|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Site Sponsor
DoD Study Calls for Two Aircraft Carriers to be Cut from Fleet
“The assessment is part of an ongoing DoD-wide review of Navy force structure and seem to echo what Defense Secretary Mark Esper has been saying for months: the Defense Department wants to begin de-emphasizing aircraft carriers as the centerpiece of the Navy's force projection and put more emphasis on unmanned technologies that can be more easily sacrificed in a conflict and can achieve their missions more affordably.”
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...raft-carriers/
”New levels of dissimulation being reached for - and gained – in the faux journalism/gov spokesmen/shadowy ‘intelligence’ nexus which blends together the worst elements of controlled medias, puppet governments, & mafia-led ‘security’ forces, as our ‘post-reality’ era jets further and further away from any remotely real ‘events,’ authentic ‘leaders,’ & factual reporting.”
~ Yuno
"The future is bright, mostly because flames are on the horizon."
~ Author unknown
Site Sponsor
All well and good until the Chicoms figure out how to hack a drone and mark our mail "Return To Sender"...
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>YOU IDIOTS! I WROTE 1984 AS A WARNING, NOT A HOW-TO MANUAL!--Orwell's ghost
Psalms 109:8, 43:1
LIFE MEMBER - NRA & SAF; FPC MEMBER Not employed or sponsored by any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.
Site Sponsor
Are our UAVs currently sophisticated enough to engage enemy fighters and win? Are they carrying enough firepower to destroy large navy vessels?
If yes, then I agree that carriers full of expensive tech and pilots need not be needlessly risked in an "old school" show of force that is nothing more than a vulnerable liability.
If no, then we probably need to keep a carrier fleet in place that can go to bad places and decisively determine the outcome of conflicts.
I'm just not really current enough on UAV technology and capability. I know carriers redefined the "battleship war" that most people expected WWII to be. But at the same time, modern tech doesn't always tip the balance, Germans has Me262s but it wasn't enough and was too late in the game to redefine the game.
UAVs are a wonderful piece of weaponry. Harder to detect and generally more precise and all without risking a a much more expensive fighter plane and pilot.
It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.
Chuck, we miss ya man.
كافر
Site Sponsor
Originally Posted by Diamondback
I'm sure there are more than a few basic failsafes built in.
It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.
Chuck, we miss ya man.
كافر
Senior Member
Contractors already made their money making them, now they'll make more decommissioning them- a nuclear reactor ship can't be easy to take down. Plus, all that money on the new tech, boo-yah cash flow.
The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.
It's that simple.
Senior Member
The nimitz is 45 years old.
The Eisenhower is 43 years old.
Whats the service life of a super carrier? I read somewhere 50 years.
Senior Member
Why decommission them, convert them to floating power plants, I bet if done right one could power a good sized city.
You could even line the flight deck with solar panels to appease the environuts.
Oh wait, that might make sense, never mind.
Last edited by mack7.62; 04-26-20 at 08:12.
“The Trump Doctrine is ‘We’re America, Bitch.’ That’s the Trump Doctrine.”
"He is free to evade reality, he is free to unfocus his mind and stumble blindly down any road he pleases, but not free to avoid the abyss he refuses to see."
Site Sponsor
I remember when we were going to invade Haiti back in 1994. The DoD had taken the USS Eisenhower and basically put an Army light infantry brigade on it from the 10th Mountain Division. It was big enough to house the men and equipment, including their helicopters and artillery IIRC. Maybe that can be a future use of older carriers?
11C2P '83-'87
Airborne Infantry
F**k China!
Site Sponsor
This! It seems quite reasonable to me.
Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk
"It is better to be a Warrior in a Garden than a Gardner in a War"
Let's use the First Amendment to protect the Second so we can avoid using the Second to protect the First.
Site Sponsor
It is proving quite a challenge to decommission a nuclear carrier, not so much a sub.
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-...eak-the-big-e/
USS Enterprise was active for 51 years. IIRC, the Nimitz class was designed to last longer, but I have to find my old Navy notes on that.
Navy reactor cores are very power dense and therefore much more expensive than commercial nuclear fuels making them not cost effective for general power production. That said, if there is still core life at the end of ship life, they could feed into shore power and use the rest of the nuclear fuel...I am just not sure of the grid logistics there. There would most definitely have to be some electrical-transmission modifications done to support this (and the solar panels)
Last edited by hotrodder636; 04-26-20 at 08:52.
ETC (SW/AW), USN (1998-2008)
CVN-65, USS Enterprise
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks