Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: cva66snipe; mr_hammer

F-14D Tomcat vs. F/18 E/F Super Hornet
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/595147/posts

The Carrier Myth.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/577009/posts

see # 4 & 22


38 posted on 09/23/2006 6:47:42 PM PDT by quietolong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies ]


To: quietolong
I can make a case both for the F-14's and a minimum 12 carrier Navy. Both could still prove their battle worthiness and need. It is politicians that are killing defense programs many of which are needed.

It's not a DEM vs GOP issue either. Bush would be happy to take us to a 10 carrier fleet that Clinton's Sec of Def Les Aspin tried to do. We were headed in that direction before 9/11. Bush was gonna finsh what Poppy and Cheney started. We can't afford not to maintain our carrier fleet of 12 carriers and expect to maintain military superiority and a two hemisphere response and battle capabilities. We are on the edge of a catrostrophy if we come under attack by more than one nation at once. One facility hit and this nation will not be able to produce another carrier period.

Gulf War one cost us our second newest conventional carrier due to missed yard time and denial of Ship Life Extension Program. It did three 6 month deployments in three years time. It could still be in service but it had a major boiler room explosion at pier 12 in March 1994 in Norfolk upon return from the third deployment which should not have been made due to serious readiness issues. It was patched back together for a final deployment after it was towed cold iron into Norfolk Naval Ship Yards. It now rest 15,000 feet below the Atlantic ocean. Yet the carrier class name sake the oldest of the class remains in service?

If the Pentagon is running the nuke carrier program the way it has the conventional program we are in deep trouble. The idea that a nuke carrier can go indefinately is pure horse pucks. The ship won't take the abuse any longer than what a conventional carrier would. There's a whole lot more to it than the reactor involved in keeping a carrier operational.

At this point politically I don't see either political party as being pro-defense at this point in time. Both want a bare bones military running what few troops and equipment into the ground via over deployment and over extension with no substantial plans being made to address those concerns. Both are using the military to balance the budget for non defense programs and tax cuts. Kind of a stupid posture for congress, Potus, and all policy makers to make considering we are at war. They forget National Defense is the number one primary function of government. They also forgot it's it's not broke don't fix it. The F-14 program was in good shape till Cheney got a hold of it. He wasted billions that could have went into R&D for future Tomcat Avionics.

40 posted on 09/23/2006 11:53:03 PM PDT by cva66snipe (If it was wrong for Clinton why do some support it for Bush? Party over nation destroys the nation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson