Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Air Force Brat

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
TerraN_EmpirE said:
Penny wise pound foolish. They pulled it as a "cost savings" move. Kinda like how the USAF is standing down 17 squadrons right now only to reactivate them later.. Of course the fact that doing so will cost well beyond what is saved is over looked.
Click to expand...

Well the USAF has lost its SOUL, they are the Chick Branch right now, and no I'm not intending to be sexist, but there may yet be a half dozen birds of prey left in the Chick Branch, General Mike Hostage alone seems to be the Lone EAGLE, flying among the clouds. To have let the F-22 DIE unveils the STUPIDITY and RANK lack of leadership and Grit.....LAXLAND AFB....The HI-LO doctrine has died,,,,,, the F-35 is our airsuperiority bird??????? really??? I mean really????? come on now,,,,???? There won't be ANY SIX GEN aircraft if someone in the USAF doesn't step up,,,,, we can equate this lack of Vision to the USN deciding, well may-be we don't need the Ford Class,,,,,,heck maybe we don't need a bunch of stuff. The Air Force Officer tasked with sequestration saying, this is a real opportunity-----the idiot is a book-keeper for crying-out-loud. IF the Air FORCE doesn't get is STUFF together it will DIE, the USMC, ARMY, and NAVY, together don't GET Air Superiority----which is why the USAF was born in 1947. They understand their mission, they are willing to fight for their mission,,,,,,, all the USAF is left with a bunch of chicks wearing AF blue,,,, chicks without the WILL to KILL. HOPE nobody forgot to put the F-35s on the Charger tonight,,,, gooood grief! The F-22, The Ford Class, and numerous other assets will be lost to the stupidity of sequestration, a creation of the OBAMA CABINET..... yet not a single worthless social program has perished,,,,, and the train wreck continues..........Brat
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Another big milestone now completed for the US Navy's next nuclear powered super-carrier, the first of class, USS Gerald R. Ford..

The flight deck of the big carrier was completed with the lift and install of the forward bow section. That's a 788 ton section. The island was lifted on deck and installed earlier this year and this brings the Ford to 96% structurally complete and on target for launching later this year.


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

​

Soon...soon. Another big carrier will be in the water, and the USS John F. Kennedy, CVN-79, will take her place in the yards, followed by...you guessed it, CVN-80, the next USS Enterprise!
 
Last edited:
navyreco

navyreco

Senior Member
Old Footage of Clemenceau CV... pretty nice vid (except for the music I guess... it sure contributes to the vintage feel)
[video=youtube;GmDlmVMCJkY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmDlmVMCJkY[/video]

The "Pacha" (CO) smoking at 1:15... I doubt this is allowed nowadays...even for the CO
And those F8 were smoking a lot too :)
 
D

delft

Brigadier
Obi Wan Russell said:
We can comfortably afford to build and run two CVFs. The costs are a fraction of what the Typhoon program has amounted to so far. £40+Billion for 232 aircraft, of which we get to keep 107 on current planning. Still have to pay for the ones we aren't getting. Two CVFs at £6Billion (which included the cost of reorganising the entire British warship building industry lets not forget) is a drop in the ocean by comparison. They will have running costs no greater than the preceding Invincible class CVS, having a ships complement slightly smaller than those vessels.

The only irresponsible defence spending is to inadequately invest in your defence.
Click to expand...
Am I to understand that you can afford to build and run two QE's, their aircraft and escorts as it is or that you would be able to do so if the remainder of the defense budget wasn't in such a mess? Remember the lack of helicopters and vehicles in Afghanistan.
The costs of the flattops includes much more than building and manning them. Remember the costs of the aircraft, the escorts. Remember the costs of the wars the politicians will want to be fought. ( I remember a character in a book by P.G.Wodehouse saying that if England wanted to have a prosperous nobility it shouldn't fight wars - it couldn't have both. I don't remember which book it was or when he wrote it. ).
 
D

delft

Brigadier
asif iqbal said:
.... UK is a and always has been a sea going nation which lead to world trade for best part of three century's ...
Click to expand...
OT
It is only in the last three centuries that England, after 1707 UK, has become, and ceased to be, a leader in world trade, which of course always goes mainly by sea. The English language even lacks a specialized word for ship owner ( reder in Dutch, Raeder in German ). They were taught the skills by the Dutch largely during the time of King William III ( 1689 - 1702 ) who was also Stadhouder of the seven Dutch provinces.
It might seem a good opportunity to thump myself on the breast like a good Dutchman, but the Dutch acquired the skills in earlier centuries because of the rich herring fisheries in the later Middle Ages near the Dutch coast. There was no virtue for the Dutch in the movement of the herrings.
 
D

delft

Brigadier
TerraN_EmpirE said:
Here is are a few thoughts gentleman.
1 as originally invisioned QE was to be part of a series of carriers that would span both the English and French navys .
2 Europe as a whole is moving into a state of semi unification as a single nation, some thing not seem since the Romans
3 the unification trend takes three forms the European Union for the political. NATO and the joint european defence structure for the military.

My thinking is this, the Carriers of Europe are no longer aimmed for there own national use but as part of a sort of united European defence force. The EU is a entity created to merge the individual power base in Europe, akin to how the individual socialist republics of the old USSR were intended to form a nation greater them the sum of its parts. As part of a Europe as a whole concept the QE would along with the other Carriers form a joint Atlantic Mediterranean formation able to project European power in a manner like that of the American navy. Basicky Europe is fallowing the trends and sees that by the mid 2020s the number of national and regional powers who can project their military might across the globe expands.
Click to expand...
More likely the whole European experiment will have withered by the mid-20's. Look at how Greece and Cyprus are being treated now.
 
D

delft

Brigadier
Jeff Head said:
Actually...not. The NAZIs certainly are easy to see in retrospect...but at the time these things began happening:

1) The UK was led by Chamberlain who wanted peace...and was willing to negotiate it and hope against hope and not have to spend more money on the military to achieve it because they did not want more war after WW I and then the economic difficulties of the late 20s and early 30s. The great, disasterous statement of, "Peace in out time," based on a deal he made with a madman and a murderous tyrant.

2) Russia and Germany were hostile to each other in the mid-to late 30s. No one expected them to get together over Poland and then ally for two years. The Fascists hated the Communists and vice versa...and yet they did ally and split up Poland and Finland and others. That was not identifiable, easily or otherwise at the time. It caused very severe problems in planning and expectations about the war, its length, and what it would take to win if both Russia and Germany remained allied.

The entire world avoided a much longer and even more costly World War than it already became when Hitler invaded Russia and they began fighting each other on a titanic scale.

Sorry, but my parents lived through it and fought it. My Dad in the PTO against Japan, along with several Uncles. Other Uncles in Europe. My Uncle Al, my mother's only brother, was killed over Germany and I know whereof I speak.

3) The US for years had a huge contingent that wanted to avoid any involvement in the developing "War in Europe." We were willing to sell equipment and food (and did lend-lease) to the UK, and some people even went over there to help them fight, forming up ad hoc air wings...but the government did not become directly involved until after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and that galvanized the nation...and war with Japan meant war with Germany too.

So, please do not tell me how "easily identifiable," it was. It was not. I spoke of these things for years with those who experienced it first hand. I spent several years in Germany and made many friends there, and spoke of it with them too. The events of those days are things we can scarcely imagine, on either side...and it all led to a few madmen in Hitler and Tojo and Mussolini...and Jo Stalin too as far as I am concerned...and a lot of complacency by people who did not want to get involved and who did not believe the evil that was developing...all coming together to lead the world into World War and the loss of tens of millions of people...and then a continuation of it in the Cold War for another fifty years.


Really letting the cat out of the bag now, eh?

Imperial politics? Really? The US was hit by Al Quida and hard, killing thopsuands of innocent American, and the Taliban gave them open sanctuary and refused to stop...so we fought them and defeated them. England was later hit by the same blokes. Nothing "Imperial," about it, and it is rediculous to try and chacterize it as such. The US is not conquering and holding Afghanistan or Iraq as outr own territory now are we? Neither is the UK. We have tried to help the Afghans with infrastructure and a more stable government, and paid dearly in lives, bllod and treasure for the attempt and you shame those sacrifices and that blood by trying to equate it to "imperialsim." IMHO, in Afghanistan, we should not have tried all of that. We should have thumped them real hard like we did, and then told the people there not to allow such animals to come amongst them again and attack us or we'd come back and do it again.

But there is no imperialsim here. What a ludicrous comment. Look at the last 100+ years. That's not what the US does. It would be uncivilized and despotic. Usually, when the US defeats an enemey (like Germany and Japan) we show compassion afterwards and try and help...and then if they are civilized and capable, they stand up and ultimately we become friends. Not always, but a lot of the time. That is nothing like imperialsim.

Well I have been in some of the rooms for very major military acquisitions and I can tell you that you are wrong. Do people make mistakes? Yes. Do sometimes people take advantage and go beyond simple mistakes? Yes...but usually in the US and the UK, ultimately they are caught and brought to justice. But systems like this are planned and their impacts on the budget carefully laid out...and then later adjusted if necessary because of unforseen things.

You make my point for me. Why didn't people, "listen to reason," do you suppose?

Because you were dealing with a single party, totalitarian state where a very few people made all the rules and enforced them at the point of a gun. Where fences and barriers thousands of miles long, with machine gun posts, sensors, and razor wire were constructed not to keep enemies out...but to keep their own people in! I lived along the West German/East German border in the 70s where NATO and Warsaw met. I personally know of many instances where people, who just wanted to get out of there...or wanted to reunite with their families when they had been seperated when the Iron Curtain came down, were killed simply because they wanted to leave.

Hard to reason with that kind of thinking.

Those regimes had all the power and did what they wanted with it...and they absolutely milked the entire population and had no desire to listen to anyone...that was the underlying cancer in the Soviet Union...and ultimately that is what brought it down when that total command economy was challenged to keep up with a vibrant, free economy.

A free economy that is not a perfect economy...and not perfect leaders by any stretch...but held in check by the will and voice of the people whom they are ultimately accountable to as opposed to thinking it is the other way around.

Now, there are definitly problems now with the free republics of the west. They have taken on far too much of an entitlement mentality where politicians are buying entire segments of the population with what they believe is a bottomless bank account...and printing faux currency to do it. That will ultimately catch up. People who can...need to work, and be free to chose a trade or profession to work in..and suffer the consequences if they choose not to...not because the government makes that happen, but because it happens as a part of the natural order of things. Society, because of its underlying moral fiber, should take care of those who really can't provide for themselves...but principally through families, churches and charities, at the local level and not through government. And please do not tell me that cannot work. If the people are moral it can and will work...I have seen it for most of my life when the government wasn't so involved with all of these programs. If the people are not moral...well, there will be no helping them in any case.

But the vast majority of people in the US and the UK are moral...and so there is great hope.

Government, on the other hand is brute force and not efficient at all at these types of things, and almost always it devolves into curruptuion anyway when the government tries it.

At least we have the tools to set it right...and I pray we will, because I agree that left unrestrained it can utimately bring nations down.

I just do not believe the US or the UK are on the cusp or verge of that in the near future barring some absolute outside shock that causes it. If that happens, the entire world will be caught up in it. As I said, short of that, the planning that has and is going on will keep things working for the life of the QEs at least, if not quite a bit longer.

We shall see.

But we have veered off course with this dicussion. It is supposed to be about the carriers and their technical and military capabilities...and not about politics and ideology.

We can just agree to disagree on whether the UK can afford the QEs or not...and time will ultimately give us all the answer.
Click to expand...
OT
Now, Jeff, three thousand innocent Americans were killed but tens or hundreds of thousands innocent Iraqi's and Afghans. Were is the reason in that? You just made many more enemies.
As for the extension of WWII to Europe - Moscow had hoped to cooperate with France and Great Britain in saving Cecho-Slovakia but they preferred Munich. And the next year the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was signed during a war between the USSR and Japan, the Khalkhyn Gol war, while Great Britain and France were sending diplomats by slow boat to talk about protecting Poland together and while the Polish government was opposed to such cooperation.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
navyreco said:
Old Footage of Clemenceau CV... pretty nice vid (except for the music I guess... it sure contributes to the vintage feel)
[video=youtube;GmDlmVMCJkY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmDlmVMCJkY[/video]

The "Pacha" (CO) smoking at 1:15... I doubt this is allowed nowadays...even for the CO
And those F8 were smoking a lot too :)
Click to expand...
Great video Navreco! The F-8 was America's last true dogfighter superiority aircraft.

It was maintenance heavy (did you work on any of these Popeye, or were there any of the recon versions still on the ships when you started service?), but it was a Mig/enemy killer at the time, and good at it, and it brought several innovations.

The fact that the French continued to improve and use the fighter for decades after it left US service is a testament to its design and longevity (and I am proud to becaue my Dad was the chief dynamics engineer for that aircraft), The French were very good at carrier ops and they made very good use of the tools they had through those years.

I never fail to get good feelings when I see pics of the Crusader and feel that the F-8E was the world class aircraft of its day.

delft said:
OT
Now, Jeff, three thousand innocent Americans were killed but tens or hundreds of thousands innocent Iraqi's and Afghans. Were is the reason in that? You just made many more enemies.
Click to expand...
Please...the US did not kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis or Afghans in those wars. The US certainly killed tens of thousands of insurgents who had wepaons in their hands and who had come, many of them from outside of those countries to fight, "the great satan," and people who su[pported them. but by definition, those would be "enemies," and not "innocent."

The Iraqis have their own country now. They are managing their own affairs and are much better off than with Hussein in power. And Hussein had consisitantly violated the terms of the cease fire he agreed to at the end of the 1st Gulf War when he invaded Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia.

Afghanistan should never have been attempted at "nation building," IMHO, as I have already stated. But, roughly half the population there does not want to be some kind of islamic, extremist state. Another 20-30% just want to be left alone, and then there are 20+% who want the extremism and are willing to fight for it...to the death. Those too are enmies and not "innocent." We should have just thumped those people real hard (like we did in the 1st 3 years or so)...and in war that means the people who support them too...and then left and let them know if they ever support a regime that harbors enmies of the US, we will be back.

Now, as to your last statement about, "many more enemies," exactly which nations are those? Fact is, there aren't any new ones so there aren't "many more." If there are new nations that are enemies of the US as a result, please name them for me.

If you are talking in the general sense about some of the people in those countries...yes, the people allying with and supporting the insurgents and exteremists like Al Quida are our enemies...they were from the beginning. But I remind you of all of those purple fingers when those same insurgents/terrorists/extremists in Iraq tried to stop the process by threatening the people to not come out and vote. Well, it didn't work and they came out and voted anyway, and in overwhelming numbers.

Those people are not America's enemies...and believe me, I had many friends both in the military and working as contractors over there that relate that the vast majority of the Iraqis are glad to be free and intend to stay that way and will not allow a militant, Al Quida-like, or some other fanatical based group to co-opt their country. And I am glad we at least did that for them, while removing a despot and tyrant who had shown over decades to be a threat to the entire region there and so I make no apologies whatsoever for it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top