Two more Navy Capatains walk the PC Navy's plank

[Glen Contrarian]

Because we know the $300 million would have just been used for installing more electrical charging station for State Dept. hybrid cars.

That seemed to have been the State Dept. priority before 9-11-12.

That seems to be a habit of yours - when presented with a question that's difficult to answer or would otherwise put your side in a bad light, you don't answer, but just make off-the-cuff insults.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Preemptive strike, OK.

We still don't know how much damage was done by John Walker. You remember him, that Navy traitor. We don't know if the Russians know where are subs are or not.

The Slava class cruiser is designed for one thing, to sink ships in particular aircraft carriers and their escorts. How effective do you think a 20 mm Phalanx with eight SS-N-12 antiship missiles traveling at mach 2.5 be ? The other eight antiship missiles would be targeting the escorts at the same time.

An anti ship cruiser doesn't operate by itself, it also has ASW destroyers designed for only one purpose, to sink American subs.
The cruiser also has air defense destroyers designed for only one purpose, shooting down NATO aircraft. And the cruiser also has attack subs that were designed for one purpose, to hunt down and stalk American subs and blow them up before they can launch an attack.

BTW: The Slava class cruiser has the most impressive CIWS found on any other warship in the world, six 30 mm gattling guns comparable to the British CIWS "Goal Keeper." I'm sure you are aware that a Ticonderoga class cruiser CIWS consist of only two 20mm Phalanx guns. (Arleigh Burke destroyers have only one.) If a Phalanx were to hit an incoming antiship missile, it's believed just the shrapnel would knock out most of the electronic equipment, radar, satellite communication, radio communications, etc. If there are any deck monkeys on the weather deck, they are going to wish they earned a rating.

Remember, the only warships to ever been sunk in combat by anti ship missiles were sunk by Soviet/Russian anti ship missiles and once by a French Exocet missile.

Again, that cruiser's got to survive to get in range of the carrier, and you yourself should know that carriers maintain at least a 500km 'umbrella' of air and surface supremacy around them...and that's not even addressing the subs that you KNOW are already there...and please don't try to tell me that the Slava-class cruisers (including the Russian subs that would certainly be nearby) present that great of a challenge for our subs. Their subs simply don't compare to ours - particularly the new Virginia-class subs.

Now let's say one of those Slava-class cruisers get close enough to launch, and their missiles do get past our Sea Sparrow and CIWS systems (and I don't have a whole lot of confidence in either) to strike a carrier. Unless their cruise missiles are nuclear-tipped - or unless they somehow strike a magazine - they may stop our air ops for a while, but they won't sink the carrier. Why? Have you been on a modern supercarrier and taken a look at the schematics that show the hundreds upon hundreds of watertight compartments? As far as I can tell, you can slice one in half sideways and both ends would still float!

Now, as to the Arleigh Burkes - FYI, those Sea Sparrows and CIWS are not their only defenses. See those phased-array radars? They do more than just look for stuff, but I probably shouldn't say more than that.

And one more thing - when I'm discussing the Arleigh Burkes, that's a twenty year-old design. The Zumwalt class - when it comes out - is leaps and bounds ahead of the Arleigh Burkes. There's only a very few of them, unfortunately, thanks to games by the bean counters (they were going to cost $6B each), but you can bet your ass that a lot of the lessons and equipment meant for them are being put instead on the Arleigh Burkes that are continuing to be built.

 

[roguenuke]

Again, that cruiser's got to survive to get in range of the carrier, and you yourself should know that carriers maintain at least a 500km 'umbrella' of air and surface supremacy around them...and that's not even addressing the subs that you KNOW are already there...and please don't try to tell me that the Slava-class cruisers (including the Russian subs that would certainly be nearby) present that great of a challenge for our subs. Their subs simply don't compare to ours - particularly the new Virginia-class subs.

Now let's say one of those Slava-class cruisers get close enough to launch, and their missiles do get past our Sea Sparrow and CIWS systems (and I don't have a whole lot of confidence in either) to strike a carrier. Unless their cruise missiles are nuclear-tipped - or unless they somehow strike a magazine - they may stop our air ops for a while, but they won't sink the carrier. Why? Have you been on a modern supercarrier and taken a look at the schematics that show the hundreds upon hundreds of watertight compartments? As far as I can tell, you can slice one in half sideways and both ends would still float!

Now, as to the Arleigh Burkes - FYI, those Sea Sparrows and CIWS are not their only defenses. See those phased-array radars? They do more than just look for stuff, but I probably shouldn't say more than that.

And one more thing - when I'm discussing the Arleigh Burkes, that's a twenty year-old design. The Zumwalt class - when it comes out - is leaps and bounds ahead of the Arleigh Burkes. There's only a very few of them, unfortunately, thanks to games by the bean counters (they were going to cost $6B each), but you can bet your ass that a lot of the lessons and equipment meant for them are being put instead on the Arleigh Burkes that are continuing to be built.

We tease all the time that carriers operate in battle groups so that the enemy has to go through the other targets to get to us.

 

[APACHERAT]

That seems to be a habit of yours - when presented with a question that's difficult to answer or would otherwise put your side in a bad light, you don't answer, but just make off-the-cuff insults.

Your wrong.

I gave you an appropriate and factual answerer.

The State Department appropriations for security is part of the same budget used for cars, (green cars), construction and maintenance.
When the left tried to cover up (free pass) Obama's cover up of Benghazi the Republicans in Congress were blamed for cutting those State Department appropriations.

As Congressional hearings have exposed, Obama's/Hillary's State Department were more concerned with throwing allies under the bus and political correctness. Instead of spending funds on security they instead spent the funds on green cars and recharging stations to recharge the green cars. They even had a big shin-ding celebrating the recharging stations.

Obama's/ Hillary's State Department was more concerned with political correctness than conducting foreign state of affairs. Just look at the Middle East and North Africa today.

Instead they spent time looking for words and phrases to label as being politically incorrect like declaring the phrase "Holding down the fort" as a derogatory racist term and "Rule of thumb" is sexist.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Were you one of those who weren't laughing at Obama's response ?

Saying stupid things like "Ships that go underwater." :lamo

Apparently you either didn't recognize the scathing sarcasm - which the media DID pick up on - or you somehow think that sarcasm is beyond a liberal's abilities.

Not admitting that the Obama administration included hospital ships and garbage scows to be counted as part of the U.S. Navy combat fleet to make the Navy seem larger than it really is.

Mm-hmm.

Horses ? Seems that Obama forgot about American soldiers being mounted on horses in Afghanistan.

Please excuse me if I don't raise my hand in favor of making our cavalry units revert from M1A1 Abrams back to horses.

But the best one was about bayonets. The last company size bayonet assault happened during the Falklands war. the British have conducted platoon size bayonet attacks in Afghanistan.
But unlike the U.S. Army, Marines are issued bayonets and receive bayonet training. When Marines expend all of their ammunition in a fire fight they don't surrender, they fix bayonets. The bayonet gives a soldier a physiological edge in combat. And I'm sure there are more than a few Army and Marine grunts who were in-country during the Vietnam war who had to fix bayonets.

I've got no problem with that - I'd support all our ground forces knowing how to fight with bayonets. Look at the sound-powered phones that are crucial on ships even today - if you'll look at some of the really old WWII Navy movies, you'll see the same doggone sound-powered phones.

The MSM gave Obama a complete pass with four years as Cn'C under his belt and not knowing what he was talking about. I'm surprise that Obama didn't mention Navy corpse-men during the debate. :lamo

BECAUSE in the aggregate Obama was RIGHT - the capabilities of our forces are far beyond anything we had before. Sure, numbers help, but it's a basic mistake to conflate numbers with power. And don't forget the overwhelming advantages we have in communications, ELINT, and especially surveillance. These are force multipliers that no one else on the planet can match for at least two decades IMO. You see, it's not just a matter of numbers and equipment, but you also have to remember how they work together, how well the command structure functions, how fast the decisions can be made locally and on the other side of the planet. In the decades to come, I'm sure that someone - most likely the Chinese - will match and surpass us...this has been the cycle of empires throughout history. But for today and at least two decades to come (barring a great technological game-changer that we're not counting on - like the Chinese co-opting our systems via the Internet), we're unmatched. It doesn't mean we wouldn't suffer casualties and losses, but we would win, and

So to many of us, Obama sounded like an idiot.

AR, you're a strong conservative. Obama could have quoted doctrine from the John Birch Society, Ayn Rand, and Reagan, and you'd still think he was an idiot...if only for the fact that he has that (D) behind his name.

 

[APACHERAT]

We tease all the time that carriers operate in battle groups so that the enemy has to go through the other targets to get to us.

Yesterday I was looking at a photo of a Cold War era CBG.
1 X Carrier.
2 X Cruisers
6 X Destroyers
1 or 2 X Attack subs.

The Slava class cruiser was designed to take on a CBG from a few hundred miles away by launching simultaneously 16 Sanbox anti ship missiles traveling at Mach 2.5. Each with a 2,000 lb. warhead not to mention the 8.000 lbs of the rest of the missile. (That's alot of shrapnel to be traveling towards any ship at mach 2.5 if the incoming missile were to be hit with the ships CIWS.) The missile doesn't have to hit the ship, it just needs to detonate within a mile of the ship to cause enough damage to all of the ships sensors to knock it out of the fight.

The Soviet/Russian SOP is to launch all of the missiles at the same time. 2 X 8 salvos, 8 would be targeting the carrier and 1 missile for each of the escorts. That's why the ship was designed to carry 16 of these large supersonic missiles, to take on an American CBG.

<A salvo consisting of eight missiles launched at short intervals. Usually, one of the missiles flies high (5,000-7,000 m) to pick up the target, while the rest remain at medium to low altitude with their radar seekers switched to passive mode. The leading missile then transmits targeting data to the others and allocates individual targets, with half of the salvo directed at the aircraft carrier and half at other ships in the area, one apiece. The onboard radar seekers are turned on at the last moment, just before reaching the target. If the lead missile is shot down, another one (in a programmed sequence) takes over and climbs to a higher altitude to continue directing the salvo. All the missiles have active radar jamming to disrupt any defensive action from fighters and shipboard air-defense systems. In addition, vital parts of the P-500 missile are armored to increase survivability. >

SS-N-12 Sandbox / P-500 Bazalt/V-1000 Vulkan | Russian Military Analysis

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Your wrong.

I gave you an appropriate and factual answerer.

The State Department appropriations for security is part of the same budget used for cars, (green cars), construction and maintenance.
When the left tried to cover up (free pass) Obama's cover up of Benghazi the Republicans in Congress were blamed for cutting those State Department appropriations.

As Congressional hearings have exposed, Obama's/Hillary's State Department were more concerned with throwing allies under the bus and political correctness. Instead of spending funds on security they instead spent the funds on green cars and recharging stations to recharge the green cars. They even had a big shin-ding celebrating the recharging stations.

Obama's/ Hillary's State Department was more concerned with political correctness than conducting foreign state of affairs. Just look at the Middle East and North Africa today.

Instead they spent time looking for words and phrases to label as being politically incorrect like declaring the phrase "Holding down the fort" as a derogatory racist term and "Rule of thumb" is sexist.

No, you gave neither an appropriate nor a factual answer. Why? Because even if a small portion of that were to be used on green vehicles - likely less than 5M if they decided to change all the vehicles worldwide (which they wouldn't have) - YOU implied that the State Department was going to spend ALL the 300M on green vehicles.

Next time, be careful with the hyperbole, okay?

AND you're complaining about the state of the Middle East and North Africa today - tell me, how many wars are there going on now where we're conducting major military operations? None. We've got one war left, and that one's winding down with zero major military ops presently ongoing. Not only that, but we've got most nations over there playing nice with us - Syria wound up giving up their chemical weapons (we won ugly in the diplomatic mess, but we still won), and Iran's actually talking to us and trying to make nice with Israel. Libya's a chaotic mess, but they're no longer our stated enemy. Afghanistan is chaotic, too...but things are relatively quiet there compared to before - and it seems this quiet will probably continue until we leave (at which time all bets are off). Pakistan's unrest is down. Egypt's got a whole raft of problems...but those problems aren't aimed at us or Israel.

In other words, diplomacy - seasoned by a few strikes against Libya during their revolution - did FAR more good than Bush's "I'm a hammer so everything's a nail" approach to the Middle East. I know that as a conservative, you hate the very thought of diplomacy...but the Cold War itself should have taught you that even the most terrible verbal threats by the other side...are only verbal threats, and are infinitely preferable to a hot war.

 

[APACHERAT]

BECAUSE in the aggregate Obama was RIGHT - the capabilities of our forces are far beyond anything we had before. Sure, numbers help, but it's a basic mistake to conflate numbers with power. And don't forget the overwhelming advantages we have in communications, ELINT, and especially surveillance. These are force multipliers that no one else on the planet can match for at least two decades IMO. You see, it's not just a matter of numbers and equipment, but you also have to remember how they work together, how well the command structure functions, how fast the decisions can be made locally and on the other side of the planet. In the decades to come, I'm sure that someone - most likely the Chinese - will match and surpass us...this has been the cycle of empires throughout history. But for today and at least two decades to come (barring a great technological game-changer that we're not counting on - like the Chinese co-opting our systems via the Internet), we're unmatched. It doesn't mean we wouldn't suffer casualties and losses, but we would win, and

.

I've been a member of the U,S, Naval Institute since 1978. It's a U.S. Navy think tank. For the past twenty years I've been reading papers published in the USNI publication "Proceedings" where many think our ships have gotten so high tech, that the crew and ship have become dependent on the technology and if this technology is compromised in combat the ship can't fight, not even defend itself.

Just in the past ten years Japan, Austraila, Taiwan have been sending the same message to the U.S. Navy. And China and Russia know it.
Losing an Raleigh Burke destroyer today would be like losing ten Gearing class destroyers not to many years ago. We lose just one Nimitz carrier we just lost 10% on the Navy's air power.

Do you know what Taiwan uses as an example when comparing today's U.S. Navy with the other worlds navies ? Patton. Patton's small Sherman tanks outnumbering Germany's large more powerfull tanks during WW ll. Guess who prevailed ? You all ready know.

 

[APACHERAT]

And one more thing - when I'm discussing the Arleigh Burkes, that's a twenty year-old design. The Zumwalt class - when it comes out - is leaps and bounds ahead of the Arleigh Burkes. There's only a very few of them, unfortunately, thanks to games by the bean counters (they were going to cost $6B each), but you can bet your ass that a lot of the lessons and equipment meant for them are being put instead on the Arleigh Burkes that are continuing to be built.

I know you're well read on weapons platforms and the military in general but have you been keeping up on the Zumwalt class destroyer ? A number of issues are popping up. Seakeeping issues with the hull design and with all of the high tech gizmos onboard like, just like a laptop computer they create heat and the hull of the ship isn't large enough to dissipate all of the heat. You ever experienced a PC or laptop that overheats ?

I've lost a lot of confidence with our young naval architects of today after with the LCS. That's embarrassing.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I've been a member of the U,S, Naval Institute since 1978. It's a U.S. Navy think tank. For the past twenty years I've been reading papers published in the USNI publication "Proceedings" where many think our ships have gotten so high tech, that the crew and ship have become dependent on the technology and if this technology is compromised in combat the ship can't fight, not even defend itself.

Just in the past ten years Japan, Austraila, Taiwan have been sending the same message to the U.S. Navy. And China and Russia know it.
Losing an Raleigh Burke destroyer today would be like losing ten Gearing class destroyers not to many years ago. We lose just one Nimitz carrier we just lost 10% on the Navy's air power.

Do you know what Taiwan uses as an example when comparing today's U.S. Navy with the other worlds navies ? Patton. Patton's small Sherman tanks outnumbering Germany's large more powerfull tanks during WW ll. Guess who prevailed ? You all ready know.

I know what the USNI is, and I began reading Proceedings back in 1983. And for the past decade, I've been a big proponent of getting away from the carrier groups - we've got waaay too many eggs in the carrier-group baskets - especially since they're the single most expensive weapons systems in our entire defense budget. I feel we'd be far better served by having Surface Action Groups built around several (much less expensive) missile-carrying cruisers and destroyers and their attendant supply ships, and with three or four submarines below. That way, the whole group isn't built around one ship, and if one ship goes down the capabilities of the other ships is not significantly impacted. Perhaps - thanks to the advent of UCAV's - have a smaller carrier that launches only UCAV's...or perhaps the helo carriers could be retrofitted to carry them since UCAV's (I think) need far less deck space in order to get safely airborne.

And btw, concerning your quip about Patton's tanks - I've got a better one for you: Trafalgar. The ships of Spain (though not so much those of France) were larger and more heavily-armed than those of Nelson's fleet - but his fleet cut them to ribbons thanks to superior drill, discipline, and seamanship...the practice of which were done almost exclusively by the English Navy.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I know you're well read on weapons platforms and the military in general but have you been keeping up on the Zumwalt class destroyer ? A number of issues are popping up. Seakeeping issues with the hull design and with all of the high tech gizmos onboard like, just like a laptop computer they create heat and the hull of the ship isn't large enough to dissipate all of the heat. You ever experienced a PC or laptop that overheats ?

I've lost a lot of confidence with our young naval architects of today after with the LCS. That's embarrassing.

Bah humbug. You know what? EVERY new system - whether military, civilian, or federal - will ALWAYS have bugs to be worked out. I don't think mankind has EVER made a new system of any real sort of complexity that was immediately perfect. Okay? For instance, there's lots of bugs on Boeing's Dreamliner...but this time next year they'll be nearly all worked out, and the Dreamliner will continue to be a game-changer. There were a few bugs on Tesla's roadsters - but they're getting those worked out very quickly...and those are well on their way to being another game-changer.

So it goes with the Zumwalts. Yes, they've got bugs, some bad, some not so bad. But they'll get them worked out over time and they'll work as advertised, and perhaps even better.

Though I sorta wish they hadn't named it after ADM Zumwalt....

 

[Glen Contrarian]

I've been a member of the U,S, Naval Institute since 1978. It's a U.S. Navy think tank. For the past twenty years I've been reading papers published in the USNI publication "Proceedings" where many think our ships have gotten so high tech, that the crew and ship have become dependent on the technology and if this technology is compromised in combat the ship can't fight, not even defend itself.

Just in the past ten years Japan, Austraila, Taiwan have been sending the same message to the U.S. Navy. And China and Russia know it.
Losing an Raleigh Burke destroyer today would be like losing ten Gearing class destroyers not to many years ago. We lose just one Nimitz carrier we just lost 10% on the Navy's air power.

Do you know what Taiwan uses as an example when comparing today's U.S. Navy with the other worlds navies ? Patton. Patton's small Sherman tanks outnumbering Germany's large more powerfull tanks during WW ll. Guess who prevailed ? You all ready know.

Oh, and one more thing on those tanks - the Tiger tanks were notoriously hard to maintain - a lot of time it wasn't shells from the Shermans that took them out - it was inability to maintain, inability to get the spare parts they needed...and then there was the lack of fuel...and the lack of air cover. In other words, the Shermans - even after they upgraded them - really weren't what beat the Tiger tanks.

It is true that history's replete with examples of the people with less beating the people with more...but it's a lot more often that the people with more beat the people with less.

 

[solletica]

I've lost track of how many Navy commanders have been relieved of their commands during the past four years. Have even lost track for this year, I know it's well over twenty and there's still three more months left in the year.

There's the old phrase, "A fish stinks from the head down."
In layman terms, when an organization, state, nation (or any establishment) fails, it is because the leadership was the root cause of the failure.

To dumb it down some more, if a servant is disorderly, it is because the master is disorderly.




>" All of a sudden it's dangerous to command a medical treatment facility on board a U.S. Navy hospital ship.

Both CAPT William Cogar and Kevin Koop found the brass have no "Comfort" or "Mercy" for them, despite the names of their two respective naval vessels.

Each officer has been relieved. Cogar for lying about his weight on a PFA, and Koop for having what the Navy calls a "lack of leadership" and "poor-command climate."

CAPT Cogar was commanding officer of the med treatment facility aboard the USNS Comfort at San Diego, and Koop had the same position on his boat, the Norfolk-based USNS Mercy.

"TIMES ARE CHANGING," CHIEFS SAY

Old salts of the sea, and some of our favorite master chief petty officer informants, tell us they cannot remember a medical officer in such a position walking the plank, much less two in the space of 30 days.

"It must be the new Navy," griped one, snorting about the sudden celebration of gay couples, same-sex marriages and joint assignments. "Maybe Obama will come out of the closet himself before his term is up," said one military member, who preferred to remain anonymous.


FALLEN FROM A LOFTY HEIGHT

Cogar's fall can be traced to a false entry on his PFA. Investigators said he knowingly had an incorrect weight entered on his records and that as many as four crew members of the COMFORT also had falsified records.

The 59 year-old native of Akron, Ohio started his long career as a Navy hospital corpsman in the 1970's and was commissioned an ensign in the USNR in 1984.

Cogar is holder of the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, the MSM with two gold stars, Navy Commendation Medal with gold star, Navy Achievement Medal, Humanitarian Assistance medal, and Iraq Campaign Medal.

Koop has a similarly distinguished background. He was awarded the Legion of Merit, Bronze Star and served in Afghanistan.

Now both men are the latest names on a long list of Navy commanders whose careers have come to a sudden and ignominious end."<

CAPT WILLIAM COGAR

The US military never relieves anyone of command no matter how many violations of the code they commit, as long as they do something the govt. likes.

In the military, you are allowed to rape, cheat, and lie as much as you want as long you do what your corporate-backed regime wants you to do.

You're only relieved for a transgression (however minor) only if you do something the gummint doesn't like (which at times, could involve something honorable). And that's what happened here.

 

[APACHERAT]

The US military never relieves anyone of command no matter how many violations of the code they commit, as long as they do something the govt. likes.

In the military, you are allowed to rape, cheat, and lie as much as you want as long you do what your corporate-backed regime wants you to do.

You're only relieved for a transgression (however minor) only if you do something the gummint doesn't like (which at times, could involve something honorable). And that's what happened here.

It's obvious these two captains did something that the current government (Obama administration) didn't like.
More likely just creating a vacancy so "Obama's moron officer corps" officers can move up the chain of command.

Since most medical physicians have a problem with Obamacare, these officers probably said something about Obamacare and were put on the Obama hit list.

 

[solletica]

It's obvious these two captains did something that the current government (Obama administration) didn't like.
More likely just creating a vacancy so "Obama's moron officer corps" officers can move up the chain of command.

Since most medical physicians have a problem with Obamacare, these officers probably said something about Obamacare and were put on the Obama hit list.

If they complained about Obamacare, they were serving their country, and in the military, that's a big no-no.