Skip to comments.
2006 defense budget plan eliminates Navy aircraft carrier
Stars and Stripes ^
| February 8, 2005
| Jon R. Anderson
Posted on 02/07/2005 4:23:52 PM PST by Former Military Chick
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-90 next last
I will be curious to read what our Navy Freepers think of this?
To: Former Military Chick
bzzzzz! WRONG ANSWER. Need four more carriers. CHINA!
2
posted on
02/07/2005 4:26:57 PM PST
by
fooman
(Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
To: fooman
Cheap Hawkism will kill us.
3
posted on
02/07/2005 4:28:26 PM PST
by
GOP_1900AD
(Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Take Back The GOP!)
To: Former Military Chick
Hope it was going to be the William J. Clinton carrier.....hahahaha
To: fooman
WRONG ANSWER. Need four more carriers. CHINA! Agree completely - Surprisingly shortsightedness it seems coming out of the WH and Pentagon when it comes to the Navy - We definitely need an additional Two Carriers -
And the idea of using the F-18's to replace four different kinds of aircraft is just silly - (hell, the F-18's haven't lived up to their billing...once as is - They are a completely under performing aircraft).
Makes me wonder about Cheney's influence with regard to these manners - He was completely responsible for the utterly boneheaded decision to go with the F-18's over the an updated F-14's back in the 80's (a decision that has proven out to be utterly disastrous).
To: Former Military Chick
The CNO is a COMPLETE JACKASS! A Re-Tred turd!
6
posted on
02/07/2005 4:39:02 PM PST
by
zzen01
To: Former Military Chick
Works for me. Although as I mentioned on another thread on the same topic, I'd like to see us give the Australians the JFK, and eventually the Kitty Hawk.
We are on the verge of major changes in the Navy. The railgun which will revolutionize surface warfare is going to be on line in 4 or 5 years. The X-47B or an immediate descendant will also be on line in 5 or 6 years. Add to that the JSF in 3 years. Add to the mix unmanned submarines that can be operated from either another sub or a surface vessel, and the entire concept of Naval warfare will be turned on it's head.
Just a another technical tidbit - the current Aegis Cruisers and Destroyers can carry up to 4x the number of ESSMs as before. So 1 destroyer can carry almost 400 anti-aircraft missiles.
7
posted on
02/07/2005 4:39:09 PM PST
by
ProudVet77
(Survivor of the great blizzard of aught five)
To: Former Military Chick
The good news, say service officials, is that with the extra $6.4 billion theyre getting over the $119 billion approved last year, theyll be able to provide new special pay and bonus money, more housing allowances, stipends for living overseas as well as increases to fleet maintenance and training.
This is NOT good news. We are just eating our seed corn.
8
posted on
02/07/2005 4:42:17 PM PST
by
rbg81
To: Former Military Chick
Who drafts the defense budget?
9
posted on
02/07/2005 4:43:48 PM PST
by
JoeSixPack1
(I am now a "SNAPDRAGON" Part of me has lost its snap and the other part is draggin')
To: rbg81
All of this so we can take care of the WA WA Babies and Punk no leadership Officers we have in the Navy now.
10
posted on
02/07/2005 4:44:38 PM PST
by
zzen01
To: DevSix
Cheney was a ABSOLUTE Disaster as Sec Def.
11
posted on
02/07/2005 4:46:25 PM PST
by
zzen01
To: DevSix
He was completely responsible for the utterly boneheaded decision to go with the F-18's over the an updated F-14's back in the 80's (a decision that has proven out to be utterly disastrous). Agreed. Phasing out the F-14 is a horrible decision. It's akin in some respects to a high speed Warthog: relatively inexpensive, reliable, maybe not state of the art, but with advanced weaponry nearly so. In fact, I don't regard the FA-22 to be enough of an advancement to justify the expense. I'd rather save that leap for an awesome supersonic drone.
12
posted on
02/07/2005 4:48:57 PM PST
by
Carry_Okie
(The fourth estate is the fifth column.)
To: fooman
bzzzzz! WRONG ANSWER. Need four more carriers. CHINA! We need 15 or 16 carriers, but we need to retire the old non nukes.
So9
To: Former Military Chick
Clinton tried to cut to 11 carriers, but Congress overrode him and demanded we keep 12.
I imagine they will override Bush too.
Thank Goodness.
So9
To: ProudVet77
While these are great sounding technologies, I would wait until AFTER they are deployed to count productivity gains.
Look how the F22 and the B2 were delayed.
15
posted on
02/07/2005 4:56:11 PM PST
by
fooman
(Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
To: Servant of the 9
16
posted on
02/07/2005 4:56:43 PM PST
by
fooman
(Get real with Kim Jung Mentally Ill about proliferation)
To: Carry_Okie
The F/A-22 Raptor is actually a 6th generation plane - even with drones, we will always need manned fighters and that plane was our best hope for 1 standard plane across all branches. I am fascinated by the suggestion above to "give" carrier(s) to the Aussies though - what do you think about that move?
To: Carry_Okie
The F-14 was an enormous maintenance headache. The F-18 replaces the EA6, F-14 and the fueler. Much cleaner approach. (The F-14 and the A-10 Warthog could not be any further apart)
Part of the F-14 mission has been picked up by the SM-2 missile. Ultimately the JSF will also take on the role. The F-14, like the F-15, is one huge target in the sky. Stealth is the way to go. And for initial attack from a carrier, the X-47B should do nicely. Check out it's specs. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/x47/
18
posted on
02/07/2005 5:05:21 PM PST
by
ProudVet77
(Survivor of the great blizzard of aught five)
To: ProudVet77
While the railgun development ("Sea Power 21") holds tremendous potential to completely revolutionize fire power, I don't feel the same X-47B (still 2 years down the road for demonstration flights). Don't you think we'll always need manned fighters on the scene, even if supplemented by UAV's?
To: fooman
The lead time on a carrier is about 15 years. These technologies (most of them) are ready to be tested in the fleet now, deployed in a 3-5 year timeframe.
One technology I left out is the laser for missile defense. The Air Force is almost ready to put that bird in the sky. The THEL system has already been deployed to Israel. It would make a an effective CIWS for the fleet as well. Lets not forget the SSGNs. They have the ability to replace a carrier anyway. Not to mention the LHAs and LHDs which also carry Harrier jets.
20
posted on
02/07/2005 5:12:30 PM PST
by
ProudVet77
(Survivor of the great blizzard of aught five)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-90 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson