ot: so how do a merchant ship and destroyer have a collision?

[vqdriver]

Slow clap

Originally Posted by Jaybee

Sounds like an Onion headline, but it's not:

Navy Admiral on ship collisions: Those were tragedies, but what about the other 280 ships that didn't collide?



I would like to take this opportunity to ask my wife to ignore the new bike in the garage and instead think of the 50-some bikes I left at the store.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by bigbill

Trump ran on a 350 ship Navy but it's not achievable at this point. The mission hasn't changed and it has actually increased in the western Pacific. China is playing us in the South China Sea by claiming territory and interrupting freedom of navigation, the primary purpose of a peacetime navy. Our mission was North Korea and what we had there was sufficient, but along came China. China's navy is inferior to the US as far as technology, but they have more ships in the area and the logistical support of operating near their shores.

Like I stated previously, we're continuing to build ships that don't support any mission we're currently doing. Littoral Combat Ships are an answer to a question not asked, and the Zumwalt Destroyers don't have a mission, but they look cool. The best solution is to buy frigates from the Netherlands or Italy but that would never fly politically.

Agree...the military pundits seem to have forgotten it's about protecting 'sea lines of communication' and power projection. Littoral combat ships to protect what? Norfolk and SanDiego..really dum but yup, they look good on the balance sheet. We need CVs, subs, and the ships that protect CVs but can project power(Tomahawk)...And altho expensive, in this day and age..why not a modern version of this? CGN

I know ya gotta feed the crew but w/o need for refueling, less need for USNS...Cancel aircraft that need 10,000 feet of concrete and lotsa of fixed base operations(USAF)..no red horde gonna be marching across the central plains of Europe anymore..

A 'squadron' of B-2s(6 aircraft+support)) cost roughly the same as a CV...BUT, the CV when deployed, does their mission everyday while the B-2s do flyovers for football games. Lessee...fly the B-2 From Whitman AFB..using how many tankers, to the straits of Taiwan..or park 2-3 CVs there for operations against China...hmmmm...

And before you talk about how juicy a target a CV is...when on CV-41(OLD tech)..we were lost by the Rooskies for about 2 weeks operating off the coast of Kamchatka peninsula..when operating with the Enterprise and Coral Sea..If the Badgers that were flying around looking for us hadn't noticed 'USS MIDWAY' on the side of our aircraft as we intercepted them, they might have not known the Midway was there at all..

[bigbill]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

Agree...the military pundits seem to have forgotten it's about protecting 'sea lines of communication' and power projection. Littoral combat ships to protect what? Norfolk and SanDiego..really dum but yup, they look good on the balance sheet. We need CVs, subs, and the ships that protect CVs but can project power(Tomahawk)...And altho expensive, in this day and age..why not a modern version of this? CGN

I know ya gotta feed the crew but w/o need for refueling, less need for USNS...Cancel aircraft that need 10,000 feet of concrete and lotsa of fixed base operations(USAF)..no red horde gonna be marching across the central plains of Europe anymore..

A 'squadron' of B-2s(6 aircraft+support)) cost roughly the same as a CV...BUT, the CV when deployed, does their mission everyday while the B-2s do flyovers for football games. Lessee...fly the B-2 From Whitman AFB..using how many tankers, to the straits of Taiwan..or park 2-3 CVs there for operations against China...hmmmm...

And before you talk about how juicy a target a CV is...when on CV-41(OLD tech)..we were lost by the Rooskies for about 2 weeks operating off the coast of Kamchatka peninsula..when operating with the Enterprise and Coral Sea..If the Badgers that were flying around looking for us hadn't noticed 'USS MIDWAY' on the side of our aircraft as we intercepted them, they might have not known the Midway was there at all..

I did 5 CVN deployments, all them were in hostile/wartime areas. I know the Air Force was around and did some airstrikes, but during the Iraq invasion and in Afghanistan after 9/11, we primarily used them for tankers. A KC-135 holds a lot of gas, more than enough to keep Navy and USMC Hornets loitering over the target area waiting to do ground support. The Air Force mission of strategic bombing is outdated along with the aircraft. When we went into Afghanistan after 9/11, the AF was hitting targets with b-52's out of Diego Garcia (rock in the Indian Ocean), but after all the known targets were gone and the Taliban was scattered, their missions went down. The AF wants the next generation bomber but still rely on airframes built in the 50's and 60's. Warfare has changed but the folks approving the funding still get distracted by shiny objects. Meanwhile the job gets done with old equipment and we will complain about how much it breaks down.

[onekgguy]

Originally Posted by bigbill

I did 5 CVN deployments, all them were in hostile/wartime areas. I know the Air Force was around and did some airstrikes, but during the Iraq invasion and in Afghanistan after 9/11, we primarily used them for tankers. A KC-135 holds a lot of gas, more than enough to keep Navy and USMC Hornets loitering over the target area waiting to do ground support. The Air Force mission of strategic bombing is outdated along with the aircraft. When we went into Afghanistan after 9/11, the AF was hitting targets with b-52's out of Diego Garcia (rock in the Indian Ocean), but after all the known targets were gone and the Taliban was scattered, their missions went down. The AF wants the next generation bomber but still rely on airframes built in the 50's and 60's. Warfare has changed but the folks approving the funding still get distracted by shiny objects. Meanwhile the job gets done with old equipment and we will complain about how much it breaks down.

I love the attached image. Too funny but only because there's some truth in it. I had a B52 fly through my sector late at night years ago. The pilot requested a climb to FL490 (49,000 feet). I can't remember but I'm quite sure I would've asked him to repeat his request because I was unaware the aircraft was capable of that altitude. Sure enough, he climbed to FL490 and leveled for a few minutes before requesting lower. It's such an impressive workhorse of an aircraft.

Kevin g

[cnighbor1]

Lucy ball says to desi driving the long long trailer, ''Turn right here to your left"' so he turned right and was on a narrow dirt road no way to turn around Well same could have happened here

[earlfoss]

Saw the report on the NTSB site for the McCain incident.

https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-rele...R20190805.aspx

[goonster]

Originally Posted by bigbill

Meanwhile the job gets done with old equipment and we will complain about how much it breaks down.

Just saw that the A-10, which has seemingly been on the chopping block since the mid 90's, has had its service life extended to the late 2030's.