Woot! America's Navy #1 !

[Dis]

Originally posted by Lonestar


What do you think gives us more influence on the International stage, Carrier groups of Fighters that "cost" over $200 Million a pop? (F-22)

Obviously, the Carrier groups. The USAF has much, much worse cost-controls than the Navy does (and that's saying something). Let THEM take the cuts.

yeah they also have great funding. The barracks on their bases, and their bases are so much nicer than the navy's . Of course, the navy bases are much older as well. That's why they seem to have that run down look.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Dis


yeah they also have great funding. The barracks on their bases, and their bases are so much nicer than the navy's . Of course, the navy bases are much older as well. That's why they seem to have that run down look.

The problem is, that up until the Reagan administration the USAF managed to convince Congress and the President that they deserve the lion's share of the funding that goes their way, their people are of "Higher quality" than the other services and deserve a higher standard of living, and since they are "more technical" (more technical than nukes? Cryptologists, Gas Turbine mechanics?) they don't need to worry about military bearing as much. Also, they can do their PT tests on Bikes.

[Patroklos]

Hey now, Patroklos is just getting his SWO on. He's knowledgable...and stuff.

The sad thing is I am a SUPPO....

[pchang]

The NRO budget is hidden inside the Airforce budget. This is why the Airforce appears to have more money than the other services. I believe the exact figures are still considered classified.

[:) Smiley]

According to wisdom on the other games board, the best counter to torpedoes are planes.

On the other hand, to take on planes, one needs to close in with lots of lasers. Lazors.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by pchang
The NRO budget is hidden inside the Airforce budget. This is why the Airforce appears to have more money than the other services. I believe the exact figures are still considered classified.

What does that, at all, have to do with The USAF having WiFi apartment style barracks, fighter planes at $200 mil a pop, Bombers at $1 bil a pop, "Quality of life" pay, etc...?

No, the USAF is much, much worse than the other services in burning through money.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Patroklos


The sad thing is I am a SUPPO....

I thought you were DISBO/SALES....

By the way, I want something besides Pepsi/Coke in the gedunk. Do I talk to you about that or SH1?

[Dis]

Originally posted by Lonestar


I thought you were DISBO/SALES....

By the way, I want something besides Pepsi/Coke in the gedunk. Do I talk to you about that or SH1?

surely you have more than that. Even on the Guam we had mountain Dew and Dr. pepper in the machines. Though they never restocked them enough.

I could never count on having any mountain do for the 12:00 AM to 6:00 AM lab watch while out at sea. Esp. in the persian gulf.

I was lucky to find diet coke in the machines. And far too often they'd run out of the caffenated drinks. I couldn't drink coffee. esp. in the hot engineering spaces. Though a lot of guys did. You'd see them drinking coffee in 120 degree firerooms.

I lived on mountain dew while on navy ships.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Dis


surely you have more than that. Even on the Guam we had mountain Dew and Dr. pepper in the machines. Though they never restocked them enough.

I could never count on having any mountain do for the 12:00 AM to 6:00 AM lab watch while out at sea. Esp. in the persian gulf.

Point is, After six months of Pepsi/Coke/Hajij Dew (Dr. Pepper isn't sold outside of North America, apperently) I wanted some sunkist or something like that. The shole ship did. When we took on several pallets of snapple during a RAS they were gone within two days.

[Dis]

learn to love mountain dew. The elixir of life. I did.

on the carrier, we got european/middle eastern versions of coke and all that. They tasted almost the same. Acutally the diet versions tasted different.

In the middle east they used actual tin cans like the old days, instead of aluminum. In fact, I saved a couple of soda cans I got from overseas deployments. Cheesy, I know. I just like the arabic writing on the mountain dew can. I think it was only 10 ounces insead of 12, as well. Just meant, I had to drink more of it.

[Mr. Harley]

Patroklos - thanks for the response. You'll note I was very cautious to state the Iranians are attempting to aquire the two newer Russian systems. The problem is that we don't know how many, if any, they have for sure. To assume that the Iranians are not aware of our survelliance and are not actively attempting to circumvent it, very possibly successfully, is the height of folly. I sincerely hope our naval planners are not doing that.

If the Iranians launch a mixed force of C-802's AND a mix of Sunburns and Yakhonts, that could get really ugly. The problem is we are dealing with "gap" scenarios here, as in who has which defensive/offensive hole in their technology/deployment. Making a mistake in that kind of area can cause you to have substantial losses - like your assumption that the Iranians did not learn from Desert Storm and are now deploying their land-based anti-ship missiles from portable launchers.

The point about the British, and US losses, to anti-ship missiles was to make the point that, given the technology of the time, the anti-ship missiles have the upper hand. That has largely been the case over the last 40 years, I can pull you out analysis if you want. I will grant your point, and in fact I already did with my comments about the Silkworm/Styx, that our defenses will work well against the previous generation missiles.

But the current generation missiles will almost always have an advantage, due to the nature of missiles versus countermeasures, cost issues, etc. My cautionary statement consists of the fact the Iranians are very actively trying to aquire them (the Russians even did demonstartions for them back in - I'd have to check, I think 2002 or 2003.) Can you say $60-$90 barrel oil?

Look at my sig. The Mullahs ARE going to do everything they can to aquire them, and they have the cash. To assume they do not have any, and will not soon have substantial numbers, is the height of folly. I agree with you that the chances are that they will not be maintained well, may not have been manufactured well, etc. But the problem is - chances. If we intervene and the analysis is wrong, you or Lonestar could end up dead. I really don't want to read that kind of headline in the near future.

Lastly, I didn't talk about the newest Chinese destroyers, I specifically am talking about their aquisition of Russian Sovremenny class ships, and the new advanced versions. The Chinese are probably reverse engineering the first ones right now. As I stated, and showed evidence, they have an excellent record in reverse engineering hardware, as in the HY-2 Silkworm actually outperforms the SS-N-2c Styx - both of which are based off the SS-N-2b Styx.

My entire point is that there are now enough variables to make operating in the Red Sea one of the riskiest naval environments in the world, if not THE riskiest. Do I believe, IMHO, that we have the edge? Absolutely. Do I believe that we could operate loss free against the Iranians - as in no hulls being destroyed? That is very much open to doubt. Do I believe that we would take horrendous losses, and it would be a bloodbath? Unlikely. But my point is unlikely does not equal it will not happen - and I don't want other people burying their family members unless it is conclusively warranted, as in Afghanistan harboring Osama bin Laden after it became obvious he had masterminded 9/11.

For that we don't need the current number of Carrier Groups. The current high levels of US military overseas deployment are due to meddling, the newest version of "white man's burden" - "We will spread democracy in the Middle East", and foreign adventurism. I would much rather you were at home helping American businesses compete abroad, IMHO that has been the major area of world conflict since call in the Korean WAR - economic. In that area we are not doing nearly as well. And if your economy slides while you are attempting to maintain Superpower status - look at the Soviet Union and the British Empire. What, you cannot because neither exists as a Superpower anymore! Exactly.

[Ted Striker]

Preach on brother Shawn.

Awesome post.

It's plain as day what is happening and it's scaring the hell out of me.

The economic costs are only now creeping in and being noticed by the population. It took 20 years for this nation to recover economically from Vietnam, I'm afraid the same may be said of Iraq.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Dis


around 100 million a year operating cost for a carrier. Not including special deployments such as wars in Iraq.

That's less than I expected. Still a big chunk of change.

So we're looking at about 1.2 billion baseline for operating costs.

But what's strange is that the cost of1 stealth bomber can pay for the entire operting expense of the carrier fleet.


ps Lazors

[binTravkin]

QFT

[Dis]

hey cool. I found a photo of a navy ship hit by an exocet missile. I forgot we had one hit in the 80's.

It was actually hit by 2 exocets. The ship returned to Bahrain under her own power and the crew put out the fires.