are always going to be unavailable as they're being refiitted and maintained.
This is worth repeating. 11 carriers total doesn't mean 11 carriers available anywhere, anytime.
Right. I know this. I'm intimately aware of this, because I'm looking at one right now. It's right down the street.
But presumably the other carriers in the world all have this same limitation? And even if we have only, say, 5 available at a given time (accounting for both refit time, as well as training time, even though the latter could be truncated if operational needs absolutely required it) that still lets us operate in what...2, 3 theaters at once?
Keeping in mind that we only need carriers in theaters where our land forces haven't captured airfields, of course.
How much war do we need to be able to fight at any given time? I emphasize that last, because obviously in the event that we actually found ourselves fighting the rest of the world combined, its not like we couldn't...well, you know, build more.
Seriously, I have never been deployed so I don't know. But doesn't the air force stay in tents like everyone else? Maybe better, air force tents, just to piss everyone else off, but tents. Oh and I am sure officers and pilots get something super awesome, but that is really to be expected.
The Air Force guys on our FOB were staying in 2-man CHUs, when nobody below O-3 on the Army side was in less than 4-man. They had their own AFN satellite and internet satellite hookups just for their handful of CHUs. Additionally, they supposedly still got comp pay for "substandard" conditions.
On the Air Force base, it was a toss-up. Air Force stayed in like 12-man buildings, but had more space per man than our 4-man CHUs. They also had big-screen TVs provided for each building with AFN service...only place Army guys were watching TV was at the dining facility (or DVDs in their rooms, obviously, on the televisions they had to buy with their own money).
Go pick any base, stateside or deployed, and compare Air Force accommodations to Army (or Navy). They spend more money keeping their troops comfortable, down to the lowest man.
That is a pretty bold statement, I know for a fact that there are worse living conditions for some air force members than there are for other branches. I know that the air force generally has it better, one advantage of being smaller and requiring loads of money. I know some bases the room is the length of the bed and the width is a little bit more. In Kunsan the army has the same as the air force, probably better than what I had though. I lived in a condemned building, but before that I lived in a hotel for 5 months. A hotel with a ceiling tiles that collapsed because the rain leaked onto it. I could go on about how horrible of a room it was, especially considering what other people got.
I know none of it is that bad, but really the air force doesn't have it as good as people like to say. Oh and we all get the same BAH, when can the army usually move off base?
My point is, there are many many ways to cut down on military bloat without hitting such a key part of our military strength.
The F-22, Reagan's bullshit starwars program, endless 3rd party contracts, there are so many money sinks that are a bigger issue than our carrier fleet, simply because our carrier fleet is actually useful, proven, and effective.
I know none of it is that bad, but really the air force doesn't have it as good as people like to say. Oh and we all get the same BAH, when can the army usually move off base?
Army can move off base if they are married, or if they are...E-6 and up? That was the policy in my unit, at least.
I know none of it is that bad, but really the air force doesn't have it as good as people like to say. Oh and we all get the same BAH, when can the army usually move off base?
Army can move off base if they are married, or if they are...E-6 and up? That was the policy in my unit, at least.
That sucks, Air Force can usually move out if they are E-4 or 3 years. We were so short on dorms they were kicking people out of their rooms.
But presumably the other carriers in the world all have this same limitation? And even if we have only, say, 5 available at a given time (accounting for both refit time, as well as training time, even though the latter could be truncated if operational needs absolutely required it) that still lets us operate in what...2, 3 theaters at once?
It's kind of irrelevant how many other carriers there are in the world. Our carriers don't really exist to fight other nations' carriers. Only a small number are in the hands of potentially unfriendly nations, anyway, and those aren't anywhere near in the same league as our big carriers. The Chinese are at least a couple of decades away from having any credible carrier capacity.
Keeping in mind that we only need carriers in theaters where our land forces haven't captured airfields, of course.
Carriers exist more or less as a large logistical hubs for an expeditionary force. It's not just about providing air cover, it's about being able to support any troops on the ground, run anti-pirate operations, co-ordinate the efforts of allied naval and land forces etc. Our entire expeditionary force capacity is reliant on the existence of carriers. The Iraq/Afghanistan situation where we actually build long-term bases is not likely to happen again any time soon.
How much war do we need to be able to fight at any given time? I emphasize that last, because obviously in the event that we actually found ourselves fighting the rest of the world combined, its not like we couldn't...well, you know, build more.
