Russian Bomber Fly By Activity

[LiveFromUkraine]

William,

Kyoto is indeed one of those things... a symbolic international treaty that does bugger all to address the real problem (if in fact a problem exists).

I'm not a one eyed conservative but I can't help but think things here are about to change - and for the worse.  Political correctness will probably rear its head again in time and we'll generally move further to the left.  After having a conservative government for 11.5 years the community seems to think it was time for a change.  A change we got...  and how that ends up is yet to be seen.

Kuna




Thomas...  GreyScales had one post.

Sounds like Howard screwed the conservative part by not stepping down and letting someone else run. I hope things don't change too much there since I have been wanting to move back.


Thomas

[Zeusophobia]

This actually scares the crap out of me. Being former military word gets around who to be afraid of, and who not to be afraid of, Russia was always on the top of the list for who to be afraid of.

Russia has an EMP pulse the size of a beer can that can shutdown all of NYC. They also have some pretty advanced tanks and aircrafts.

Fighting Russia would be nothing like fighting Iraq, Americans would be killed in droves.

[BillyB]

Billy,

Yes, we are the only country willing to pay to be the top dog.  Huge price, however, to be the top dog.  

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

yep, there's a cost involved. Some countries get the funds through force, others by allowing their people to be free and maximize their abilities, then the government taxes the fruits of their labor.

I would prefer NATO taking over that role and diminishing our role (and our expenditures). 

When I was a kid, I thought NATO and the UN was the greatest thing since it was a collective group of nations who'd do what's best for the World's people. That was the idea, wsn't it? Unfortunately there are nations that will do what's in their best interest only. Not always a bad thing but many nations do not abide by the UN resolutions they vote on. One reason I think US went into Iraq a second time was to stop the "under the table" deals with Iraq. Russia and many of our European friends decided they would do business with Iraq against UN resolutions.

Zeus, I think you've been believing in one too many tales in the Marines. If Russia has an electromagnetic pulse in a grenade size package, they can sell it to Iraq to stop all of America's military equipment from advancing. High powered EMP, enough to shut down a city, are generated through nuclear weapons and the risk of using nuclear may outweigh the reward.

[I/O]

Australia just signed on to Kyoto-one of the last remaining hold outs.

Just one of many "Suck Up's" to the looney left that will come from this incoming government.

I/O

[Zeusophobia]

Zeus, I think you've been believing in one too many tales in the Marines. If Russia has an electromagnetic pulse in a grenade size package, they can sell it to Iraq to stop all of America's military equipment from advancing. High powered EMP, enough to shut down a city, are generated through nuclear weapons and the risk of using nuclear may outweigh the reward.

Actually I got the part about their technology from the military channel. Supposedly theirs an EMP that can knock out the entire US without a bomb.

Also theirs plenty of Russian weaponry in Iraq, that's personal experience.

[Mir]

Israeli F-15's once shot down over 80 Migs in one battle and lost no planes of their own.

In the airbattle over Bekka valley the Israeli F15s and F16s were pitched against Syrian Mig21 and Mig23s.
The Russian built aircraft were a generation older then US built fighter. On top of that the Israelis had E2 Hawkeye AWACS while the Syrians had no AWACS. So the Syrian radars were jammed and the AWACS simply directed F15/16s to the Syrian aircraft for a Turkey shoot. Israel claims to have shot down 87 Syrian aircraft while not losing any, Syrians have admitted losing far less aircraft and claim to have shot down a few.There is no independent confirmation of either side's claims.

 

America's F-15's and F-16's have undeafeated records in real combat so I suspect that is one reason for reduced the production of the F-22 which is highly expensive.

Undefeated record against who? Where have F15 and F16s been pitched against Mig29 and Su27s with roughly equal numbers and equally skilled pilots and with both sides having similar ECM capabilities?
In the Vietnam war 16 of the air aces were from North Vietnam airforce, one was Russian and 4 US.

I find the idea that US wants to be the top dog so that it can keep the world safe quite laughable indeed.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will guard the guards themselves?)_Juvenal

[BillyB]

The Russian built aircraft were a generation older then US built fighter.
 
Undefeated record against who? Where have F15 and F16s been pitched against Mig29 and Su27s with roughly equal numbers and equally skilled pilots and with both sides having similar ECM capabilities?

Mir, you will not see equal in battle. The US spends more on military than the rest of the World combined. We've invested a lot of insurance to guard ourselves and our friends. American soldiers are better fed and better trained, better equipped and have much more experience than soldiers of other nations. While Russia and Europe have 4th generation fighter jets, America has 5th generation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_generation_jet_fighter#DERA_study

When I was in the Army, we did most of our training at night. We have the best night vision technology and can fight when many Armies can't.

A few people have mentioned America's military as stretching thin and can't fight another war but some of our soldiers are doing police action in which they aren't adequately trained for. Most of our military is not even in Iraq and heavy weapon systems from tanks to aircraft carriers are available on a moments notice. The good news, although most the media doesn't like to point it out, is that our military is currently having less fatalities per year compared to some years of peace.

[deccie]

William,

Kyoto is indeed one of those things... a symbolic international treaty that does bugger all to address the real problem (if in fact a problem exists).

I'm not a one eyed conservative but I can't help but think things here are about to change - and for the worse.  Political correctness will probably rear its head again in time and we'll generally move further to the left.  After having a conservative government for 11.5 years the community seems to think it was time for a change.  A change we got...  and how that ends up is yet to be seen.

Kuna




Thomas...  GreyScales had one post.

No, but you were one eye-ed about the result weren't you. I'm suprised you couldn't see it coming.

[deccie]

20-1 kill ratio means if the F-22  was in 21 battles with an F-15 with equally talented pilots, it would lose only once. Besides, superior performance, it leaves no or a very small radar footprint. It's hard to fight what you can't see.

I'm aware of what it meant but your statement was the one that was misleading. Now we have established what it really means, if I throw up 200 fighters/fighter bombers into a battle and you throw up 50 F-22's, who is going to get to the objective? I suspect it will be the guy with the 200 fighters, especially if they are Su-30's.

Here's some videos of fighter jets in action.

Why do I even care? If I wanted to see plane videos there are far better places to see them than on RWD thanks.
Billy, I'm suprised. Of everything I wrote this is the best you can come up with?
As Mir correctly pointed out the key to the win-loss ratio of recent battles has been systems like JSTARS and AWACS. (there is one other but I have forgotten it for the time being). I'm also suprised you are not aware of the degradation in your own military. Where are the new cruisers to replace the ticonderoga's? Where are the new frigates to replace the OHP's? What aircraft is going to replace the S3 Viking? Do you really thing a Superhornet is a complete replacement for the capabilities of an F-14? Even in destroyers the Arleigh Burke's arenot an equal replacement for the Spruances's. The airforce is in a similar state wth many aircraft over 20 years old and needing replacement.  The F-16's you like to talk about are being reduced in number. The P3 Orion forces is starting to look tatty indeed, as is the Hercules. Even the best new aircraft to come out in recent years, the Globemaster II has not been able to completely replace the capability of the C-141.

Billy, I would suggest you can do much better than listen to "some guy on an aircraft carrier".

[BillyB]

if I throw up 200 fighters/fighter bombers into a battle and you throw up 50 F-22's, who is going to get to the objective? I suspect it will be the guy with the 200 fighters, especially if they are Su-30's.

Su-30 is old technology and will lose badly against F-22's. F-22's were recently in a mock battle and outnumbered against F-16's and F-18's and scored a 108-0 kill ratio. Keep in mind, the F-16 has never been shot down in real combat against other fighters. The F-22 is a much better fighter.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123022371

As Mir correctly pointed out the key to the win-loss ratio of recent battles has been systems like JSTARS and AWACS. (there is one other but I have forgotten it for the time being).

Do you think fighters deserve any credit in the fight?

I'm also suprised you are not aware of the degradation in your own military.

America accounts for 60% of the Worlds military expenditures. Do you think we need to spend more dollars in upgrading our antique equipment?

Do you really thing a Superhornet is a complete replacement for the capabilities of an F-14? The F-16's you like to talk about are being reduced in number.

No, the Superhornet is a replacement for the Hornet and you're six years behind the times. A replacement, F-35, for the Superhornet and F-16 is already a done deal.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/plane-jsf-01a.html

   
The P3 Orion forces is starting to look tatty indeed, as is the Hercules.

What does the competition have to offer? The Hercules spectre gunship is still the most powerful gunship in the air.

   
Even the best new aircraft to come out in recent years, the Globemaster II has not been able to completely replace the capability of the C-141.

 It's the Globemaster III that replaced the C-141. The C-141 replaced the Globemaster II. There is an Air Force base nearby that completely made the switch to the Globemaster III years ago.

