Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mugtang

GOP offers 1 month continuing resolution and 6 years CHIP funding

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

Even if they work the vast majority of the time we face catastrophic losses. Carriers cost many billions and take years to build. We only have 10 so losing a few would be crippling.

If we entered a war with China we will take losses with the Navy. It is unavoidable. Cruisers, frigates and destoryers hopefully would soak up most of the vampires incoming that the standards and point defense miss. Unfortunetely that is their job to protect the carrier. But I would certainly expect leakers to get to a carrier considering the Chinese technique is to swarm the carrier task force with misslies. The navy has been working on countermeasures for years. I have no idea if they will work, nor does anyone really know if the DF-21 is a as deadly as the Chinese claim. Theorys are great until bullets and missles start flying. 

Considering China is building up their blue water navy at a fast rate we need the carriers. They are one of the biggest projections of US power around the world. Considering our place in the world, one area where we shouldn't skimp on defense spending is the US Navy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Jack Bauer said:

This is what bothers me the most about these guys.  It's about our guy vs their guy.  It's not about what's best for people.  It's not about the people in your state.  It's about screwing over Obama's plans.  It's about screwing over Trump's plans.  Just work with them.  They are in office, work with them to get stuff like DACA and CHIP passed.  It's the right thing to do.

I think they are doing is what they think is right. We’ve all, or at least many of us, and you and I in particular have voiced serious concern multiple times about the level of spending and the debt we are shoveling onto future generations. The freedom caucus guys think addressing that is what’s best for people, that it’s a higher good in the long run than the other things you mentioned. Not one damn moderate Republican is willing to take the heat and help them make a serious run at the issue. So what we get is them using this kind of guerrilla obstinacy, seemingly on every big issue, to get whatever they can to show their constituents they’re fighting the good fight.

Now if you want to say it’s bad politics, that it doesn’t help them succeed in their ultimate goal of addressing spending in real way, I’d agree with you. I don’t think you win the 100 year war by choosing to die on every hill you come across. But I think there is more going on than troublemakers throwing wrenches in Presidents’ agendas for kicks.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

If we entered a war with China we will take losses with the Navy. It is unavoidable. Cruisers, frigates and destoryers hopefully would soak up most of the vampires incoming that the standards and point defense miss. Unfortunetely that is their job to protect the carrier. But I would certainly expect leakers to get to a carrier considering the Chinese technique is to swarm the carrier task force with misslies. The navy has been working on countermeasures for years. I have no idea if they will work, nor does anyone really know if the DF-21 is a as deadly as the Chinese claim. Theorys are great until bullets and missles start flying. 

Considering China is building up their blue water navy at a fast rate we need the carriers. They are one of the biggest projections of US power around the world. Considering our place in the world, one area where we shouldn't skimp on defense spending is the US Navy. 

I agree with Navy spending. I just think we have far too many eggs in the carrier basket.

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Old_SD_Dude said:

I agree with Navy spending. I just think we have far too many eggs in the carrier basket.

I would agree but what choice do we really have? The Navy has half as many ships today as we had in 1989. We took huge losses in our frigates, destroyers and submarines. Until we increase our surface fleet and increase production of submarines we have limited options. I do like we have converted some Ohio class boomers to SSGN's. That means instead of carrying ICBM's they carry 154 cruise missiles. To give an idea of what firepower that is it is about the same amount of cruise missiles that a surface battle group carries. Too bad we only have 4 and they are aging. 

Our new ships are incredible but they are expensive and there are only so many and our tasking has only increased. Until our fleet is built back up the carriers are our best power projection.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

I would agree but what choice do we really have? The Navy has half as many ships today as we had in 1989. We took huge losses in our frigates, destroyers and submarines. Until we increase our surface fleet and increase production of submarines we have limited options. I do like we have converted some Ohio class boomers to SSGN's. That means instead of carrying ICBM's they carry 154 cruise missiles. To give an idea of what firepower that is it is about the same amount of cruise missiles that a surface battle group carries. Too bad we only have 4 and they are aging. 

Our new ships are incredible but they are expensive and there are only so many and our tasking has only increased. Until our fleet is built back up the carriers are our best power projection.  

Well, don't get me started on my thought about our weapons development and procurement system...

Thay Haif Said: Quhat Say Thay? Lat Thame Say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The US didn't have an actual war with Russia or USSR and they were far more antagonistic than China is.  And with the US and Europe's extensive economic ties with China, I don't think war with China is something that can even remotely happen.  It would be like burning your neighbors house down when you know half of your house would burn as well.  That which you would lose is far greater than that which you could gain.  Of course things can change in 20 or 50 years. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, pokerider said:

The US didn't have an actual war with Russia or USSR and they were far more antagonistic than China is.  And with the US and Europe's extensive economic ties with China, I don't think war with China is something that can even remotely happen.  It would be like burning your neighbors house down when you know half of your house would burn as well.  That which you would lose is far greater than that which you could gain.  Of course things can change in 20 or 50 years. 

 

China is far more antagonistic economically. Don't forget China is building up their blue water navy at an extremely fast pace and they are building islands all over the South China Sea. Their force projection is increasing and they see the western Pacific as theirs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

I would agree but what choice do we really have? The Navy has half as many ships today as we had in 1989. We took huge losses in our frigates, destroyers and submarines. Until we increase our surface fleet and increase production of submarines we have limited options. I do like we have converted some Ohio class boomers to SSGN's. That means instead of carrying ICBM's they carry 154 cruise missiles. To give an idea of what firepower that is it is about the same amount of cruise missiles that a surface battle group carries. Too bad we only have 4 and they are aging. 

Our new ships are incredible but they are expensive and there are only so many and our tasking has only increased. Until our fleet is built back up the carriers are our best power projection.  

I have to wonder how much utility a carrier battle group (and really a missile boat) will be in the next 10-15 years. Laser and railgun technology are advancing quickly and if they get sufficiently miniaturized, airplanes and guided missiles will be relatively sitting ducks. Furthermore, advances in railguns would mean that the destroyers could pack a cannon that can hit targets 300 miles away with a massive impact energy. With even limited guidance, they would both be able to annihilate carriers and more or less take their place; 30 railgun destroyers bombarding 200 miles inland would be cheaper and have more staying power than a carrier. 

I also wonder how cost effective a modern carrier is. It seems to be a "one size fits all" ship that is as modern as can be and also can conduct many sorties. However... we project power onto 4th and 5th rate powers, not 1st and 2nd rate powers. It seems like we could have a much cheaper dedicated drone tender that continuously operates bomber drones over nations with low grade conflict or rebellion. 

Finally, stealth suicide drones could be bad news for a carrier. 

Remember that every argument you have with someone on MWCboard is actually the continuation of a different argument they had with someone else also on MWCboard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rebelbacker said:

No, you are wrong. Because the bill can be filibustered it needs 60 votes to pass.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-probably-wont-force-a-shutdown-over-immigration/

That’s because they’ve chosen not to use budget reconciliation to pass the budget. The GOP could have done so if they wanted to and the Dems wouldn’t be able to filibuster it. 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

That’s because they’ve chosen not to use budget reconciliation to pass the budget. The GOP could have done so if they wanted to and the Dems wouldn’t be able to filibuster it. 

Ok. The fact is to pass it needs 60 votes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, happycamper said:

I have to wonder how much utility a carrier battle group (and really a missile boat) will be in the next 10-15 years. Laser and railgun technology are advancing quickly and if they get sufficiently miniaturized, airplanes and guided missiles will be relatively sitting ducks. Furthermore, advances in railguns would mean that the destroyers could pack a cannon that can hit targets 300 miles away with a massive impact energy. With even limited guidance, they would both be able to annihilate carriers and more or less take their place; 30 railgun destroyers bombarding 200 miles inland would be cheaper and have more staying power than a carrier. 

I also wonder how cost effective a modern carrier is. It seems to be a "one size fits all" ship that is as modern as can be and also can conduct many sorties. However... we project power onto 4th and 5th rate powers, not 1st and 2nd rate powers. It seems like we could have a much cheaper dedicated drone tender that continuously operates bomber drones over nations with low grade conflict or rebellion. 

Finally, stealth suicide drones could be bad news for a carrier. 

Back in the day the battleship was king then came the carrier. Eventually the carrier won't be king of the seas anymore. But right now it is. 

Lasers are already active and in service. http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/17/politics/us-navy-drone-laser-weapon/index.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, happycamper said:

I have to wonder how much utility a carrier battle group (and really a missile boat) will be in the next 10-15 years. Laser and railgun technology are advancing quickly and if they get sufficiently miniaturized, airplanes and guided missiles will be relatively sitting ducks. Furthermore, advances in railguns would mean that the destroyers could pack a cannon that can hit targets 300 miles away with a massive impact energy. With even limited guidance, they would both be able to annihilate carriers and more or less take their place; 30 railgun destroyers bombarding 200 miles inland would be cheaper and have more staying power than a carrier. 

I also wonder how cost effective a modern carrier is. It seems to be a "one size fits all" ship that is as modern as can be and also can conduct many sorties. However... we project power onto 4th and 5th rate powers, not 1st and 2nd rate powers. It seems like we could have a much cheaper dedicated drone tender that continuously operates bomber drones over nations with low grade conflict or rebellion. 

Finally, stealth suicide drones could be bad news for a carrier. 

52982953.jpg

Image result for jim mcmahon with lavell edwardsImage result for byu logoImage result for byu boise state end zone hail maryc07489bb8bb7f5bad3672877f8b04f34.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Jack Bauer said:

52982953.jpg

 

D179DFA0-719B-48FF-AD2E-E584D6E5889B.gif

thelawlorfaithful, on 31 Dec 2012 - 04:01 AM, said:One of the rules I live by: never underestimate a man in a dandy looking sweater

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The GOP controls congress and the WH. Any shutdown is on them.

 

I fully support the dems refusing to go along unless there is a fix for DACA. And no money for a border wall. Let mexico pay for that. 

One of the Final Five..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mysfit said:

The GOP controls congress and the WH. Any shutdown is on them.

 

I fully support the dems refusing to go along unless there is a fix for DACA. And no money for a border wall. Let mexico pay for that. 

Except it needs 60 votes to pass and the GOP doesn't make up 60 votes. So if 8 dems don't vote yes then it is on them. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...