US Navy sinks to a new low

https://news.usni.org/2019/09/12/es...-as-east-coast-carrier-shortage-persists

The navy deployed a Carrier group yesterday, but the USS Truman did not go along. It is out of action. Billions of dollars of non functioning ship.
The ships don’t work. The new planes are questionable, the sailors fail at navigating and ship handling. God help us if they have to go into combat.

Did you actually read the article?

No, you are not supposed to do that, kellroy. Against protocol.
Only uninformed bitching and warmongering in these parts.
Turn in your card.

Sarcasm off.

My main takeaway from the article, outside of the carrier being broke and them not being completely sure what the problem is, is that the Navy Spokespersons are some absolute world-class gibberish slingers.

That’s to confuse the Air Force guys😊

Is it really necessary? I get it that the carrier projects and image, and a good deal of force, but is it necessary? Is there anything that battle force is likely to face that the surface ships can't handle?

Originally Posted by navlav8r

That’s to confuse the Air Force guys😊

Well I'm a Navy guy myself so they're definitely exceeding expectations.

Originally Posted by RufusG

My main takeaway from the article, outside of the carrier being broke and them not being completely sure what the problem is, is that the Navy Spokespersons are some absolute world-class gibberish slingers.

It's their job to be good liars. But they're not. Good, that is. Liars they are.

Mannlichers right.

Originally Posted by Armednfree

Is there anything that battle force is likely to face that the surface ships can't handle?

Yeah, the ability to carry out strike missions using $18,000/hour super hornets and $5,000 bombs rather than $2,000,000 Tomahawks.

So, this isn't about a new submarine?

Originally Posted by RickyD

Originally Posted by RufusG

My main takeaway from the article, outside of the carrier being broke and them not being completely sure what the problem is, is that the Navy Spokespersons are some absolute world-class gibberish slingers.

It's their job to be good liars. But they're not. Good, that is. Liars they are.

Mannlichers right.

Ditto.

Navy Spin Doctor training school now giving out participation certificates.

It does highlight the Navy’s ongoing decline. There’s no ready carrier to substitute for the Truman and that’s a big deal that we’re stretched too thin to cover for a ship having a mechanical issue. The Ford being so far behind and that spilling over to the next carrier in the Ford class is crippling our carrier fleet.
The Littoral Combat ships are useless and stuck in dry dock. These late and troubled ships means older ships are being pushed way beyond their service life and some have been decommissioned before their replacements were ready. Our SEALS are all hooked on pills and heroin ( that’s the reason the entire command of SEAL team 7 was just relieved of command ) . It’s not just 7 that has a huge problem. The Navy is a disaster currently.

even though I'm retired, I'm condemned to dealing with the Navy on a daily basis and the decline is not only obvious, but catastrophic. It has been overtaken by bureaucrats, more interested in the 'process" than in operational readiness. And when coupled with the cancer that is the civilian GS employee, it's a recipe for disaster. As to the carrier, the math is simple. It takes three to make one. That is for every carrier deployed, you have one in maintenance and one undergoing what we cann the "turnaround training cycle". As of right now, I think we only have ten, because the Ford is basically useless. So there you are...

Originally Posted by Llama_Bob

Originally Posted by Armednfree

Is there anything that battle force is likely to face that the surface ships can't handle?

Yeah, the ability to carry out strike missions using $18,000/hour super hornets and $5,000 bombs rather than $2,000,000 Tomahawks.

That's for, uh... defense, huh? I say we have a vote for whether such is necessary for our "defense", and those who vote in the affirmative get to pay for it.

Carriers were never about defense. Force projection is anathema to defense. "I knew that guy was gonna mug me later that night, so I shot him in his bed that morning."

Originally Posted by HuntnShoot

Originally Posted by Llama_Bob

Originally Posted by Armednfree

Is there anything that battle force is likely to face that the surface ships can't handle?

Yeah, the ability to carry out strike missions using $18,000/hour super hornets and $5,000 bombs rather than $2,000,000 Tomahawks.