I don't get my military info just from a friend on a carrier. I studied, served in the Army, and even jumped out of some of the planes mentioned above.

deccie, if you ever get in a war against American military hardware, I hope you have a little more respect for it, it may save your life.  Just ask the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who surrendered that was once part of the 4th largest military in the World. They were not as confident as you are with their Russian military equipment. That thread full of videos I supplied has some important links to read about the capabilities of the jets talked about. Read them so you don't make as much errors next time you post.

[Jet]

While Russia and Europe have 4th generation fighter jets, America has 5th generation.

We definitely have some cool hardware in the air, but do we have one Raptor for every 20 operational MiGs & SUkois out there?

I'm not as well versed on Air Force birds as Navy but I can say that the E/F/G superbugs are not a "one size fits all" replacement for the Tomcat/Intruder/Viking and the C/D models are fast becoming outdated. I can also say that the F/A Guys have an ENORMOUS amount of respect for the MiG drivers (and this is not internet reading, this is first person accounts from pilots I know that flew with various squadrons attached to Carrier Air Wing 7 out of Oceana). As Deccie mentioned the Orions are starting to look tatty, and why shouldn't they? They are pushing 60 yrs old (Lockheed Electra airframe)! My father was part of the team that designed the computer systems for the "Hunter/Killer" back in the '60s When they upgraded to the C model and worked on refining those systems into the '80s at NADC Johnsville. They haven't replaced them yet because for all the "technology" we haven't been able to come up with something that does the job they do better.

Technology is great, but it still comes down to the people, and while we have some of the best in the world...we don't have ALL of the best in the world.

The good news, although most the media doesn't like to point it out, is that our military is currently having less fatalities per year compared to some years of peace.

While this is true, it's not completely attributable to superior training and firepower. We also have high escalation of disabled veterans that the media doesn't talk much about. Advances in medicine have greatly reduced the fatality rate, but there is still a large price being paid.

[Kuna]

No, but you were one eye-ed about the result weren't you. I'm suprised you couldn't see it coming.

Deccie,

I'm far from one-eyed about politics in Oz but for the life of me I can't see what people voted for other than change. 

Change from what? 

Economic prosperity?  IR Stability?  Reduced illegal immigration?  Reduced Taxes?

Howard was unpopular with the left but that's because he righted so many wrongs from the dreadful performance under the prior governments.

Anyone who's honest will admit our new government spoke most loudly when pretending to be conservative - except on a few populist issues LIKE KYOTO and IR reform. Now Kyoto is signed what are the dramatic and everlasting benefits for our precious earth?  We were already on target for the 10 year goals...  and nothing will change.

Australia are responsible international citizens but that doesn't mean we need to buckle to the EU or anyone else trying to force us into an unjust treaty.

On IR reform it's hilarious that we now find out the "tearing up of WorkChoices" will be slow and phased.  I hope the left is basking in the "action" our new PM promised...

RWD is not a forum for politics so I'll stop there but I did see your PM after the election win and I decided it wasn't worthy of a response.  You may start gloating when our economy improves - and if it falters you can join me on buying up more property from those that will lose their homes AGAIN! 

Kuna

[wxman]

I doubt if we will ever see the US and Russia put their high tech equipment to the test against each other. Even if they did, when one side perceives they are losing, it will quickly escalate to the next level of weaponry. Unfortunately we have military leaders on both sides who feel their weapons are far superior than their enemy. It gives them a false sense of security and too often leads to tragic blunders.  I'm not talking about the generals in the field, but the boneheads in the Pentagon, the White House and their Russian counterpart.

[deccie]

Su-30 is old technology and will lose badly against F-22's. F-22's were recently in a mock battle and outnumbered against F-16's and F-18's and scored a 108-0 kill ratio. Keep in mind, the F-16 has never been shot down in real combat against other fighters. The F-22 is a much better fighter.

That may be the case but you still haven't managed to solve the age old issue of shotting down two aircraft with one missile or indeed being in two or more places at once.

Do you think fighters deserve any credit in the fight?

Certainly they do, but it is the control systems that tell them WHERE to be and WHO to shoot at.

America accounts for 60% of the Worlds military expenditures. Do you think we need to spend more dollars in upgrading our antique equipment?

No, but perhaps you'd look at where the new systems are NOT coming from. Once again I suggest you failed to answer the vast majority of my questions. WHERE are the new frigates? WHERE are the new cruisers?

No, the Superhornet is a replacement for the Hornet and you're six years behind the times. A replacement, F-35, for the Superhornet and F-16 is already a done deal.

I suggest you need to do some re reading of the USN/Marines order of battle since those F-14 squadrons are flying Superhornets. As for the JSF, it has yet to achieve production status. Until it does it is NOT a done deal.
And again, replacements are not being purchased in the same numbers.

What does the competition have to offer? The Hercules spectre gunship is still the most powerful gunship in the air.

You know Billy, you have to be the first person to ever suggest the primary mission of a Hercules is that of a GUNSHIP. The spectre is a minor role for that airframe.

It's the Globemaster III that replaced the C-141. The C-141 replaced the Globemaster II. There is an Air Force base nearby that completely made the switch to the Globemaster III years ago.

Ok, so I made a mistake of one Roman "I". Hardly a huge error. Again, although on a one for one basis the Globemaster III outperforms the C-141, the airforce did not buy replacements on a one for one basis.

I don't get my military info just from a friend on a carrier. I studied, served in the Army, and even jumped out of some of the planes mentioned above.

I know quite a few military types and indeed my family history is that of a military background however just because you served I fail to see how that provides you with authority. Agreement within military senior ranks on all topics is not uniform either and I somehow don't quite think you got to Colonel or anything higher.

deccie, if you ever get in a war against American military hardware, I hope you have a little more respect for it, it may save your life.  Just ask the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who surrendered that was once part of the 4th largest military in the World. They were not as confident as you are with their Russian military equipment.

I do have respect for some American systems. I loved the F-111 (Aussies still fly them) though I can understand why the US retired them. I think the Prowler is a very under-rated aircraft and the F-14 was simply a classic. The M1 and family  is an awesome tank indeed but it DOES have the weakness of being a gas guzzler. The A-10 has to be about the best close air support aircraft ever built and the F-16 was very innovative indeed. However, I think none of that invalidates my argument that when taken as a "whole of force" basis the US military is now degraded in capability terms of where is was 10 -15 years ago. You did not mention a single thing about my discussion on surface fleet units.

. Read them so you don't make as much errors next time you post.

Wow. A whole II instead of III. What a massive error. Oh, whoa is me.

[deccie]

I doubt if we will ever see the US and Russia put their high tech equipment to the test against each other. Even if they did, when one side perceives they are losing, it will quickly escalate to the next level of weaponry. Unfortunately we have military leaders on both sides who feel their weapons are far superior than their enemy. It gives them a false sense of security and too often leads to tragic blunders.  I'm not talking about the generals in the field, but the boneheads in the Pentagon, the White House and their Russian counterpart.

That's the point isn't it wxman. We don't want to see them pitching their weapons against each other.

[deccie]

Deccie,

I'm far from one-eyed about politics in Oz but for the life of me I can't see what people voted for other than change. 

And I give you as much credibility on being right on that front as you were about your call on the result befoer it happened.

Howard was unpopular with the left but that's because he righted so many wrongs from the dreadful performance under the prior governments.

Kuna, which election did you watch? HE LOST HIS OWN SEAT. Only the second Prime Minister in Australian political history to do so. That ought to tell you something. This was about so much more than the left of Australian politics.

On IR reform it's hilarious that we now find out the "tearing up of WorkChoices" will be slow and phased.  I hope the left is basking in the "action" our new PM promised...

Well, there isn't much they can do given the state of the Senate now is there. That's the strange thing about legislation. It needs both houses to pass. C'mon Kuna. This post is well beneath your normal standard.

  You may start gloating when our economy improves - and if it falters you can join me on buying up more property from those that will lose their homes AGAIN! 

My reading of the economy is that it has already turned and had done so well before the election. So unfortunately I would have to say there will be a lot of people who will lose homes.

[deccie]

Mir, you will not see equal in battle. The US spends more on military than the rest of the World combined. We've invested a lot of insurance to guard ourselves and our friends. American soldiers are better fed and better trained, better equipped and have much more experience than soldiers of other nations.

Really? I suspect the Israeli Army divisions would kick the US's proverbial butt if it ever came to conflict between current "friends". And I suspect they are have far better training and experience than the average american "grunt".

[BillyB]

deccie,

The Hercules does not need much improvement or a replacement. It needs to fly slow for paratrooper missions, it needs to take off and land on short runways. It performs a role Jet powered Cargo planes do not. Propeller driven planes still exist for a reason.

