TRUMP: Make USN great again

Why would you make a navy that's as big as the rest of the word's combined fleets even bigger? Just a waste of money

>>32023718
Current fleet size is completely inadequate. The ships we have are being pushed too hard. No other nation has the number of maritime commitments the US has.

That said you don't need 350 (I think the report Trump is using as the basis for this plan put required ship numbers in the 320-340 range), but it's not an obscenely large amount either, considering.

Trump will no doubt seek aggressive cost reduction in naval procurement, which is currently a fucking disaster

>>32023799
According to the article the plan is to re-open closed down shipyards, which could spread the orders out.

The Virginia program is a good model to follow as far as driving down costs goes. Whatever they're doing, it's working.

>>32023692

350 ships is an ambitious goal. What is he going to build to get the numbers up that high?

>>32023834
Escort carriers and LST's

>>32023834
Burke and LCS swarm. Keep all of the Ticos in service. Go to 3 Virginias per year instead of 2. Build the Fords a bit faster.

>>32023876

There has to be room for more Zumwalts in there somewhere.

>>32023912
Technically there's probably still time to order more if they do it right away. They're still building the third one right now after all. It's probably not very likely though.

>>32023912
The zumwalt is just a testing bed for new tech and ideas kind of like the seawolf subs. I wouldn't be surprised if most of the tech on the zumwalts got pushed into a new ship once the ideas get refined

>>32023932

We HAVE to order more to keep the line open!

>>32023957

That's bullshit. The Zumwalt isn't a test bed. It's a full-fledged destroyer.

As long as he doesn't go for actual meme boondoggles like trying to re-reactivate the battleships or something I'm OK with it.

>>32023970
Unless they order enough to make it affordable to buy ammo for them there's not much point.

File: image.jpg (25KB, 454x324px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 454x324px

>>32023834
Oliver hazard Perry's !!!!
Make FFGs great again

>>32023957
>The zumwalt is just a testing bed for new tech and ideas kind of like the seawolf subs.
Can people stop endlessly repeating this bullshit?

BOTH the Zumwalt and the Seawolf classes were not "test beds." Both were intended for lengthy buys.

In the case of the Seawolf, the effects of Clinton cancelling it are still being felt today, as it means there will be an unavoidable shortfall in SSN numbers from when too many 688s have been decommissioned to when enough Virginias are ready to build numbers back up (Trump switching to 3 a year would narrow that gap).

In the case of the Zumwalt, it meant scrambling to rebuild Burke production (and losing major cost savings earned after 20 years) and the struggle to make a Flight III Burke design work.

>>32023834
LCS spam will be a thing. No amount of tugs will be able to defeat them all

>>32023718
This

Trump has said that the US should not defend the rest of the world (hence why he wants all other NATO-members to spend 2%) yet still he wants more ships? The US Navy can alredy defeat Russia or China without any problems so why waste money on ships when you can have a taller wall?

>>32023692
>Needs bigger fleet.
>Hates immigrants.
How will you get enough Filipinos to staff all those ships then?

>Can't afford the ammo for one ship
>Wants to buy more ships

>>32025173
>Wants to buy 30 ships
>Builds production to supply 30 ships with ammo
>Cuts down order to 3 ships
>Bitches that ammo is expensive now
>Thinks that buying twice the ammo costs twice as much

>>32024978
Just get more gays to be sailors. I bet you this is Mike Pence's plan to get homosexuals out of the country.

>>32025254
Everyone in the navy is alredy gay so it makes sense to build more ships if you want the gays to leave.

>>32025173
dumbass the cost is high because they didn't build enough ships. you pay less the more you buy.

>>32025283
>>32025254
I know several men of the fagging kind that would not be against this idea, as long as there are drinks on board.

File: iowa.jpg (38KB, 498x580px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 498x580px

Perfect

File: yeaoh.jpg (38KB, 1280x800px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 1280x800px

>>32023875

>I'm bringing sexy back

>>32023834
Enough to sink the boats the Mexicans will use once Trump builds the wall.

>>32025321

>more twinks blowing me
>now with alcohol

Holy shit, America really is going to be great.

>>32023692
Where will they get the crews?

>>32023718
Because at current levels of deployment, there isn't enough time to adequately maintain the ships we do have

>>32023834
Make Chyna pay for it.

I would rather the budget go to meme projects like lasers and rail guns. maybe new subs that can launch planes or shit like how Russia issuing a new Ekranoplan

Navy doesn't have enough semen to fully staff ships. Many ships have to go out to sea with out enough semen to operate.