That's for, uh... defense, huh? I say we have a vote for whether such is necessary for our "defense", and those who vote in the affirmative get to pay for it.

Carriers were never about defense. Force projection is anathema to defense. "I knew that guy was gonna mug me later that night, so I shot him in his bed that morning."

Your short sightedness is remarkable!

Originally Posted by HuntnShoot

Carriers were never about defense.

Yeah I'm sure we could have done without those damn carriers in WW2.

So. High Tech fancy is it's own worst enemy I guess. At least it costs more, so there's a plus.

Quote

In the meantime, the surface ships in the strike group are forming their own surface action group and deploying with neither the carrier nor the air wing.

I'm glad they didn't deploy the air wing. I'm not a navy guy, but I could see where that could lead to trouble. The Japanese tried that back in WWII with a great deal of short term success, but it didn't pan out in the long run.

Originally Posted by HuntnShoot

. Force projection is anathema to defense.

Boy, I am glad you're not calling the shots..

Ships, tanks, bombers, all weapons from the past. That stuff costs a fortune in resources of every kind. A gigantic waste. Your ULTRAMEGA SUPERCARRIER will get sunk by a kid with a drone. Make sure the letters TRUMAN are really big so they can read it under the sea for the next 200 years.

And the world-class stupidity-fed ignorance continues...

It is the government public education system that creates such an abundance of ignorance.

Originally Posted by kellory

Did you actually read the article?

Well yeah. What part did you have a problem understanding? 😏

Originally Posted by jorgeI

even though I'm retired, I'm condemned to dealing with the Navy on a daily basis and the decline is not only obvious, but catastrophic. It has been overtaken by bureaucrats, more interested in the 'process" than in operational readiness. And when coupled with the cancer that is the civilian GS employee, it's a recipe for disaster. As to the carrier, the math is simple. It takes three to make one. That is for every carrier deployed, you have one in maintenance and one undergoing what we cann the "turnaround training cycle". As of right now, I think we only have ten, because the Ford is basically useless. So there you are...

How are civilian GS Navy employees a cancer?

Those that are 'untuned' to the fact of how important naval power in the form of aircraft carriers were to victory in the Leyte Gulf would problem get much better informed from talking with Vice Admiral Kurita!!

Originally Posted by PaulBarnard

Originally Posted by jorgeI

even though I'm retired, I'm condemned to dealing with the Navy on a daily basis and the decline is not only obvious, but catastrophic. It has been overtaken by bureaucrats, more interested in the 'process" than in operational readiness. And when coupled with the cancer that is the civilian GS employee, it's a recipe for disaster. As to the carrier, the math is simple. It takes three to make one. That is for every carrier deployed, you have one in maintenance and one undergoing what we cann the "turnaround training cycle". As of right now, I think we only have ten, because the Ford is basically useless. So there you are...

How are civilian GS Navy employees a cancer?

Also wondering...

Originally Posted by jorgeI

even though I'm retired, I'm condemned to dealing with the Navy on a daily basis and the decline is not only obvious, but catastrophic. It has been overtaken by bureaucrats, more interested in the 'process" than in operational readiness. And when coupled with the cancer that is the civilian GS employee, it's a recipe for disaster. As to the carrier, the math is simple. It takes three to make one. That is for every carrier deployed, you have one in maintenance and one undergoing what we cann the "turnaround training cycle". As of right now, I think we only have ten, because the Ford is basically useless. So there you are...

The condition of the Navy is a disgrace to our nation. Ships that can’t deploy , planes that can’t fly , sailors playing on their phones and squabbling while standing watch , special forces hooked on drugs and not wanting to fight. We’re ramping up operations across the Middle East and Afghanistan again with drug addicted , poser , and worn out seal teams. The aircraft carrier isn’t going to be there for those guys and that’s another demoralizing thing for the teams and fleet to deal with. It’s heartbreaking to see how far the mighty have fallen.

I will say that if they can ever get the Ford to work and perform as promised she’ll be an impressive beast ! Problem is that at the current rate of progress by the time the three ordered Ford class carriers are ready there will be four or five old carriers needing to be retired.