crippling our military

[protege]

Well, as previously stated, these 11 ships mean practically nothing to the US's overall military strength. Every ship on the list here is at least 25-30+ years old. The frigates are so old the US has literally been giving them away to Poland and Turkey. >.>

30 years old is pushing it for something like a ship. Parts wear out, the structure (never mind the the steel cladding) degrades from exposure, and technology is constantly evolving. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd rather have my country's military be at the leading edge of things. Countries who don't upgrade their military's equipment...get their asses beat by those that do. Remember what happened to Poland in 1939?

As for China, do you really think that they're going to bite the hand that feeds them? They might be crazy, but they're not stupid. If they were to attack us, they'd take on the largest navy on the planet. Plus, they'd have all of our allies to deal with, both militarily and economically. Their economy would fall apart if they tried that.

[Anthony K. S.]

It was a long time ago, but I vaguely remember reading about how Ronald Reagan had pledged to increase the size of the U.S. Navy (to 600 ships, I think it was).

I think that most of his plans to achieve that goal were reasonable enough, but Reagan had one idea that the military actually opposed. He wanted to bring some very old, outdated ships back into service.

At the time, I recall thinking that if those ships had been recommissioned ... "How would you like to be a member of the crew aboard one of those ships? How would you like to go into an actual battle on one of them?"


Now, I understand, of course, that we were facing a very different global situation in Reagan's time than we do now. Before it collapsed, the Soviet Union seemed like a dangerously intractable enemy, and when Reagan first took office, there was a widespread perception that the U.S. military was too limited in strength compared to Russia's.

Nevertheless, I keep coming back to that same thought :

How would you like to go into battle knowing that the ship you're on is 30 years old, out of date, and was being considered to be decommissioned?

If for no other reason than this ... For the sake of the people serving in our military, I would rather see the U.S. Navy remove the older vessels from service and replace them with new ones.

[HYHYBT]

That touches on something I was going to mention: the various levels of reserve fleet. I don't remember what the levels are called... but if I remember rightly, there are decommissioned ships kept pretty much ready for use should they be needed, then down the scale others being kept around largely for parts, but some of which could be fixed up if there were ever a reason to do so.

As for, specifically, this weakening our presence in the area of China, I found this in my inbox this morning:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/...=Cheat%20Sheet
Overall, there will be way more than 11 ships moved into the area.

[Andara Bledin]

Now, I understand, of course, that we were facing a very different global situation in Reagan's time than we do now. Before it collapsed, the Soviet Union seemed like a dangerously intractable enemy, and when Reagan first took office, there was a widespread perception that the U.S. military was too limited in strength compared to Russia's.

Supposedly, when the Soviet Union did their little propaganda bits with their soldiers doing marches, that was every single soldier they had in the entire union out there for show. Basically, they had nothing but a really good front. And the powers that be knew this, but kept it under wraps in order to have an excuse to pour funds into the military.

But, as mentioned, 30 years is such a very long time when discussing technological advancement that there's no reason to not retire the outdated and costlier-to-maintain ships in the fleet as replacements come online.

In fact, it's outright counterproductive to keep them active. The cost to maintain an aging ship is far more than the cost of manufacture and upkeep of a newer offering (not to mention all of the other advantages outlined earlier in the thread), so it's irresponsible to not decommission them.

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

How would you like to go into battle knowing that the ship you're on is 30 years old, out of date, and was being considered to be decommissioned?

Um. this was my last 2 ships.

And to be honest that's a bit... biased really. Most of us are in fact use to it.

But not all the ships on the list are 30 years old. CG73 isn't even 20. And really isn't falling apart.

[Andara Bledin]

Considering that the CG73 is the last Ticonderoga class ship built, I think the "out of date" portion of the previous argument is the most notable, not the age or condition of the vessel.

Although, is worth noting that many of that class are still in operation, two of which are also in Hawaii.

^-.-^

[HYHYBT]

It often happens that, when a class of something is being replaced, newer individuals go before older ones. I'm trying to avoid details because I no longer have the book I read them in, but when Norfolk & Western finally made the switch from steam to diesel, in some cases they scrapped nearly-new engines before relics because it happened to be the nearly-new one that needed a major repair or was due for an overhaul.

[wolfie]

...Anyone?

Hell, I've had little to nil training in security, and that would have twigged for me.

How about anyone who'se ever designed a fortress for a D&d game? Or a city? That makes you think paranoid. Very paranoid.

Or even just played D&d. How may rogue players have gone home after a game, see that, and think "YEah, he's trying to scam in to assassinate the princess" or some such.

I have no security training, but was scared shitless by various (pre-9/11) incidents at airport security.

On my flight out to Toronto, they did a hand-search of my carryon after the x-ray showed something suspicious, and found my swiss army knife (which had been missing for a while) and my (cheap plastic Radio Shack) 5-cell flashlight, which they tested by briefly turning it on. I was allowed to keep both items. My knowledge of battery technology is such that I knew it was possible to make a physically small pack out of certain types of batteries (at the time, NiCd was the most likely one) which could feed a lot of power for a short time - leaving most of the interior volume of the flashlight available for other stuff.

On a vacation flight, I tripped the metal detector, and they went over me with the wand. When it only alerted at my shoes, and they saw the green triangle (CSA grade 1 safety shoes), they let me pass - but what's to keep someone from hiding a flat-bladed knife inside a shoe that would be expected to trip a metal detector?

[protege]

I'm trying to avoid details because I no longer have the book I read them in, but when Norfolk & Western finally made the switch from steam to diesel, in some cases they scrapped nearly-new engines before relics because it happened to be the nearly-new one that needed a major repair or was due for an overhaul.

N&W wasn't alone. Quite a few railroads did things like that. When the Pennsylvania finally dieselized, they scrapped several relatively new locomotives--the T1s, for example. Those were built during WWII, and started meeting the torch in the early 1950s. Why, you ask? Simply put, they were complex and expensive to maintain. They were replaced with diesels--easier to maintain and get parts for. Usually, it's the expensive-to-maintain locomotives that are the first to go.

[HYHYBT]

Oh, I know. It's a very common thing, which is why I mentioned it.

N&W was a bit more extreme, though, since they were still *building* steam engines in 1953 and were rid of them all in 59.

[mikoyan29]

While it's a shame that the Navy will not be fielding a ship named Enterprise, it is time for her to go out to pasture. She is over 50 years old and I imagine her reactors are probably due for a refuelling anyway. There is no point in refuelling a reactor that is about to be decomissioned before that next fuelling is up. But if I remember correctly, there is a new carrier coming online to replace her.

If I were home, I could dig up my copy of Proceedings because it mentions the commissionings happening within the next year.

[bara]

While it's a shame that the Navy will not be fielding a ship named Enterprise,

Dont worry, they will. Shes hardly the first ship with the moniker.

[Nekojin]

Dont worry, they will. Shes hardly the first ship with the moniker.

Yeah, it's almost like it's a tradition, or something.

[lordlundar]

Yeah, it's almost like it's a tradition, or something.

Oh, you mean like the first ship of a new class is given a particular name?

Gee, you think it will continue?

[Tanasi]

Do you think the Navy will ever name a carrier or any capital ship after Bill Clinton or Pres. Obama??? (not trying to start anything just wondering.)