Dropping another carrier?

[Kyle Holgate]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05012008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/flattop_follies_108971.htm

Sooo, are US carriers vital to US defense, or are they vital to US Offense? I've yet to see a US carrier post WW2 doing anything defensive - defending the country. How many of these bird farms is enough? If the US has 9 and one is in the yards at all times, ain't 8 good enough?

[Ed Rotondaro]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05012008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/flattop_follies_108971.htm

Sooo, are US carriers vital to US defense, or are they vital to US Offense? I've yet to see a US carrier post WW2 doing anything defensive - defending the country. How many of these bird farms is enough? If the US has 9 and one is in the yards at all times, ain't 8 good enough?

Kyle:

How do you define "defending the country"? Is it showing the flag? Is it launching a pre-emptive strike against a rogue nation like Libya? Is it supporting anti-terrorist operations in Afghanistan? A strong offense is a good defense in my opinion. But the cold brutal fact is the US can't maintain 12 carriers any more unless it shifts a larger portion of the defense budget to the Navy. When Reagan authorized the 600 ship navy, nobody was thinking ahead of how to maintain that many ships and retain enough personnel to man them. I would still prefer at least 10 active carriers.

[djcyclone]

Kyle:

How do you define "defending the country"? Is it showing the flag? Is it launching a pre-emptive strike against a rogue nation like Libya? Is it supporting anti-terrorist operations in Afghanistan? A strong offense is a good defense in my opinion. But the cold brutal fact is the US can't maintain 12 carriers any more unless it shifts a larger portion of the defense budget to the Navy. When Reagan authorized the 600 ship navy, nobody was thinking ahead of how to maintain that many ships and retain enough personnel to man them. I would still prefer at least 10 active carriers.



With the strengh and capabilities of a modern Super Carrier, I would say two in each ocean would be good enough. And it works in both ways, a good offense is a good defense, meaning that you have to defend yourself in order to attack, and a good defense is a good offense, meaning you have to keep your enemy on their toes at all times in order to protect yourself.

I definetly see the carriers as both offensive and deffensive platforms. If you need to attack then their is nothing better than a runway that can move. If you need to defend yourself, then it is better to keep the battlefield as far away from home as possible, and a carrier can keep the enemy busy.

[Kyle Holgate]

Kyle:

How do you define "defending the country"? Is it showing the flag? Is it launching a pre-emptive strike against a rogue nation like Libya? Is it supporting anti-terrorist operations in Afghanistan? A strong offense is a good defense in my opinion. But the cold brutal fact is the US can't maintain 12 carriers any more unless it shifts a larger portion of the defense budget to the Navy. When Reagan authorized the 600 ship navy, nobody was thinking ahead of how to maintain that many ships and retain enough personnel to man them. I would still prefer at least 10 active carriers.

I'm just not very convinced that the carriers necessarily save American lives on a regular basis. Yes, maybe they have and do prevent wars due to their very existance, but if you look at protecting the public - the FLU kills 30,000 people a year, and car accidents kill 40,000 or more (and injure way more). As far as saving lives the cost of one of these behemoth carriers put into police budgets or improving flu vaccines would REALLY be defending lives in an obvious instead of "could be" way.

[john964]

Kyle:

How do you define "defending the country"? Is it showing the flag? Is it launching a pre-emptive strike against a rogue nation like Libya? Is it supporting anti-terrorist operations in Afghanistan? A strong offense is a good defense in my opinion. But the cold brutal fact is the US can't maintain 12 carriers any more unless it shifts a larger portion of the defense budget to the Navy. When Reagan authorized the 600 ship navy, nobody was thinking ahead of how to maintain that many ships and retain enough personnel to man them. I would still prefer at least 10 active carriers.
Ed, during the Reagan years the US maintained 14 carriers IIRC they were the 4 Forrestal 4 Kitty Hawk 3 Nimitz 2 Midway and Enterprise. I belive that 12 is the absolute minumum number of carriers. That is explained this way 1 CV in a long overhaul status of 2-3 years, 3 on deployment of 1 CV in each forward deployment zone ie Med, IO and West Pac, 3 working up for depolyment 3 coming off of deployment and the last 2 in short term overhaul status of less than 1 year. A CV cycle of deployment runs about 2 to 3 years. That is 6 months on deployment, any where from 6 month to 18 months in workups for deployment (the 6 months is the absolute minumum) typical is 1 year. After every deploment a CV usually has a yard period of 6-9 months with a longer one on average of every 2 to 3 deployments lasting about a year. Then there is the long over haul which is usally about every 20 to 25 years lasting as long as 3 to 4 years ie refueling or SLEP.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I'm just not very convinced that the carriers necessarily save American lives on a regular basis. Yes, maybe they have and do prevent wars due to their very existance, but if you look at protecting the public - the FLU kills 30,000 people a year, and car accidents kill 40,000 or more (and injure way more). As far as saving lives the cost of one of these behemoth carriers put into police budgets or improving flu vaccines would REALLY be defending lives in an obvious instead of "could be" way.