This isn't WWII, where we can build comparatively simple warships, and train their crews, in a short period of time. Building a modern warship, especially a carrier, and training its airwing and crew is a much longer process. If a major war breaks out, whatever we have in existence on day one of the conflict is pretty much as good as it's going to get.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
Here's a cost savings plan: Stop letting the Air Force deploy to hotels, make them live like the rest of us scrubs. And eliminate the comp pay that even an E-1 AF goon gets for having to slum in a facility run by a non-AF service branch.
Eliminate the airforce and give its useful function to the army and navy. Defence budget slashed by over a half, guaranteed. But then I have a seething hatred of airforces and their stupid wasteful stupidity.
well
the airplane part of the airforce is arguably moded, since long-range strategic bombers are no longer the center of our defense paradigm
but the air force also handles our entire strategic missile fleet, our military space operations, and our radar operations.
Here's a cost savings plan: Stop letting the Air Force deploy to hotels, make them live like the rest of us scrubs. And eliminate the comp pay that even an E-1 AF goon gets for having to slum in a facility run by a non-AF service branch.
Eliminate the airforce and give its useful function to the army and navy. Defence budget slashed by over a half, guaranteed. But then I have a seething hatred of airforces and their stupid wasteful stupidity.
well
the airplane part of the airforce is arguably moded, since long-range strategic bombers are no longer the center of our defense paradigm
but the air force also handles our entire strategic missile fleet, our military space operations, and our radar operations.
well, at least those parts that the MDA doesn't.
The strategic bombers are actually still useful, during the kick em out phase of Afghanistan they basically just loiter, stuffed with JDAMS, get coordinates from ground troops, fly to the area and drop a 2000lb bomb, from 30k feet up. I think they are extending the life of the B-52s till 2040 now.
But presumably the other carriers in the world all have this same limitation? And even if we have only, say, 5 available at a given time (accounting for both refit time, as well as training time, even though the latter could be truncated if operational needs absolutely required it) that still lets us operate in what...2, 3 theaters at once?
It's kind of irrelevant how many other carriers there are in the world. Our carriers don't really exist to fight other nations' carriers. Only a small number are in the hands of potentially unfriendly nations, anyway, and those aren't anywhere near in the same league as our big carriers. The Chinese are at least a couple of decades away from having any credible carrier capacity.
Keeping in mind that we only need carriers in theaters where our land forces haven't captured airfields, of course.
Carriers exist more or less as a large logistical hubs for an expeditionary force. It's not just about providing air cover, it's about being able to support any troops on the ground, run anti-pirate operations, co-ordinate the efforts of allied naval and land forces etc. Our entire expeditionary force capacity is reliant on the existence of carriers. The Iraq/Afghanistan situation where we actually build long-term bases is not likely to happen again any time soon.
How much war do we need to be able to fight at any given time? I emphasize that last, because obviously in the event that we actually found ourselves fighting the rest of the world combined, its not like we couldn't...well, you know, build more.
This isn't WWII, where we can build comparatively simple warships, and train their crews, in a short period of time. Building a modern warship, especially a carrier, and training its airwing and crew is a much longer process. If a major war breaks out, whatever we have in existence on day one of the conflict is pretty much as good as it's going to get.
Uh, it isn't world war 2 but the facilities to produce more carriers faster most certainly do exist, some money would have to go into rebuilding them.
I do agree that a modern war (not a skirmish, a war, and that doesn't turn to nukes because we're in magical hypothetical land with unicorns here) will be decided in an absurdly fast amount of time though, but it's not like global wars just happen*, there is generally some warning (cutting of economic ties, etc)
The thing is, having a force centered around needing to make war on Europe, China, and Russia at the same time is a little silly. A minor conflict ... maybe, a full scale war? That's a laughable reason for the forces we have because before any major power let us land boots on the ground, they would nuke our naval forces, which would require response after response until everyone is radioactive ash.
Here's a cost savings plan: Stop letting the Air Force deploy to hotels, make them live like the rest of us scrubs. And eliminate the comp pay that even an E-1 AF goon gets for having to slum in a facility run by a non-AF service branch.
Eliminate the airforce and give its useful function to the army and navy. Defence budget slashed by over a half, guaranteed. But then I have a seething hatred of airforces and their stupid wasteful stupidity.
well
the airplane part of the airforce is arguably moded, since long-range strategic bombers are no longer the center of our defense paradigm
but the air force also handles our entire strategic missile fleet, our military space operations, and our radar operations.
well, at least those parts that the MDA doesn't.
Some of which originally belonged to other services.
Facilities or not it still takes years to build a carrier.
I'm not sure why our carrier fleet is the focus of all the military-is-too-big ire tbh.
And we don't really have more than a handful of facilities to build warships in general and carriers specifically.
This isn't 1941 where carriers weren't all that different from any other ship. Today's carriers are maybe the most advanced and complex technological artifact humanity has ever built. It's like putting a small town to sea. A small town powered by a nuclear reactor and that can launch 70 warplanes into air in minutes.
Modern Man on
Aetian Jupiter - 41 Gunslinger - The Old Republic
Rigorous Scholarship
But presumably the other carriers in the world all have this same limitation? And even if we have only, say, 5 available at a given time (accounting for both refit time, as well as training time, even though the latter could be truncated if operational needs absolutely required it) that still lets us operate in what...2, 3 theaters at once?
It's kind of irrelevant how many other carriers there are in the world. Our carriers don't really exist to fight other nations' carriers. Only a small number are in the hands of potentially unfriendly nations, anyway, and those aren't anywhere near in the same league as our big carriers. The Chinese are at least a couple of decades away from having any credible carrier capacity.
Keeping in mind that we only need carriers in theaters where our land forces haven't captured airfields, of course.
Carriers exist more or less as a large logistical hubs for an expeditionary force. It's not just about providing air cover, it's about being able to support any troops on the ground, run anti-pirate operations, co-ordinate the efforts of allied naval and land forces etc. Our entire expeditionary force capacity is reliant on the existence of carriers. The Iraq/Afghanistan situation where we actually build long-term bases is not likely to happen again any time soon.
How much war do we need to be able to fight at any given time? I emphasize that last, because obviously in the event that we actually found ourselves fighting the rest of the world combined, its not like we couldn't...well, you know, build more.
This isn't WWII, where we can build comparatively simple warships, and train their crews, in a short period of time. Building a modern warship, especially a carrier, and training its airwing and crew is a much longer process. If a major war breaks out, whatever we have in existence on day one of the conflict is pretty much as good as it's going to get.
Uh, it isn't world war 2 but the facilities to produce more carriers faster most certainly do exist, some money would have to go into rebuilding them.
I do agree that a modern war (not a skirmish, a war, and that doesn't turn to nukes because we're in magical hypothetical land with unicorns here) will be decided in an absurdly fast amount of time though, but it's not like global wars just happen*, there is generally some warning (cutting of economic ties, etc)
The thing is, having a force centered around needing to make war on Europe, China, and Russia at the same time is a little silly. A minor conflict ... maybe, a full scale war? That's a laughable reason for the forces we have because before any major power let us land boots on the ground, they would nuke our naval forces, which would require response after response until everyone is radioactive ash.
*except that one time
The problem is that we never want to be in a position where we are unable to respond to a full scale war, ala North Korea just going "fuck it".
Also the ability to just churn these out doesn't exist anymore:
Any car assembly line has the basic equipment and employee knowledge(in the 1940's now not as much) to weld 3" steel plate, 24" thick ceramics are a totality different ballgame.
Also people not into shooting probably don't know this, but ammunition manufacturers are basically running at full capacity to keep pace with the military's need for 5.56 ammo.
Yeah, you also have to remember that in world war 2 the government basically de-facto took over private industry and turned it to making war machines. It's not like it couldn't be done if the US had to fight an extended world wide war (that for some reason didn't just end all life on earth in hours), but they would still need a military to fight while the production was going on. Also even in world war 2 most of the mass produced items weren't real weapons of war but logistical supplies (like trucks and transport ships).
Void Slayer on
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
The problem is that we never want to be in a position where we are unable to respond to a full scale war, ala North Korea just going "fuck it".
Like, now?
We can come up with all kinds of neat things that the military needs to do their jobs, but eventually we're just not gonna have enough money to pay for it. Something's gotta give, and it needs to give within the military whether they like it or not.
But presumably the other carriers in the world all have this same limitation? And even if we have only, say, 5 available at a given time (accounting for both refit time, as well as training time, even though the latter could be truncated if operational needs absolutely required it) that still lets us operate in what...2, 3 theaters at once?
It's kind of irrelevant how many other carriers there are in the world. Our carriers don't really exist to fight other nations' carriers. Only a small number are in the hands of potentially unfriendly nations, anyway, and those aren't anywhere near in the same league as our big carriers. The Chinese are at least a couple of decades away from having any credible carrier capacity.
Keeping in mind that we only need carriers in theaters where our land forces haven't captured airfields, of course.
Carriers exist more or less as a large logistical hubs for an expeditionary force. It's not just about providing air cover, it's about being able to support any troops on the ground, run anti-pirate operations, co-ordinate the efforts of allied naval and land forces etc. Our entire expeditionary force capacity is reliant on the existence of carriers. The Iraq/Afghanistan situation where we actually build long-term bases is not likely to happen again any time soon.
How much war do we need to be able to fight at any given time? I emphasize that last, because obviously in the event that we actually found ourselves fighting the rest of the world combined, its not like we couldn't...well, you know, build more.
This isn't WWII, where we can build comparatively simple warships, and train their crews, in a short period of time. Building a modern warship, especially a carrier, and training its airwing and crew is a much longer process. If a major war breaks out, whatever we have in existence on day one of the conflict is pretty much as good as it's going to get.
Uh, it isn't world war 2 but the facilities to produce more carriers faster most certainly do exist, some money would have to go into rebuilding them.
I do agree that a modern war (not a skirmish, a war, and that doesn't turn to nukes because we're in magical hypothetical land with unicorns here) will be decided in an absurdly fast amount of time though, but it's not like global wars just happen*, there is generally some warning (cutting of economic ties, etc)
The thing is, having a force centered around needing to make war on Europe, China, and Russia at the same time is a little silly. A minor conflict ... maybe, a full scale war? That's a laughable reason for the forces we have because before any major power let us land boots on the ground, they would nuke our naval forces, which would require response after response until everyone is radioactive ash.
*except that one time
The problem is that we never want to be in a position where we are unable to respond to a full scale war, ala North Korea just going "fuck it".
Also the ability to just churn these out doesn't exist anymore:
Any car assembly line has the basic equipment and employee knowledge(in the 1940's now not as much) to weld 3" steel plate, 24" thick ceramics are a totality different ballgame.
Also people not into shooting probably don't know this, but ammunition manufacturers are basically running at full capacity to keep pace with the military's need for 5.56 ammo.
North korea going "fuck it" would be a full scale war? North Korea isn't a military threat to the United States. They have the ability to cause a massive humanitarian crisis by shelling south korea, but they have virtually no ability to strike back against modern (SK/USA/UK/Chinese) air power
The thing is, and Modern Man already brought this up, is that the US doesn't have that many carriers so it can launch a war on Europe, Asia, the Middle East AND Russia.
It's so it can launch a war on Europe, Asian, the Middle East OR Russia. Carriers aren't the quickest things in the world and one of them can't be everywhere at once.
It's not about launching them all at the same time, it's about being able to respond fast. And that means you need a bunch spread out around the world.
The thing is, and Modern Man already brought this up, is that the US doesn't have that many carriers so it can launch a war on Europe, Asia, the Middle East AND Russia.
It's so it can launch a war on Europe, Asian, the Middle East OR Russia. Carriers aren't the quickest things in the world and one of them can't be everywhere at once.
It's not about launching them all at the same time, it's about being able to respond fast. And that means you need a bunch spread out around the world.
Yes, we need to be ready in case tomorrow England declares war on us and steals our city states from us.
Please.
I actually am not in favor of scrapping them, because carriers are the swiss army knives of our military and we actually use them a great deal (even in peace time), and they aren't that expensive given what they do (a fully armed and staffed carrier costs about the same as a B-2 bomber), the facilities to build more and the technology to build more has already had the costs spent there, so no reason to not replace them as they age.
But if the US lost all but 4 carrier groups tomorrow to the president clicking the "Delete unit" button? Would Russia suddenly go "AH HA! Their advantage is gone! QUICK EVERYONE DECLARE WAR!"? I don't think they would, having a single operational carrier battlegroup at all times on each side of the US still gives the country significantly more force projection than the entire rest of the world (given that we have a dozen or so groups centered around smaller carriers that are the global naval standard for what the word "carrier" means in addition to the Nimitzes)
North korea going "fuck it" would be a full scale war? North Korea isn't a military threat to the United States. They have the ability to cause a massive humanitarian crisis by shelling south korea, but they have virtually no ability to strike back against modern (SK/USA/UK/Chinese) air power
um, 1+ million strong army. Would it be a massively one sided fight, yep. But thats a lot of people to kill/capture/push back, and you can't do that with just planes.
North korea going "fuck it" would be a full scale war? North Korea isn't a military threat to the United States. They have the ability to cause a massive humanitarian crisis by shelling south korea, but they have virtually no ability to strike back against modern (SK/USA/UK/Chinese) air power
um, 1+ million strong army. Would it be a massively one sided fight, yep. But thats a lot of people to kill/capture/push back, and you can't do that with just planes.
Modern carriers do much more than just carry planes around. They are pretty much mobile operation bases depending on the theater.
The thing is, and Modern Man already brought this up, is that the US doesn't have that many carriers so it can launch a war on Europe, Asia, the Middle East AND Russia.
It's so it can launch a war on Europe, Asian, the Middle East OR Russia. Carriers aren't the quickest things in the world and one of them can't be everywhere at once.
It's not about launching them all at the same time, it's about being able to respond fast. And that means you need a bunch spread out around the world.
Yes, we need to be ready in case tomorrow England declares war on us and steals our city states from us.
Please.
Yes, because that's the ONLY thing they could possibly be used for. Goose.
There's areas all over the world where trouble/emergencies could erupt that the US wants to respond to quickly. And those areas aren't all next to each other.
The thing is, and Modern Man already brought this up, is that the US doesn't have that many carriers so it can launch a war on Europe, Asia, the Middle East AND Russia.
It's so it can launch a war on Europe, Asian, the Middle East OR Russia. Carriers aren't the quickest things in the world and one of them can't be everywhere at once.
It's not about launching them all at the same time, it's about being able to respond fast. And that means you need a bunch spread out around the world.
Yes, we need to be ready in case tomorrow England declares war on us and steals our city states from us.
Please.
Yes, because that's the ONLY thing they could possibly be used for. Goose.
There's areas all over the world where trouble/emergencies could erupt that the US wants to respond to quickly. And those areas aren't all next to each other.
You know you could have quoted my whole post but that would have made your reply not make sense in the slightest
I actually am not in favor of scrapping them, because carriers are the swiss army knives of our military and we actually use them a great deal (even in peace time), and they aren't that expensive given what they do (a fully armed and staffed carrier costs about the same as a B-2 bomber), the facilities to build more and the technology to build more has already had the costs spent there, so no reason to not replace them as they age.
North korea going "fuck it" would be a full scale war? North Korea isn't a military threat to the United States. They have the ability to cause a massive humanitarian crisis by shelling south korea, but they have virtually no ability to strike back against modern (SK/USA/UK/Chinese) air power
um, 1+ million strong army. Would it be a massively one sided fight, yep. But thats a lot of people to kill/capture/push back, and you can't do that with just planes.
Yes, and South Korea would win that fight.
Real life isn't a zerg rush, you can't have a million troops walk on foot across the border (which has a few mines across it and south korea's own artillery, army, and air force prepared for it)
It would leave a humongous number of civilians dead on both side and be absurdly bloody and economically devastating, but it's not a military threat to the united states.
The thing is, and Modern Man already brought this up, is that the US doesn't have that many carriers so it can launch a war on Europe, Asia, the Middle East AND Russia.
It's so it can launch a war on Europe, Asian, the Middle East OR Russia. Carriers aren't the quickest things in the world and one of them can't be everywhere at once.
It's not about launching them all at the same time, it's about being able to respond fast. And that means you need a bunch spread out around the world.
Yes, we need to be ready in case tomorrow England declares war on us and steals our city states from us.
Please.
Yes, because that's the ONLY thing they could possibly be used for. Goose.
There's areas all over the world where trouble/emergencies could erupt that the US wants to respond to quickly. And those areas aren't all next to each other.
You know you could have quoted my whole post but that would have made your reply not make sense in the slightest
I actually am not in favor of scrapping them, because carriers are the swiss army knives of our military and we actually use them a great deal (even in peace time), and they aren't that expensive given what they do (a fully armed and staffed carrier costs about the same as a B-2 bomber), the facilities to build more and the technology to build more has already had the costs spent there, so no reason to not replace them as they age.
Why bother? The goosiness was contained in your first sentence. If you didn't intend to say something that dumb, you shouldn't have posted it. I was just pointing out the incredibly goosanity of what you said.
And my reply still makes sense because the rest of your post doesn't un-goose what you first said or put it into any sort of context where it isn't silly beyond belief.
They aren't there to go to war with England, because that's just the goosiest possible idea any goose could have.
