stuckincincy Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Just wondering... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 Just wondering... 493825[/snapback] Most of the procurement cost has been moved out to '07-'08. The Navy requested about a half-billion in advance procurement for '06. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 2, 2005 Author Share Posted November 2, 2005 Most of the procurement cost has been moved out to '07-'08. The Navy requested about a half-billion in advance procurement for '06. 493858[/snapback] A local company was awarded the munitions elevator contract...I wondered on what basis (pork?)? Hmm...Northrup-Grumman and...ships... http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...020309/1002/BIZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 A local company was awarded the munitions elevator contract...I wondered on what basis (pork?)? Hmm...Northrup-Grumman and...ships... http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...020309/1002/BIZ 493977[/snapback] God knows they cant make planes anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 2, 2005 Share Posted November 2, 2005 God knows they cant make planes anymore. 494021[/snapback] Mostly because they're a division of Boeing now. If N-G makes a plane, it's under the Grumman name. And N-G has a farily decent history of shipbuilding. It's kind of surprising what companies have traditionally been in shipbuilding - Grumman, General Dynamics, Kaiser Permanente, Bethlehem Steel,... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 2, 2005 Author Share Posted November 2, 2005 And N-G has a farily decent history of shipbuilding. It's kind of surprising what companies have traditionally been in shipbuilding - Grumman, General Dynamics, Kaiser Permanente, Bethlehem Steel,... 494027[/snapback] That seems to go back to WWII - God Bless Henry Kaiser. I knew about GD. Have any opinions about the proposed ships? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 That seems to go back to WWII - God Bless Henry Kaiser. I knew about GD. Have any opinions about the proposed ships? 494035[/snapback] About the CVN-21? Too many new toys, not enough worrying about the actual mission. I'd sooner see that new catapult system tested in some sort of operational setting (even if it's on a land-based short strip) rather than have it built into the next-generation carrier with everyone's fingers crossed. If that doesn't work, CVN-21's going to be a mighty expensive failure. Any other ships you want opinions on...don't even get me started. DD(X) and LCS are likely to be trim and capable ships...but I have grave questions about the missions for which they're designed. DD(X) is far too expensive to be properly put in harm's way as a fleet escort (as DDs generally are), and the LCS isn't capable enough for a fleet unit, while the mission it's designed for has a very questionable foundation at best (namely: the belief, unique in ALL the history of naval warfare, that littoral combat requires its own class of ship. Throughout history, there are very, very few battles that haven't been fought in the littoral (depending on whose definition of "littoral" you use - I believe in the context of the LCS program, it means "brown-water" rather than "blue-water", which amounts to within several hundred kilometers of shore). This is the first time ever, including all of the most successful navies in the world, that someone has decided that the littoral needs its own class of ship. So when China finally invades Taiwan, we'll respond with a Navy composed of carriers escorted by destroyers too expensive to act as true escorts, while all the LCS's stay home because they don't have fleet capabilities. Brilliant !@#$ing doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 Hmm...Northrup-Grumman and...ships... 493977[/snapback] Northrup Grumman has a huge shipyard in Newport News, VA and is the only company that builds nuclear carriers. Right now I think they're working on the USS George Bush http://www.nn.northropgrumman.com/default.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 About the CVN-21? Too many new toys, not enough worrying about the actual mission. I'd sooner see that new catapult system tested in some sort of operational setting (even if it's on a land-based short strip) rather than have it built into the next-generation carrier with everyone's fingers crossed. If that doesn't work, CVN-21's going to be a mighty expensive failure. Any other ships you want opinions on...don't even get me started. DD(X) and LCS are likely to be trim and capable ships...but I have grave questions about the missions for which they're designed. DD(X) is far too expensive to be properly put in harm's way as a fleet escort (as DDs generally are), and the LCS isn't capable enough for a fleet unit, while the mission it's designed for has a very questionable foundation at best (namely: the belief, unique in ALL the history of naval warfare, that littoral combat requires its own class of ship. Throughout history, there are very, very few battles that haven't been fought in the littoral (depending on whose definition of "littoral" you use - I believe in the context of the LCS program, it means "brown-water" rather than "blue-water", which amounts to within several hundred kilometers of shore). This is the first time ever, including all of the most successful navies in the world, that someone has decided that the littoral needs its own class of ship. So when China finally invades Taiwan, we'll respond with a Navy composed of carriers escorted by destroyers too expensive to act as true escorts, while all the LCS's stay home because they don't have fleet capabilities. Brilliant !@#$ing doctrine. 494228[/snapback] mmmmm...maybe not.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 About the CVN-21? Too many new toys, not enough worrying about the actual mission. I'd sooner see that new catapult system tested in some sort of operational setting (even if it's on a land-based short strip) rather than have it built into the next-generation carrier with everyone's fingers crossed. If that doesn't work, CVN-21's going to be a mighty expensive failure. Any other ships you want opinions on...don't even get me started. DD(X) and LCS are likely to be trim and capable ships...but I have grave questions about the missions for which they're designed. DD(X) is far too expensive to be properly put in harm's way as a fleet escort (as DDs generally are), and the LCS isn't capable enough for a fleet unit, while the mission it's designed for has a very questionable foundation at best (namely: the belief, unique in ALL the history of naval warfare, that littoral combat requires its own class of ship. Throughout history, there are very, very few battles that haven't been fought in the littoral (depending on whose definition of "littoral" you use - I believe in the context of the LCS program, it means "brown-water" rather than "blue-water", which amounts to within several hundred kilometers of shore). This is the first time ever, including all of the most successful navies in the world, that someone has decided that the littoral needs its own class of ship. So when China finally invades Taiwan, we'll respond with a Navy composed of carriers escorted by destroyers too expensive to act as true escorts, while all the LCS's stay home because they don't have fleet capabilities. Brilliant !@#$ing doctrine. 494228[/snapback] More likely we'll respond by dispatching an SSGN to Taiwan. Spec Forces backed by a butt-ton of cruise missiles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerjamhead Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 More likely we'll respond by dispatching an SSGN to Taiwan. Spec Forces backed by a butt-ton of cruise missiles. 494271[/snapback] Yeah... those 50 SEALS will repel the Chinese invasion. The SEALS are bad, but they aren't that bad my friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 More likely we'll respond by dispatching an SSGN to Taiwan. Spec Forces backed by a butt-ton of cruise missiles. 494271[/snapback] Yeah...because 50 SEALs and a bastardized Ohio can wrest control of the Straits of Taiwan from a Chinese navy that has spent the past 15 years evolving from a brown-water defense force to a blue-water navy capable of real, if limited, power projection and true amphibious capacity. Unless you're suggesting, contrary to all precedent and common sense, that contesting the invasion of an island does not require contesting control of the approaches to said island. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 I never should have stuck my nose in. Carry on, Grasshoppers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted November 3, 2005 Share Posted November 3, 2005 Yeah...because 50 SEALs and a bastardized Ohio can wrest control of the Straits of Taiwan from a Chinese navy that has spent the past 15 years evolving from a brown-water defense force to a blue-water navy capable of real, if limited, power projection and true amphibious capacity. Unless you're suggesting, contrary to all precedent and common sense, that contesting the invasion of an island does not require contesting control of the approaches to said island. 494302[/snapback] No, but control of those approaches wouldn't necessarially be contested by the oversized targets of the surface fleet. 2-3 Los Angeles Class Subs working as a "Wolf-Pack" (or 1 Seawolf or Virginia Class Sub) would effectively control the straights of Taiwan. The Chinese Navy doesn't have a Submarine force or ASW assets capable of contesting the area. Now, add the SSGN, which packs some serious firepower to back up those 50 (or more) Seals, and the Surface Combatants (1 CVN, 2 CG's, 4 DD's, etc...) assigned to that Task Force are free to concentrate on taking control of Taiwan's airspace. The new littoral assets are free to sit on the sidelines and watch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted November 3, 2005 Author Share Posted November 3, 2005 I never should have stuck my nose in. Carry on, Grasshoppers. 494306[/snapback] Cheeky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Lamb Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 Just wondering... 493825[/snapback] Some background material http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvx.htm Will advances in missle technology render carriers useless ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 For the love of all that is holy, does BOEING own every company in the country involved in military/aerospace operations? The USS George H. W. Bush is indeed currently under construction in Eastern VA... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 Some background material http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvx.htm Will advances in missle technology render carriers useless ? 495181[/snapback] Probably not. Carriers are the ultimate power-projection naval platform for the forseeable future. Missiles cannot park their asses off a coastline and conduct operations over a significant length of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted November 5, 2005 Share Posted November 5, 2005 Probably not. Carriers are the ultimate power-projection naval platform for the forseeable future. Missiles cannot park their asses off a coastline and conduct operations over a significant length of time. 495507[/snapback] well said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted November 5, 2005 Share Posted November 5, 2005 well said 495537[/snapback] They can on "24" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts