US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman

[Rusty1961]

https://www.businessinsider.com/pence-s ... rly-2019-4

"The Navy announced in its FY 2020 budget proposal that it had decided to mothball the Truman rather than go through with its planned mid-life refueling. The move was intended to free up funds for the purchase of new systems to give the US Navy an edge against rivals China and Russia, technologies such as artificial intelligence, unmanned systems, and directed-energy weapons, among other things."

So much for the theory that CVNs are still viable in this era of hypersonic weaponry.

[Lecivius]

Geez, this guy trolls more than I do [8|] At least I use downriggers.

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Geez, this guy trolls more than I do [8|] At least I use downriggers.

Oh yeah, discussing Naval affairs is trolling. If it's too controversial for you you can always keep scrolling. Snowflakes are insufferable.

[bobdina]

They announced last week this was in fact not happening . Hear it is in print took less then 1 minute of research to find it. https://www.dailypress.com/news/militar ... story.html Matter of fact here it is in the publication you linked saying it isn't happening .Sorry cant link it for some reason but just read the linked one from him. story.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius
At least I use downriggers.

[:D]

[Lokasenna]

Ah yes, equating mothballing due to wanting to spend the money on something else with "wants to scrap."

[rsallen64]

Don't forget the "snowflake" in the reply to your post as well. Trolls gotta troll...[>:]

[FlyByKnight]

Title: "US Navy wants to scrap USS Truman"

Article:

Vice President Mike Pence, speaking aboard the USS Harry S. Truman Tuesday, said that the carrier won't be retired decades early as the Pentagon had planned.

...it had decided to mothball the Truman...

Sensing some cognitive dissonance here...

[Rusty1961]

ORIGINAL: rsallen64

Don't forget the "snowflake" in the reply to your post as well. Trolls gotta troll...[>:]

Geez, this guy trolls more than I do At least I use downriggers.

Geez, this guy trolls more than I do At least I use downriggers.

I guess you missed the post I responded to. You should be a hockey official as you miss the initial hit.

[RangerJoe]

Some people should avoid the sun so they won't turn into stone.

[geofflambert]

Or look back at the old days before WitP-AE and turn into a pillar of salt.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Or look back at the old days before WitP-AE and turn into a pillar of salt.

I think this more likely; they're already quite salty.

[geofflambert]

Some Iowas I believe were mothballed more than once and brought back into service.

[Anachro]

The carriers still have a role to play, but there is no doubt that their ability to project power into certain areas without major risk has been severely impacted in recent years by the development of area-denial capabilities by adversaries, such as China and its hypersonic missile capabilities that the US Military has admitted in some ways surpasses current US technology (in addition to being longer range than what US forces are currently equipped with). Many recent reports I've read have stressed the need to develop new missile technologies and platforms to outrange the enemy (in this case, China), whereas currently US ships themselves can be outranged). These defects are most prominent in any action closer to China's coastal waters.

The most interesting and important aspect of the US Navy's development and transformation today is the creation of the FFG(X) program, which will produce large quantities of small and relatively cheap frigates that will take on the duties currently performed by destroyers, relieving the current mission burden those vessels are saddled with while opening up the possibility to new missions and tactical/strategic possibilities with larger vessels. This new program also can give some insight into how the US Navy views any future potential conflict with China, Iran, etc. and the needs such conflicts will create for smaller, nimble, and more numerous vessels.

[geofflambert]

We're going to need submergible aircraft carriers, those aircraft being drones, and we're going to need a lot of them.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Anachro

The carriers still have a role to play, but there is no doubt that their ability to project power into certain areas without major risk has been severely impacted in recent years by the development of area-denial capabilities by adversaries, such as China and its hypersonic missile capabilities that the US Military has admitted in some ways surpasses current US technology (in addition to being longer range than what US forces are currently equipped with). Many recent reports I've read have stressed the need to develop new missile technologies and platforms to outrange the enemy (in this case, China), whereas currently US ships themselves can be outranged). These defects are most prominent in any action closer to China's coastal waters.

The most interesting and important aspect of the US Navy's development and transformation today is the creation of the FFG(X) program, which will produce large quantities of small and relatively cheap frigates that will take on the duties currently performed by destroyers, relieving the current mission burden those vessels are saddled with while opening up the possibility to new missions and tactical/strategic possibilities with larger vessels. This new program also can give some insight into how the US Navy views any future potential conflict with China, Iran, etc. and the needs such conflicts will create for smaller, nimble, and more numerous vessels.

I get troubled every time I hear the pundits on US News/Opinion channels say that America "has the most powerful armed forces in the world, able to take on two or three major adversaries simultaneously!" I call BS.

The great advantages the US has are a great Information/Command/Control capacity and better/more reliable weapons that other countries. What it lacks is manpower and numbers of those fantastic weapons. It also lacks the stomach for heavy losses or lengthy wars.

China may not have the greatest of stuff, but it has population to spare and a mindset that does not cringe at expending a lot of it. The only country with a chance of holding China in check is India, but it lacks the industrial capacity and political unity to be a real opponent at this time.

Western interests would be better served if we stop thinking we can hold China in check by military means and start using diplomacy and common interest to get their world view into the community of nations model instead of the "dominant power" model. If global warming devastates the world's food and fresh water supplies, there will be no chance of getting nations to share and cooperate.

[RangerJoe]

I get troubled every time I hear the pundits on US News/Opinion channels say that America "has the most powerful armed forces in the world, able to take on two or three major adversaries simultaneously!" I call BS.

I agree. The US used to have enough forces to deal with two regional threats at the same time. Since the forces have been cut since the first President Bush doing so, that is no longer true. At least with conventional forces.

The great advantages the US has are a great Information/Command/Control capacity and better/more reliable weapons that other countries. What it lacks is manpower and numbers of those fantastic weapons. It also lacks the stomach for heavy losses or lengthy wars.

The US has the raw manpower, but it is not trained nor in the military. The people who make the decisions would rather spend the money on other things unless the defense money is being spent in their district. Then they are for the defense spending, whether or not it is needed.

China may not have the greatest of stuff, but it has population to spare and a mindset that does not cringe at expending a lot of it. The only country with a chance of holding China in check is India, but it lacks the industrial capacity and political unity to be a real opponent at this time.

True. I read somewhere with the one child policy and the overwhelming number of boys to girls in some areas that China has 75 million more men than women. Cannon fodder . . .

Western interests would be better served if we stop thinking we can hold China in check by military means and start using diplomacy and common interest to get their world view into the community of nations model instead of the "dominant power" model. If global warming devastates the world's food and fresh water supplies, there will be no chance of getting nations to share and cooperate.

Use Sun Tsu's concept of war which I am sure that the Chinese are using. As far as global warming goes, the start of the modern Industrial Age coincided with the end of the Little Ice Age. 2000 years ago, the Earth was about 7 degrees F or about 4 degrees C warmer than today. Regular wine grapes could and were grown in what is now England. Then, around 500 AD, the climate changed when the Sunda Straight was formed.

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I get troubled every time I hear the pundits on US News/Opinion channels say that America "has the most powerful armed forces in the world, able to take on two or three major adversaries simultaneously!" I call BS.

I agree. The US used to have enough forces to deal with two regional threats at the same time. Since the forces have been cut since the first President Bush doing so, that is no longer true. At least with conventional forces.

Correct. Originally, there was enough force to fight offensively on 2 fronts (Europe and Asia). The force reduction changed that to fighting offensively on one front while defensively on the other. I'm not sure which place I'd rather be. That was ~5 years ago, so I'm not sure what the plan is now. I do know the military is once again training for large scale conflict. I trained that way most of my career. Then we trained for nation building. Cycles...

[RangerJoe]

I personally trained for large scaled conflicts. But after the Cold War was supposedly over, the people who should have known better should have realized that there was no other large political and economic power like the US and its Allies (which sometimes have different agendas than the US) to keep minor powers in check.

I was also against nation building but that recently occurred after I became a PFC. Helping the humanitarian donations get to the people who really need it is not necessarily a bad thing, but it should not have changed into nation building.

[tarkalak]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe
...

2000 years ago, the Earth was about 7 degrees F or about 4 degrees C warmer than today. Regular wine grapes could and were grown in what is now England. Then, around 500 AD, the climate changed when the Sunda Straight was formed.

There goes the thread again.