They aren't there because if they weren't, suddenly everyone not near a carrier would turn evil or something, because that's another goosetastic idea (that you also posted)
They are there to enable rapid response no matter where whatever the US is rapidly responding to is occurring.
Oh and merging the Air Force with the Navy and Army would be massive, cost billions and still manage to be just as inefficient.
It would stop the airforces direction being dictated by fighter jocks and replace them with people who think the A-10 is awesome. The A-10, a plane the airfoce loved so little that they tried to give them to the army until people pointed out that they had wings so fell under their purview.
The A-10 is awesomeness personified, the people currently and historically in charge of the airforce wanted nothing to do with it as it wasn't a high altitude air superiority fighter.
The thing is, and Modern Man already brought this up, is that the US doesn't have that many carriers so it can launch a war on Europe, Asia, the Middle East AND Russia.
It's so it can launch a war on Europe, Asian, the Middle East OR Russia. Carriers aren't the quickest things in the world and one of them can't be everywhere at once.
It's not about launching them all at the same time, it's about being able to respond fast. And that means you need a bunch spread out around the world.
Yes, we need to be ready in case tomorrow England declares war on us and steals our city states from us.
Please.
I actually am not in favor of scrapping them, because carriers are the swiss army knives of our military and we actually use them a great deal (even in peace time), and they aren't that expensive given what they do (a fully armed and staffed carrier costs about the same as a B-2 bomber), the facilities to build more and the technology to build more has already had the costs spent there, so no reason to not replace them as they age.
But if the US lost all but 4 carrier groups tomorrow to the president clicking the "Delete unit" button? Would Russia suddenly go "AH HA! Their advantage is gone! QUICK EVERYONE DECLARE WAR!"? I don't think they would, having a single operational carrier battlegroup at all times on each side of the US still gives the country significantly more force projection than the entire rest of the world (given that we have a dozen or so groups centered around smaller carriers that are the global naval standard for what the word "carrier" means in addition to the Nimitzes)
I'd point to the Falkland war as a clear Indication that our "carriers" >> generally accepted carries. 2 of them and we'd have had numerical equality with Argentina rather than British going in there down something like 6:1.
Oh and merging the Air Force with the Navy and Army would be massive, cost billions and still manage to be just as inefficient.
It would stop the airforces direction being dictated by fighter jocks and replace them with people who think the A-10 is awesome. The A-10, a plane the airfoce loved so little that they tried to give them to the army until people pointed out that they had wings so fell under their purview.
The A-10 is awesomeness personified, the people currently and historically in charge of the airforce wanted nothing to do with it as it wasn't a high altitude air superiority fighter.
Ergo, they suck.
I'm sensing some bias.
"This change would cost billions"
"but d00d the a10 rocks and they'd use if if we did this"
Posts
What?
WHAT.
We can't get our military expenditures down to a level I'd find acceptable without long-term reductions in our ability to make war. Because our current ability to make war is ridiculous. And it's not just so much our ability to make war, it's our ability to make war at the drop of a hat. If WWIII breaks out, it's not like we can't ramp up production of systems ranging from tanks to carriers. Since our current starting point will be "as much as the rest of the world combined*," I have faith we'd win that battle.
* - Sorry, correction. I'm arguing for "marginally less than the rest of the world combined." Point still holds.
in the butt?
Keep in mind that about 1/3 of your carriers are always going to be unavailable as they're being refiitted and maintained.
Rigorous Scholarship
Oh and merging the Air Force with the Navy and Army would be massive, cost billions and still manage to be just as inefficient.
How are 1/3 of our carriers unavailable, that means we have more carriers not available than most countries have all together.
Note, Helicopter carriers with ski jump ramps are the kind of carriers most of the world has. The Russians and the British use such carriers. The Nimitz and the upcoming Ford class are leagues ahead of those ships, I think its like 5 Heli carriers to 1 Nimitz.
2-3 of them and you have a strike force that could go toe to toe with what either China, Russia and India could throw at you.
The Air Force guys on our FOB were staying in 2-man CHUs, when nobody below O-3 on the Army side was in less than 4-man. They had their own AFN satellite and internet satellite hookups just for their handful of CHUs. Additionally, they supposedly still got comp pay for "substandard" conditions.
On the Air Force base, it was a toss-up. Air Force stayed in like 12-man buildings, but had more space per man than our 4-man CHUs. They also had big-screen TVs provided for each building with AFN service...only place Army guys were watching TV was at the dining facility (or DVDs in their rooms, obviously, on the televisions they had to buy with their own money).
