We need a STRONG Military........ But Biden is a weak spineless coward..........

Navy makes shocking aircraft carrier decision while China threat rises

Aircraft carriers could be delayed two years even though their deterrence value is higher than ever

What a shock. According to the newly released budget, the Pentagon wants to slow down America’s aircraft carriers. You may be thinking: no carrier, no "Top Gun," no "Maverick." How we’d miss those thriller movies.  
But the facts are even worse. Delaying aircraft carriers courts disaster at a time when their deterrence value is higher than ever. The Navy has a budget plan for new aircraft carriers that can launch drones, carry lasers and face down China, but President Biden’s budget took out so much money that the whole aircraft carrier plan may fall apart.  
I can’t remember when I’ve seen such a policy and reality mismatch.  



https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/navy-mak...reat-rises

---

You know trouble is right around the corner when your best friend tells you to hold his beer!!

---

The US has 11 aircraft carriers for typical fighter jets. China has 3.

The US has 9 helicopter carriers. China has 3.

I'm not especially worried.
Modern drones may be making the large aircraft carrier obsolete.

---

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

The article suggests that carriers true value is protecting international shipping

---

R.I.P. Stroudcrowd1

An aircraft carrier is a pretty juicy target in today's modern warfare. They will soon be outmoded, if they aren't already. Drones, AI, and robotics are the future.

---

Aircraft carriers have always been prime targets, which is why methods for their protection are continually evolving. Carriers do not sail on their own. When deployed, they are surrounded by a battle group which serve as picket ships/submarines with a primary mission of carrier protection. While advents in military technology provide advantages for tactical strikes, they cannot provide the strategic global projection of power like carriers.

I’m sure one day they will be rendered obsolete by weapons advancements. But as they stand now, drones (which are utilized onboard carriers), AI and robotics have limited local roles.

---

The article suggests that carriers true value is protecting international shipping

Because they are. Keeping the seas open and free is literally in the U.S. Navy mission statement.

---

Aircraft carriers have always been prime targets, which is why methods for their protection are continually evolving. Carriers do not sail on their own. When deployed, they are surrounded by a battle group which serve as picket ships/submarines with a primary mission of carrier protection. While advents in military technology provide advantages for tactical strikes, they cannot provide the strategic global projection of power like carriers.

I’m sure one day they will be rendered obsolete by weapons advancements. But as they stand now, drones (which are utilized onboard carriers), AI and robotics have limited local roles.

Those are good points.  My question would be, if they will one day be rendered obsolete, do we really want to start building another one?  The cost of an aircraft carrier, $16 billion just for the ship, along with the thousands of sailors and aircraft on board, and the protective ships sailing with them, is incredible.  If we build another one, we will have 12 of them.  

I'm always for a strong national defense, but historically, Generals and Admirals usually wind up fighting the last war, and not the next one.  (Schwartzkopf was the exception.)

---

Aircraft carriers have always been prime targets, which is why methods for their protection are continually evolving. Carriers do not sail on their own. When deployed, they are surrounded by a battle group which serve as picket ships/submarines with a primary mission of carrier protection. While advents in military technology provide advantages for tactical strikes, they cannot provide the strategic global projection of power like carriers.

I’m sure one day they will be rendered obsolete by weapons advancements. But as they stand now, drones (which are utilized onboard carriers), AI and robotics have limited local roles.

Those are good points.  My question would be, if they will one day be rendered obsolete, do we really want to start building another one?  The cost of an aircraft carrier, $16 billion just for the ship, along with the thousands of sailors on board, and the protective ships sailing with them, is incredible.  If we build another one, we will have 12 of them.  

I'm always for a strong national defense, but historically, Generals and Admirals usually wind up fighting the last war, and not the next one.  (Schwartzkopf was the exception.)

As HB said, carrier groups are the global projection of American power and that really isn't going to change as technology changes. In order to keep the minimum number of carrier groups active around the world we need 15 at the minimum. Groups cannot deploy indefinitely and we have to have 1 for every 6 months of active duty at sea during times of peace.

---

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

Aircraft carriers have always been prime targets, which is why methods for their protection are continually evolving. Carriers do not sail on their own. When deployed, they are surrounded by a battle group which serve as picket ships/submarines with a primary mission of carrier protection. While advents in military technology provide advantages for tactical strikes, they cannot provide the strategic global projection of power like carriers.

I’m sure one day they will be rendered obsolete by weapons advancements. But as they stand now, drones (which are utilized onboard carriers), AI and robotics have limited local roles.

Those are good points.  My question would be, if they will one day be rendered obsolete, do we really want to start building another one?  The cost of an aircraft carrier, $16 billion just for the ship, along with the thousands of sailors and aircraft on board, and the protective ships sailing with them, is incredible.  If we build another one, we will have 12 of them.  

I'm always for a strong national defense, but historically, Generals and Admirals usually wind up fighting the last war, and not the next one.  (Schwartzkopf was the exception.)

It’s a question of when that obsolescence is so absolute that carriers are useless. While newer weapons, and their countermeasures, are always being developed, there is nothing which can provide that concentration of mobile sustained power in the near future (decadal). 

Carriers can’t be mothballed simply because another power claims to have a weapon to sink it. More importantly, the mission of the carrier battle group simply can’t be replaced by technology assets held in reserve for response. In order to keep sea lanes open and free for the benefit of the world, we have to be there, on station, actively patrolling.

---

Those are good points.  My question would be, if they will one day be rendered obsolete, do we really want to start building another one?  The cost of an aircraft carrier, $16 billion just for the ship, along with the thousands of sailors and aircraft on board, and the protective ships sailing with them, is incredible.  If we build another one, we will have 12 of them.  

I'm always for a strong national defense, but historically, Generals and Admirals usually wind up fighting the last war, and not the next one.  (Schwartzkopf was the exception.)

It’s a question of when that obsolescence is so absolute that carriers are useless. While newer weapons, and their countermeasures, are always being developed, there is nothing which can provide that concentration of mobile sustained power in the near future (decadal). 

Carriers can’t be mothballed simply because another power claims to have a weapon to sink it. More importantly, the mission of the carrier battle group simply can’t be replaced by technology assets held in reserve for response. In order to keep sea lanes open and free for the benefit of the world, we have to be there, on station, actively patrolling.

...which is incredibly expensive.  This is one area where I agree with Trump to a certain extent.  It's time for other countries to start footing the bill for the protection we provide.

---

It’s a question of when that obsolescence is so absolute that carriers are useless. While newer weapons, and their countermeasures, are always being developed, there is nothing which can provide that concentration of mobile sustained power in the near future (decadal). 

Carriers can’t be mothballed simply because another power claims to have a weapon to sink it. More importantly, the mission of the carrier battle group simply can’t be replaced by technology assets held in reserve for response. In order to keep sea lanes open and free for the benefit of the world, we have to be there, on station, actively patrolling.

...which is incredibly expensive.  This is one area where I agree with Trump to a certain extent.  It's time for other countries to start footing the bill for the protection we provide.

No doubt. The rest of the world has been shirking their full responsibilities and financial obligations since their recovery after WWII. We provide the essential protections for their prosperity but then chafe at American displays of power. This is why the world has a love/hate relationship with us.

---

It’s a question of when that obsolescence is so absolute that carriers are useless. While newer weapons, and their countermeasures, are always being developed, there is nothing which can provide that concentration of mobile sustained power in the near future (decadal). 

Carriers can’t be mothballed simply because another power claims to have a weapon to sink it. More importantly, the mission of the carrier battle group simply can’t be replaced by technology assets held in reserve for response. In order to keep sea lanes open and free for the benefit of the world, we have to be there, on station, actively patrolling.

...which is incredibly expensive.  This is one area where I agree with Trump to a certain extent.  It's time for other countries to start footing the bill for the protection we provide.

Yes, 19 NATO countries didn't meet the 2% defense spending requirement in 2023. Some came close, at 1.8 or 1.9%, but some like Lux, Belgium, Spain, Turkey, Canada and Slovenia spent less than 1.5%

---

R.I.P. Stroudcrowd1

They can always ask the FED to print more Monopoly money to buy things with, or, steal it from somewhere. Not really concerned. I am waiting on WWIII to break out soon.

I just hope all of that black budget money was being put to good use by the MIC and they have a [BLEEP] Megatron fully armored and loaded to the teeth waiting to be unleashed out of Area 51. All is forgiven at that point...

---

"What do I know of cultured ways, the gilt, the craft and the lie? I, who was born in a naked land and bred in the open sky. The subtle tongue, the sophist guile, they fail when the broadswords sing; Rush in and die, dogs - I was a man before I was a king."