Kyle:

While I agree that money spent on weapons can be better spent on other needs, we're stuck with being the world's policeman for the near future. You are starting to sound like a liberal Democrat (that's my job, at least according to Scott LOL).

[john964]

I'm just not very convinced that the carriers necessarily save American lives on a regular basis. Yes, maybe they have and do prevent wars due to their very existance, but if you look at protecting the public - the FLU kills 30,000 people a year, and car accidents kill 40,000 or more (and injure way more). As far as saving lives the cost of one of these behemoth carriers put into police budgets or improving flu vaccines would REALLY be defending lives in an obvious instead of "could be" way. Kyle the US is involved all over the place. Try this for example during the First Gulf War from Aug 1 1990 to Jul 30 1991 the USN was involved in the evacuations of embassies in Liberia and Somalia. That is embassies of other countrys besides the US (IIRC UK France Russia Germany Italy and others) the USN was also involved in disaster relief and evacuation at the same time ie the Evac of civilian dependents from Clark AB and Subic Bay NB before a volcano went boom.

[Kyle Holgate]

Kyle the US is involved all over the place. Try this for example during the First Gulf War from Aug 1 1990 to Jul 30 1991 the USN was involved in the evacuations of embassies in Liberia and Somalia. That is embassies of other countrys besides the US (IIRC UK France Russia Germany Italy and others) the USN was also involved in disaster relief and evacuation at the same time ie the Evac of civilian dependents from Clark AB and Subic Bay NB before a volcano went boom.

Yep, but these didn't need CVN coverage - one of the baby carriers (not sure what they're called) with harriers on them would do the job if even that were needed. More helo's in any case for evac duty.
Heh, love the story of what got the General at Clark to finally decide to leave - a Volcanologist when running by him saying "fill your pockets with jelly, we're about to be toast" and didn't even slow down. But I digress...
Not to suggest that the Navy doesn't save lives every day, but it's difficult to put a value on it. If "defense" is protecting American lives and property I think our budget is being misspent.

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed, during the Reagan years the US maintained 14 carriers IIRC they were the 4 Forrestal 4 Kitty Hawk 3 Nimitz 2 Midway and Enterprise. I belive that 12 is the absolute minumum number of carriers. That is explained this way 1 CV in a long overhaul status of 2-3 years, 3 on deployment of 1 CV in each forward deployment zone ie Med, IO and West Pac, 3 working up for depolyment 3 coming off of deployment and the last 2 in short term overhaul status of less than 1 year. A CV cycle of deployment runs about 2 to 3 years. That is 6 months on deployment, any where from 6 month to 18 months in workups for deployment (the 6 months is the absolute minumum) typical is 1 year. After every deploment a CV usually has a yard period of 6-9 months with a longer one on average of every 2 to 3 deployments lasting about a year. Then there is the long over haul which is usally about every 20 to 25 years lasting as long as 3 to 4 years ie refueling or SLEP.

John:

I would personally like a 300 ship fleet with additional carriers and their support craft, but unless the Dept. of Defense gives the navy more funds, that won't happen.

[Scott Chisholm]

Kyle:

While I agree that money spent on weapons can be better spent on other needs, we're stuck with being the world's policeman for the near future. You are starting to sound like a liberal Democrat (that's my job, at least according to Scott LOL).

Okay, Ed: I'll take the bait, silly misguided lib that you are.... ;)

First of all, the U.S. Military does not "protect" our citizens, strange as that may sound. "To Protect and Serve" is what the police do, and we are prohibited by law from exerting police functions within our borders.

The U.S. Military "Supports and Defends" the borders of our country and our way of life, as defined by our Constitution. It gets a bit confusing at this point. The whole "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" thing is actually in the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution. Neither are they contained in the Bill of Rights, so people should stop whining about being denied their "right to happiness" 'cause there ain't one!

Supporting "our way of life" means defending the means by which we make our way of life possible. In an oil-based society, that means ensuring our access to oil from the oil fields to our ports. If more people understood that, then we would not hear any more "No More Blood For Oil" nonesense. But, I digress....

In order to ensure our access to oil, we need to be able to keep our ships where they will do the most good. While we can keep them at sea indefinitely, we do need to bring them into port periodically do perform maintenance that cannot be done at sea. Therefore, we need forward basing rights to either build our own overseas bases, or utilize the services of those of another country. That's how we get tied up in defense treaties....

So, how many CVNs are enough? It depends on two things: how many "Major Combat Operations" are you willing to engage in at any one time, and how many CVNs do you need for each MCO?

Once you've determined that number, then you can decide on how many CVNs you need to be fully operational at any one time. If you decide you need to handle three MCOs simultaneously, and each MCO requires three CVNs, then you need nine operational CVNs at any one time. If you figure on having a CVN on each coast in the yards at any one time, then you need 9+2 CVNs in order to ensure you have the 9 you need when you need them. That was pretty much how we spent the Cold War: three MCOs each requiring three CV/CVNs. Plan on having one carrier per MCO in the yards at any given time, and you get 12carriers.

The next part of the puzzle is "presence": how often you want a CVN in a given place. For instance, if you want a CVN in the Arabian Gulf at all times, then your "presence" would be "1.0", or 100%. If you are willing to have one for half the time, then you have a .5 presence. If you want two CVNs continuously, then you have a 2.0 presence.

Once you decide on presence, you can then determine deployment lengths, as John964 alluded to in his post. Six months was more or less arbitrarily selected as a good length of time as a "1 in 4" rotation meant 18 months at home, which enables some time for a good yard period and training. If you want to reduce the deployment length, you either needed to add more carriers (by building more, or reducing the time at home) or accept a "gap" - reduced presence in theater.

To give the ships on deployment a break, you can put them on a "tether" where you are willing to accept a gap in presence for a specified period of time. That's how we get in-theater mid-deployment port visits. We get put on a "96-hour" (or however long) tether and are allowed to go to port so long as we can be back on station within the specified tether period.

I do not know how many MCOs in which we are expected to engage, or how the CVN force is designated for them. I probably couldn't discuss it even if I did. Sorry.

Anyway, I hope this helps.

Regards,

[Ed Rotondaro]

Okay, Ed: I'll take the bait, silly misguided lib that you are.... ;)

First of all, the U.S. Military does not "protect" our citizens, strange as that may sound. "To Protect and Serve" is what the police do, and we are prohibited by law from exerting police functions within our borders.

The U.S. Military "Supports and Defends" the borders of our country and our way of life, as defined by our Constitution. It gets a bit confusing at this point. The whole "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" thing is actually in the Declaration of Independence and not the Constitution. Neither are they contained in the Bill of Rights, so people should stop whining about being denied their "right to happiness" 'cause there ain't one!

Supporting "our way of life" means defending the means by which we make our way of life possible. In an oil-based society, that means ensuring our access to oil from the oil fields to our ports. If more people understood that, then we would not hear any more "No More Blood For Oil" nonesense. But, I digress....

In order to ensure our access to oil, we need to be able to keep our ships where they will do the most good. While we can keep them at sea indefinitely, we do need to bring them into port periodically do perform maintenance that cannot be done at sea. Therefore, we need forward basing rights to either build our own overseas bases, or utilize the services of those of another country. That's how we get tied up in defense treaties....

So, how many CVNs are enough? It depends on two things: how many "Major Combat Operations" are you willing to engage in at any one time, and how many CVNs do you need for each MCO?

Once you've determined that number, then you can decide on how many CVNs you need to be fully operational at any one time. If you decide you need to handle three MCOs simultaneously, and each MCO requires three CVNs, then you need nine operational CVNs at any one time. If you figure on having a CVN on each coast in the yards at any one time, then you need 9+2 CVNs in order to ensure you have the 9 you need when you need them. That was pretty much how we spent the Cold War: three MCOs each requiring three CV/CVNs. Plan on having one carrier per MCO in the yards at any given time, and you get 12carriers.

The next part of the puzzle is "presence": how often you want a CVN in a given place. For instance, if you want a CVN in the Arabian Gulf at all times, then your "presence" would be "1.0", or 100%. If you are willing to have one for half the time, then you have a .5 presence. If you want two CVNs continuously, then you have a 2.0 presence.

Once you decide on presence, you can then determine deployment lengths, as John964 alluded to in his post. Six months was more or less arbitrarily selected as a good length of time as a "1 in 4" rotation meant 18 months at home, which enables some time for a good yard period and training. If you want to reduce the deployment length, you either needed to add more carriers (by building more, or reducing the time at home) or accept a "gap" - reduced presence in theater.

To give the ships on deployment a break, you can put them on a "tether" where you are willing to accept a gap in presence for a specified period of time. That's how we get in-theater mid-deployment port visits. We get put on a "96-hour" (or however long) tether and are allowed to go to port so long as we can be back on station within the specified tether period.

I do not know how many MCOs in which we are expected to engage, or how the CVN force is designated for them. I probably couldn't discuss it even if I did. Sorry.

Anyway, I hope this helps.

Regards,

Scott:

Thanks for the insights. You know you should have actually addressed this to Kyle, he was the one debating the needs for carriers while I was accusing him of going all Liberal on us.

[Kyle Holgate]

I think generally I am at heart an isolationist. I am fully aware of the lessons of History, but believe we should pull back as much as we can from putting our noses into other's business and try hard to put some of the money saved by doing that into cleaning up our own messes. I look at the costs for CVN's and other weapons (and suspect that there are lots of costly things I don't even know about!) and think of how much that money could do to really defend our nation in the sense that we're protecting the civil population from harm. Look at the so called bird flu - something that could very likely kill millions of Americans as well as our Allies. The money spent on that is a drop in the bucket compared to what is spent on so called defense.
Anyhow - think I've made myself cear and probably dove into political discussion more than I'm supposed to!

[Kyle Holgate]

Scott:

Thanks for the insights. You know you should have actually addressed this to Kyle, he was the one debating the needs for carriers while I was accusing him of going all Liberal on us.

Nah, in the end it's all your fault. You got the liberal label from Scott before me! :p

[Ed Rotondaro]

Nah, in the end it's all your fault. You got the liberal label from Scott before me! :p

Kyle:

That's 'cuz Scott's a techno-barbarian so far to the right that he makes Genghiz Khan look like a moderate LMAO!

[Scott Chisholm]

Kyle:

That's 'cuz Scott's a techno-barbarian so far to the right that he makes Genghiz Khan look like a moderate LMAO!

Isn't he a Senator from Nevada? Or, was he the Congresswoman from San Francisco? :p

Kyle, I'd love nothing more than to have the US exit off the world stage for two years and ignore everyone while they try to function without the US Rottweiler to watch over them.

But, we unfortunately have to deal with the nimrods of the world, so we might as well do it on our terms.

"Techno-barbarian" my bleeding .... :p

[Ed Rotondaro]

Isn't he a Senator from Nevada? Or, was he the Congresswoman from San Francisco? :p

Kyle, I'd love nothing more than to have the US exit off the world stage for two years and ignore everyone while they try to function without the US Rottweiler to watch over them.

But, we unfortunately have to deal with the nimrods of the world, so we might as well do it on our terms.

"Techno-barbarian" my bleeding .... :p

Scott:

No, he's your bleedin' prez and VP. You need to experience the power of the dark side of democracy my young Jedi appentice. Obi-wan never told you what happened to your democracy? (Scott channeling Luke Skywalker: "He told me enough, he told me you killed it with your liberalized education and policital correctness") No Scott I killed democracy and my name is Dark Lord Cheney LOL! You must give in to the dark side.

[Scott Chisholm]

Scott:

No, he's your bleedin' prez and VP. You need to experience the power of the dark side of democracy my young Jedi appentice. Obi-wan never told you what happened to your democracy? (Scott channeling Luke Skywalker: "He told me enough, he told me you killed it with your liberalized education and policital correctness") No Scott I killed democracy and my name is Dark Lord Cheney LOL! You must give in to the dark side.

Ed,

You are a sick, twisted freak, and I love you, man! ;)

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed,

You are a sick, twisted freak, and I love you, man! ;)

Scott:

You do realize that only a select few members of NWS could banter this way eh? Kurt (true master of the dark side), William (the hidden Jedi) and perhaps Kyle (grasshopper). All the rest are firmly ensnared in the dark side even if they don't know it. (Especially Dennis). If you only knew the power of the dark side (Obama, Clinton and the hidden hope Edwards) McCain is helpless in the power of our Jesuit logic LMAO! More scotch!:D

[Warship NWS]

Scott:

You do realize that only a select few members of NWS could banter this way eh? Kurt (true master of the dark side), William (the hidden Jedi) and perhaps Kyle (grasshopper). All the rest are firmly ensnared in the dark side even if they don't know it. (Especially Dennis). If you only knew the power of the dark side (Obama, Clinton and the hidden hope Edwards) McCain is helpless in the power of our Jesuit logic LMAO! More scotch!:D


Ed.. you are by far the oddest of our crew.. ;)

[Ed Rotondaro]

Ed.. you are by far the oddest of our crew.. ;)

Chris:

I take tremendous pride in that. I've finally upgraded my PC, but now realize I may need a another faster and bigger HD to stay current. Damn I should have had you build me a new one LOL!

[keschofield]

Scott:

You do realize that only a select few members of NWS could banter this way eh? Kurt (true master of the dark side), William (the hidden Jedi) and perhaps Kyle (grasshopper). All the rest are firmly ensnared in the dark side even if they don't know it. (Especially Dennis). If you only knew the power of the dark side (Obama, Clinton and the hidden hope Edwards) McCain is helpless in the power of our Jesuit logic LMAO! More scotch!:D


Darth,

You go too far in revealing my true nature to the opposition. Like all my predecessors (Napoleon, Mussolini, Lenin, Chiang, Pilsudski, etc.) my secret plan is to woo the masses with my liberal claptrap and then gradually increase my hold over them until I rule the world! BWA HA HA HA HA!

Emporer, oops I mean Senator Palpatine

[Ed Rotondaro]

Darth,

You go too far in revealing my true nature to the opposition. Like all my predecessors (Napoleon, Mussolini, Lenin, Chiang, Pilsudski, etc.) my secret plan is to woo the masses with my liberal claptrap and then gradually increase my hold over them until I rule the world! BWA HA HA HA HA!

Emporer, oops I mean Senator Palpatine

Emperor:

What is thy bidding my master? Now that I have finished lulling my neighbors into not fearing me by fertilizing the lawn, I am free to advance the cause of bringing order to internet! Long live the Sith!

[keschofield]

Emperor:

What is thy bidding my master? Now that I have finished lulling my neighbors into not fearing me by fertilizing the lawn, I am free to advance the cause of bringing order to internet! Long live the Sith!


I knew it! Another Star Wars fanatic. I should have guessed.

[Ed Rotondaro]

I knew it! Another Star Wars fanatic. I should have guessed.

Master:

My light saber is ready, let us go forth and make Chris add the Dutch navy to WCDB! If he only knew the power of the dark side. ((Deep raspy breaths thru a dark visored helmet).

[asnrobert]

Master:

My light saber is ready, let us go forth and make Chris add the Dutch navy to WCDB! If he only knew the power of the dark side. ((Deep raspy breaths thru a dark visored helmet).

By all means, but only after Chris adds the Spanish-American War ships!

[Ed Rotondaro]

By all means, but only after Chris adds the Spanish-American War ships!


Robert:

How bad do want to beat the AI? The SAW is a turkey shoot unless you play the Spanish and have a need to be punished LOL!

[Kyle Holgate]

Robert:

How bad do want to beat the AI? The SAW is a turkey shoot unless you play the Spanish and have a need to be punished LOL!

Maybe that's the only way he can win, playing the US in the SAW...:p

[Ed Rotondaro]

Maybe that's the only way he can win, playing the US in the SAW...:p

Kyle:

Ooh that's harsh to a fellow team member:D

[keschofield]

Robert:

How bad do want to beat the AI? The SAW is a turkey shoot unless you play the Spanish and have a need to be punished LOL!


A good way to cure an otherwise frustrating day would be to play the game as the USN and kick the #%&$ out of the Spanish. Very theraputic! I do it now with WCDB using the French battlefleet of 1940 set at poor crew quality and lace into them with the IJN set at crack quality. Wonderful fun!!!! :D

[Ed Rotondaro]

A good way to cure an otherwise frustrating day would be to play the game as the USN and kick the #%&$ out of the Spanish. Very theraputic! I do it now with WCDB using the French battlefleet of 1940 set at poor crew quality and lace into them with the IJN set at crack quality. Wonderful fun!!!! :D

Kurt:

Now that's fun! I also sometimes beat up on the Italian navy in 1943 with a crack USN task force. Trouble is the damn Littorio is a tough ship.

[asnrobert]

Robert:

How bad do want to beat the AI? The SAW is a turkey shoot unless you play the Spanish and have a need to be punished LOL!


Well, the RJW is a turkey shoot unless you play the Russians, yet they were still added to WCDB.