USN now smallest since before WW1.

[Panag]

hi ,

small yes , but the firepower and strike power has been increased a zillion times , .....

not to mention all the ships that are planned in the next years and all the ones that can be reactivated on a short notice , ....

have a nice day

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus Britain will build 2. France might build another 1. China has the aspiration to build 1.

Great Britain's are going to be non-nuclear carriers that keep on shrinking in size due to cost overruns, and France's carrier and planned additional one is not as large as the US's and may not be considered a full sized carrier depending on your definition. I'd be stunned if China actually builds a real carrier within 15 years. I'd also expect the first one to be non-nuclear powered.

[Sandman]

And how about comparing tonnage?

Yes, I bet the tonnage is much greater now.

Britain will build 2.

Non-nuclear-powered ones, and probably overpriced and underpowered.

[GhengisFarb™]

Re: USN now smallest since before WW1.

Seeing as most members of the US Armed Forces are fully aware that the Navy is comprised of homosexuals, it would make since that their numbers would dwindle since they don't procreate.

(Disclaimer: This isn't an attack on homosexuals, its a joke made at the expense of the Navy's stereotypical pansiness.)

[Kuciwalker]

The navy may be smaller, but its power relative to the rest of the world is a heck of a lot larger...

[Zkribbler]

So just how many ships will we need in order to assure destruction of the al Qaeda navy??

[Kuciwalker]

[Saint Marcus]

and France's carrier and planned additional one is not as large as the US's and may not be considered a full sized carrier depending on your definition.

generally, "full sized carrier" means a carrier from which non VSTOL aircraft can lift-off and land on. This includes the French carrier, from which Rafales operate. (and thus discludes the British carriers, from which Harriers operate).

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
generally, "full sized carrier" means a carrier from which non VSTOL aircraft can lift-off and land on. This includes the French carrier, from which Rafales operate. (and thus discludes the British carriers, from which Harriers operate).

Of course the French carrier is just 38,000 tons while the US's newest Nimitz Class carriers have a fully loaded displacement of 102,000 tons.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by Mordoch

Of course the French carrier is just 38,000 tons while the US's newest Nimitz Class carriers have a fully loaded displacement of 102,000 tons.

So your saying Americans weigh more than Frenchies?

[Menlas]

Originally posted by Mordoch

Of course the French carrier is just 38,000 tons while the US's newest Nimitz Class carriers have a fully loaded displacement of 102,000 tons.

Well, it juste means that less aircrafts can operate from it... 35-40 for the Charles de Gaulle, compared to around 80 for a Nimitz carrier.

[Dis]

well like you said, one cruiser is just as powerful if not more powerful than a ww1 battleship (or dreadnaught)

we don't need that large of a navy. Though we could use 13 carriers instead of 12. I'll agree with you there. when I was in the service during the Clinton years it seemed like a waste, because we never had any wars. But with this warmonging president, we could use the extra sea/air power

[chequita guevara]

What's the "surge" plan?

[Dis]

Re: Re: USN now smallest since before WW1.

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Seeing as most members of the US Armed Forces are fully aware that the Navy is comprised of homosexuals, it would make since that their numbers would dwindle since they don't procreate.

(Disclaimer: This isn't an attack on homosexuals, its a joke made at the expense of the Navy's stereotypical pansiness.)

thems fightin' words. prepare to duel

[Dis]

I love the navy, why did I ever get out? .

I love ships though. That was one reason I got in. I had model battlehips as a kid, I thought they were cool.

But the navy does have some interesting plans for new warships in the future. And yes the old ships do need to go. They are pieces of **** . I know, I was on one. I was on the USS Guam. LPH-9. We made our last deployment in 1997/98. Even then our ship was horribly out of date. We couldn't carry nearly the number of marines as the LHA/LHD's. And we did not have harrier jump jets permanently assigned on our ship (though we could suppor harrier operations- but our ship wasn't designed for it). We mostly supporte helicopter operations.

but I kind of do miss my old LPH-9. I really enjoyed being on a smaller ship (though we still did have close to 1000 people on board). But compared to a carrier, we were small. I'll admit I hated life on a carrier for the most part. Though it was cool to be part of such a powerful arsenal. I liked watching flight operations. But large commands just suck. Plain and simple. I also enjoyed my time working at SIMA in Pascagoula. A very small command with just over 100 people. I'm so glad I took SIMA in Pascagoula over SIMA in Norfolk. Smaller commands are better imho.

And the new navy ships will be smaller for the most part. Especially these arsenal ships and such. Although the new amphibious ships might be larger. I haven't seen what they looked like. I'm curious if they are bigger than the LHA/LHD's. And of course we still have to have carriers- but I have no interest of serving on one.

Lonestar do you have any pictures of the new amphibious class of ships? And stats? I may look that up later.