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.

C-5s are being phased out and have been for a while. The AF calls them FREDs: Fu, er, Freaking Ridiculous Economic Disasters. While they can hold a lot, they also break a lot. C-17s are taking their place, which are wonderful aircraft that fly with a joystick.

---

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.

Like others here, you are confusing what is with what should be.
What do you think should be?
wouldn't you agree that the top brass in the Navy is biased towards having more stuff, rather than less? Wouldn't you agree that the lobbyists they listen to want to build more ships, not less ships?

---

...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.

C-5s are being phased out and have been for a while. The AF calls them FREDs: Fu, er, Freaking Ridiculous Economic Disasters. While they can hold a lot, they also break a lot. C-17s are taking their place, which are wonderful aircraft that fly with a joystick.

Good. That all sounds sensible. notice I'm not the one who brought up the C5 in this thread...

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

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?

As many as needed to do the job. 12 seems to be the happy number. What you're failing to take into account is the availability of the carriers at any given time while several are going through maintenance, upkeep and upgrade. These can take months at a time. So while we may have 12 carriers, perhaps only 8 are available for deployment. It fluctuates. There's also consideration for aging carriers that will be decommissioned while newer ones take their place with better technology and capabilities. Again, that number fluctuates. The numbers of ships we have, of any type, are produced with the availability factor in mind.

---

That's what makes it so funny.  Let me show exhibit A.


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?

Figure it out.  At any point in time a Navy ship (as well as aircraft) is in one of three basic phases.  Pre-deployment where testing, evaluation and training takes place.  Deployment (including moving to/from the patrol area).  Post-deployment when maintenance and time consuming repairs commonly take place.

Now keep in mind a couple of things.

1.  A ship stays "on station" until it is relieved.  In other words, a ship patrolling say the Mediterranean will stay there until the ship(s) relieving it arrives and they do turnover, so at any time there might be two ships on the deployment cycle assigned to the same area.

2.  There is also a break in the "normal cycle" of operations for major work such as an overhaul or refueling.

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?

Really you should just stop... unless you genuinely want to learn something.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

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?

Really you should just stop... unless you genuinely want to learn something.

I find it ridiculous that one country, that has maybe 5% of the world's population, became responsible for maritime security in all five oceans...
Common Sense dictates that's just as ridiculous as the island of great Britain ruling over the continent of North America.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Fine.
How many of each type to we need to have? How many do our enemies have?

Figure it out.  At any point in time a Navy ship (as well as aircraft) is in one of three basic phases.  Pre-deployment where testing, evaluation and training takes place.  Deployment (including moving to/from the patrol area).  Post-deployment when maintenance and time consuming repairs commonly take place.

Now keep in mind a couple of things.

1.  A ship stays "on station" until it is relieved.  In other words, a ship patrolling say the Mediterranean will stay there until the ship(s) relieving it arrives and they do turnover, so at any time there might be two ships on the deployment cycle assigned to the same area.

2.  There is also a break in the "normal cycle" of operations for major work such as an overhaul or refueling.

I know all of that. a ship is only available for battle operations maybe a third of the time, at least during a peace time cycle.
Why do you assume we need to have a battle ready ship 24/7, in every potential hot spot?
Would a one or two month delay in response to something going on near Muscat or Singapore really be catastrophic in a naval context?
None of our potential adversaries make this assumption.

---

And please pay attention to what I said about ICBM armed submarines.
If the range of the ICBM is 2/3 of the circumference of the Earth, how many submarines do you need deployed to complete the triad and have mutual assured destruction of every point of the globe? (The answer is two)
if those submarines need to be cycled in and out such that you need three submarines for every one that's battle ready at any given time, how many do you need? (The answer is two times three, six.)
And how many of these did we actually build?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Figure it out.  At any point in time a Navy ship (as well as aircraft) is in one of three basic phases.  Pre-deployment where testing, evaluation and training takes place.  Deployment (including moving to/from the patrol area).  Post-deployment when maintenance and time consuming repairs commonly take place.

Now keep in mind a couple of things.

1.  A ship stays "on station" until it is relieved.  In other words, a ship patrolling say the Mediterranean will stay there until the ship(s) relieving it arrives and they do turnover, so at any time there might be two ships on the deployment cycle assigned to the same area.

2.  There is also a break in the "normal cycle" of operations for major work such as an overhaul or refueling.

I know all of that. a ship is only available for battle operations maybe a third of the time, at least during a peace time cycle.
Why do you assume we need to have a battle ready ship 24/7, in every potential hot spot?
Would a one or two month delay in response to something going on near Muscat or Singapore really be catastrophic in a naval context?
None of our potential adversaries make this assumption.