Why do you keep complaining about fuel economy for the M-1? Tanks do not get good economy. Do you suggest lightening them up by removing armor and putting smaller weapon systems on it?  Weapon systems like that already exist. You'll find the Army upgrading the M-1 on a regular basis and it keeps getting heavier.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/wsh/index.html

The F-35 is a superior plane compared to the F-14. Read the links I gave you.

Here you can find authorized construction of newly designed warships and ships currently in construction. Although the Navy has 300 active ships and 4000 aircraft, the Army has the most boats and aircraft than any branch in the US military. Help yourself to find the answers to your questions. I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you through it anymore.

http://www.nvr.navy.mil/

If Israel doesn't need help in the Middle East, they are free to tell that to the USA anytime.

[deccie]

deccie,

The Hercules does not need much improvement or a replacement. It needs to fly slow for paratrooper missions, it needs to take off and land on short runways. It performs a role Jet powered Cargo planes do not. Propeller driven planes still exist for a reason.

Would you like to point out where exactly I said the Hercules should be replaced with a jet powered aircraft?
Please don't try to answer questions I'm not even asking.

The Herc has significant limitations even on the missions you describe which is exactly why the RAAF still flies Caribou's even though they are piston engined.

Why do you keep complaining about fuel economy for the M-1? Tanks do not get good economy. Do you suggest lightening them up by removing armor and putting smaller weapon systems on it?  Weapon systems like that already exist. You'll find the Army upgrading the M-1 on a regular basis and it keeps getting heavier.

Because of all the main Battle tanks in the world it's fuel economy is about the worst. And fuel is a significant limiting factor when you look at an army's radius of battle. For my own choice I would pick either the Leopard 2 or the Challenger 2 as being better balanced than the M-1. As for weight increases that imposes it's own problems as to the bridges the tank can cross and the vehicles that can carry it either to be repaired or for long distance moves either by air or road.

The F-35 is a superior plane compared to the F-14. Read the links I gave you.

Billy, how about you go read some of what I posted. The F-35 is still not in volume production. At the current moment it is a "maybe" aircraft. And I would expect two aircraft separated by a span of over 30 years to be radically improved HOWEVER do not compare what the USN and Marines are TODAY with what they MAY be in the future.

The JSF is NOT in active service today. So forget it! It is not part of the USA's military capability. You are talking about a currently imaginary force. It's a bit hard to shoot down even Mig21's with an imaginary aircraft.

Do you actually get the idea that the F-35 is not flying in active service? It is NOT JSF's or even large numbers of Raptors that your military will fight with at the moment but F/A-18's, Superhornets, F-16's and F-15's. Hence my comparison of the F-14 AND THE AIRCRAFT THAT REPLACED IT - the Superhornet. Whether the JSF replaces the Superhornet in the future is something that has yet to be realised.

Here you can find authorized construction of newly designed warships and ships currently in construction. Although the Navy has 300 active ships and 4000 aircraft, the Army has the most boats and aircraft than any branch in the US military. Help yourself to find the answers to your questions. I'm not going to hold your hand and walk you through it anymore.

Well, excuse me if I don't want to follow a blind man.

I'm fully aware of what ships the US has in service and what it has on the design boards. Even more so than yourself I would suggest.
The answers are that there are NO new frigates planned. The USN is , in the smaller class ship, moving to something called the LCS or Littoral Combat ship however, guess what, AGAIN, they aren't in service yet!

Yet the OHP class frigates they are designed to replace are just about out of service and the Ticonderoga class cruisers have commenced going as well. Even the Carrier Battle Groups appear to not be immune from cuts as there is talk of reducing the number of these ships by one. And guess what Billy, I didn't need a web search to tell me any of that either!

[deccie]

Since websites seem to be of such interest to you on this topic to you Billy I suggest looking at this one.

http://www.navysite.de/decom.htm

It is not complete or completely up to date though the author tries to be.

In particular compare the "decomissioning" section (and relevant dates) with that of "comissioning" numbers (and relevant dates).

It's simple maths, you should be able to get it.

[BillyB]

Since websites seem to be of such interest to you on this topic to you Billy I suggest looking at this one.

http://www.navysite.de/decom.htm

It is not complete or completely up to date though the author tries to be.

In particular compare the "decomissioning" section (and relevant dates) with that of "comissioning" numbers (and relevant dates).

It's simple maths, you should be able to get it.