Go pick any base, stateside or deployed, and compare Air Force accommodations to Army (or Navy). They spend more money keeping their troops comfortable, down to the lowest man.
You have refit/maintenance cycles. Basically for every X years a carrier can spend at sea, it has to spend Y in port. For us, that means we really only have like 7 or 8 available at any given time.
Keep in mind that the rest of the world combined still only has like 10 or 11; so presumably they also only have 7 or 8 available.
This is worth repeating. 11 carriers total doesn't mean 11 carriers available anywhere, anytime.
When a carrier comes back from a 6 month deployment it enters a massive dry dock phase to fix up and do various work on. After that it goes back to it's home port where more silly work is done. After that you have war games, ramp up, ect, and then you deploy again.
So for each 6 month deployment you get out of a carrier you spend a ton of time just working on the thing, training and ramping up.
It's really a huge ordeal to prep a carrier for a full 6 month deployment, and that's to say nothing of the crew and air wing.
Rigorous Scholarship
Right. I know this. I'm intimately aware of this, because I'm looking at one right now. It's right down the street.
But presumably the other carriers in the world all have this same limitation? And even if we have only, say, 5 available at a given time (accounting for both refit time, as well as training time, even though the latter could be truncated if operational needs absolutely required it) that still lets us operate in what...2, 3 theaters at once?
Keeping in mind that we only need carriers in theaters where our land forces haven't captured airfields, of course.
How much war do we need to be able to fight at any given time? I emphasize that last, because obviously in the event that we actually found ourselves fighting the rest of the world combined, its not like we couldn't...well, you know, build more.
I know none of it is that bad, but really the air force doesn't have it as good as people like to say. Oh and we all get the same BAH, when can the army usually move off base?
The F-22, Reagan's bullshit starwars program, endless 3rd party contracts, there are so many money sinks that are a bigger issue than our carrier fleet, simply because our carrier fleet is actually useful, proven, and effective.
Army can move off base if they are married, or if they are...E-6 and up? That was the policy in my unit, at least.
That sucks, Air Force can usually move out if they are E-4 or 3 years. We were so short on dorms they were kicking people out of their rooms.
Carriers exist more or less as a large logistical hubs for an expeditionary force. It's not just about providing air cover, it's about being able to support any troops on the ground, run anti-pirate operations, co-ordinate the efforts of allied naval and land forces etc. Our entire expeditionary force capacity is reliant on the existence of carriers. The Iraq/Afghanistan situation where we actually build long-term bases is not likely to happen again any time soon.
This isn't WWII, where we can build comparatively simple warships, and train their crews, in a short period of time. Building a modern warship, especially a carrier, and training its airwing and crew is a much longer process. If a major war breaks out, whatever we have in existence on day one of the conflict is pretty much as good as it's going to get.
Rigorous Scholarship
well
the airplane part of the airforce is arguably moded, since long-range strategic bombers are no longer the center of our defense paradigm
but the air force also handles our entire strategic missile fleet, our military space operations, and our radar operations.
well, at least those parts that the MDA doesn't.
The strategic bombers are actually still useful, during the kick em out phase of Afghanistan they basically just loiter, stuffed with JDAMS, get coordinates from ground troops, fly to the area and drop a 2000lb bomb, from 30k feet up. I think they are extending the life of the B-52s till 2040 now.
Uh, it isn't world war 2 but the facilities to produce more carriers faster most certainly do exist, some money would have to go into rebuilding them.
I do agree that a modern war (not a skirmish, a war, and that doesn't turn to nukes because we're in magical hypothetical land with unicorns here) will be decided in an absurdly fast amount of time though, but it's not like global wars just happen*, there is generally some warning (cutting of economic ties, etc)
The thing is, having a force centered around needing to make war on Europe, China, and Russia at the same time is a little silly. A minor conflict ... maybe, a full scale war? That's a laughable reason for the forces we have because before any major power let us land boots on the ground, they would nuke our naval forces, which would require response after response until everyone is radioactive ash.
*except that one time
Some of which originally belonged to other services.
I'm not sure why our carrier fleet is the focus of all the military-is-too-big ire tbh.
This isn't 1941 where carriers weren't all that different from any other ship. Today's carriers are maybe the most advanced and complex technological artifact humanity has ever built. It's like putting a small town to sea. A small town powered by a nuclear reactor and that can launch 70 warplanes into air in minutes.
