Romney responds to Libya by criticizing Obama

[Thanas]

That building race worked out pretty well for the US.

But not for the nations engaged in it which was my point.

[Sea Skimmer]

True. I concede that the US has an interest in being strong, I just don't see the great threat of China.

Right, the nation basically having riots over the failure of its government to declare war on Japan over an empty rock? Yeah no threats at all coming out of them.

But are the costs that much higher? I mean, China is able to maintain and expand her entire armed forces for the budget of the US navy.

They've actually been shrinking the army and air force in ordered to make them more modern. But the PLAN while historically poorly equipped has been a pretty damn big force and they don't have to aim for 1:1 replacement rates to rapidly become the worlds second most powerful navy. If they aim to maintain the historical force structure they wouldn't be far behind the US. Given that they have actual trillions of dollars of hard currency reserves, literally they could just buy this navy with a check right now if they wanted. Its purely a matter of willpower. I for one don't believe the Chinese will accept having a navy weaker then that of Japan and South Korea put together, and that's already going to push them very high up the scales.

Then why not try and build cheaper warships to hold the line for the next five years or so and then get a real new program rolling? The Burkes replaced the Spruances, why not build another new program that is not obscenely expensive like the Zumwalt. (I know, LCS, but that isn't the kind of destroyer class I got in mind. More like the MEKO ships the Europeans are building).

Actually adjusted for inflation Zumwalt was not that much more expensive then the first Burke was, 3.2 billion against 2.7 billion. The problem is the US doubly screwed itself. By downsizing Zumwalt we killed any chance of cost saving on that hull, and by suspending Burke orders for several years we destroyed all the cost savings built up from building dozens of similar Burke hulls. End result is new Burkes are now around 2.4 billion dollars, and that's for repeat Flight IIA units, not for the planned and very questionable Flight III. The end problem is not enough money. Increasing production rates would drive down per hull costs a lot on its own, but that takes more money up front.

Starting a new program would take five years on its own, it makes no sense as a gap filler, since without increasing funding in the first place the only way it could go ahead would be to kill off something else big like all other destroyer construction. Building a less capable destroyer would also take away the flexibility that otherwise is a major advantage in the USN. It would also in any event be very hard to make a ship all that much cheaper without just totally gutting its capabilities. Most of those Euro designs are near worthless in a major war. Take the German F125 frigate, it has zero area air defense capability, in fact it has nothing but point defenses meaning it couldn't save an oil tanker a few miles away from being blown up at will by a piston engine patrol plane from WW2. Actually it also couldn't stop a jet at 30,000ft from dropping laser guided bombs on it all day long. It can also only make 26 knots meaning that its speed advantage over a diesel submarine is marginal at best and it is incapable of running with a fast carrier task force. FREMM is a little better, at least it has an AAW variant, though a rather lightly armed one.

If there would be wartime, I fully expect the US to amalgate flight groups or just send several carriers. At which point 2 carriers - or even 4-6 might not be that much in a straight fight.

Not all carriers and flight groups are ready for action at any one point, and the ocean is very large. The point is to be strong enough that the Chinese are not interested in even a limited war, because the moment you open up that possibility you open up the high possibility it happens and turns into a nuclear war. This is why the USN must be strong in Asia. Deterrence works, weakness its a crapshoot.

Actually, both sides eventually signed a treaty because they did not want to continue excessive spending.

Yeah, after they completed deployment of about the thirty thousand times the firepower of all the bombs and shells used in all the wars in all of human history and were highly confident of a mutual ability to completely annihilate each other.. All the arms treaties in the Cold War came when both sides felt they were in a position of strength and could in fact trade away assets or the ability to deploy future ones without compromising national defense. A situation like that simply does not exist between the US and China. At some time in the future it might, but wishful thinking does not replace sound planning.

[Lonestar]

In case anyone didn't saw it yet, here's picture documenting sad, overwhelmed status of US Navy recently, and that was before a few of foreign ones here were scrapped and a new US one added to inventory. Hell, this base alone, minus ships, is larger investment than most navies on this planet. Tarking Doctrine, really?

Err, you are seriously misrepresenting the situation with that carrier-picture. For one thing, while "a few of the foreign ones" were scrapped, it doesn't count the second Italian and Spanish carriers, or the Chinese one. Or the large Japanese DDHs. Or the Mistals.

