US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

N

no_name

Colonel
A milestone has been reached for the experimental electromagnetic catapult under development by the US Navy. On Sep. 27 a full size E-2D was successfully launched by the catapult.

pics here:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


美国海军时报网站28日称，美国海军近日再次对新一代航母电磁弹射器进行了试验，获得了里程碑式进展。9月27日，美军新泽西州麦圭尔-迪克斯-莱克赫斯特联合基地（McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst），一架E-2D“先进鹰眼”预警机从全尺寸模拟航母甲板上设置的电磁弹射器弹射，成功弹射起飞。
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Stars and Stripes said:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

WASHINGTON — Could the USS George Washington be sunk by budget cuts?

A report in Defense News on Thursday, citing anonymous sources, said naval officials are considering decommissioning the nuclear aircraft carrier decades before the end of its scheduled lifespan.

That’s the second time this week the 25-year-old behemoth has been mentioned as a potential fiscal casualty. In budget analysis released Tuesday, officials from the Center for New American Security, a Washington, D.C. think tank with close ties to President Barack Obama, listed the early decommissioning of the ship as a way to save up to $7 billion over the next decade.

Navy officials refused to directly comment on the idea.
Click to expand...

The US Carrier fleet is mandated by law to be at a minimum of 11 carriers. The Obama administration would have to have help from Congress to accomplish this and I do not believe they will achieve it. After increasing the deficit by over 4 trillion in three years, more than any other President in history in that time frame, saving 7 billion on the back of the US Carrier fleet will not be likely.

The article does not say if a different US carrier would be forward deployed to Japan or anything else about the Carrier's strike group stationed there.
 
bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
I agree with Jeff 100%. Hopefully we in the US will have a different president before any such stupidity takes place.

Unbelievable...
 
bd popeye

bd popeye

The Last Jedi
VIP Professional
My thoughts on this.. IF CVN 73 is decommissioned what CVN shall taker her place? Humm?? That cost a lot of cash.
1) Money to change homeports...Money will be needed to transfer sailors & families back to the US and send new families to Japan. Some sailors will simply switch to whatever carrier may replace CVN 73.
2) How much will it cost to de-comm the GW? No one knows for sure but it won't come cheap.
3) Which CVN would take her place? Humm... Probably CVN 71..it will be finished with ROCH in about one year.

The article does not say if a different US carrier would be forward deployed to Japan or anything else about the Carrier's strike group stationed there.
Click to expand...

there must be some sort of standing agreement between the US and Japan on this subject...

I wish the US presidential election was this coming Tuesday!
 
kwaigonegin

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Jeff Head said:
The US Carrier fleet is mandated by law to be at a minimum of 11 carriers.
Click to expand...

Jeff, I'm not familiar with that mandate. Could you provide links?
I do agree the USN needs to maintain no less than 12 CVBGs to be able to respond to any threat anywhere in the world.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
kwaigonegin said:
Jeff, I'm not familiar with that mandate. Could you provide links?
I do agree the USN needs to maintain no less than 12 CVBGs to be able to respond to any threat anywhere in the world.
Click to expand...
From the article itself that I linked to above:

stars and stripes said:
Currently, the Navy is mandated by law to maintain an 11-carrier fleet, so any move to decommission the George Washington would require cooperation from lawmakers.
Click to expand...

In 2006, during the Bush administration, Congress, in acting on the FY2006 defense budget, passed a provision to build up to a 313-ship fleet that includes 11 carriers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Finn McCool

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
I honestly don't think that the USN needs to have so many carriers. The resources would be better spent on diversifying capabilities. In any case, the national debt is a greater threat to national security than anything that might happen because the USN has one less carrier.
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
I am with Finn on this.

The 11 carrier requirement is a legacy from the cold war. Frankly, I am amazed it lasted this long without revision. Even if we cut the USN carrier fleet in half, it will still be far larger and more capable than the next most powerful fleet by quite some distance.

Unless the US is secretly hell bent on world conquest, why does it need to have more of everything than the rest of the world combined when it comes to the military?
 
Finn McCool

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
plawolf said:
I am with Finn on this.

The 11 carrier requirement is a legacy from the cold war. Frankly, I am amazed it lasted this long without revision. Even if we cut the USN carrier fleet in half, it will still be far larger and more capable than the next most powerful fleet by quite some distance.

Unless the US is secretly hell bent on world conquest, why does it need to have more of everything than the rest of the world combined when it comes to the military?
Click to expand...

As with so many things in the military budget, what started out as a good policy is now a money maker for entrenched interests. Carriers are still relevant, but one less means less contracts for a lot of companies that have many connections with Navy bureaucrats and officers, many of whom have carrers that are tied up in Navy aviation. It's hard to convince them that cutting even one carrier is a good idea.

I'd like the see the Navy explore next-gen aviation of the type imagined in Jeff's book, Dragon's Fury. Big subs launching UAVs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top