Posted on 09/15/2011 6:21:16 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Two years? Do you mean that they could begin construction in two years or launch it in two years from laying it’s keel? If you mean launch it, I really have to wonder about that statement as it takes us on average around four years to build one and we’ve been building them since the Forrestal was launched back in the early 50’s. The Koreans have never built a carrier, much less a supercarrier so I don’t know about that two year time frame.
If cancelling it would hurt the military, then look for Obama to cancel it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKF6dXiL-9c&feature=related
Click on pic for past Navair pings. Post or FReepmail me if you wish to be enlisted in or discharged from the Navair Pinglist. The only requirement for inclusion in the Navair Pinglist is an interest in Naval Aviation. This is a medium to low volume pinglist.
Enterprise is due to be retired soon. Why not give it to Japan...I’d be a superb platform, could pack a real punch, and Japan has ships that are compatible with a carriere task force. We could probably train Japanese crews in 6 months. I know that Enterprise is near the end of her useful life, but in the Japanese Navy, she wouldn’t have long extended deployments, and would be close to Japan for any repairs as needed..
Makes sense to me, but I doubt the Japanese government could sell a nuke carrier to their public, especially after the Fukushima #1 situation.
We’ve homeported a CVN in Japan for years, IIRC..
As this article mentions the JMSDF has a strength of about 45K personnel. You would need approximately 5,000 men on a carrier like the Nimitz. Barring the US and probably China, no nation can afford such deployment of men without comprising other requirements. A ship the size of Britain’s proposed CVF class or France Charles De Gaulle would be better.
I know we’ve had a conventioannly powered carrier there, at least until 2008. Do we have a nuke in Yokusuka now?
So the crew requirements are 3000..and to deploy on board however many copters they choose, according to the threat..well thats thus transferrng existing assets...
It wouldn't be easy, but if any naval power could do it, the Japanese could..they could have the platform up and running in a few months..jointly crewed as the US sailor train Japanese on the job...and it would get the Chicoms attention..
3,000 is still about 10 times as much as personnel as they deploy off their current Hyuga class baby-carriers. A navy needs to transition carefully before deploying so many men; which is why the Chinese appear to have taken so long to get the Varyag running.
This is a key point which most Americans overlook.
We think everything is all about us, the US, versus in this case, China.
Well, it's not.
China has many other neighbors, all of whom will be vitally interested in China's growing military strength.
If they all work together, China could easily find that every military move it makes is soon matched not only by US counter-responses, but also responses from countries like Japan, Korea, India, Australia, Taiwan and others.
So, in what sense are China's long-term interests served by driving an arms race amongst countries throughout Asia?
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.