(08-02-2020, 09:02 AM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2020, 08:36 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]JIB is mistaking terms of art for meaningful knowledge. So are you.
Someone on a ship might have laughed at him or kicked him his first day when he asked about the restroom or the cafeteria. "You fool! This ship doesn't have a restroom! It's called the head! And there is no cafeteria! We eat in the galley!" This in word / out word stuff builds comraderie, but it's not knowledge. Knowledge is knowing that if you're going to be out to sea for weeks, so there must be a place to go to the bathroom and a place to eat. Jargon is what do you call those places without getting laughed at.
Obviously the angled deck carrier with F-18s is going to get different missions than the smaller ship that carries F-35Bs. I said they're basically the same thing, and you're insisting that they're totally different things, but my point is that we have more than enough of each. We have 10 or 11 angled deck carriers. France, the UK, and Russia each have one. China has one or two.
LOL. Your ignorance is sad, yet comical at the same time.
I've steered clear of engaging him in debate. It's obvious he has a character flaw in that he'll never admit his ignorance or that he's just flat out wrong. He'll equivocate, deflect, squirm, manipulate and downright change the subject in order to believe he's unburdened himself of an untenable argument.
(08-02-2020, 09:02 AM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2020, 08:36 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]JIB is mistaking terms of art for meaningful knowledge. So are you.
Someone on a ship might have laughed at him or kicked him his first day when he asked about the restroom or the cafeteria. "You fool! This ship doesn't have a restroom! It's called the head! And there is no cafeteria! We eat in the galley!" This in word / out word stuff builds comraderie, but it's not knowledge. Knowledge is knowing that if you're going to be out to sea for weeks, so there must be a place to go to the bathroom and a place to eat. Jargon is what do you call those places without getting laughed at.
Obviously the angled deck carrier with F-18s is going to get different missions than the smaller ship that carries F-35Bs. I said they're basically the same thing, and you're insisting that they're totally different things, but my point is that we have more than enough of each. We have 10 or 11 angled deck carriers. France, the UK, and Russia each have one. China has one or two.
LOL. Your ignorance is sad, yet comical at the same time.
Oh, inform me, wise one, how many angled deck aircraft carriers should we have? 20? 30? When is it enough?
(08-02-2020, 09:30 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2020, 09:02 AM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]LOL. Your ignorance is sad, yet comical at the same time.
I've steered clear of engaging him in debate. It's obvious he has a character flaw in that he'll never admit his ignorance or that he's just flat out wrong. He'll equivocate, deflect, squirm, manipulate and downright change the subject in order to believe he's unburdened himself of an untenable argument.
I fully admit ignorance to stuff, but that stuff is irrelevant to the point that I'm trying to make.
Whatever you call those ships, I'm saying we have too many of them. How many aircraft carriers do you think we need? Why?
(08-02-2020, 09:32 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2020, 09:02 AM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]LOL. Your ignorance is sad, yet comical at the same time.
Oh, inform me, wise one, how many angled deck aircraft carriers should we have? 20? 30? When is it enough?
(08-02-2020, 09:30 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I've steered clear of engaging him in debate. It's obvious he has a character flaw in that he'll never admit his ignorance or that he's just flat out wrong. He'll equivocate, deflect, squirm, manipulate and downright change the subject in order to believe he's unburdened himself of an untenable argument.
I fully admit ignorance to stuff, but that stuff is irrelevant to the point that I'm trying to make.
Whatever you call those ships, I'm saying we have too many of them. How many aircraft carriers do you think we need? Why?
Do you believe an amphibious assault ship is capable of performing the duties of an angle deck carrier and vice versa?
(08-02-2020, 09:44 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2020, 09:32 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Oh, inform me, wise one, how many angled deck aircraft carriers should we have? 20? 30? When is it enough?
I fully admit ignorance to stuff, but that stuff is irrelevant to the point that I'm trying to make.
Whatever you call those ships, I'm saying we have too many of them. How many aircraft carriers do you think we need? Why?
Do you believe an amphibious assault ship is capable of performing the duties of an angle deck carrier and vice versa?
There is certainly some overlap. The F-35B that launches off of the amphibious ship has some of the same capabilities as the f-35C that launches off of the longer carrier.
But that's not relevant to my point.
China has six amphibious ships and one longer carrier. We have nine and 10, respectively. Each of theirs is significantly less capable than each of ours.
The UK and France are the only other countries that have a ship remotely similar to the USS Enterprise. They have one each. How many do we need?
(08-02-2020, 10:09 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2020, 09:44 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Do you believe an amphibious assault ship is capable of performing the duties of an angle deck carrier and vice versa?
There are certainly some overlap. The F-35B that launches off of the amphibious ship has some of the same capabilities as the f-35C that launches off of the longer carrier.
But that's not relevant to my point.
China has six amphibious ships and one longer carrier. We have nine and 10, respectively. Each of theirs is significantly less capable than each of ours.
The UK and France are the only other countries that have a ship remotely similar to the USS Enterprise. They have one each. How many do we need?
Your reply reads like a Google search result.
(08-02-2020, 09:30 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2020, 09:02 AM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]LOL. Your ignorance is sad, yet comical at the same time.
I've steered clear of engaging him in debate. It's obvious he has a character flaw in that he'll never admit his ignorance or that he's just flat out wrong. He'll equivocate, deflect, squirm, manipulate and downright change the subject in order to believe he's unburdened himself of an untenable argument.
That's what makes it so funny. Let me show exhibit A.
(08-02-2020, 10:09 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2020, 09:44 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Do you believe an amphibious assault ship is capable of performing the duties of an angle deck carrier and vice versa?
There is certainly some overlap. The F-35B that launches off of the amphibious ship has some of the same capabilities as the f-35C that launches off of the longer carrier.
But that's not relevant to my point.
blah, blah, blah...
You didn't answer homebiscuit's simple question.
I'll give you a hint... comparing the two types of ships is like comparing an armored personnel carrier to a tank. The soldier on the tank has some of the same capabilities as the soldier in the armored personnel carrier.
(08-02-2020, 10:42 AM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2020, 09:30 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]I've steered clear of engaging him in debate. It's obvious he has a character flaw in that he'll never admit his ignorance or that he's just flat out wrong. He'll equivocate, deflect, squirm, manipulate and downright change the subject in order to believe he's unburdened himself of an untenable argument.
That's what makes it so funny. Let me show exhibit A.
(08-02-2020, 10:09 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]There is certainly some overlap. The F-35B that launches off of the amphibious ship has some of the same capabilities as the f-35C that launches off of the longer carrier.
But that's not relevant to my point.
blah, blah, blah...
You didn't answer homebiscuit's simple question.
I'll give you a hint... comparing the two types of ships is like comparing an armored personnel carrier to a tank. The soldier on the tank has some of the same capabilities as the soldier in the armored personnel carrier.
Fine.
How many of each type to we need to have? How many do our enemies have?
(08-02-2020, 10:09 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2020, 09:44 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Do you believe an amphibious assault ship is capable of performing the duties of an angle deck carrier and vice versa?
There is certainly some overlap. The F-35B that launches off of the amphibious ship has some of the same capabilities as the f-35C that launches off of the longer carrier.
But that's not relevant to my point.
China has six amphibious ships and one longer carrier. We have nine and 10, respectively. Each of theirs is significantly less capable than each of ours.
The UK and France are the only other countries that have a ship remotely similar to the USS Enterprise. They have one each. How many do we need?
Continuous and indefinite coverage of 3 naval hubs (Med, Arabian, W Pac) requires 16 fleet carriers. We currently have 11 fleet carriers. If we have to dispatch two carriers for a single event we do not have sufficient capacity to do so.
(08-02-2020, 10:09 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2020, 09:44 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Do you believe an amphibious assault ship is capable of performing the duties of an angle deck carrier and vice versa?
There are certainly some overlap. The F-35B that launches off of the amphibious ship has some of the same capabilities as the f-35C that launches off of the longer carrier.
But that's not relevant to my point.
China has six amphibious ships and one longer carrier. We have nine and 10, respectively. Each of theirs is significantly less capable than each of ours.
The UK and France are the only other countries that have a ship remotely similar to the USS Enterprise. They have one each. How many do we need?
So the point that a ship which also carries aircraft is not an aircraft carrier is moot. Glad we can agree on that.
What is the primary mission of the U.S. Navy as compared to the primary mission of China, Russia, the UK and France? Here it is for the U.S. Navy:
“The mission of the Navy is to maintain, train and equip combat-ready Naval forces capable of winning wars, deterring aggression and maintaining freedom of the seas.”
Since the waning days of the WWII, America has committed itself to maintaining freedom of navigation of the seas. Whether it wants to admit it or not, the global community relies on U.S. Naval power to protect their interests, which in turn, protects ours. This is why we need so many ships which are capable of projecting power without launching nuclear missiles.
I highly suggest going to Amazon and reading the first nine pages of
The Accidental Superpower by Peter Zeihan. It gives insight to the nexus of this mission and the reasoning behind it.
(08-02-2020, 10:49 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2020, 10:09 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]There is certainly some overlap. The F-35B that launches off of the amphibious ship has some of the same capabilities as the f-35C that launches off of the longer carrier.
But that's not relevant to my point.
China has six amphibious ships and one longer carrier. We have nine and 10, respectively. Each of theirs is significantly less capable than each of ours.
The UK and France are the only other countries that have a ship remotely similar to the USS Enterprise. They have one each. How many do we need?
Continuous and indefinite coverage of 3 naval hubs (Med, Arabian, W Pac) requires 16 fleet carriers. We currently have 11 fleet carriers. If we have to dispatch two carriers for a single event we do not have sufficient capacity to do so.
I guess we disagree about that. Why those three hubs? Aren't France, Israel and the UK capable of watching over the Mediterranean? Isn't Japan capable of watching over their area? Isn't the Arabian sea / Persian gulf really narrow? Isn't it easy to cover the whole of it from airstrips in Qatar?
And why didn't Malacca straits make the list?