>>32023692
fake

>>32025420

>Where will they get the crews?

Judging by recent policy changes, I'm guessing heavily tattooed transsexuals?

>>32025482

Navy Times isn't perfect but it's a newspaper with paid subscribers, it isn't internet garbage.

File: USS_Trump.png (127KB, 3464x1253px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 3464x1253px

Where is my railgun battleships?

>>32025540
>Judging by recent policy changes, I'm guessing heavily tattooed transsexuals
So, /k/ then?

>>32025710

If everyone gets out of their mom's basement and contributes, that'll be a good thing! I'll even let the rainbow knee-socks slide. Then they can

>>32025377

>>32023718
We patrol like six times the combined area of everyone else.

>>32025547
What ....... W-what is this anon

>>32025840
Why tho? Your nation or its waters isnt 6 times bigger

>>32025853
That is what happens when BBfag finds shipbucket

>>32023834
Supercavitating Battleships.

>>32025862
>Your nation or its waters isnt 6 times bigger
Our coastal waters plus Japan and Korea's plus maintaining access to all our Pacific islands adds up to a huge fucking amount of ocean to patrol, even ignoring forward-deployed assets keeping an eye on Russia and China and the middle east.

>>32025934
>>32025862

The Strait of Hormuz alone

>>32025934
>>32025996
That makes sense

>>32025547
Maybe in the future when railguns become more viable, longer range, and more effective than missiles.

Trump should buy Russian designs and re-Americanize it.

Like that corvette that can carry containers to suit its mission.

>>32025781
But there are people out there. That I will have to interact with. Why do that when I can sit in my basement and make BB-treads, or make paranoid SHTF-posts every time I hear helicopters flying at the local Army base?

>>32026227

Because you want to play with our toys and you love my dick.

File: damagegreen1.png (253KB, 700x366px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 700x366px

>>32023692
fuck that, it's time to build some real ships

>>32023834
Reagan managed to get 600 ships right? Shouldn't be as hard for Trump to do 350 then?

>>32023692

>thinking any of trump's inconsistent and contradictory 'policy' statements sent out in stream of consciousness tweets are actually going to match what he does as he governs

>>32024942
Grats, my slavboo, you fell for the meme.

How is cutting the navy and our overseas bases MAGA? its not. Its a zero sum.

>>32023912
Nah, a larger, Flight III Burke can handle about anything, and if a 10,000T+ ship is still needed, LPD-17 is a better hull to build on than the tumblehome.

He should look to designs with a lower crew requirement.

Honestly, the Type 26 would be a sound investment for the USN - drop the 20 oldest Burkes and you can crew 50 Type 26s

File: 1475012984004.jpg (69KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 540x960px

>>32025547

>>32025430
Meme projects to put on new cruisers would be ideal. Ticos can't last too much longer even with a refurb.

Relevant thread on our sister board >>>/his/1967121
Would love to read your opinions on a fleet of more numerous, smaller ships instead of the giant superships.

>>32028345

Terrible thread

>>32023771
>No other nation has the number of maritime commitments the US has.
And this is exactly your problem - you stick your nose where it doesn't belong.
Stop doing that and you'll discover that you have far more ships than you actually need.

Will the new SECNAV roll back the ratings shit

>>32025878
>ShipBucket
Hehe, now you will see what happens when a newfag finds it

>>32028570
Forgot that ensuring freedom of navigation and protecting shipping lanes is none of America's business. Maybe we should just let Assad control the straits of Hormuz and Beijing to strangle the south China Sea, shouldn't be an issue at all that America needs to stick it's nose into.

>>32027812
>LPD-17
San Antonio-class with railguns.

MUH DICK

>>32029087
>Maybe we should just let Assad control the straits of Hormuz

Thanks, American Geography

File: 1472730936287.jpg (94KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 800x600px

>>32023692

I honestly think that anything beyond 300 ships is excessive. Any remaining money should be used to improve infrastructure in the US, including The Wall. That's just my opinion though.

>>32025878
>That is what happens when BBfag finds shipbucket

don't suppose anyone has the screenshot of the post where the stats were listed?

>>32030141
You haven't been paying attention if you think that.

>>32031636

300 ships is plenty. Just build a few more Zumwalts.

We should quit building carriers.

Spend the money on missile cruisers instead. Why launch aircraft when we can launch missiles. No pilot, no potential prisoners.
We could even launch drones if you want loiter time.

>>32031708

or we could turn the old f-18s into drones and launch them from - oooh guess what we're doing already?

>>32031708

>Why launch aircraft when we can launch missiles

The aircraft carry missiles, and an anti-ship missile is going to have more range when fired from a plane than from a ship.

>USN carriers are currently mostly named after presidents who served in rhe navy or presidents/senators who increased the navys budget.
>if this plan to increase ship numbers does go through by 2040 there probably will be a USS Trump

TRUMP NEEDS SEAMEN

>>32023692

Then pay for a full 12/12 carrier groups and phib groups. B/c for every three or four carriers- only one is going to be on station. Ditto for phib groups except centered around a giant bird firm, a phib groups has three big boats to carry a battalion of Marines ready to rape and pillage dirty brown people in the name of democracy and shit.

Two, design and pay for an actual frigate that's a good all around with excellent ASW capabilties; self defense anti-air warfare systems like the ESSM and RAM; and antiship missiles that's a follow on to the Harpoon. It does not need to go 40 knots flank speed. It should not break down trying to transit the North Pacific or Atantic. And the hull should be durable to deal w/ storms that pop up all the time in those places. Do not make ship a minehunter. If you need coutnermine assets build the ships and the helos and if you need to deploy them to a relevant area/theater of operations put them on a bigger float on ship and go forth, motherfuckers.

Three, accept the Chinese are going to be the next. And bring that up w/ Congress and the Oval Office.

>>32032281
>Three, accept the Chinese are going to be the next.

Next what?

>>32031657
The Navy has repeatedly stated that it isnt, and that ~342 ships is needed for current commitments.

File: 1476026563765.png (502KB, 529x502px) Image search: [Google]

502KB, 529x502px

>>32032438

>A government agency is saying that they don't have enough money and they desperately need more

Color me surprised.

>>32032564
DUDE MIC LMAO

This is how you end up like the RN who might not have any anti-ship missiles for the next decade.

>>32032564
Considering they're going through a maintenance death spiral and based on all the independent studies pointing to that requirement, I'd be inclined to believe it. But sure, stick your head in the sand. I'm sure you know better than the people who do this for a living.

>>32032704

A 300-ship navy with a minimum of 10 super carriers is perfectly sufficient.

>>32032713

http://thediplomat.com/2016/11/trumps-new-navy-does-the-us-really-need-350-warships/

>For example, how does an increase in the number of warships precisely affect the overall national security of the United States save the obvious deterrence factor? Is there, in fact, a direct correlation between the number of ships and U.S. national security? What are the opportunity costs of spending money on warships rather than investing it in other technologies or military hardware? At what moment precisely, can we expect China and Russia to take advantage of U.S. naval weakness? Will Beijing and Moscow automatically switch to a more aggressive posture if the number of warships falls below 250? Or is it 260?

>>32032410
next people we nuke

>>32032713
Nothing stops those cock suckers from saving costs and not hiring like 80% fucking shitskins, thats their real problem, no white people left in the navy.

File: 1478710224102.jpg (32KB, 640x533px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 640x533px

>>32024942
He's going to build a canal along each border and two inbetween: each ten miles wide. and 500metres deep. The spoil will be used to build earthworks behind the border canal and the spoil from the other two will be used to creat land out to cuba which will be ensla... offered democracy. pic unrelated but I want one for camping, maybe an inflatable tent? Not even high just typing out shite because so very lonely. here endeth the blogpost and OH FUCK THIS IS MY LIFE, PLEASE KILL ME!

>>32032874
Open up USNI News some day and read the many articles and reports on the subject. We are below the level of ships we need. We have less carriers than LAW states we should. That's right, the USN had to get special dispensation to retire a CV early it was in that poor shape. Ignore what all the experts are saying we need just for current operations.

>>32023828
Helps when you have a 3 boat 'class' absorbing all your R&D costs.

>>32032713
Post em. I'd like to take a look for some research I'm doing for >fun.

>>32034615
I mentioned USNI News. There's literally a congressional brief on the subject on the front page.

>>32028570
Sort, many of the countries near these critical waterways actually like the US patrolling them, as it takes pressure off their own forces.

>>32023692
In 2012 Romney said he'd increase the navy's size. The Navy said "no, we don't need that many new ships."

>>32033034
/pol/ pls

>>32036933
the military says what the president tells them to say

>>32036988
not really.....

>>32032874
Based on /k/. We would only need the Coastal Guard against China.

>>32032438
342 is an oddly specific number, anon. Is there a particular reason this was deemed the right amount?

>>32037962

Well, the justification for having a minimum of 10 carriers is that you want to have at least 1 carrier ready to go for each of the 3 major oceans (Atlantic, Pacific, Indian). 10 carriers means that you have at least 3 carriers operational and ready to go at any given moment, plus 1 additional carrier in case you lose one somehow. So when you temporarily pull a carrier out of service for upgrades, there is no reduction in readiness. And carriers get upgraded very much over the course of their service lives. There are also times when carriers are not available because they are conducting training missions. Having 10 carriers makes it so you have at least available at any given time.

You can extrapolate further requirements from that. A carrier strike group typically has at least 5 destroyers attacking as escorts, so if you have 10 carriers, you need at least 50 destroyers. And of course, you'll also want a few additional destroyers to be operated in groups separate from carriers.

>>32038010
The joke is you could fix that problem with several smaller carriers.

Not just they are cheaper to build but maintenance is more simple and faster which will increase the effective time on sea.

>>32038046
Yup, just need to build like 50 conventional powered large carriers. Plus the US deploys their naval forces way too much, costs money and is pointless

>>32038046
Anon, we've been over the "pocket carrier" idea multiple times.
It, like communism, sounds great on paper. but, just like communism, fails in reality.
Why?
Because two half carriers means a shitton more logistics than one from top to bottom.

>>32038046
It's amazing the way old bad ideas never go away.

>>32038046
But lobbyism.

>>32038072
will only get you right to the point where hard numbers of what it would take to do that are tallied up. And that's when the lobbyist go "Whelp. I'm not putting my ass on the line for that much. We'll stick with what we got and may get something cool and semi useful tacked on to them so I can say I did something."

>>32038046
>>32038072
The same reason why the USA doesn't deploy conventional submarines. Although there is a need for such a type of submarines.

>>32038063
Nonsense
It's politics and doctrine that keeps cheaper carriers from being produced.

>>32038093
>Although there is a need for such a type of submarines.
Is there?
Could you elucidate what that need is?

>>32038093
Littoral Combat Ships are quite the showcase for lobbyism in the navy.

The Navy want a ship for littoral zones and asymmetric warfare but instead of going for a healthy mix of corvettes, frigates and submarines. They bought overpriced and barely functional Independence and Freedom class ships.

Conventional submarines will make another big jump in the future. With all the money of the car manufacturers investing in new battery technology.

Especially China will do quite well as largest investor and producer of batteries of all kinds of applications.

>>32038098
How is it nonsense to point out that when you use two vessel to do the job of one, the logistical footprint doubles because now you're tasked with supplying two vessels instead of one?

>>32038168
>How is it nonsense to point out that when you use two vessel to do the job of one

and this is where you are wrong.

File: 1426451740674.jpg (64KB, 431x592px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 431x592px

>>32030059
I fucking kekd

>>32038188
So you're not suggesting using multiple smaller carriers to fill the role of one large carrier?

>>32038230
You build several smaller carriers to file roles which can't be carried by one supercarrier.

>>32038267
and what fills the role the supercarrier no longer fills?
or are you suggesting keeping the same number of supercarriers and building a fleet of smaller carriers as well?

>>32038168

That only makes sense if the current super-carriers are being used at near 100% of their capacity on every deployment. if a carrier which is ~1/3 smaller, with a ~1/3 smaller crew is used to carry out smaller scale commitments, then you are saving money.

>>32038290
>I'm not using my supercarriers at 100% of their capacity now
>therefore I shall never need to deploy supercarriers at 100% of their capacity in the future
>therefore I can cut corners and scrap my supercarriers in favor of smaller inferior carriers in order to save money

People like you, get people killed.

>>32023981
Shut yer mouf.

>>32038311

What part of that advocated scrapping super-carriers? I suggested that an all super-carrier fleet was a mis-allocation of resources. If you operate a mix of super-carriers and smaller ~60,000 t carriers you could have more than 11 carriers, for less money. By using the smaller carriers where possible, you might even have greater availability of the super-carriers when they are needed.

We need new Cruisers. I am on one and she is in bad shape with the Tico hulls. Her aegis and AA capability is the best in the world, but on an aging platform.

>>32038566

Is there really any significant capability gap between the Ticonderogas, and the Flight III Arleigh Burkes being built? I thought those were the replacement.

>>32038592
Ticos have larger C&C facilities and an extra SPG-62, not that they matter anymore.

>>32038592

Helo hangar and more VLS capacity. Plus, what are all the O-6's SWOs going to command?

>>32038625
>Helo hangar
About half of the ABs have hangars. Flight IIA onwards has them.

>>32038633

True, don't see a lot of those here with the carrier task force or the DESRON here in yoko so i forget

>>32038168
If they are in the same place, then your logistical footprint remains the same.

If logistics is all that matters, they can spend their whole lifetime sitting in a harbor being supported by trucks...

Not sure what your point is.

File: Trumpnaught One.jpg (757KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

757KB, 1920x1080px

>thinking Overlord Trump is planning on staying earthbound with his dreadnaughts
>Orders fleet of new battleships to take to the cosmos
>First order is to fire up main cannon and carve giant TRUMP letters into the surface of the moon
>Shoots down all """""""""""news""""""""""" satelllites except for Breitbart
>Space Marines get drunk and orbitally insert themselves into Bangkok, Amsterdam and Eurodisney for weekend of whoring and destruction.

>>32038751
>yfw you realize the bow of the ship is modeled after a great white shark.

>>32038046
>>32038063
you do realized that Amphibious assault ship are basically pocket carrier?

>>32038777

The first two America-class will be an interesting experiment. My only issue with them is if they are going to go as far as to remove the well-deck, but then not fit a ramp, while it is a great helicopter/tiltrotor carrier, it won't be so great at STOVL operations.

The QE carriers will be the ones to watch on this scale, though of course non nuclear STOVL would be unacceptable to the USN on that size. Will be interesting to see if EMALS, when mature, will scale onto smaller carriers for CATOBAR better than steam, as well.

>>32038777
With their like 10 knots top speed?

>>32038820
The next Chinese carrier will have EMAS while being around the same size of the other carriers .

The Liaoning is supposed to carry 24 J-15 and additional helicopters for AEW, ASW and rescue mission which result in a total air wing of 36 aircraft.

Now imagine carriers with 24 catapult launched but instead of helicopters for AEW and ASW they have fixed wings aircraft.

An American aircraft carrier carries twice the amount of F-18 aircraft but the Chinese have the flexibility of either operating their smaller carriers together or cover a larger area.

>>32027091
It was just under 600 ships actually, they never made it to 600.

File: 1bbr8l.jpg (52KB, 952x500px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 952x500px

>>32036988

>>32023718
Space navy to claim martian clay

>>32038046
INCORRECT.

There have been many studies on the subject and the answer every time was that larger CVs are more economical.

>>32039324
Do you know what you're talking about?

>>32040615

>Do you know what you're talking about?

Do you even need to ask? He's willfully ignorant.

File: navy.png (134KB, 559x690px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 559x690px

>>32027091

>Reagan managed to get 600 ships right?

Close, but not quite.

File: wasp9.jpg (497KB, 1440x960px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 1440x960px

>>32038445

The US Navy already does that though. It has super carriers and an equal number of conventionally-powered carriers.

If I'm in Columbia SC and I want to work as a deckhand what city would be the closest one to try to get started on boat life?

>>32040606
cite one

>>32041807
https://s3.amazonaws.com/media.hudson.org/files/publications/201510SharpeningtheSpearTheCarriertheJointForceandHighEndConflict.pdf

Had this in my favorites bar just for you.

>>32040615
The America-class is indeed too slow for any fleet action.

>>32041817
Now cite the parts which are supposed to prove your point.

>>32041829

>I'm illiterate and I need to be spoon fed everything

>>32041844
If you claim things you need to prove them.

yes

>>32041821

The America-class is designed to support amphibious landings. It is optimized for a different role than the larger Nimitz-class ships.

File: The real capability advantage of large CVs..png (254KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

254KB, 1366x768px

>>32041829
I mean I think this picture was saved from this pdf. How about you read the entire thing, because it's all on the topic you're talking about.

>>32041850
Which is exactly the point.

>>32041821
But it's got the top speed that its escorts have...

>>32041850
Don't make excuses when you haven't looked into it.

>>32041807


If only we could, like, listen to the exact reasoning that the PMs for the Ford-class gave for building another large carrier instead of smaller carriers.

If you have 50 minutes to kill, start here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIjvNCFXCjs

>>32041817
Study is about "high-end" warfare.

Building smaller carriers is about putting workload away from the supercarriers which aren't about high-end warfare.

File: wasp0.jpg (374KB, 1280x1920px) Image search: [Google]

374KB, 1280x1920px

>>32041888

Done.

>>32041901
>I have no idea what I'm talking

>>32041909

Not an argument.

>>32041888
How about you continue reading the section on "Fleet design options".

The large carriers are the most cost effective option.

>Charles de Gaulle
>€3 billion
>40 aircraft

>Ford class
> more than $10 billion unit cost
>75+ aircraft

If you add possible economic of scale for a mass produced de Gaulle-class. Smaller carriers are indeed more cost-effective than larger one.

>>32041958

>The initial purchasing cost of a ship is the only cost that matters.

The smaller carriers will be more expensive on a long-term basis because:

1. You'll need a larger number of carriers
2. You'll need a larger number of crews

I like how that one study just pull out some numbers about cost saving and loss of efficiency.

>>32041999
The de Gaulle doesn't even have half of the ship crew of a Nimitz carrier.

>>32041958
>Comparing a modernized FS
Charles de Gaulle that incorporated EMALS
and AAG with the third ship of the Ford Class
(CVN 80), the Ford Class would be 22% more
expensive, yet would provide a 53% increase
in the number of embarked aircraft (and an
even higher percentage in the number of
sorties generated), a 225% increase in
aviation fuel storage, and a 383% increase in
munitions storage.160

>>32041992
Don't forget the higher number of escorts, the fact that you need more of them, and all that jazz.

>>32041999
Which is a bit more informed than what you're doing.

It's all about what you want.

China could build a large fleet of conventional powered carriers for fast dashes against every force around their waters. And it would be cheaper than maintaining the 10+ supercarriers.

Not just are supercarriers more expensive, they are also barely on sea and are a nightmare to maintain - refuelling one costs billions and takes years.

It's something the future Navy doctrine needs to counter.

>11 supercarriers
>to guarantee that 3.5 are available for operations at any given time.

This is an inherently weakness of the supercarriers.

We've got hundreds of ships sitting in mothballs as it is.

I get wanting to update older models like the Burke but I'm also tired of seeing the government throw a trillion dollars at a weapons project that either only produces a prototype, or produces an inferior product nobody asked for.

>>32023718
For every active nuclear carrier you need 3 more in refit/refuelling/traveling. For the 10 CVN's you have you only get 2 active, without the 11th you will have a gap soon where you will only have one on station.
10 Nuclear carriers
1 active.


>There is no US carrier operating today in the Middle East, a situation that is the product of several years of high-tempo operations and the need to catch up on major maintenance put off to sustain that pace. Carriers have been absent before, the last time was in 2007, but this gap has caught a lot of people's attention, even more so as another will occur in 2016 in the Pacific operating area.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/2015/11/03/congress-forbes-courtney-stackley-moore-navy-naval-aircraft-carriers-ford-kennedy-enterprise-gap-middle-east-centcom-pacom/75119168/


>When the carrier Theodore Roosevelt leaves the Persian Gulf this fall, U.S. Central Command will be without a flattop for as long as two months 2015
https://www.navytimes.com/story/military/2015/07/30/richardson-hearing-confirmation-senate-mccain-gillibrand/30882305/


>The U.S. Navy is facing a looming shortage of aircraft carriers in the Western Pacific and the Middle East this year going without an aircraft carrier for months.
>“There is no easy way to take a ten-carrier force and operate it like you have sixteen, at some point the wheels will come off the cart.”
>In recent years the U.S. Navy’s carrier force has shrunk to only ten ships. The Navy is required to operate eleven carriers by law, but the Pentagon applied for a waiver to keep only ten ships in service.
>The gap between Enterprise’s retirement and Ford’s entry into service is much longer than anyone had anticipated. “It was supposed to be a fourteen-month gap at ten carriers and now the gap will be almost eight years
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navys-dangerous-carrier-shortage-the-pacific-14848

>>32042103
That is something /k/ doesn't understand.

China doesn't need 11 carriers to match or even outmatch the USA carrierwise.

>>32042152
oh yes chinese carrier is pure magic that doesn't fallow rules of mere mortal world
they don't need to refuel, refit, go on training or travel, if fact of great leader so wishes Liaoning could teleport to white house and use its laser breath and win any war single handedly

>>32042191
>being that butthurt that you just invent nonsense

>>32042191
I think that what
>>32042152
was saying is that right now the chinese only care about the pacific and more specifically the south china sea.
The USN "only" have one carrier there, although of course they have surge capabilities.
The chinese could match the Pacific fleet quite easily with one or two conventionally powered carriers and if they went down the nuclear route they'd "only" need 4 for continuous at sea deployment

>>32042222
good to know that chinese ships don't travel but teleport

they don't need to refit cos why something perfect would get old eh ?

and don't forget 40>70 and 3 > 11

this is mental gymnastics at its finest

>>32041882
Someone is gonna scream "muh MIC" and shill at this, just so you know

>>32023718
Everyone else has a national navy. US has a world navy.

>>32042191
A china with 3 carriers that isn't doing 24/7 patrols around the world, can have 3 working carriers for combat, against the maybe 4 carriers the US could surge to the pacific.

This is why the super carrier strategy is garbage, not to mention what a centralized asset it is, if one of those ballistic anti-ship missiles actually hit it.

Good bye like 50 billion dollars.

What we need to do is switch over to cheaper conventional carriers, not necessarily smaller, but cheaper & mass produced.

File: carriers-2014.gif (135KB, 850x1076px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 850x1076px

o ya our navy is just sooo weak

lmao

defund the DoD please

File: SaratogaCG.png (507KB, 639x868px) Image search: [Google]

507KB, 639x868px

>>32023692
We should start by bringing ships named after Battles back. And I miss calling submarines, sea critters.
>>32025327
We better not bring Battleships back.

>>32045366
>>32025327
Iowa is still objectively best girl.

Get out fag.

>>32045366
>>32045513
But Saratoga is bretty qt too

>>32045303

What's the very bottom super-carrier and why is she different?

>>32045262

Current build rates of supercarriers (which maintains the fleet at 11) are the barest minimum required to keep the entire carrier-building domestic industry (and labor force/knowledge base) alive.

We don't have 11 carriers because 11 is the magic number of carriers that we think we need - we have that because it's the bare minimum required to ensure we can build multiple new carriers to respond to any big multi-year war in the future.

Also if you ever mention the DF-21D again I hope a raccoon bites your taint. We can (and will be) manufacturing four times the SM-3 interceptor missiles than the Chinese can manufacture DF-21s, annually. They don't win this math.

>>32046916

Don't you mean SM-2 and SM-6?

File: 1448077642865.jpg (66KB, 625x469px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 625x469px

>>32025547

File: 1476066007462.jpg (87KB, 600x676px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 600x676px

Make Ships BB Again

File: rtn_132605.jpg (177KB, 550x375px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 550x375px

>>32046936
SM-3 is the weapon of choice against BMs

Funfact, the Aegis platforms that received the ABM upgrade are in 7th Fleet. That shows the USN takes the DF-21D seriously.

>>32045513
Iowa's design is meh. Plus she is actually from New York and currently lives in LA.

>>32046916
Any war that happens will be over long before any new carriers are finished
Thats why the US needs to be building extra carriers which normally run only partially filled.

File: tmp_7741-US_Navy_Battle_Force_Zulu_carriers_overhead_view_in_19911452597901.jpg (315KB, 904x544px) Image search: [Google]

315KB, 904x544px

>>32042276
The usn brought this to bear against iraq, not a naval power.

To think the USN wont bring enough carriers to the party is stupid as fuck.

File: IowaTurretExplosion1.jpg (22KB, 250x349px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 250x349px

>>32045513

>>32046936

Nope, SM-3s. The big, expensive-as-all-fuck dedicated interceptor missiles. We really are building that many. But remember that the Chinese can only build about a dozen DF-21s a year, because ballistic missiles are much bigger and much more expensive, compared to an SM-3 interceptor. And not all of those are going to be anti-ship variants; they need more nuclear and conventional anti-land ones for various reasons.

The SM-2 and SM-6's ability to hit ballistic missiles is a very nice addition, but their blast-frag warheads are a lot less effective against an RV compared to the kinetic hit-to-kill in the SM-3. Still, ships are going to be carrying a lot of those anyways, we have a lot already in the inventory, so we could always fire two (or four) per RV to increase chances of a kill (whereas doing that with SM-3s would be a lot more expensive. On the other hand the SM-3 is much more likely to kill with just one or two shots.)

>>32049434
>ballistic missile
>expensive