The site you provided is all based on anybody's input. Who knows if it's true but if you read my site of actual events happening, the ships being built is much more of a force than the ships being decomissioned. Keep in mind, decommissioned does not mean scrap. America probably has over 1000 ships in mothballs and can recommission them when needed.

deccie, I'm sure there were people jumping up and down about why battleships aren't being developed or built as you are doing with frigates. Maybe those model ships are becoming obsolete like the battleship. Did you see the nuke powered subs and carrier being built at the site I provided? We already have many ballistic missile subs(SBNN) that can take out over 200 cities or basically every major city in the northern hemisphere.

Here's a Navy report to Congress asking to increase fleet size and they ask for no frigates as you would ask for. Is frigates that important that it shouldn't be ignored? The Navy is ignoring frigates as they did with the battleships.

http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/data/2006/upl-meta-crs-8466/RL32665_2006Feb14.pdf

Although there are currently less ships in the Navy compared to the Cold War, the fleet is much more powerful against threats that have become weaker such as the Russian fleet. We don't have to throw cold war type of money at the military when the cold war is over. When necessary, you could be sure the money will be there for the US military.

[deccie]

The site you provided is all based on anybody's input. Who knows if it's true but if you read my site of actual events happening, the ships being built is much more of a force than the ships being decomissioned. Keep in mind, decommissioned does not mean scrap. America probably has over 1000 ships in mothballs and can recommission them when needed.

I thought you might pick up that tag line since it was one of the few places you were left to go. Strangely enough, two books in my library are about exactly this issue. Generally, these days, unless the unit is a significant one like an Aircraft Carrier, most of the "mothball fleet" gets disposed of quite quickly. There are exceptions. USS Des Moines, the last conventional (i.e. pre missle age cruiser) left in the mothball fleet was sent to the breakers this year. And I beleive one of the oldest ships still in the mothball fleet is a WWII vintage tug from Pearl Harbour.  The preferred method of disposal these days is as a SINKEX or as an artifical reef. In part due to the environmental problems associated with shipbreaking in the US and issues such as child labour in places like Alang India. The majority of the Spruance class destroyers have already been disposed of via this method, as have some of the Charles F Adams class destroyers, some of the Iwo Jima class amphibious warfare class ships. A lot of the ships still in the mothball fleet have been demilitarised anyway. The barrels on the guns sawn in half and a lot of electronics removed. This is the case with the older classes of destroyers and cruisers. Still on more ships, the nuclear surface fleet like the California and Virginia class cruisers (and the former USS Long Beach) exist in name only in the mothball fleet. All superstructure having been cut away down to the HULL level. They ain't going to return to the fleet under any circumstances other than perhaps being mobile electricity generators. Even some of the Forrestal Class carriers and associated sub classes are being prepared for either museum ships or other SINKEX uses. USS America was used in a classified SINKEX just over a year ago.

There are carriers and subs in the fleet however a number of those are now too old to be usefull under any circumstances or would require substantial rebuilding. In short Billy, you have not got a clue about this topic.

deccie, I'm sure there were people jumping up and down about why battleships aren't being developed or built as you are doing with frigates. Maybe those model ships are becoming obsolete like the battleship. Did you see the nuke powered subs and carrier being built at the site I provided? We already have many ballistic missile subs(SBNN) that can take out over 200 cities or basically every major city in the northern hemisphere.

Well, given the associated removal of the last of the Forrestal and associated sub class conventional carriers, perhaps surprisingly to you but no one else I am not actually shocked to find that the USN is indeed building a replacement CVN improved Nimitz class carrier. As for your ballistic submarines, how are they relevant? So you can destroy the world x to the nth power times more than you could before? If the world is destroyed once over that is more than enough for me.. Mutually assured destruction is still destruction no matter how many mutiples you apply to it. Can you be killed more than once? I doubt it.

Here's a Navy report to Congress asking to increase fleet size and they ask for no frigates as you would ask for. Is frigates that important that it shouldn't be ignored? The Navy is ignoring frigates as they did with the battleships.

But the thing is that my argument does not even depend on this single class ship. As I said before, the Arleigh Burke destroyers were deliberately degraded replacements for the Spruance class destroyers. . The Ticonderoga class cruisers are not being replaced. At least not yet.

I have never said that your navy is impotent or incompetent only that the capability it had before has not been replaced on a equal basis.

