The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman, front - file photo. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Scott Swofford)
FOX News/Warrior Maven: Navy 'moves-out' on operating 11 aircraft carriers
They are floating attack machines, small cities on the seas and visible examples of U.S. military power -- and the Pentagon now plans to operate 11 of them.
Aircraft carriers -- long seen as an indelible image of U.S. strength -- have multi-faceted missions such as maintaining safe passageway through the world’s key waterways, deterring potential enemies by ensuring massive retaliatory strike possibility and, of course, waging war on enemies from the seas.
The Trump administration, Pentagon and Navy have now carved a decided path toward a total number of 11 carriers, effectively ending the longstanding debate about how many the U.S. should maintain. Some decision-makers, particularly in the last administration, argued that the Navy could function effectively with only 10 carriers, citing cost and modernization factors. The thinking, as articulated by advocates at the time, was to save money by operating fewer carriers, yet make specific strides to ensure they remain technologically superior. However, Navy leaders and many Pentagon decision-makers have long-cited the fact that the global combatant commander need for carriers has consistently exceeded the number of available carriers. Now, Navy developers say legislation approved for next year has inspired current efforts to “move out” on procurement and preparation for the 11th carrier.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: The next debate is on how to pay for it.
The infusion of force, for better or for worse.
ReplyDeleteWho is going to defend Canadian fishing grounds from China or even the Haitians?
ReplyDeleteHint, it won't be the Canadian navy or coastguard.
And it won't be shrill, puny people like Bob.
It might be a way to lift all Haitian out of poverty. Tell them they can fish all they want off the Canadian coasts.
ReplyDeleteHmmm. Pay for it??? I thought one just put a small piece of plastic into a device at the checkout counter or gas pump, pulled it out, then walked away.
The last time I bought an aircraft carrier I had to use paper money and or metal coins. Then glue to hold it together. Woolworth 5&10 cent store. Dimestore for short.
Ha! The computer even underlined dimestore in red! What the heck is going on here?
The Canadian navy would do fine
ReplyDeleteFazman,
ReplyDeleteThe bit about Haiti was in jest. But the part about China raping Canadian fisheries, if the US did not exist was serious.
There have been stories of Canada's sub and destroyer fleet not being capable of being haze gray and under way. And mind you there are not many of either.
My bad. I thought Canada had destroyers, plural
ReplyDeleteIt has 1 token destroyer. More of a vanity project really.
At 48 the destroyers is almost as old as Bob.
https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2015/10/07/more-trouble-for-canadas-navy-and-its-only-destroyer/
Compared to its allies, the Canadian Navy is now only one-third the size it should be, given our GDP, and can only play smaller and smaller roles.
ReplyDeletewww.macleans.ca/news/canada/the-sinking-of-the-canadian-navy/
Stanley Weeks: “[Canadian politicians] need more seriousness."
No some Canadian politicians are quite serious!
Serious idiots!
Like this one
"Canada’s submarine fleet never worked. It’s time to stop ignoring the problem"
www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/canadas-submarine-fleet-never-worked-its-time-to-stop-ignoring-the-problem/article12468338/
Never worked. That reminds me of the trailer trash in Northern Ontario.
The squirrel finds it increasingly hard to compose complete sentences. Is it from going blind, because of all that fishing on the internet?
ReplyDeleteOver time there have been several overly pompous and militarily controlled countries that went around invading other countries, killing people and creating all manner of strife and mayhem for their own glory.
ReplyDeleteEventually the ability of all such countries, one way or another, comes to an end.
My only concern is that the US will start a war with, say Russia, with nukes launched at each other flying over our heads, perhaps falling on us at some point as well. It seems to me that in such cases submarines will be of no use.
So you agree?
Obviously, Bobbi does not get the meaning of triad or the meaning of raid or trade.
ReplyDelete