Posted on 02/15/2011 1:33:47 PM PST by americanophile
The drug traffickers in South America routinely use semi-submersible subs to smuggle drugs into our country. It isn’t unrealistic to believe that a terrorist might have taken note of these capabilities. Best way to find a submarine is with a submarine.
ICBMs. Cheaper. Gets the job done in 30 minutes. Carriers are for “national building”. I want our military to be “nation destroyers” instead. Nuke the first bad guy and there won’t be a second.
“The carriers in the fleet now are designed for 50 years of operation with the oldest, Nimitz, having just over 10 years left. As a result, there is no rush to replace carriers.”
The oldest carrier in the fleet is the USS ENTERPRISE CVN 65 “The Big E”. Commissioned in 1961, and scheduled to be decommissioned in 2014.
“the US Dept of Education came about somewhere in the mid eighties - well after the United States, ALONE, put men on the Moon.”
1979, Carter.
Alos, we didn’t put a man on the moon “alone”. We had the Germans designing the rockets. We had the French designing sensor systems and other space components. We had other nations providing space tracking around the world. We had many nations helping. It no doubt was primarily US lead, but we didn’t do it alone.
Yes, we need AT LEAST 60 ready attack subs (we're down to about 40) and a dominant SSBN fleet.
What we could really use in the Navy is another 150 DDG/FFG class warships in addition to those subs.
I would be STUNNED if the fleet has a single ship built before 1970. Most are 1985 or later.
I agree with most of that. I’m not sure if I would cancel the F35. Until UAV’s show the ability to be fighters (maybe never) the Navy does need a manned air superiority fighter and today that means stealth. I would cancel the Marine version of the F35. They do not need to establish air superiority, IMHO.
“...$10 billion for equipment to counter roadside bombs...”
I bet B-52 strikes are cheaper.
I was surprised by that number too. This of course is what happens when you build nations rather than destroy enemies.
The Dems would have more credibiliy opposing military spending if the weren’t such strong advocates of every kind of pork you can imagine.
I played around with a interactive web tool to balance the national budget and pay off our debt based on adjusting projected spending over the next 30 years. I zeroed defense spending out and it didn’t put a dent in it. The budget debt still took off like a rocket. I then doubled the defense budget and cut SS/Medicare/Medicaid by 8% and easily balanced the budget. The 500 pound gorilla that is destroying us is the entitlement programs.
I was even more draconian and I slashed the big 3 entitlement programs by 35% (while doubling the defense budget) and balanced the budget and paid off our debt in about 10 years.
We argue over the small potatoes while ignoring the 50lb anchor around our necks that is dragging us down for the count.
We need to abrogate all our nuclear treaties, and begin mass production of ICBMs until we double the amount we had at the height of the Cold War.
Yes we need them.
We are not adding anything...this is a replacement carrier to replace a retiring carrier.
There is plenty of areas we can trim at the DOD.
This is not one of them.
Actually we need a combination sub/air craft carrier.
You are correct. In the Cold War days it was Strategic Nuclear Triad: ICBM, B52s, Nuke Subs.
Today, nuclear weapons are deterrent only. People can fantasize we will use them but we won’t.
The new imperative is Technological Advantage...and we need multiple technologies to ensure an enemy doesn’t eventually surpass us in a particular technology...if they do, we have other technologies. (Note that Chinese strategy is to get comparable technology advantage..in other words bring 15-1 jet kill ration down to 5:1), then just use cheap labor to mass produce them.
Good for them
Good, then you got the point I was trying to make. What the liberals want to do is create that exact situation.
(Also, if the Enterprise is still a commissioned ship, I would prepare for immediate stunning!!)
How about subs that are aircraft carriers?
I’d like to see mega-carriers of the Boeing Pelican type. Why have water based ships for troop deployment?
How about subs that are aircraft carriers?
I’d like to see mega-carriers of the Boeing Pelican type. Why have water based ships for troop deployment?
I personally think aircraft carriers are billion dollar easy-targets, but I think the value of an appropriately commanded nuclear-capable submarine is immeasurable. It just takes the will to threaten and follow-through with a full scale nuclear attack against Muslim meccas.
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.