MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 28, 2023 10:34 am
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 9:06 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 8:44 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 6:02 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 5:45 pm
a fan wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 5:44 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2023 5:43 pm
New ship construction is authorized in budgets by Congress. No amount of DoD audits will find enough spare change under the cushions to build a 12th nuc carrier, even if we still had the ship building capacity to do it.
Cool. Out.
So you get the last word?
Yeah, ok. You get the last word.
nope, it's 11 not 12, and there are less expensive ways to achieve this level.
...with smaller, less capable carriers, not capable of operating on the far side of the world for 9 mos at a stretch.
Congress threw in the towel & amended the law to 11 when it became obvious we didn't have the capability to catch up.
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL32731.html
We've maintained 12 carrier level tasking & it's just a matter of time until...
https://news.usni.org/2020/11/12/no-mar ... of-overuse
Just correcting the facts, as you sometimes play loose with them...I'd assumed, however, that it was an honest mistake and you'd say, oops, I got that wrong.
You want to make the argument that we really need 15, no sweat...but "law" ain't that.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/8062
https://midwesterncitizen.com/2021/12/t ... t-century/
When was the law changed from 12 to 11 ? We haven't had 12 in commission since the JFK retired in 2007.
So, you agree, it's 11?
Is that an admission you were in error?
Again, I'm fine with anyone making an argument that we need much more capacity, damn the costs, but let's not falsely claim that there's a "law" that we must do so.
Seems to me that there is a reasonable argument to be made for re-thinking, in each era, what the best use of resources will be to positively influence the world in ways that are good for America and the world, and defend against serious potential threats of the future.
Hard power/soft power both.
I'm far from an 'expert' on that topic, but obviously I'd want that argument to be had in each era...looking forward, not backward.
Yes. I agree it's 11. I'd forgotten that Congress reduced it to 11 when it became obvious we didn't have the shipbuilding capacity to get back up to 12 nuc super carriers. The salient fact remains -- tasking is still at the 12 carrier strike group level.
A rethinking takes place every time advance funding must be budgeted for the next new carrier to replace one that's retiring.
Sometimes the rethinking even takes place when a mid-life nuc reactor refueling comes up for funding.
Unmanned aircraft (tankers first) will soon be operating from our current carrier decks.
I can argue for 12 big nuc super carriers, or for more smaller conventionally powered carriers, or for no carriers.
I trust the decision makers to have access to better info & intel on how to meet the future threats we anticipate than I do.
I'm partial to conventionally powered carriers, homeported overseas with their escorts & air wings.
I've done it both ways -- the forward deployed conventional CVBG I was part of, was more effective than the CONUS based nuc CVBG I was part of & those we encountered, even though the CONUS based nuc CVBG had a bigger, newer carrier & more capable newer model aircraft.