[BillyB]

I. A lot of the ships still in the mothball fleet have been demilitarised anyway. The barrels on the guns sawn in half and a lot of electronics removed. This is the case with the older classes of destroyers and cruisers. Still on more ships, the nuclear surface fleet like the California and Virginia class cruisers (and the former USS Long Beach) exist in name only in the mothball fleet. All superstructure having been cut away down to the HULL level. They ain't going to return to the fleet under any circumstances other than perhaps being mobile electricity generators. Even some of the Forrestal Class carriers and associated sub classes are being prepared for either museum ships or other SINKEX uses. USS America was used in a classified SINKEX just over a year ago.

There are carriers and subs in the fleet however a number of those are now too old to be usefull under any circumstances or would require substantial rebuilding.

In short Billy, you have not got a clue about this topic.

deccie, there is a difference between ships designated for scrap and ships designated for mothballs. When ships are in mothballs, they are still taken care of, not scrapped. You can learn about the difference here.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1997/09/15/MN39732.DTL

Well, given the associated removal of the last of the Forrestal and associated sub class conventional carriers, perhaps surprisingly to you but no one else I am not actually shocked to find that the USN is indeed building a replacement CVN improved Nimitz class carrier. As for your ballistic submarines, how are they relevant? So you can destroy the world x to the nth power times more than you could before? If the world is destroyed once over that is more than enough for me.. Mutually assured destruction is still destruction no matter how many mutiples you apply to it. Can you be killed more than once? I doubt it.
But the thing is that my argument does not even depend on this single class ship. As I said before, the Arleigh Burke destroyers were deliberately degraded replacements for the Spruance class destroyers. . The Ticonderoga class cruisers are not being replaced. At least not yet.

I have never said that your navy is impotent or incompetent only that the capability it had before has not been replaced on a equal basis.

First you jump up and down about getting more frigates and now you say your argument isn't about a single class of ship but it has not been replaced on an equal basis. I have argued it is more powerful than before. If you did read the link you provided earlier, you would have known the navy has no intention producing frigates since they can't multi task.

Many Ballistic missile subs have been converted to launch cruise missiles for today's roles. For defensive purposes, a few years ago the Navy put in three listening devices in the Atlantic. They can listen to Whales sing anywhere in the Atlantic but that is not it's main purpose.


deccie, in the link below, you will find articles pertaining to many different issues such as:

1) Carriers that get decommissioned will be replaced by a more advanced one the following year. The reason there is a year separating replacement is because the crew of the old ship must get familiarized with the new ship. Your previous statement of a reduction carriers is false.

2) Although the navy wants Congress to give them more money, The US Navy is currently more powerful than the next 17 best Navies in the World. This is the greatest margin of superiority in modern history. The 19th-century British Royal Navy, the world’s previous great naval power, was only slightly larger than its nearest competitor the French navy. What’s more, our 17-navy-standard lead is probably going to grow in coming years especially when the F-35 gets to the carriers. Not even at the height of the cold war has the US Navy had this kind of superiority.

3) Britain' got two new carriers coming out and they what the F-35 on it. America will sell the F-35 to allies but not yet the cutting edge F-22 the Japanese desperately wants.

4) The reason the decommissioned carrier USS America is being sunk for training purposes is because no other carrier in mothballs was available on the East Coast besides ones being designated as museums. deccie, show some links to what you're saying next time, there are a lot more reserve carriers on the West Coast available to come out of mothballs so the navy isn't thinned out on reserve ships as you imply. They have the luxury of sinking some or turning ships into museums

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/cat_ships_and_subs.html

If you want to get educated on ships, I'd recommend reading Jane's and tossing the other books in your library away. You're still talking about developing new frigates and replacing F-14's. We are way past making those decisions.

Today most of the US Admirals and Generals are schooled in military history, America's past military mistakes, and they keep up to date on the oppositions military equipment capabilities. They learn to not underestimate the determination and the abilities of enemies. I would say today's top commanders are much better prepared to do their job mentally than previous generations.

[SANDRO43]

The Hercules does not need much improvement or a replacement.

Apparently, it's being replaced by the C-27J Spartan, winner of the competition for the JCA program.

C-27J Spartan named as Joint Cargo Aircraft
by Master Sgt. Mitch Gettle
Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
6/14/2007 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- The U. S. Army announced a $2.04 billion contract award June 13 to L-3 Communications Integrated Systems for their C-27J Spartan to be the Joint Cargo Aircraft.
This JCA program is a combined Air Force and Army effort to have an airframe that will meet warfighter needs for intratheater airlift.

(http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123057181)

The C-27J is based on an existing Italian aircraft, the Alenia (formerly FIAT) G-222, which first flew in 1970 :

C-27J SPARTAN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
The aircraft design is based on the proven G-222 airframe from Alenia, with turboprop engines from Allison and advanced systems from Lockheed Martin.

(http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/spartan/)

[deccie]

deccie, there is a difference between ships designated for scrap and ships designated for mothballs. When ships are in mothballs, they are still taken care of, not scrapped. You can learn about the difference here.

Oh Billy, pull your head in. Stop being so inane. A ship will pass through several stages in the mothball fleet before being scrapped or sunk. What I said before about ships spending different amounts of time in each process is perfectly accurate. There are still 1960's and 70's ships in the mothball fleet just as there are ships from the 1970's that have already been sunk. A ship does not stay in the mothball fleet indefintely.

First you jump up and down about getting more frigates and now you say your argument isn't about a single class of ship but it has not been replaced on an equal basis. I have argued it is more powerful than before. If you did read the link you provided earlier, you would have known the navy has no intention producing frigates since they can't multi task.

And cruisers? My comments on the Arleigh Burke destroyers?  You have selective rebuttal techniques Billy!

Many Ballistic missile subs have been converted to launch cruise missiles for today's roles. For defensive purposes, a few years ago the Navy put in three listening devices in the Atlantic. They can listen to Whales sing anywhere in the Atlantic but that is not it's main purpose.

Wow, I guess those Navy sailors must love that whale song! A sub that is a cruise missle platform is a lauch delivery vehicle and nothing else. Iowa class Battleships used to do a good job of delivering cruise missles too once.

1) Carriers that get decommissioned will be replaced by a more advanced one the following year. The reason there is a year separating replacement is because the crew of the old ship must get familiarized with the new ship. Your previous statement of a reduction carriers is false.

It has been discussed ever since the retirement of the JFK and the potential replacement of the Kitty Hawk.

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/navycvn21.htm

 And again don't put words in my mouth, I never said it had HAPPENED.

2) Although the navy wants Congress to give them more money, The US Navy is currently more powerful than the next 17 best Navies in the World. This is the greatest margin of superiority in modern history. The 19th-century British Royal Navy, the world’s previous great naval power, was only slightly larger than its nearest competitor the French navy. What’s more, our 17-navy-standard lead is probably going to grow in coming years especially when the F-35 gets to the carriers. Not even at the height of the cold war has the US Navy had this kind of superiority.

None of which invalidates my comment that the Navy is less powerful than it was before. It may be more powerful relative to other navies but less powerful overall.

3) Britain' got two new carriers coming out and they what the F-35 on it. America will sell the F-35 to allies but not yet the cutting edge F-22 the Japanese desperately wants.

So what? Britain wanted the F-111 at one point.

4) The reason the decommissioned carrier USS America is being sunk for training purposes is because no other carrier in mothballs was available on the East Coast besides ones being designated as museums. deccie, show some links to what you're saying next time, there are a lot more reserve carriers on the West Coast available to come out of mothballs so the navy isn't thinned out on reserve ships as you imply. They have the luxury of sinking some or turning ships into museums

Got some news for you Billy. She got sunk well over a year ago. The Navy is already readying a second Forrestal class ship for sinking. You might want to catch up with the times. She was also sunk because she was in the worst material condition of all of the Forrestal and associated sub class carriers. Or did you not know she got damaged in a cyclone?

http://www.ussamerica.org/Scrapbook/rest.htm

If you want to get educated on ships, I'd recommend reading Jane's and tossing the other books in your library away. You're still talking about developing new frigates and replacing F-14's. We are way past making those decisions.

Again, stop throwing words in my mouth. I said that I thought the F-14 was a great aeroplane and that the Superhornet replaced it with less capability. Nothing more.
I suggest you toss away your Jane's and buy the books ex Navy types buy and perhaps you'd understand some of the issues more as well.

Today most of the US Admirals and Generals are schooled in military history, America's past military mistakes, and they keep up to date on the oppositions military equipment capabilities. They learn to not underestimate the determination and the abilities of enemies. I would say today's top commanders are much better prepared to do their job mentally than previous generations.

As opposed to some of the other ex military types. To think their is consensus even amongst senior offices would also be an incorrect statement. Sometimes different senior officers have different opinions.