Rigorous Scholarship
The problem is that we never want to be in a position where we are unable to respond to a full scale war, ala North Korea just going "fuck it".
Also the ability to just churn these out doesn't exist anymore:
M4 Sherman tank armor: 63mm steel plate
M1 armor: 2' thick depleted uranium/ceramic plate/steel/kevlar composite.
Any car assembly line has the basic equipment and employee knowledge(in the 1940's now not as much) to weld 3" steel plate, 24" thick ceramics are a totality different ballgame.
Also people not into shooting probably don't know this, but ammunition manufacturers are basically running at full capacity to keep pace with the military's need for 5.56 ammo.
We can come up with all kinds of neat things that the military needs to do their jobs, but eventually we're just not gonna have enough money to pay for it. Something's gotta give, and it needs to give within the military whether they like it or not.
North korea going "fuck it" would be a full scale war? North Korea isn't a military threat to the United States. They have the ability to cause a massive humanitarian crisis by shelling south korea, but they have virtually no ability to strike back against modern (SK/USA/UK/Chinese) air power
It's so it can launch a war on Europe, Asian, the Middle East OR Russia. Carriers aren't the quickest things in the world and one of them can't be everywhere at once.
It's not about launching them all at the same time, it's about being able to respond fast. And that means you need a bunch spread out around the world.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6902810n&tag=contentMain;cbsCarousel
Pretty much.
Yes, we need to be ready in case tomorrow England declares war on us and steals our city states from us.
Please.
I actually am not in favor of scrapping them, because carriers are the swiss army knives of our military and we actually use them a great deal (even in peace time), and they aren't that expensive given what they do (a fully armed and staffed carrier costs about the same as a B-2 bomber), the facilities to build more and the technology to build more has already had the costs spent there, so no reason to not replace them as they age.
But if the US lost all but 4 carrier groups tomorrow to the president clicking the "Delete unit" button? Would Russia suddenly go "AH HA! Their advantage is gone! QUICK EVERYONE DECLARE WAR!"? I don't think they would, having a single operational carrier battlegroup at all times on each side of the US still gives the country significantly more force projection than the entire rest of the world (given that we have a dozen or so groups centered around smaller carriers that are the global naval standard for what the word "carrier" means in addition to the Nimitzes)
um, 1+ million strong army. Would it be a massively one sided fight, yep. But thats a lot of people to kill/capture/push back, and you can't do that with just planes.
Modern carriers do much more than just carry planes around. They are pretty much mobile operation bases depending on the theater.
Yes, because that's the ONLY thing they could possibly be used for. Goose.
There's areas all over the world where trouble/emergencies could erupt that the US wants to respond to quickly. And those areas aren't all next to each other.
You know you could have quoted my whole post but that would have made your reply not make sense in the slightest
Yes, and South Korea would win that fight.
Real life isn't a zerg rush, you can't have a million troops walk on foot across the border (which has a few mines across it and south korea's own artillery, army, and air force prepared for it)
It would leave a humongous number of civilians dead on both side and be absurdly bloody and economically devastating, but it's not a military threat to the united states.
Why bother? The goosiness was contained in your first sentence. If you didn't intend to say something that dumb, you shouldn't have posted it. I was just pointing out the incredibly goosanity of what you said.
And my reply still makes sense because the rest of your post doesn't un-goose what you first said or put it into any sort of context where it isn't silly beyond belief.
They aren't there to go to war with England, because that's just the goosiest possible idea any goose could have.
They aren't there because if they weren't, suddenly everyone not near a carrier would turn evil or something, because that's another goosetastic idea (that you also posted)
They are there to enable rapid response no matter where whatever the US is rapidly responding to is occurring.
It would stop the airforces direction being dictated by fighter jocks and replace them with people who think the A-10 is awesome. The A-10, a plane the airfoce loved so little that they tried to give them to the army until people pointed out that they had wings so fell under their purview.
The A-10 is awesomeness personified, the people currently and historically in charge of the airforce wanted nothing to do with it as it wasn't a high altitude air superiority fighter.
Ergo, they suck.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
I'd point to the Falkland war as a clear Indication that our "carriers" >> generally accepted carries. 2 of them and we'd have had numerical equality with Argentina rather than British going in there down something like 6:1.
I'm sensing some bias.
"This change would cost billions"
"but d00d the a10 rocks and they'd use if if we did this"