crippling our military

[PepperElf]

I'm putting this in politics cos there's not exactly a military strategy section here.



This is something many people here might not really think about but... I have a unique perspective considering my background.


ships to be decommed


Why this concerns me.

At least 3 ships on the list are stationed in Hawaii or to the west of Hawaii. One of the ships is outfitted with a "theatre ballistic" defense system. (missile range on wiki is 2200 miles*).


To me, from a security standpoint ... we're opening ourselves up to China.

And I'll be honest. I know China has already suggested that we just say east of hawaii and let them handle everything to the west. (yeah right). link

In answer to Senator Webb about the PLA’s expanding activities at a hearing in March 2008, Keating testified that during his first visit to China (in May 2007), the PLA Navy proposed—in seriousness or in jest—that as it acquires aircraft carriers, it would take the Pacific west of Hawaii while the U.S. Navy would cover east of Hawaii.46

* all facts taken from public websites as part of opsec.


I don't expect everyone to see it this way. Not because of politics but simply because many people aren't use to combining little bits of intel into bigger pictures like this.

[Nekojin]

Pardon me for scoffing, but... we have a currently estimated battle fleet of ~430 ships, and you want to characterize the decommissioning of 11 old ships as, "crippling our military?" While speaking nothing about the remaining ships' capacity, or what other ships are being brought online to replace the 11 decommissioned ships?

Sorry, no outrage from this direction.

Edit to add: Wikipedia had this to say:

The U.S. Navy is the largest in the world; its battle fleet tonnage is greater than that of the next 13 largest navies combined.

[AdminAssistant]

No outrage here, either. China's not going to start anything with us, we aren't going to start anything with them. As long as somebody's keeping an eye on North Korea, we're okay.

[Andara Bledin]

Pardon me while I head over to one of the "What's Wrong" threads and pull up a link I put over there regarding the fact that the DoD wants to reduce some of their expenditures in order to, oh, I don't know, properly fund the remaining programs. Such a shame that the politicos are trying to muddy the water to smear the other side. >_<

Article at National Journal

I don't expect everyone to see it this way. Not because of politics but simply because many people aren't use to combining little bits of intel into bigger pictures like this.

And, wow, is this bit totally arrogant.

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

Pardon me for scoffing, but... we have a currently estimated battle fleet of ~430 ships, and you want to characterize the decommissioning of 11 old ships as, "crippling our military?" While speaking nothing about the remaining ships' capacity, or what other ships are being brought online to replace the 11 decommissioned ships?

Sorry, no outrage from this direction.

Edit to add: Wikipedia had this to say:

You do realize not every ship on that list is an old bucket of rust right?

Sure some are - use to call the crommelin the "crumbling crommelin" but the port royal? they claim it's cos of the incident with the reef but part of me ... just doesn't buy it.

plus that's the one that had the special system. i find it hard to believe that they're throwing it away. when i first found out my thought was "that's a big hole to open". Cos I wasn't thinking about how much i liked that ship compared to my others, but what it can do, what it has on it.

i think it's a mistake.

plus it's not the only CG on the chopping block. I'll give a little bit of training here on CGs. Their main job is to protect the carrier - not just as missile sponges but providing information and quite literally expanding the radar vision of the carrier. for more info on the class go here


and i'm personally thinking chucking the enterprise would be a mistake too. i mean hell it has EIGHT reactors. fucking beast can power an entire city by itself.


I'm not saying none of them should be decommed. I'm just questioning some of their choices. Especially when they chuck out ships with really good systems on board.

And how many of them are to the west. again I think it's going to open up stuff.


i understand some of you won't see it that way. you may not have ever had to think of military strategy. so it's not how some are use to looking at things.

[Duelist925]

Ok, Ill bite--What bigger picture?

As others have pointed out, decoming 11 old ships is pretty much nothing to our navy. Its bigger than the next dozen or more biggest combined.

Because 3 are in Hawaii? How many more are in Hawaii? Are we not sending more?

Is China going to start something? Really? If they started anything with us, they'd be shooting their entire leg off, and they know it.


Whats the big picture? How is this anymore "Crippling" Than clipping my toenails? I would love to know.

[Nekojin]

i understand some of you won't see it that way. you may not have ever had to think of military strategy. so it's not how some are use to looking at things.

Andara said it before, but it bears repeating: Comments like this come off as extremely arrogant and closed-minded. Not to mention ignorant. You literally have no idea what level of military strategy I'm familiar with (or anyone else on these forums, either, unless they expressly say).

[HYHYBT]

and i'm personally thinking chucking the enterprise would be a mistake too. i mean hell it has EIGHT reactors. fucking beast can power an entire city by itself.

Then perhaps that would be a good use for it, rather than the usual scrapping. Park the ex-Enterprise in a bay or someplace, string cables to connect it to the grid, and voila. (I know the one remaining N&W Class A locomotive survived only because it was used for a time as a stationary boiler. Different technology, same idea, larger scale.) Then again, perhaps one reason they're decommissioning that one in the first place is that the reactors are reaching the end of their expected life or are showing signs of trouble.

Without way more information than is provided, it's hard to say, but I *suspect* that these ships' mostly being in the same area of the world is either a coincidence or a result of that being where the older or less useful ships get stationed; either way, their current location says nothing whatsoever about where vacancies, if any, will be after they're removed. Ships are, after all, mobile.

As for a special system on one of them.... perhaps it turned out not to be all that useful. Or perhaps it works fine, but the ship it's on is such a rustbucket the overall package isn't worth keeping (in which case, might they not transfer it to a better ship?)

Biggest reason not to worry: a bit of math. The navy is building new ships all the time. If they do indeed have 430 ships all together, and if next year's 11 retired is average, that means an average 40 year service life, which seems about right.

[Andara Bledin]

I'm not saying none of them should be decommed. I'm just questioning some of their choices. Especially when they chuck out ships with really good systems on board.

Decommissioning doesn't mean chucking. And it also doesn't mean that the onboard systems go with the ship.

Also, I don't have data past 2002, but, on average, between 10 and 30 ships are decommissioned each year. During Regan's terms, that number was between none and 3. Then Bush Sr's term saw 9 each of the first 3 years, then 20 the last. Under Clinton, that number was as low as 6 in 2000 and 9 in 1997, but his first three years saw between 30 and 38 ships decommissioned. Then, in the first two years of Bush Jr's first term, that number dropped to 2 and 1.

Apparently, under GOP leadership, we hoard ships that aren't fit for duty (and strain the resources available), and when the Dems are at the top, we clear out the deadwood to better focus our resources.

That's essentially the gist of the article I posted eaerlier; The DoD (who knows best) actually wants to cut a number of programs that aren't performing to standards and put that money towards better programs that cannot be made to work nearly as well without it. But the GOP-held legislature wants to keep throwing money away on obsolete and critically under-funded programs that can't be saved with as little money as would end up going to them, and would actually harm the programs the DoD wants to keep supporting.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

Other than the Enterprise, I don't see it as a big deal. Plus, no one on this board, that I know of anyway, has any idea of what our capabilities in the Pacific are at the moment. Just using wiki, it looks like we have two fleets in the Pacific, each consisting of 10 task forces which are huge in sizes. One of the listed task forces that actually has a page includes some 30+ ships. Even if most were say 10 ships each (which is a low guess), that's 220 ships. Add to that the Naval Surface Force, which is gigantic and the Submarine Force (8 submarine squadrons)...

Yea, we sure as hell aren't going to miss 11 ships.

[Tanasi]

Decommissioning older ships is nothing new as they will be replaced with newer more capable ships. While it won't seem right to not have an Enterprise in the fleet it will be replaced in the future by another Enterprise of the next class of carriers.
When I was in the Jeep was replaced by the Hummer, the Colt M1911A1 was replaced by the Beretta M9. Those two replacements caused far more grief in the services than this.
Speaking for myself, changing weapon systems just for the sake of changing is foolishness, changing for something better is good. When we changed from the M14 to M16 it was done because McNamara wanted it done. The M16 was never meant to be a replacement for the M14 but a replacement for the M1-Carbine for the Air Force. McNamara and his whiz-kids decided if we're going to buy a bunch then let's replace everything. Between the whiz-kids and the arms-board of the DOD resulting whizzing contest several soldiers and marines died because a rifle was rushed into production without being fully tested in all theathers in which it would serve.
Nowdays they're talking of retiring the M16 and M4 varients for the M26. I only ask if the M26 is ready has it been throughly tested in all condidtions??? Don't leave the soldier, sailor, marine or airman standing there with a broken rifle in one hand and their sexual member in the other. I know folks that's been there and have the scars to prove it.

[Greenday]

Do you have any links on this new gun? Only thing I can find about a M26 is a shotgun accessory for M16s/M4s.

[crashhelmet]

I thought the M26 was a MASS (Modular Accessory Shotgun System) and not an actual rifle itself. It can be attached to both the M16 and the M4. Or are they making them actually integrated now?

[Nekojin]

Other than the Enterprise, I don't see it as a big deal.

Well, the final disposition on the Enterprise hasn't been decided yet. It's been ordered to port. It's going to get a microscope-and-toothbrush close inspection, at which point they'll decide what, exactly, they want to do with it.

[Hyena Dandy]

Do you have any links on this new gun? Only thing I can find about a M26 is a shotgun accessory for M16s/M4s.

Yeah, I think that's what he said. They're retiring the ones for the M16 and M4.