• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Navy’s Shipbuilding Plan Doesn’t Meet Congress’ Needs, Lawmakers Say

Questerr said:
And a retired USN sailor would know none of those are drydocks.
Click to expand...

Drydock or pier side makes little difference.

They are out of the game.

It's inexcusable for all carriers in port at one time regardless.

But...............it never happened according to a certain poster. It would have been a historical event.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Drydock or pier side makes little difference.

They are out of the game.

It's inexcusable for all carriers in port at one time regardless.

But...............it never happened according to a certain poster. It would have been a historical event.
Click to expand...

Really? There’s “little difference” between dry dock and pier side?

So a ship in dry dock can be put to sea within the few hours?
 
Monica33 said:
A handful of ships for coastguards and rescue vessels is ample . 30- 40 is enough .

The US Navy never does anything constructive and when it occasionally provokes conflict it never wins .

The key military nations -- China and Russia --can blow ships out of the water with DEW or fry them , and long range hyper speed missiles make them a very old fashioned and quaint way of posturing .

What is the point of having more than 30- 40 if you do not know what to do with them save sail round in circles wasting mega amounts of money ?

What proportion of Navy time is spent on exercises and doing nothing to Russia or China other than to make soppy headlines for a couple of days ? 99.0% ?
Click to expand...
We control the politics of the world with our carriers.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Please stop with your nonsense. It is far from a historic event.
Click to expand...

Which as the article clearly said, was for a month because of a mechanical failure. The rest undergoing scheduled maintenance cycles.

Not like what some have been implying in that they are being put into port out of fear.

As always, you completely miss the point.
 
RetiredUSN said:
But...............it never happened according to a certain poster. It would have been a historical event.
Click to expand...

You are obviously talking about me. And what I said still stands.

I already stated quite clearly that at almost all times at least one or more carriers are at sea, and those in port in various stages of maintenance.

Meanwhile, you and others are implying that they are being brought to port out of fear that they will be destroyed as they are highly vulnerable and can be sunk easily.

And to refute me, you list an instance where the carrier at sea has a major electrical failure, and was brought back for 3 weeks for emergency repairs, then sent back out again.

But as always, you ignore anything that does not agree with you, and try to spin something as if it is what you want it to be.
 
craig said:
We control the politics of the world with our carriers.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, that is so obvious.

China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, France, the entire world trembles and does anything we ask, cause we got carriers.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Oh yes, that is so obvious.

China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, France, the entire world trembles and does anything we ask, cause we got carriers.
Click to expand...
www.cfr.org

Sea Power: The U.S. Navy and Foreign Policy

The U.S. Navy’s dominance of the world’s oceans has made it an indispensable foreign policy tool as well as a guarantor of global trade, but a mix of challenges is raising difficult questions about i…
www.cfr.org www.cfr.org
 
Oozlefinch said:
You are obviously talking about me. And what I said still stands.

I already stated quite clearly that at almost all times at least one or more carriers are at sea, and those in port in various stages of maintenance.

Meanwhile, you and others are implying that they are being brought to port out of fear that they will be destroyed as they are highly vulnerable and can be sunk easily.

And to refute me, you list an instance where the carrier at sea has a major electrical failure, and was brought back for 3 weeks for emergency repairs, then sent back out again.

But as always, you ignore anything that does not agree with you, and try to spin something as if it is what you want it to be.
Click to expand...

All in port at one time, but you said it never happens.

Try harder.
 
Fledermaus said:
Yet there is a new story specifically because of how unusual it is.
Click to expand...

And notice, only for a brief amount of time.

This is the difference between the alarmists, and those that actually give a frack.

Notice, these reports are over 8 months old! How important are they to those other to the ones really into military issues?

Me, I care because I have been there. And do not look at it as a "Left Vs, Right" issue, but as simply supporting those we have deployed.

But sadly, I see that to many, that is far more important than anything else.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Are you a freaking retard?

I have served at both. You must have your head completely shoved up your anal orifice if you can not tell the difference between the two.
Click to expand...

You said that it didn't happen and I proved to you that it did.

breakingdefense.com

All 6 East Coast Carriers In Dock, Not Deployed: Hill Asks Why - Breaking Defense

As the Navy scrambles to get enough parts and people to move carriers back out to sea, it's facing a crowded waterfront at Norfolk.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

So you go off full tilt! :ROFLMAO:

Enjoy your Tuesday.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Which as the article clearly said, was for a month because of a mechanical failure. The rest undergoing scheduled maintenance cycles.

Not like what some have been implying in that they are being put into port out of fear.

As always, you completely miss the point.
Click to expand...
I didn't miss any point at all.

You initiated the conversation.
 
Last edited:
RetiredUSN said:
I didn't miss any point at all.

You initiated the conversation.
Click to expand...

You claimed "all carriers". At best you simply pointed out all the East Coast based carriers were in port at one time.

You lose.
 
Dayton3 said:
What makes you think a ballistic missile is likely to be capable of hitting a carrier?
Click to expand...

I don't see why it couldn't be done. The tech is already there in other systems. The idea I am afraid of is that China could just launch a bunch of missiles at a carrier group and hit a few ships at a time. Overwhelm our defenses with sheer quantity. Add in a few subs to the mix and things would get jumping pretty quickly...

While I think our carriers are still great strategic assets, I do think they are becoming more and more susceptible to attack as tech gets more sophisticated.
 
gino said:
I don't see why it couldn't be done. The tech is already there in other systems. The idea I am afraid of is that China could just launch a bunch of missiles at a carrier group and hit a few ships at a time. Overwhelm our defenses with sheer quantity. Add in a few subs to the mix and things would get jumping pretty quickly...

While I think our carriers are still great strategic assets, I do think they are becoming more and more susceptible to attack as tech gets more sophisticated.
Click to expand...

It is "possible" but not necessarily an efficient or advisable way to attack a carrier battle group. And Chinese supplies of ballistic missiles are not infinite.
 
Dayton3 said:
You claimed "all carriers". At best you simply pointed out all the East Coast based carriers were in port at one time.

You lose.
Click to expand...

They were in port or in the yards.

Fact.

Secnav went after Luria because of it.
 
RetiredUSN said:
They were in port or in the yards.

Fact.

Secnav went after Luria because of it.
Click to expand...

Not all U.S. carriers were in port or in the yards at the same time. You've presented no evidence of that.
 
Dayton3 said:
Not all U.S. carriers were in port or in the yards at the same time. You've presented no evidence of that.
Click to expand...

If you took the time to actually read what was said, the article never said all US Carriers were in port.

But all six east coast carriers were, leaving 1/2 the globe open.

Stop your BS.
 
RetiredUSN said:
If you took the time to actually read what was said, the article never said all US Carriers were in port.

But all six east coast carriers were, leaving 1/2 the globe open.

Stop your BS.
Click to expand...

Just because U.S. carriers are based on the West Coast in no way means they have to stay in that region.

If you really ever served in the U.S. Navy you would know that.
 
Dayton3 said:
Just because U.S. carriers are based on the West Coast in no way means they have to stay in that region.

If you really ever served in the U.S. Navy you would know that.
Click to expand...

You don't actually get to say who served and who didn't.
 
Dayton3 said:
Just because U.S. carriers are based on the West Coast in no way means they have to stay in that region.

If you really ever served in the U.S. Navy you would know that.
Click to expand...

LOL

Yeah baby.....they can be 1/2 way across the globe in weeks when hours and days matter.

The east coast was left naked because all the carriers were in port or drydocked.

SECNAV blew a head gasket over it, but here you sit on the politics forum telling everyone in the world that you know better than SECNAV.
 
RetiredUSN said:
LOL

Yeah baby.....they can be 1/2 way across the globe in weeks when hours and days matter.

The east coast was left naked because all the carriers were in port or drydocked.

SECNAV blew a head gasket over it, but here you sit on the politics forum telling everyone in the world that you know better than SECNAV.
Click to expand...
1) Secretary of the Navy is a political position IIRC.
2) The East Coast "left naked"? U.S. carrier battle groups are NOT for defending American coasts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom