The U.S. Navy’s Big Mistake; Building Tons of Supercarriers

War is Boring ^ | May 27, 2015 | David W. Wise

[Rockingham]

The better approach is to seize them and their cargoes as bargaining chips or compensation.

[minnesota_bound]

I read a book on Rickover. He would have a sub commander sit in a chair before him that he had rigged that had 1 leg shorter then the others then pepper him with questions on submarines.

Wiki:
Rickover tells one applicant he has 10 seconds to make him mad or flunk the session. The midshipman hears Rickover tick down the seconds, then suddenly sweep’s half the contents of Rickover’s desk onto the floor.

“I’m mad,” Rickover concedes before hiring the young officer.

[RFEngineer]

“There is no President who would kill a million civilians over a successful attack on a military target.”

Do you mean American civilians, or non-American civilians.

I’m quite sure our current President would not authorize the killing of a million non-Americans, no matter what happened.

I’m not so sure he would sweat the death of a million Americans as much though - over much less.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"Anyone who vaporizes five American carriers (assuming they would be together, which is never the case) will suffer massive retaliation, including nuclear weapons."

This article makes it sound so easy to destroy one of our Supercarriers and as anyone with any knowledge knows, it's not that easy. If I were an enemy of the United States and wanted to destroy a SuperCarrier, I wouldn't even try it at sea. I would attempt to destroy it in port ala the U.S.S Cole. That plan is also fraught with perils, however I think there would be greater success of that plan than trying to destroy it underway.

[Shamrock498]

i sure hope so

[mrsmith]

Of course.

But cutting guns “x” will not equal increasing butter “x”. The butter is being bought with borrowed money now. The cost of that borrowing is determined not only by our economy but, because it is so huge, by our military strength.
As we decline (by cutting our military for one example) the interest for that borrowed money will rise, leaving less money for the welfare.
A billion dollars cut from military spending in a year may allow only a 750 million dollar rise in welfare spending that year after the increased carying costs on the debt.
And those increased carrying costs, and the debt, will accelerate.

The obvious historical option is to use our huge military now to confiscate wealth from other countries to support our welfare state. But I don’t believe all the rest of the world even ‘could’ (never mind ‘would’) provide us the funds to support this profligate state.

[Hiddigeigei]

How much does that cost them?
Probably a very harsh scolding by Obama in the United Nations.

[ExTxMarine]

We need to utterly VAPORIZE our enemies wherever(and whenever)they crawl out from under the rocks they invariably retreat to!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!

The last three "wars" in which we have engaged heavily (Korean, Vietnam, Post 9/11 (Iraq & Afghanistan)), we did not go into with the goal of WINNING, at all costs! We tried to dance our way into the hearts and minds of our enemies.

So many Liberal idiots who think if we give them beans and bullets, that they will help us fight their "enemy." They think if we grab their hearts, the minds will follow - WRONG! The problem is, they think we are just as much an enemy as their own extremists!

In all three wars, we ended up fighting against our own damn weapons and food! So, while we are feeding them, they are shipping half their rats to their husband/son/father hiding in the field out back! We provide their "moderate" thinkers with weapons which they either use to kill us or give to their extremists! Either way, we die!

In WWI & WWII, we grabbed them by the NUTS; the hearts and minds followed! THAT is how you win a war with the least amount of dead Americans! And truly, if we are going to war, this is how we should ALWAYS think: How do we win this war with the least amount of dead Americans! Collateral damage is NOT my problem, because if you didn't start crap, there wouldn't have been any crap!

[ExTxMarine]

The Marines don’t need to go anywhere to protect Americans - HERE! If we are getting rid of all those other services, I assumed that we weren’t going anywhere to fight; we were hanging out to protect the homeland!

It’s all good and fun though!

[Bidimus1]

For those with a tactical bent

http://www.matrixgames.com/products/392/details/Larry.Bond%27s.Harpoon.-.Ultimate.Edition

I still used an older ver. and have the table top..

The soviets built the “low cost” missile platform navy, and if you are DUMB it can beat a US CVBG. The key to a CVBG is its massive defensive fire power that protects the CV.

In a non nuclear war, the only navy left in blue water after 6 months to a year will be the US Navy and the ships of allies that are near it.

[fredhead]

It’s like Rodney Dangerfield replied when asked (in “Back to School”) why we didn’t win in Korea.

Because Truman was too much of a p*ssy wimp to let MacArthur go in there and blow out those commie bastards!”

[X Fretensis]

Until they realize that 50 percent of the fuel capacity of the ship is reserved to boiling water.

[Oztrich Boy]

Personnel and maintenance costs would be much less, need for logistics is greatly reduced, and the ships and drones can be engineered to perform at specifications that would not be possible if they were manned. It’s coming.

And it's not like someone like the Iranians could confuse your drones - or is it

[ExTxMarine]

And ol’ Rodney was 1000% correct!!!

On a side note, I’m not sure who I liked more in that scene, Rodney or Sam.

[reed13k]

Of course there are kinks to work out, but if they’re preprogrammed before launch like a tomohawk/harpoon with waypoints then no.

[JDoutrider]

mrkr