Heck don't forget the indigenous Indian ship under construction along with the refurbed Gorshkov, or the two anticipated Canberras.

Meanwhile, there's only one LHA in service now as well, and a few of the American carriers listed are gone, and one(the Enterprise) will be by the end of the year.

I'm surprised no one called you on it.

[Irbis]

Err, you are seriously misrepresenting the situation with that carrier-picture. For one thing, while "a few of the foreign ones" were scrapped, it doesn't count the second Italian and Spanish carriers, or the Chinese one. Or the large Japanese DDHs. Or the Mistals.

Frankly, they shouldn't be counted at all. Out of these listed, only French and Russian carrier are in any way match of any US carrier (even these LH's would eat other "carriers" for breakfast) and they both combined are capable of maybe fighting one US carrier. Very big maybe.

Chinese? You mean ex-Soviet carrier that had been rusting for last 30 years? These were not a big threat to US naval supremacy when they ware backed by entire Warsaw Pact fleet, they will be much smaller now.

Heck don't forget the indigenous Indian ship under construction along with the refurbed Gorshkov, or the two anticipated Canberras.

Again, ex-Soviet ship in big risk due to being cancelled due to astronomical cost overruns and a ship built by country with zero experience in big warship production. Yeah, yeah.

Meanwhile, there's only one LHA in service now as well, and a few of the American carriers listed are gone, and one(the Enterprise) will be by the end of the year.

Yeah, they only will be replaced by much more capable America-class, as well as Gerald R. Ford and John F. Kennedy. Whatever shall poor US Navy do?

Fuck, Wasp-class with escort alone outweighs power projection capability of any 2 (6-7 if we exclude France/Russia) navies on this planet, never mind any of the "regular" carriers.

[Skywalker_T-65]

Well...their not getting launched anytime soon, but you can't forget the Queen Elizabeth Class that the Brits are building.

That in addition to the rebuilt (and that term does fit...it actually looks like a nice carrier now) Gorshkov, the new Spanish/Italian ships, the Varyag, and if I remember the previous discussions right, two more large Chinese carriers. Still nothing like the absurdity of the 11-ship Nimitz class, but nothing to sneeze at either.

[TimothyC]

Frankly, they shouldn't be counted at all. Out of these listed, only French and Russian carrier are in any way match of any US carrier (even these LH's would eat other "carriers" for breakfast) and they both combined are capable of maybe fighting one US carrier. Very big maybe.

Not as big as I'd like. As Skimmer noted, the air wings the US carriers currently embark are down to 48 fighters with no fixed wing ASW assets.

Chinese? You mean ex-Soviet carrier that had been rusting for last 30 years? These were not a big threat to US naval supremacy when they ware backed by entire Warsaw Pact fleet, they will be much smaller now.

ex-Varyag has gone through a near-total rebuild. She is, for most purposes, a new ship.

Again, ex-Soviet ship in big risk due to being cancelled due to astronomical cost overruns and a ship built by country with zero experience in big warship production. Yeah, yeah.

Well, the first ship is one that the Russians now have to eat the costs of fixing the boilers after they screwed up the high-power run with, and for the second - everyone that builds carriers has a first carrier that they built. The Indians have the advantage of one of the longest uninterrupted runs of fixed wing carrier based aviation. That's a very nice pool to pull from when it comes to designing their own.

Yeah, they only will be replaced by much more capable America-class, as well as Gerald R. Ford and John F. Kennedy. Whatever shall poor US Navy do?

Ah, but the replacement rate isn't 1-1. Within the next couple of years the USN will be down to 10 CVNs, which make it very hard to keep 4 deployed - and 4 or 5 deployed is what you need for the current mission set. This is the fundamental point. The US, to match an opponent with say 3 carriers, would have to draw down forces in the rest of the world to surge forces to meet said opponent. That would weaken the US global position.

Fuck, Wasp-class with escort alone outweighs power projection capability of any 2 (6-7 if we exclude France/Russia) navies on this planet, never mind any of the "regular" carriers.

Nope. Cavour, São Paulo, Juan Carlos I, and either of the Canberra class ships will be a close match for a Wasp. So might the 22DDH hulls. I don't expect people to know their ships, but do make blanket statements like you made just makes you look silly.

That in addition to the rebuilt (and that term does fit...it actually looks like a nice carrier now) Gorshkov, the new Spanish/Italian ships, the Varyag, and if I remember the previous discussions right, two more large Chinese carriers. Still nothing like the absurdity of the 11-ship Nimitz class, but nothing to sneeze at either.

The 11 CVNs (1 Enterprise class and 10 ostensibly Nimitz class carriers) give the US the ability to deploy 4 carriers around the world. That's one in the Atlantic/Med, one in the Pacific, one in Persian Gulf/Indian Ocean, and one that goes where needed. That stretches the forces thin in contingencies. This gets even worse with the coming reduction to 10 carriers.

And it's not just the carrier force, it's things like the number of escorts and auxiliary ships in service. The US isn't spending enough on the navy to even maintain the current force numbers - and it's going to become very serious over the next decade.

[Skywalker_T-65]

I'm not going to argue that point. I know that (if we want to keep current standards) that the USN is soon going to be woefully inadequate for the job. I was just pointing out that the 'Carrier Gap' isn't quite as big as Irbis thinks it is. Especially with the two new Chinese Carriers, and the two QE's being built.

EDIT: I could have sworn the Nimitz class was 11 hulls...oh well, apparently I was wrong again.

[Lonestar]

Frankly, they shouldn't be counted at all. Out of these listed, only French and Russian carrier are in any way match of any US carrier (even these LH's would eat other "carriers" for breakfast) and they both combined are capable of maybe fighting one US carrier. Very big maybe.

Er, in a magical situation where we would go to war with either France or Russia(or China) we wouldn't be fighting far from opposition airbases anyway. The point is you have to worry not just about the moving airstrip, but also the masses of aircraft on land.

Chinese? You mean ex-Soviet carrier that had been rusting for last 30 years?

Now would be a good time for you to man up and admit that you aren't too aware of current naval trends. The Liaoning is, for all intents and purposes, a new ship. New engines, new sensors.

These were not a big threat to US naval supremacy when they ware backed by entire Warsaw Pact fleet, they will be much smaller now.

No one is anticipating carrier wars being fought without any land based aircover, that's where it gets tricky.

Again, ex-Soviet ship in big risk due to being cancelled due to astronomical cost overruns and a ship built by country with zero experience in big warship production. Yeah, yeah.

The ex-Gorshkov is on sea trials and the Indians have had experience refurbing large carriers since the 60s. It isn't as big a leap as you're making it out to be.

Yeah, they only will be replaced by much more capable America-class, as well as Gerald R. Ford and John F. Kennedy. Whatever shall poor US Navy do?

How many Americas are under construction right now? One, and it's unlikely there will be a 1-for-1 replacement of the LHAs, or the LHDs for that matter.

The Ford won't enter service until 2015 and the JFK sometime after that. You're acting as if it's going to happen soon, it isn't. Depending upon how the defense sequester plays out we may yet drop a few more hulls.

Fuck, Wasp-class with escort alone outweighs power projection capability of any 2 (6-7 if we exclude France/Russia) navies on this planet, never mind any of the "regular" carriers.

Baloney.

Unlike you, I was deployed with a ESG. A LHD or LHA typically deploys with two smaller amphibs, one FFG, one DDG, and one CG(although that's being walked back to two DDGs since therea ren't enough CG hulls). I'd add that unless they specifically deploy as a "harrier carrier" their ability to project airpower is severely limited by the whole 4 Harriers that ride along with a ESG. So, the two Spanish Carriers w/escorts could theoretically take a ESG, the two Italian carriers, etc. The Ex-Gorshkov by itself would be able to take out a LHD airdet, assuming equal skill on the part of the Indian and Marine pilots, a modernized MiG-29 is gonna take out a harrier everytime.

You're starting from the premise that LHDs and LHAs routinely deploy with flight decks packed with harriers, they don't. Of course, Italian and Spanish don't deploy carriers with flightdecks packed with harriers either, but they still have more tails on deck than a LHD on a scheduled deployment.

[Thanas]

True. I concede that the US has an interest in being strong, I just don't see the great threat of China.

Right, the nation basically having riots over the failure of its government to declare war on Japan over an empty rock? Yeah no threats at all coming out of them.

The government right now has no interest in a war with Japan, but I can see why one might see it as a threat. Honestly, I am more worried about Taiwan.

But are the costs that much higher? I mean, China is able to maintain and expand her entire armed forces for the budget of the US navy.

