Time magazine earlier this year that the Navy should go back to using steam catapults to launch fighter jets because the new system "costs hundreds of millions of dollars more money and it's no good."

The Navy's program has become "one of the most spectacular acquisition debacles in recent memory. And that is saying something," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said during a Senate hearing on the troubled program Thursday.

"We cannot afford another acquisition failure like the Ford-class aircraft carrier, especially in the current fiscal environment,"

.
Attachments:

Defense contractors have been scamming the US government for years. They love republican contractors because they spend spend spend.

You spend too much of Mommy's money on meth goat boi.

I laugh heartely everytime I hear one of these GOP idiots claim the military needs to be "rebuilt". It's such an obscene lie, it should be illegal. We spend more than the next 8 militaries behind us COMBINED in defense spending and even are most formidable adversaries still can't measure up, even if they were to join forces against us. China's got one new carrier, but it's experimental and would need considerable ground based support to even keep a US admiral awake at night. The only way the Russians can compete is by conducting surprise land grabs and cover their trails using cyber attacks. If anything, we need to curtail some of our spending, specifically by downgrading our aircraft carrier fleet. There really is no need for 13 aircraft carriers.

When did the journalism and gender studies majors at Time Magazine become qualified to make such determinations?

compensating for something Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I laugh heartely everytime I hear one of these GOP
> idiots claim the military needs to be "rebuilt".
> It's such an obscene lie, it should be illegal. We
> spend more than the next 8 militaries behind us
> COMBINED in defense spending and even are most
> formidable adversaries still can't measure up,
> even if they were to join forces against us.
> China's got one new carrier, but it's experimental
> and would need considerable ground based support
> to even keep a US admiral awake at night. The only
> way the Russians can compete is by conducting
> surprise land grabs and cover their trails using
> cyber attacks. If anything, we need to curtail
> some of our spending, specifically by downgrading
> our aircraft carrier fleet. There really is no
> need for 13 aircraft carriers.


You seem blithely unaware of the concept and benefits of overwhelming military superiority that arose after having to fight two world wars.

National Defense University Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> compensating for something Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I laugh heartely everytime I hear one of these
> GOP
> > idiots claim the military needs to be
> "rebuilt".
> > It's such an obscene lie, it should be illegal.
> We
> > spend more than the next 8 militaries behind us
> > COMBINED in defense spending and even are most
> > formidable adversaries still can't measure up,
> > even if they were to join forces against us.
> > China's got one new carrier, but it's
> experimental
> > and would need considerable ground based
> support
> > to even keep a US admiral awake at night. The
> only
> > way the Russians can compete is by conducting
> > surprise land grabs and cover their trails
> using
> > cyber attacks. If anything, we need to curtail
> > some of our spending, specifically by
> downgrading
> > our aircraft carrier fleet. There really is no
> > need for 13 aircraft carriers.
>
>
> You seem blithely unaware of the concept and
> benefits of overwhelming military superiority that
> arose after having to fight two world wars.


I am very aware of this concept as I studied at naval post grad school in Monterey. Can you tell me what other navies are capable of the same blue water capability the United States is? Probably not, so I will tell you. The only two that even have the remotest chance of matching our power projection capabilities are the French and the British, and they are allies. Russia has one carrier beat to shit and as mentioned before the Chinese are only beginning to a carrier program of its own. Their fleet will no doubt enlarge with time, but the Japanese are building ASW carriers of their own and the Koreans are talking about developing their own to counteract them.

The days of swashbuckling en masse on the two largest bodies of water in the world are over. We simply cannot sustain that kind of mentality any longer. A lot has been made of the extreme costs of developing the F-35, which I will relent is completely and totally necessary. It's important that we maintain optimum operational capability to maintain air superiority.

compensating for something Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> National Defense University Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > compensating for something Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I laugh heartely everytime I hear one of
> these
> > GOP
> > > idiots claim the military needs to be
> > "rebuilt".
> > > It's such an obscene lie, it should be
> illegal.
> > We
> > > spend more than the next 8 militaries behind
> us
> > > COMBINED in defense spending and even are
> most
> > > formidable adversaries still can't measure
> up,
> > > even if they were to join forces against us.
> > > China's got one new carrier, but it's
> > experimental
> > > and would need considerable ground based
> > support
> > > to even keep a US admiral awake at night. The
> > only
> > > way the Russians can compete is by conducting
> > > surprise land grabs and cover their trails
> > using
> > > cyber attacks. If anything, we need to
> curtail
> > > some of our spending, specifically by
> > downgrading
> > > our aircraft carrier fleet. There really is
> no
> > > need for 13 aircraft carriers.
> >
> >
> > You seem blithely unaware of the concept and
> > benefits of overwhelming military superiority
> that
> > arose after having to fight two world wars.
>
>
> I am very aware of this concept as I studied at
> naval post grad school in Monterey.


Bullshit. lol

For the amount of money the US taxpayers waste on military defense spending we should aircraft carrier that are gold plated.

For the money we spend EVERY YEAR on illegal immigrants we could build 10 of them.

Every. Year.

trumpitality Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For the money we spend EVERY YEAR on illegal
> immigrants we could build 10 of them.
>
> Every. Year.

+1

Carriers are just big targets. Russia isn't building carriers. Neither are the Chinese. They are building hyper-sonic anti-carrier missiles. If they launch 6 against a carrier, 1 or 2 will get through. They cost a few million to make. The Ford cost $13 billion. Insanity. We already have more super-carriers than the rest of the world combined (10 to zero). We should be focusing on laser and rail gun technologies and anti-missile systems. I think we are on the hook for another 5 Ford class carriers. Let's cut that back to the one we have and take the rest of the $50 billion and put it into defensive weapons systems and technologies. We gotta stop trying to project power when the world doesn't want it.

Nimitz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Carriers are just big targets. Russia isn't
> building carriers. Neither are the Chinese. They
> are building hyper-sonic anti-carrier missiles.
> If they launch 6 against a carrier, 1 or 2 will
> get through. They cost a few million to make.
> The Ford cost $13 billion. Insanity. We already
> have more super-carriers than the rest of the
> world combined (10 to zero). We should be
> focusing on laser and rail gun technologies and
> anti-missile systems. I think we are on the hook
> for another 5 Ford class carriers. Let's cut that
> back to the one we have and take the rest of the
> $50 billion and put it into defensive weapons
> systems and technologies. We gotta stop trying to
> project power when the world doesn't want it.


They're not (primarily) intended to be used against Russia and China. A all-out war against Russia and China and all bets are off. Carriers being taken out are waaaaay down the list of concerns.

And we already are putting big money into defensive capabilities for them and otherwise.

War College Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nimitz Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Carriers are just big targets. Russia isn't
> > building carriers. Neither are the Chinese.
> They
> > are building hyper-sonic anti-carrier missiles.
>
> > If they launch 6 against a carrier, 1 or 2 will
> > get through. They cost a few million to make.
> > The Ford cost $13 billion. Insanity. We
> already
> > have more super-carriers than the rest of the
> > world combined (10 to zero). We should be
> > focusing on laser and rail gun technologies and
> > anti-missile systems. I think we are on the
> hook
> > for another 5 Ford class carriers. Let's cut
> that
> > back to the one we have and take the rest of
> the
> > $50 billion and put it into defensive weapons
> > systems and technologies. We gotta stop trying
> to
> > project power when the world doesn't want it.
>
>
> They're not (primarily) intended to be used
> against Russia and China. A all-out war against
> Russia and China and all bets are off. Carriers
> being taken out are waaaaay down the list of
> concerns.
>
> And we already are putting big money into
> defensive capabilities for them and otherwise.


Keep in mind, no one in the west has access to complete technological stats of Russia or China's "carrier killer missiles". We don't know how successful their test launches are, and they haven't been used in combat so it's a big big if that they would even be game changers. I read an unclassified report published by Janes and they determined that when taking into consideration these missile's aerodynamics, payload, naval surveillance capabilities etc., these weapons probably would do negligible damage, that is if they could even keep track of their targets in the first place.

Sandhurst Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Keep in mind, no one in the west has access to
> complete technological stats of Russia or China's
> "carrier killer missiles". We don't know how
> successful their test launches are, and they
> haven't been used in combat so it's a big big if
> that they would even be game changers. I read an
> unclassified report published by Janes and they
> determined that when taking into consideration
> these missile's aerodynamics, payload, naval
> surveillance capabilities etc., these weapons
> probably would do negligible damage, that is if
> they could even keep track of their targets in the
> first place.


True but they are kind of potential sitting ducks for such things if not today then tomorrow. But again they're intended as means to extend capabilities for certain types of operations not as some invincible floating platforms.

Center for Hemispheric Defense Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sandhurst Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Keep in mind, no one in the west has access to
> > complete technological stats of Russia or
> China's
> > "carrier killer missiles". We don't know how
> > successful their test launches are, and they
> > haven't been used in combat so it's a big big
> if
> > that they would even be game changers. I read
> an
> > unclassified report published by Janes and they
> > determined that when taking into consideration
> > these missile's aerodynamics, payload, naval
> > surveillance capabilities etc., these weapons
> > probably would do negligible damage, that is if
> > they could even keep track of their targets in
> the
> > first place.
>
>
> True but they are kind of potential sitting ducks
> for such things if not today then tomorrow. But
> again they're intended as means to extend
> capabilities for certain types of operations not
> as some invincible floating platforms.


Kenetic force, payload don't matter a whole lot if the missiles are at least partially on the money. You don't need to sink the whole ship to knock it out of commission. If flight ops are effected or even taken out, then the battle group is essentially a sitting duck.

Aircraft carriers are obsolete.

Drones, destroyer cruise missles and air to air refueling are now the way to go.