---

And please pay attention to what I said about ICBM armed submarines.
If the range of the ICBM is 2/3 of the circumference of the Earth, how many submarines do you need deployed to complete the triad and have mutual assured destruction of every point of the globe? (The answer is two)
if those submarines need to be cycled in and out such that you need three submarines for every one that's battle ready at any given time, how many do you need? (The answer is two times three, six.)
And how many of these did we actually build?

Given that an adversary isn’t tracking and targeting precious assets. 

I understand your argument but you’re attempting to simplify it to the extreme by not putting it into context of the world stage.

---

I know all of that. a ship is only available for battle operations maybe a third of the time, at least during a peace time cycle.
Why do you assume we need to have a battle ready ship 24/7, in every potential hot spot?
Would a one or two month delay in response to something going on near Muscat or Singapore really be catastrophic in a naval context?
None of our potential adversaries make this assumption.

---

And please pay attention to what I said about ICBM armed submarines.
If the range of the ICBM is 2/3 of the circumference of the Earth, how many submarines do you need deployed to complete the triad and have mutual assured destruction of every point of the globe? (The answer is two)
if those submarines need to be cycled in and out such that you need three submarines for every one that's battle ready at any given time, how many do you need? (The answer is two times three, six.)
And how many of these did we actually build?

Given that an adversary isn’t tracking and targeting precious assets. 

I understand your argument but you’re attempting to simplify it to the extreme by not putting it into context of the world stage.

You think they can track our subs?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

...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.

C-5s are being phased out and have been for a while. The AF calls them FREDs: Fu, er, Freaking Ridiculous Economic Disasters. While they can hold a lot, they also break a lot. C-17s are taking their place, which are wonderful aircraft that fly with a joystick.

This could be. I read an article a few years back about the Air Force increasing the number of C-5's in their fleet, but I couldn't tell you how long ago that was. I remember they had cut their fleet in half, but were going to make some more for some reason. Can't remember the details. It's not really a subject I follow. 

I can tell you that we flew through a typhoon on the way from Hawaii to S. Korea, and the turbulence was so bad, everyone thought we were going to die. I was making light of the situation. We made an emergency stop in Guam, and when we got off, I made a joke to the pilot about the fun ride. He said, "son, you don't know how close we came to dying. That hull is split from wing to wing, and I have no idea what kept that plane together."

---

Given that an adversary isn’t tracking and targeting precious assets. 

I understand your argument but you’re attempting to simplify it to the extreme by not putting it into context of the world stage.

You think they can track our subs?

They can and do. It’s a constant battle of cat and mouse in the sub service.

---

C-5s are being phased out and have been for a while. The AF calls them FREDs: Fu, er, Freaking Ridiculous Economic Disasters. While they can hold a lot, they also break a lot. C-17s are taking their place, which are wonderful aircraft that fly with a joystick.

This could be. I read an article a few years back about the Air Force increasing the number of C-5's in their fleet, but I couldn't tell you how long ago that was. I remember they had cut their fleet in half, but were going to make some more for some reason. Can't remember the details. It's not really a subject I follow. 

I can tell you that we flew through a typhoon on the way from Hawaii to S. Korea, and the turbulence was so bad, everyone thought we were going to die. I was making light of the situation. We made an emergency stop in Guam, and when we got off, I made a joke to the pilot about the fun ride. He said, "son, you don't know how close we came to dying. That hull is split from wing to wing, and I have no idea what kept that plane together."

When I was TAD to military customs in the Philippines I would clear a C-5 on occasion. A crewman told me of all the issues it had. I’m still awed at how big they are.

---

Dude. Shut up. You have never served and don't know what you're talking about. I'm an Army veteran and don't know exactly what Jagibelieve and Homebicuit are saying (regarding ships and other Navy stuff) because the Navy and Marine Corps speak a very different language than the Army. But I know they know what they're talking about and are making you look like an idiot. 

The Coast Guard is not military. They are not Department of Defense. They are Homeland Security. Their job is vital to our nation but they are not technically military and the 23 year old Guardsman I know who is stationed in Florida would tell you the same thing. 

So please, be quiet. Unless you want to continue being made to look foolish, in which case carry on.

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.

Dude just stop!  Why do you insist on being the smartest person in every room you walk in?  Your narcissism rivals Trumps.  

Look, I drive a 4WD Tacoma with street tires.  I would never dream of taking it to a mud pit and go where guys with lift kits and mud tires go play.  The comparison of my truck and those trucks is ridiculous and that is what you are attempting to do here, so just stop.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

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.

Dude just stop!  Why do you insist on being the smartest person in every room you walk in?  Your narcissism rivals Trumps.  

Look, I drive a 4WD Tacoma with street tires.  I would never dream of taking it to a mud pit and go where guys with lift kits and mud tires go play.  The comparison of my truck and those trucks is ridiculous and that is what you are attempting to do here, so just stop.

I'm not insisting on that.
In fact, I'm the only one on this thread asking questions. I'm the only one here admitting to having stuff to learn.
So here's your question: if UK and France have one big carrier each, and Russia has only one, why do we need 11 or 12?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Dude just stop!  Why do you insist on being the smartest person in every room you walk in?  Your narcissism rivals Trumps.  

Look, I drive a 4WD Tacoma with street tires.  I would never dream of taking it to a mud pit and go where guys with lift kits and mud tires go play.  The comparison of my truck and those trucks is ridiculous and that is what you are attempting to do here, so just stop.

I'm not insisting on that.
In fact, I'm the only one on this thread asking questions. I'm the only one here admitting to having stuff to learn.
So here's your question: if UK and France have one big carrier each, and Russia has only one, why do we need 11 or 12?

That question was answered already.  Like it or not the USN is the arbitrator/protector of free shipping lanes.  Do you really trust Russia, China, or North Korea to protect your interests?  Does any non communist country?  We Right now on August 2, 2020 do not have teleporters.  So while you do what you do so well which is to move the goalpost (any ship that can carry a plane is equal to an aircraft carrier) to how many aircraft carriers does America need, l have to ask why are you opposed to making America self sufficient?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

I'm not insisting on that.
In fact, I'm the only one on this thread asking questions. I'm the only one here admitting to having stuff to learn.
So here's your question: if UK and France have one big carrier each, and Russia has only one, why do we need 11 or 12?

That question was answered already.  Like it or not the USN is the arbitrator/protector of free shipping lanes.  Do you really trust Russia, China, or North Korea to protect your interests?  Does any non communist country?  We Right now on August 2, 2020 do not have teleporters.  So while you do what you do so well which is to move the goalpost (any ship that can carry a plane is equal to an aircraft carrier) to how many aircraft carriers does America need, l have to ask why are you opposed to making America self sufficient?

I don't understand why you keep beating that dead horse.  
Whether we have 11 aircraft carriers or 20, we have way more than everyone else, combined, which was my point.
I don't think aircraft carriers play a big role in protecting shipping. The main threat to cargo ships, historically, is submarines. While an aircraft carrier would certainly be useful in preventing piracy or breaking blockades, other ships are just as useful.  Guided missiles, guided torpedoes, and artillery still work. Captain Phillips was saved by naval marksmen with rifles, not Navy pilots in planes. The unique ability of the aircraft carrier is that you can stage an air raid from the ocean. But with every country having its own fleet of satellites, knowing where all of our ships are at all times, this kind of surprise attack ability is not nearly as useful as it used to be.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

That question was answered already.  Like it or not the USN is the arbitrator/protector of free shipping lanes.  Do you really trust Russia, China, or North Korea to protect your interests?  Does any non communist country?  We Right now on August 2, 2020 do not have teleporters.  So while you do what you do so well which is to move the goalpost (any ship that can carry a plane is equal to an aircraft carrier) to how many aircraft carriers does America need, l have to ask why are you opposed to making America self sufficient?

I don't understand why you keep beating that dead horse.  
Whether we have 11 aircraft carriers or 20, we have way more than everyone else, combined, which was my point Stop!  Not reading beyond this point until you, YOU answer how many countries rely on the USN to protect their shipping lanes.  That is your answer, the answer you refuse to acknowledge or even consider.  Now if you want to discuss should we, The United States of America be doing that job that is a different discussion, but until you are willing to stop moving the target we are done here!
I don't think aircraft carriers play a big role in protecting shipping. The main threat to cargo ships, historically, is submarines. While an aircraft carrier would certainly be useful in preventing piracy or breaking blockades, other ships are just as useful.  Guided missiles, guided torpedoes, and artillery still work. Captain Phillips was saved by naval marksmen with rifles, not Navy pilots in planes. The unique ability of the aircraft carrier is that you can stage an air raid from the ocean. But with every country having its own fleet of satellites, knowing where all of our ships are at all times, this kind of surprise attack ability is not nearly as useful as it used to be.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

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.

Like others here, you are confusing what is with what should be.
What do you think should be?
wouldn't you agree that the top brass in the Navy is biased towards having more stuff, rather than less? Wouldn't you agree that the lobbyists they listen to want to build more ships, not less ships?

---

C-5s are being phased out and have been for a while. The AF calls them FREDs: Fu, er, Freaking Ridiculous Economic Disasters. While they can hold a lot, they also break a lot. C-17s are taking their place, which are wonderful aircraft that fly with a joystick.

Good. That all sounds sensible. notice I'm not the one who brought up the C5 in this thread...

Lol, there's the issue with you. If you think everyone else is confused then everyone isn't the one who is confused.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Figure it out.  At any point in time a Navy ship (as well as aircraft) is in one of three basic phases.  Pre-deployment where testing, evaluation and training takes place.  Deployment (including moving to/from the patrol area).  Post-deployment when maintenance and time consuming repairs commonly take place.

Now keep in mind a couple of things.

1.  A ship stays "on station" until it is relieved.  In other words, a ship patrolling say the Mediterranean will stay there until the ship(s) relieving it arrives and they do turnover, so at any time there might be two ships on the deployment cycle assigned to the same area.

2.  There is also a break in the "normal cycle" of operations for major work such as an overhaul or refueling.

I know all of that. a ship is only available for battle operations maybe a third of the time, at least during a peace time cycle.
Why do you assume we need to have a battle ready ship 24/7, in every potential hot spot?
Would a one or two month delay in response to something going on near Muscat or Singapore really be catastrophic in a naval context?
None of our potential adversaries make this assumption.

---

And please pay attention to what I said about ICBM armed submarines.
If the range of the ICBM is 2/3 of the circumference of the Earth, how many submarines do you need deployed to complete the triad and have mutual assured destruction of every point of the globe? (The answer is two)
if those submarines need to be cycled in and out such that you need three submarines for every one that's battle ready at any given time, how many do you need? (The answer is two times three, six.)
And how many of these did we actually build?

In case you having noticed you [BLEEP] [BLEEP], A LOT of countries want to take us down or mess with our [BLEEP] allies, none of which have the [BLEEP] capability to handle more than a handful of [BLEEP] coming their way. Like it or not we are the tip of the [BLEEP] spear when it comes to military force. So just [BLEEP] STOP. 

Coulda, woulda, shoulda doesn't mean [BLEEP]. We don't live in the world we want, we live in the one we have and that means we have to be ready for [BLEEP] to hit the fan at any moment. 9/11 taught us that. But you must not have been old enough to have felt what that did to the country or you wouldn't ask such dumb [BLEEP] questions. 

Your [BLEEP] questions have been answered.  Move the [BLEEP] on.

---

---

Like others here, you are confusing what is with what should be.
What do you think should be?
wouldn't you agree that the top brass in the Navy is biased towards having more stuff, rather than less? Wouldn't you agree that the lobbyists they listen to want to build more ships, not less ships?

---

Good. That all sounds sensible. notice I'm not the one who brought up the C5 in this thread...

Lol, there's the issue with you. If you think everyone else is confused then everyone isn't the one who is confused.

or I've just chosen to pick a fight about military spending with a town that more or less butters all its bread with extra military dollars... with a town where grown men go to bed at night dreaming of the day when an aircraft carrier will be stationed at mayport again... In any case I'm not the only one here agreeing that we need to cut spending on the military.

---

I know all of that. a ship is only available for battle operations maybe a third of the time, at least during a peace time cycle.
Why do you assume we need to have a battle ready ship 24/7, in every potential hot spot?
Would a one or two month delay in response to something going on near Muscat or Singapore really be catastrophic in a naval context?
None of our potential adversaries make this assumption.

---

And please pay attention to what I said about ICBM armed submarines.
If the range of the ICBM is 2/3 of the circumference of the Earth, how many submarines do you need deployed to complete the triad and have mutual assured destruction of every point of the globe? (The answer is two)
if those submarines need to be cycled in and out such that you need three submarines for every one that's battle ready at any given time, how many do you need? (The answer is two times three, six.)
And how many of these did we actually build?

In case you having noticed you [BLEEP] [BLEEP], A LOT of countries want to take us down or mess with our [BLEEP] allies, none of which have the [BLEEP] capability to handle more than a handful of [BLEEP] coming their way. Like it or not we are the tip of the [BLEEP] spear when it comes to military force. So just [BLEEP] STOP. 

Coulda, woulda, shoulda doesn't mean [BLEEP]. We don't live in the world we want, we live in the one we have and that means we have to be ready for [BLEEP] to hit the fan at any moment. 9/11 taught us that. But you must not have been old enough to have felt what that did to the country or you wouldn't ask such dumb [BLEEP] questions. 

Your [BLEEP] questions have been answered.  Move the [BLEEP] on.

who do you think you are, that you can tell another person to stop talking just because you're angry? What country do you think you live in?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

This is great. Where's the popcorn gif. It's nice to sit back and watch others argue with this dude for once. This is how I feel in every political thread.

---