They've actually been shrinking the army and air force in ordered to make them more modern. But the PLAN while historically poorly equipped has been a pretty damn big force and they don't have to aim for 1:1 replacement rates to rapidly become the worlds second most powerful navy. If they aim to maintain the historical force structure they wouldn't be far behind the US. Given that they have actual trillions of dollars of hard currency reserves, literally they could just buy this navy with a check right now if they wanted. Its purely a matter of willpower.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't answer my question really. If China is spending as much as the US Navy right now then how come they build six times as much, not counting the other modernization programs. Wh is the US Navy so wasteful?

I for one don't believe the Chinese will accept having a navy weaker then that of Japan and South Korea put together, and that's already going to push them very high up the scales.

But the navies of Japan and SK are nowhere near the US power. They (put together) have about 24 destroyers, 39 frigates, 35 subs and ~ 120 smaller ships. Meanwhile the US Pacific fleet alone has six carriers.

Actually adjusted for inflation Zumwalt was not that much more expensive then the first Burke was, 3.2 billion against 2.7 billion. The problem is the US doubly screwed itself. By downsizing Zumwalt we killed any chance of cost saving on that hull, and by suspending Burke orders for several years we destroyed all the cost savings built up from building dozens of similar Burke hulls. End result is new Burkes are now around 2.4 billion dollars, and that's for repeat Flight IIA units, not for the planned and very questionable Flight III. The end problem is not enough money. Increasing production rates would drive down per hull costs a lot on its own, but that takes more money up front.

Starting a new program would take five years on its own, it makes no sense as a gap filler, since without increasing funding in the first place the only way it could go ahead would be to kill off something else big like all other destroyer construction. Building a less capable destroyer would also take away the flexibility that otherwise is a major advantage in the USN. It would also in any event be very hard to make a ship all that much cheaper without just totally gutting its capabilities.

Point taken.

Most of those Euro designs are near worthless in a major war. Take the German F125 frigate, it has zero area air defense capability, in fact it has nothing but point defenses meaning it couldn't save an oil tanker a few miles away from being blown up at will by a piston engine patrol plane from WW2. Actually it also couldn't stop a jet at 30,000ft from dropping laser guided bombs on it all day long. It can also only make 26 knots meaning that its speed advantage over a diesel submarine is marginal at best and it is incapable of running with a fast carrier task force. FREMM is a little better, at least it has an AAW variant, though a rather lightly armed one.

I think the idea was to run them together with the Sachsen class in case of war - which kind allows us to provide the flexibility of having them work on seperate deployments in peacetime. What do you think of that idea?

Not all carriers and flight groups are ready for action at any one point, and the ocean is very large. The point is to be strong enough that the Chinese are not interested in even a limited war, because the moment you open up that possibility you open up the high possibility it happens and turns into a nuclear war. This is why the USN must be strong in Asia. Deterrence works, weakness its a crapshoot.

But doesn't that mean that in essence the US Navy can focus on China alone? Considering there will be no war with Europe or Russia anytime soon and that if necessary vessels can transfer from the Indian ocean as needed. The superiority of the US right now just seems so overwhelming that losing a few ships won't really impact that, will it?

Actually, both sides eventually signed a treaty because they did not want to continue excessive spending.

Yeah, after they completed deployment of about the thirty thousand times the firepower of all the bombs and shells used in all the wars in all of human history and were highly confident of a mutual ability to completely annihilate each other.. All the arms treaties in the Cold War came when both sides felt they were in a position of strength and could in fact trade away assets or the ability to deploy future ones without compromising national defense. A situation like that simply does not exist between the US and China. At some time in the future it might, but wishful thinking does not replace sound planning.

I was referring to the WNT, but honestly it is not as if China has shown an interest in expanding its military that much. Certainly not to the point of them spending that much money on it compared to what theyearn annually.

Ah, but the replacement rate isn't 1-1. Within the next couple of years the USN will be down to 10 CVNs, which make it very hard to keep 4 deployed - and 4 or 5 deployed is what you need for the current mission set. This is the fundamental point. The US, to match an opponent with say 3 carriers, would have to draw down forces in the rest of the world to surge forces to meet said opponent. That would weaken the US global position.

I think it is more than enough to deter anybody from waging war. It only weakens the US global position if you think the global position should be "able to invade four countries simultaneously".