Report proposes canceling U.S. aircraft carriers, investing in lasers to combat Russia and China

[rangerrebew]

Report proposes canceling U.S. aircraft carriers, investing in lasers to combat Russia and China
By Thomas Gibbons-Neff October 18

The Nimitz-class aircraft carriers USS John C. Stennis (CVN 74), foreground, and USS Ronald Reagan (CVN 76) conduct dual aircraft carrier strike group operations in the U.S. 7th Fleet area. (Mass Communication Spec. 3rd Class Jake Greenberg/U.S. Navy)

The U.S. military is at an inflection point. Unable to remove itself completely from two protracted wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon has been forced to respond to a resurgent Russia and a rising China, while remaining ready to combat myriad terrorist threats around the world.

The Pentagon’s $582.7 billion 2017 budget has attempted to put in place an architecture for these new challenges, but, according to a group of experts from the Center for New American Security, a Washington-based think tank, the Pentagon will have to make some hard decisions if it wants to effectively combat the threats of the future.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/10/18/report-proposes-slashing-u-s-aircraft-carriers-investing-in-lasers-to-combat-russia-and-china/

[EC]

Going to make a wild guess ....

Shiny new toys to be given priority over things that actually work well.

[rangerrebew]

Going to make a wild guess ....

Shiny new toys to be given priority over things that actually work well.

You may be right.  But, being an old carrier groupie myself, the article may be correct.  Just as the Battleship was once the grand lady of any fleet and lost the title to carriers, it may be time to replace the carrier with something that isn't as much a sitting duck.  The first time I transited the Pacific to the Philippines, the Ranger was overflown by the TU-95 to take pictures and check for modifications.  I was also told the Ruskies had satellites that could pick up any surface ship within 6 nautical miles.  That was 40 years ago, so I know they can find a ship within 6 inches now.  If the U.S. really wants something operational that scares the bejabbers out of everyone, something under the surface would make those satellites useless.  Everything is born, matures, and dies and so will the carriers.

[EC]

I know... you are right. Things change.

I just LIKE having your guys out there ready to pounce when needed. 

[geronl]

You may be right.  But, being an old carrier groupie myself, the article may be correct.  Just as the Battleship was once the grand lady of any fleet and lost the title to carriers, it may be time to replace the carrier with something that isn't as much a sitting duck.

but not because some desk jockey thinks so. The battleship was replaced by the carrier during actual war, not because some academic thought they'd be better

[rangerrebew]

but not because some desk jockey thinks so. The battleship was replaced by the carrier during actual war, not because some academic thought they'd be better

Good points!

[guitar4jesus]

[SZonian]

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Center_for_a_New_American_Security

CNAS - Highly questionable membership there...

You don't remove/delete capability until/unless you have something of equal or greater capability to replace it.

[Fishrrman]

SZonian wrote:
"You don't remove/delete capability until/unless you have something of equal or greater capability to replace it."

That was the rule -before- the current administration came along.
I sense that they think differently and no longer care about such consequences.
I predict that such practices will continue under the incoming clinton administration.

I think you are correct.  The Imam's administration wants to do do away with cruise missiles with nothing to replace them.  I have to believe madam Clinton would be the same way.  A military hating numbskull.