Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mannahnin wrote:
His and Ryan's silly arguments about ship count really do sound dumb. Dumber than those guys actually are; so to me they come off as disrespectful toward the voters. They can't seriously think we're dumb enough to believe "fewer ships = weak Navy", can they?

Uh... fewer ships/boats would mean weaker Navy...

But, what I don't understand is this: When did we draw down the fleet? I thought the last time we did was during Bush's years... I don't think the Obama administration reduced anything as far as the Navy fleet. (they did stop the F-22 and I think the DDX platforms).

I guess they're worried about the sequestration? The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We’re now at under 285. If the sequestration goes thru then we’re headed down to the low 200s. Maybe that's what he's driving at... and if so, he did a poor job 'splaining that.

You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/22/transcript-presidential-debate-on-foreign-policy-at-lynn-university/#ixzz2A5pE3ao3

Well Obama right on Force Projection. Issue though is ships to transport armor and equipment...plus the "almighty" bullet boats. We do use bayonets though.....I leave it at that.

edit

Over course of 5 yrs the Air Force and the Navy went through two drawdowns already

whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
His and Ryan's silly arguments about ship count really do sound dumb. Dumber than those guys actually are; so to me they come off as disrespectful toward the voters. They can't seriously think we're dumb enough to believe "fewer ships = weak Navy", can they?

Uh... fewer ships/boats would mean weaker Navy...

Holy crap, I want to print this out and frame it.

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
His and Ryan's silly arguments about ship count really do sound dumb. Dumber than those guys actually are; so to me they come off as disrespectful toward the voters. They can't seriously think we're dumb enough to believe "fewer ships = weak Navy", can they?

Uh... fewer ships/boats would mean weaker Navy...

Not if the smaller fleet has superior ships, weapons, communications, sensory equipment, etc., etc., which can easily make a smaller fleet still the more powerful fleet compared to a more numerous fleet comprised of inferior ships. Romney and Ryan's (stupid) argument hinges on the premise that because we have fewer ships now that we did nearly 100 years ago, our Navy is actually weaker than it was then. Which is simply moronic.

 whembly wrote:
I guess they're worried about the sequestration? The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We’re now at under 285. If the sequestration goes thru then we’re headed down to the low 200s. Maybe that's what he's driving at... and if so, he did a poor job 'splaining that.

Okay, they if they need 313 ships to carry out their current missions and planned activities, then maybe we need to scale back those missions and activities. How many carrier groups do we need to utterly dominate the Navies of every other country on Earth combined, as we presently do?

 whembly wrote:
Uh... fewer ships/boats would mean weaker Navy...

If Estonia buys 500 rowboats, do they have the best navy in the world?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Okay, they if they need 313 ships to carry out their current missions and planned activities, then maybe we need to scale back those missions and activities. How many carrier groups do we need to utterly dominate the Navies of every other country on Earth combined, as we presently do?

Are you saying you don't think we need 1 carrier group for every other carrier in the world? Listen bro, perhaps you don't see the threat posted by Thailand's Chakri Nareubet, but someday they're going to get enough spare parts to fix the single, 1967-era figher present on it, and where will we be then?

I don't want to live in a world where we don't check that threat with our own 4 billion dollar carrier (plus attendant fleet).

Not if the smaller fleet has superior ships, weapons, communications, sensory equipment, etc., etc., which can easily make a smaller fleet still the more powerful fleet compared to a more numerous fleet comprised of inferior ships. Romney and Ryan's (stupid) argument hinges on the premise that because we have fewer ships now that we did nearly 100 years ago, our Navy is actually weaker than it was then. Which is simply moronic.

All it takes is one missile getting through and nailing something to make it into a multi million dollar foating junk pile. So a ship out of action either being heavily damage or destroyed. Where do you go to make up the loss. Do you strip another fleet of the same ship that the other loss? Do you bring one out from mothballs? DO you bring the fleet out of the danger area to avoid more loss? Have to have a backup on the spot to cover the hole in fleet protection. What happens if multiple ships gets nailed in the same fleet.

edit
A missile can come from a sub, aircraft or another ship. God forbid if we're within range of a landbase air wing. A carrier fleet a high payoff target. Some country going to be willing to sacrifice a airwing to nail a carrier.

 Mannahnin wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
His and Ryan's silly arguments about ship count really do sound dumb. Dumber than those guys actually are; so to me they come off as disrespectful toward the voters. They can't seriously think we're dumb enough to believe "fewer ships = weak Navy", can they?

Uh... fewer ships/boats would mean weaker Navy...

Not if the smaller fleet has superior ships, weapons, communications, sensory equipment, etc., etc., which can easily make a smaller fleet still the more powerful fleet compared to a more numerous fleet comprised of inferior ships. Romney and Ryan's (stupid) argument hinges on the premise that because we have fewer ships now that we did nearly 100 years ago, our Navy is actually weaker than it was then. Which is simply moronic.\

You realize you just made the argument for the German philosophy on tanks in World War Two, right?

 whembly wrote:


I guess they're worried about the sequestration? The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We’re now at under 285. If the sequestration goes thru then we’re headed down to the low 200s. Maybe that's what he's driving at... and if so, he did a poor job 'splaining that.

That's pretty much exactly what he said, and it was followed by horses and bayonets and ships that go underwater.

Romney should have fired back tha USS Ohio has been in service for 31 years and no replacemet is in sight. Enterprise is 51 years old and her peers of the Nimitz class are an average of 21 years old. The Naval Air wing averages 18 years old making it the oldest in history.
Romney missed an oppourtunity to take Obama's snide comments and shove them in his face.

Meh,

Military folks will always think that the military is the most important thing in the budget.

Just like poor people will always think that wellfare is the most important thing in the budget.

People are selfish and don't want cuts that affect them.

I don't want the VA to be cut

Me neither but I wouldn't mind rounding a few of them up to be shot to encourage efficentcy...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To be clear I'm tugging d-usas leg, not serious.

 AustonT wrote:

 whembly wrote:


I guess they're worried about the sequestration? The Navy said they needed 313 ships to carry out their mission. We’re now at under 285. If the sequestration goes thru then we’re headed down to the low 200s. Maybe that's what he's driving at... and if so, he did a poor job 'splaining that.

That's pretty much exactly what he said, and it was followed by horses and bayonets and ships that go underwater.

Romney should have fired back tha USS Ohio has been in service for 31 years and no replacemet is in sight. Enterprise is 51 years old and her peers of the Nimitz class are an average of 21 years old. The Naval Air wing averages 18 years old making it the oldest in history.
Romney missed an oppourtunity to take Obama's snide comments and shove them in his face.

He made that point on the stump... guess that's why I remembered that.

Must have missed that part when he said that tonight.

Didn't realize those ships/boats were that old. Didn't we retrofit/update them during Gulf War 1/2? This pique my interest... off to google land to do some reading...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Meh,

Military folks will always think that the military is the most important thing in the budget.

Yup... that's true.

Just like poor people will always think that wellfare is the most important thing in the budget.

Yup... we're the "gimmie dat" generation...

People are selfish and don't want cuts that affect them.

So true...

I don't want the VA to be cut

I don't either. LIke I said in the past... whatever the VA needs, they should get... in fact, I'd go far as making those institutions the "cream of healthcare providers" in the World.

 d-usa wrote:
Meh,

Military folks will always think that the military is the most important thing in the budget.

Just like poor people will always think that wellfare is the most important thing in the budget.

People are selfish and don't want cuts that affect them.

I don't want the VA to be cut

I laughed at a Congressional election ad on tv the other day. It basically went;

Bob says he's for jobs. But he voted for money for California. Then he voted for money for this other state. Then he voted for money for this other state. Tell him he needs to stop wasting money and vote for money for Our state.

I mean, if every Congressman voted only for their state, no state would get Anything.

 AduroT wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Meh,

Military folks will always think that the military is the most important thing in the budget.

Just like poor people will always think that wellfare is the most important thing in the budget.

People are selfish and don't want cuts that affect them.

I don't want the VA to be cut

I laughed at a Congressional election ad on tv the other day. It basically went;

Bob says he's for jobs. But he voted for money for California. Then he voted for money for this other state. Then he voted for money for this other state. Tell him he needs to stop wasting money and vote for money for Our state.

I mean, if every Congressman voted only for their state, no state would get Anything.

There was an awesome section during one of the Daily Show's during the RNC where they asked the different delegates about which states get more than they give and should be fired.

It was pretty awesome.

 AustonT wrote:
[Romney should have fired back tha USS Ohio has been in service for 31 years and no replacemet is in sight. Enterprise is 51 years old and her peers of the Nimitz class are an average of 21 years old. The Naval Air wing averages 18 years old making it the oldest in history.

Is that necessarily a problem? The B-52 is expected to be in service until the 2040s, give it a ~90 year service life.

It is indeed a problem. In the context of nuclear ships the older ones simply don't have the electrical power budget to take modern upgrades. It's the real reason Enterprise will retire. You have the same issue in the Buffs but it was cheaper to do generator upgrades. In the subs it's an issue of structural integrity, same same with the surface vessels but for obvious reasons the death tubes are of greater concern. The truth is old planes are safer than old boats. Not by much thought. The age of the Air Force is nothing to crow about either. Remember the KC 135 that had an engine pod fall the feth off AFTER being reskinned?

Huh, I didn't know that. It's kinda funny, you think of naval obsolescence as being a better of weapon systems, but you never really consider just plain having enough electricity.

I'm absolutely in favor of updating stuff. When I've read up on it, I've usually see a ton of waste in procurement and development of new weapons systems. We've got to keep those costs under control and not waste billions at a whack on wonder planes and gimmicks which don't fulfill real needs or perform as needed.

And seriously, how many carrier groups do we have, again? How many does every other nation have, put together? By just how MUCH do we need to outgun everyone else put together, including our allies?

 whembly wrote:

I think I heard this at least twice... uh...Benghazi anyone? Failed Hounduran coup? Iranian Green Revolution?

What was unclear about the US stance on Zelaya's legitimacy? Or, for that matter, the status of the Green Movement?

Shocking though it may be, political positions change with convenience.

 whembly wrote:

The only thing clear about Obama foreign policy is that the perception is he treats our friends like enemies and our enemies like friends.

Among conservatives. Its a difficult situation because we're in a period of transitions, historical friends* are no longer as valuable as they once were and are becoming expendable.


*I also think its a mistake to consider international politics in terms of friendship.

 Bromsy wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
His and Ryan's silly arguments about ship count really do sound dumb. Dumber than those guys actually are; so to me they come off as disrespectful toward the voters. They can't seriously think we're dumb enough to believe "fewer ships = weak Navy", can they?

Uh... fewer ships/boats would mean weaker Navy...

Not if the smaller fleet has superior ships, weapons, communications, sensory equipment, etc., etc., which can easily make a smaller fleet still the more powerful fleet compared to a more numerous fleet comprised of inferior ships. Romney and Ryan's (stupid) argument hinges on the premise that because we have fewer ships now that we did nearly 100 years ago, our Navy is actually weaker than it was then. Which is simply moronic.\

You realize you just made the argument for the German philosophy on tanks in World War Two, right?

Nope. More like the argument for why Marine Recon troops are worth their cost and are a more effective fighting force, even in fewer numbers, than folks like Iraqi Republican Guard.

Digression: I found out today that "Fruity" Rudy Reyes, from Generation Kill, actually played himself in the miniseries! That's the real dude playing himself; the prettiest marine. Mind = blown.

 RiTides wrote:

I heard way more language about working across the aisle from Romney than I did from Obama.

I've said this many times before, but I feel it bears repeating: there is no reason to consider bipartisanship good. In the past that was how our government functioned because the parties were less powerful, and geographic circumstances tended to have a greater impact on how any given representative would vote. Bipartisanship in that case wasn't a good thing so much as the natural result of political reality, which was itself largely shaped by limited media access.

If you want to end the present gridlock, then what you should be pushing for is the lifting of restrictions on legitimate third parties while also forming coalitions of like-minded individuals who can fund them.

 Mannahnin wrote:


Digression: I found out today that "Fruity" Rudy Reyes, from Generation Kill, actually played himself in the miniseries! That's the real dude playing himself; the prettiest marine. Mind = blown.

Yeah a few of the guys were involved with the series. Kocher played another guy in the series (forget who) a couple more were advisors (one was actual hired on as the Humvee mechanic).


Just so I have some justification for saying I was on topic, my response to the FB bickering over the debate:

Vote red and the country will go up in flames. Vote blue and the country will go up in flames. Vote for the slightly more blue or red minor party that has no chance of winning anyway because everyone is voting red or blue to keep the country from going up in flames...and the country will go up in flames...just like last election and the one before that.

Maybe we just need to let the country burn a little.

 Mannahnin wrote:
It was interesting to see them both avoid the subject of green on blue attacks.

Yeah, that really surprised me. I haven't really followed the conversation on Afghanistan in the US for maybe six years now, but the conversation here is, basically entirely on green on blue, with a general consensus of 'feth 'em if they're gonna kill the guys trying to help them'.

Without having really thought about it, I had assumed the US tone would be similar, and was surprised that both candidates were broadly positive about Afghanistan. Perhaps it's just the politics of not wanting to talk down an operation that you are, or maybe soon will be, commander in chief of?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I do think he did. He got told on Israel, too. I loved the bit where Obama contrasted their visits to Israel. Romney did it for fundraising; Obama visited the Holocaust museum and familes who've been victims of missile attacks. Romney had no response to it.

Yeah, Obama knew Romney was going to come at him over his 'apology tour', and that it didn't include a trip to Israel. Obama had an answer prepared and smashed it.

 Jihadin wrote:
What happens if multiple ships gets nailed in the same fleet.

You most likely lose the engagement. Losing scenarios exist, and a carrier group losing either the carrier or a large number of escorts is one of them, and it isn't one we can address beyond making both unlikely.

The idea that the US relies on technological supremacy is not new, we've been doing it for decades and will be doing it well into the future because we simply can't match our most likely rivals for manpower or a willingness to sacrifice their own lives.

 whembly wrote:
The only thing clear about Obama foreign policy is that the perception is he treats our friends like enemies and our enemies like friends.

Which is why there's economic sanctions on Israel, and military hardware sold to Iran.

Oh wait, I'm thinking of Republican fantasy land. Here in the real world Obama has basically continued the same international policy of every post Cold War American president, Democrat or Republican, of building general consensus towards isolating and disempowering problem countries.

Well, other than Bush II, of course, who invaded troublesome countries and yelled at his allies if they didn't cheerlead hard enough.

 AustonT wrote:

Romney should have fired back tha USS Ohio has been in service for 31 years and no replacemet is in sight. Enterprise is 51 years old and her peers of the Nimitz class are an average of 21 years old. The Naval Air wing averages 18 years old making it the oldest in history.
Romney missed an oppourtunity to take Obama's snide comments and shove them in his face.

Agreed.

 Ouze wrote:
Is that necessarily a problem? The B-52 is expected to be in service until the 2040s, give it a ~90 year service life.

Besides the mentioned problems with upgrade potential, there's the even worse problem of fatigue life. The B-52 benefits from the fortunate combination of being a simple "bomb truck" aircraft that doesn't have to deal with a (physically) demanding mission, and the existence of a large pool of aircraft that sat around waiting for WWIII to begin without accumulating many hours of flying time. Compare that to, say, an F-18 which has seen 18 years of combat use, and in a role where it has to deal with higher structural loads from high-g maneuvers, huge impact forces from carrier landings, etc. At some point your ships/aircraft/etc might still be enough, on paper, to defeat any plausible opponent, but they'll literally be falling apart.

 Piston Honda wrote:
Obama won big time, however, I am not so sure if it will stop the rise of Romney in the polls or turn it around as this campaign is more about economy and majority of voters believe Romney is better suited.

Romney's climb in the polls stopped a few days before the second debate. From there we've seen basically stable numbers, maybe with a very small drift to Obama. This basically returns the numbers to their pre-convention position, of a small but fairly static lead to Obama.

 sebster wrote:
Perhaps it's just the politics of not wanting to talk down an operation that you are, or maybe soon will be, commander in chief of?

Romney's FP narrative, via Ryan and other proxies, has focused strongly on the fact that Obama didn't secure a SOFA in Iraq and has, thereby, failed to secure our gains. If he pushes the blue on green issue and says we should pull out he looks like a hypocrite, which is charge many have leveled against him before. If he doubles down he runs into the issue of how unpopular Afghanistan is.

If Obama does the same he either looks like he's sacrificing American lives for his own purposes, or feeds the argument regarding the absence of a SOFA with Iraq.

This is a point which Romney could easily have won, bar the focus on the Iraq SOFA.

 dogma wrote:

 RiTides wrote:

I heard way more language about working across the aisle from Romney than I did from Obama.

I've said this many times before, but I feel it bears repeating: there is no reason to consider bipartisanship good. In the past that was how our government functioned because the parties were less powerful, and geographic circumstances tended to have a greater impact on how any given representative would vote. Bipartisanship in that case wasn't a good thing so much as the natural result of political reality, which was itself largely shaped by limited media access.

If you want to end the present gridlock, then what you should be pushing for is the lifting of restrictions on legitimate third parties while also forming coalitions of like-minded individuals who can fund them.

I like the idea of bipartisanship. I would like to see the parties working together and more honest compromise. IMHO I think Obama tried to do that initially. He tried to reach across the isle, but with the responses he got, I'm surprised he didn't pull back a bloody stump. I wonder how much more might have gotten done if when the dems had both houses they just said screw it and did everything their way with no effort to compromise.

 Mannahnin wrote:
Not if the smaller fleet has superior ships, weapons, communications, sensory equipment, etc., etc., which can easily make a smaller fleet still the more powerful fleet compared to a more numerous fleet comprised of inferior ships. Romney and Ryan's (stupid) argument hinges on the premise that because we have fewer ships now that we did nearly 100 years ago, our Navy is actually weaker than it was then. Which is simply moronic.

The UK was noted in 1938 as having the greatest navy, because of how many ships they had, and how many of those ships had really massive tonnage. Except most were pre-WWI vessels, and quite out of date.

For political and economic reasons there was no effort made to reform the fleet. Romney's insistance on ship count reminds me of that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bromsy wrote:
You realize you just made the argument for the German philosophy on tanks in World War Two, right?

Yes, but so what?

Thing is, the US has a military technological edge, and is obviously going to continue to use it. It also has an overwhelming advantage in quantity.

But in a world where people are talking about the need to balance the budget, you don't get to continue to chase unlimited advantage in technology and in quantity, and pretend it doesn't cost anything. At some point you have to set a limit to what your military can have, and there is no way that seven carrier groups each with the capacity to shoot destroy any other navy on Earth isn't miles past that.