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

[Jaybee]

Originally Posted by 54ny77

that looked to be a really fascinating read. wish it was regular black text on white background, my eyes can't take that kind of page layout. i only made it through bits at beginning and jumped several pages to catch what happened later on. what a story though!

Copy-paste to a Google doc.

[54ny77]

ahhh, the occasional (assisted) moment of brilliance!

great idea, thanks! there's so many web-based stories i like to read, but just can't, for longer than a minute or two if white text on black background.

i copied/pasted right into a word doc as plain text, since i don't know what google docs is. presto, worked like a charm.

Originally Posted by Jaybee

Copy-paste to a Google doc.

[onekgguy]

Having served as an Operations Specialist in Combat Information Center (CIC) in those same waters, that was difficult to read. I can't imagine being a radarman in that scenario and not having a tech brought in to fine tune my scope's presentation to remove any sea-clutter so I could track any nearby surface contacts. That's just so inexcusable. There should've been continued chatter between the bridge and CIC with CIC making course and speed recommendations to the bridge to avoid the other traffic. What an entirely avoidable tragedy.

Kevin g

[weisan]

Its "secret" mission was to fend off any ballistic attacks from North Korea...in the midst of malfunctions...wow.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by weisan

Its "secret" mission was to fend off any ballistic attacks from North Korea...in the midst of malfunctions...wow.

Wasn't secret at all and the latest Aegis radar and missile systems are VERY effective at intercepting these types of weapons shortly after launch. Shooting an arrow with an arrow but very effective. wow...

[bigbill]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

Wasn't secret at all and the latest Aegis radar and missile systems are VERY effective at intercepting these types of weapons shortly after launch. Shooting an arrow with an arrow but very effective. wow...

And that's the reason we keep Aegis ships at sea so much in that part of the world. Not having enough ships to keep the OPTEMPO reasonable was a failure on the part of the Navy and Congress. The government shutdowns have hurt the maintainers and their budgets. Additionally the focus on building Littoral Combat Ships that lack the capability of our DDG and CG's have hurt readiness, but really boosted the careers of lawmakers whose district has the shipyards. Now we're left with a few ships, some of which are dinosaurs, to accomplish this mission. I was a Surface Warfare Officer and Aegis is an incredible system that we also share with our allies, but to be effective the ships have to be at sea.

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by bigbill

And that's the reason we keep Aegis ships at sea so much in that part of the world. Not having enough ships to keep the OPTEMPO reasonable was a failure on the part of the Navy and Congress. The government shutdowns have hurt the maintainers and their budgets. Additionally the focus on building Littoral Combat Ships that lack the capability of our DDG and CG's have hurt readiness, but really boosted the careers of lawmakers whose district has the shipyards. Now we're left with a few ships, some of which are dinosaurs, to accomplish this mission. I was a Surface Warfare Officer and Aegis is an incredible system that we also share with our allies, but to be effective the ships have to be at sea.

Agree 100%..it would be nice to tell the knuckleheads in congress what is REALLY needed for the military, by the Admirals and Generals, and tell them to just nod their collective heads.

AND just cancel the USAF..give the ground Nuke forces to the Army, and the USN can keep the ones at sea..12,000 foot runways are so 20th century vs USSR...And add 3-4 nuke CVs..

[bigbill]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

Agree 100%..it would be nice to tell the knuckleheads in congress what is REALLY needed for the military, by the Admirals and Generals, and tell them to just nod their collective heads.

AND just cancel the USAF..give the ground Nuke forces to the Army, and the USN can keep the ones at sea..12,000 foot runways are so 20th century vs USSR...And add 3-4 nuke CVs..

During Gulf War 2, I'd drive the carrier to the east end of the box in anticipation of west winds to launch airstrikes. If I timed it right, we'd be about ten miles from the pop box where DDG's, CG's, and the occasional submarine would launch Tomahawks. Pretty impressive in late evening.

[Ozz]

Originally Posted by oldpotatoe

...AND just cancel the USAF..give the ground Nuke forces to the Army, and the USN can keep the ones at sea..12,000 foot runways are so 20th century vs USSR...And add 3-4 nuke CVs..

But what do we do with the "Space Force"?

[oldpotatoe]

Originally Posted by Ozz

But what do we do with the "Space Force"?

Let DJT make ‘em out of legos...

[Ronsonic]

Originally Posted by bigbill

And that's the reason we keep Aegis ships at sea so much in that part of the world. Not having enough ships to keep the OPTEMPO reasonable was a failure on the part of the Navy and Congress.

If you recall, naval funding was a part of the Presidential debates in 2012. Unfortunately, the candidate who very smarmily dismissed the need for a larger navy because we now have ships that go under water and can launch airplanes and missiles won. The problem being we've never invented a ship that could be in two places at once.

[Louis]

Originally Posted by Ronsonic

If you recall, naval funding was a part of the Presidential debates in 2012. Unfortunately, the candidate who very smarmily dismissed the need for a larger navy because we now have ships that go under water and can launch airplanes and missiles won. The problem being we've never invented a ship that could be in two places at once.

Yeah, I knew that in the end it had to be Obama's fault, after all, everything else that's bad is his fault. (And don't forget Hillary's e-mail server, Benghazi, and while we're at it, might as well toss Comet Ping Pong Pizza into the mix too.)

[bigbill]

Originally Posted by Ronsonic

If you recall, naval funding was a part of the Presidential debates in 2012. Unfortunately, the candidate who very smarmily dismissed the need for a larger navy because we now have ships that go under water and can launch airplanes and missiles won. The problem being we've never invented a ship that could be in two places at once.

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.

[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.