You guys seriously need to consider Mikesez's point. We have all those aircraft carriers, plus all the aircraft carriers owned by the Air Force. How many do we need? Geez.
![[Image: 3.1.jpg]](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-EkpSXI71qcI/TdoNX85SBoI/AAAAAAAAAec/rYl1aXOmrIY/s1600/3.1.jpg)
(08-02-2020, 11:00 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]You guys seriously need to consider Mikesez's point. We have all those aircraft carriers, plus all the aircraft carriers owned by the Air Force. How many do we need? Geez.
But where are the solar panels?
Seriously, though, this is why I get so frustrated with the dude. You can tell he's just googling information and arguing with it, when he has no expertise and clearly doesn't understand it in context. The confidence with which he speaks in matters just doesn't jive with what he's actually saying. You'd think he'd concede when he gets hit with facts, but he just keeps chugging along. The beauty of the modern internet, I guess.
(08-02-2020, 11:00 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]You guys seriously need to consider Mikesez's point. We have all those aircraft carriers, plus all the aircraft carriers owned by the Air Force. How many do we need? Geez.
Not sure if that photo is legit, but it was amazing when I went to the last air show and got a chance to walk through one of those c5s. One of the people there mentioned that it does carry helicopters.
Obviously the C5 is never going to release any armed aircraft while underway, the way they enterprise and the wasp can.
But it is worth asking, how many of those big boys do we need? The 50 to 60 we have is probably way too many.
(08-02-2020, 11:03 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Seriously, though, this is why I get so frustrated with the dude. You can tell he's just googling information and arguing with it, when he has no expertise and clearly doesn't understand it in context. The confidence with which he speaks in matters just doesn't jive with what he's actually saying. You'd think he'd concede when he gets hit with facts, but he just keeps chugging along. The beauty of the modern internet, I guess.
When confronted with immutable facts:
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/l1KVaixq8xLxoHEti/giphy.gif)
(08-02-2020, 11:03 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Seriously, though, this is why I get so frustrated with the dude. You can tell he's just googling information and arguing with it, when he has no expertise and clearly doesn't understand it in context. The confidence with which he speaks in matters just doesn't jive with what he's actually saying. You'd think he'd concede when he gets hit with facts, but he just keeps chugging along. The beauty of the modern internet, I guess.
You're being dishonest with me and with yourself.
If I qualified everything I said with, "my internet search says... " or, "from the best I can tell... " You would make fun of that as well.
I did concede that a wasp class ship and an enterprise class ship have different capabilities.
But it meant nothing to you. It meant nothing to any of you.
You guys just keep chugging along missing my points. Literally replacing the point I'm making with the words "blah blah blah".
(08-02-2020, 11:10 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2020, 11:00 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]You guys seriously need to consider Mikesez's point. We have all those aircraft carriers, plus all the aircraft carriers owned by the Air Force. How many do we need? Geez.
Not sure if that photo is legit, but it was amazing when I went to the last air show and got a chance to walk through one of those c5s. One of the people there mentioned that it does carry helicopters.
Obviously the C5 is never going to release any armed aircraft while underway, the way they enterprise and the wasp can.
But it is worth asking, how many of those big boys do we need? The 50 to 60 we have is probably way too many.
...and we've moved on to reducing the amount of C5's. Pretty sure the Air Force is trying to expand that number. Those planes are instrumental in troop and equipment transport.
I was on a C5 that cracked mid flight. I've been afraid to fly ever since. I mean, I still fly... it just comes with anxiety.
(08-02-2020, 11:15 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2020, 11:03 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Seriously, though, this is why I get so frustrated with the dude. You can tell he's just googling information and arguing with it, when he has no expertise and clearly doesn't understand it in context. The confidence with which he speaks in matters just doesn't jive with what he's actually saying. You'd think he'd concede when he gets hit with facts, but he just keeps chugging along. The beauty of the modern internet, I guess.
When confronted with immutable facts:
You still haven't told me how many enterprise class ships you think we need.
Was the JSF program a good use of money? How many of those aircraft do we need?
(08-02-2020, 10:59 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (08-02-2020, 10:49 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Continuous and indefinite coverage of 3 naval hubs (Med, Arabian, W Pac) requires 16 fleet carriers. We currently have 11 fleet carriers. If we have to dispatch two carriers for a single event we do not have sufficient capacity to do so.
I guess we disagree about that. Why those three hubs? Aren't France, Israel and the UK capable of watching over the Mediterranean? Isn't Japan capable of watching over their area? Isn't the Arabian sea / Persian gulf really narrow? Isn't it easy to cover the whole of it from airstrips in Qatar?
And why didn't Malacca straits make the list?
If you want to know go ask the Future Navy Force task force, I simply answered your question. The US 6th Fleet is headquartered in Naples and covers the Med and Atlantic. The 5th Fleet is in Bahrain and covers the Persian Gulf to the Indian Ocean. The 7th Fleet is in Japan and covers the Western Pacific. The rest of our carriers are US-based out of San Diego and Virginia. Of course, if you spent your Google time looking at the location and disposition of the US Fleets you might answer your own questions as to why those locations are significant.