7 Missing after Destroyer hits Merchant Ship

There are all sorts of nations trying to affect the operations of the Navy. Its nothing new. It was that way when I was in and its that way now.

And US Naval Intelligence is working to affect the operations of other nations at the same time.

The thing you need to remember when you tremble in your bedclothes at night is that the USN projects more power than any nation on this planet can possibly withstand from its missile forces alone.

The Navy is larger than the next ten or so countries' Navies put together. Seriously, the next ten or eleven countries put together. The Navy has as many and more of aircraft carriers than the rest of the world put together. The Seventh Fleet alone just might have more by itself than the rest of the world.

That's nice. What does that have to do with the possibility of terrorists intentionally ramming our warships?



I don't tremble in my bedclothes at night. I also have a better understanding of America's military prowess than you do.



For now. China has plans for a navy that equals ours, including aircraft carriers.

There is nothing wrong though with America having a vastly superior navy. We patrol the entire world. Other navies don't. It is fitting that we are vastly more powerful than others.

How do you use a container carrier to ram anything??????

The McCane suffered a loss of steering. They used too much technology for the control systems and the redundant systems failed, too.

That calls for a stand down while the Navy figures out if ships really do need the electronic controls a modern fighter or bomber uses.



Bullshit. I actually served. You stayed home in your bunker. You've demonstrated no use of facts in your red herring expedition.



BULLSHIT. China doesn't have the wealth to create the Navy we have.

The Chinese have one. The Russians have one. the French have two, the Brttish have three, the Indians have one. The US has been using them since the thirties. How do you suppose the Chinese will get the experience the US has had in 80 or so years of tactical use of carriers?

By the way, the USN has 19 carriers in operation and at least five or 10 more in mothballs

Is there a red herring anywhere you've resisted the temptation to toss into the mix?

Wanna talk about fleet ballistic missile submarines next?

Got that a little wrong:
China -1
France - 1
India - 1
Italy - 2
Russia -1
Spain - 1
Thailand - 1
US - 19 (hell the US has decommissioned 56!!!)
Great Britain has decommissioned its carriers.

The Seventh Fleet has three CVN's at normal readiness and a bunch of helicopter assault carriers, too.

And you fear the Chinese and the Russians.

The usual way I expect. They have engines and a steering mechanism.



Denial of reality does not invalidate reality.



Even if that is true, it would not change the reality that I know far more about America's military prowess than you do.



I've not engaged in any red herring expedition.



They seem to think they do.



China is planning on building a lot more.



Probably by taking to sea in their carriers after they build them.



I'm not sure that the Marines would agree that their carriers belong to the Navy.



You cannot point out any red herrings that I've posted anywhere.



I would enjoy discussing such with a knowledgeable source. Listening to false accusations about imaginary red herrings would be much less appealing.

They have a new one. They are just waiting for F-35B fighters to start rolling off the assembly line.



No. Not really.

Well, I guess I think a total nuclear war with Russia would be pretty bad.

So so VW bugs, and they won't sink a destroyer, either. No USN ship has been sunk by any terrorist organization in 100 years. Not even the treacherous Israelis( the Liberty) or the North Koreans(the Pueblo) could do that.



Well you can type it, but it doesn't seem to stop you from doing it again, does it?



"Denial of reality does not invalidate reality", remember?

Go ahead use some facts and prove your little ball of snot.



So what? Their goals fly in the face of reality. Like you.



<snicker> They've built one and the US has built over75 since the C1930's. The Chinese have a lot of catching up to do.

A.Lot.Of.catching.Up.To.Do.

And that's an opinion based on fact, not a red herring.



The Marines are part of the Navy. That's a fact not another red herring.

They'll be part of the Navy until they learn to walk on water for real. Now thats just my elbowing you in the ribs.



Sure I can. You suggesting that al Qaeda "drove" a HUGE container ship into the McCane. There's not a scintilla of fact backing that red herring, a fact accessable to anyone who stayed informed on what happened, like I did and you didn't.

So were you misinformed, uninformed, lying or hallucinating?



So you know bupkis about the Nuclear Navy. Well, you're in luck. I served on a boomer - the Andrew Jackson. What would you like to know?

How about like American sub are quieter, faster and more numerous than Russia and China put together and have more nuclear oooomp than any Russian or Chinese ballistic missile sub?

The US spends more on defense than the next nine nations together. And thats fact.

From Janes

http://www.janes.com/article/40083/analysis-us-no-longer-spends-more-on-defense-than-next-10-biggest-countries-combined

A commonly cited metric used to highlight American dominance in the post-Cold War era is that not only does the United States spend more on its defense than any other country in the world, but that it actually shells out more than the next 10 highest defense spenders combined.

However, 2014 will mark a milestone as projected U.S. military expenditures of $581 billion are actually exceeded by the $588 billion collectively spent by the next nine biggest nations, according to IHS Aerospace, Defense & Security analysts. This trend is set to accelerate in the coming years, with U.S. defense spending declining by as much as 25 percent from 2011 to 2020 in real terms, while other states—notably China—will continue to increase their spending.

IHS projects that by 2020, the next five biggest spending countries will devote a combined $546 billion to defense, compared to $540 billion by the United States.

While some may seize on these countervailing trends as further evidence that U.S. military superiority is threatened, however, IHS believes that America will maintain its military edge for the foreseeable future.

Peace dividend becomes a defense boom

In the wake of the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union, the gap between U.S. military spending and that of its nearest competitors widened significantly. No other state was capable of approximating America’s investment in modern equipment and highly trained personnel, allowing the United States unparalleled military dominance over the following two decades. In 2011, when the U.S defense budget was almost at its post-World War II peak, spending of $720 billion in fact slightly exceeded the combined sum of the comparable defense budgets of the next 19 highest spending countries, which totaled $718 billion.

The projected shift in global spending figures highlights the departure from the age where one country—the United States—spent almost as much as the rest of the world combined and enjoyed a historically unique level of conventional military dominance. Now, however, the international system is shifting to equilibrium, under which one single state does not so massively tip the scales in its own favor.

At home the winding down of military operations elsewhere in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the impact of fiscal consolidation will mean a continued decline in defense spending. At the same time, growing tensions in Eastern Europe and the Middle East, along with the ongoing economic and strategic emergence of Asia, will spur higher military expenditures for countries in those regions.

The battle over defense

These trends in defense spending will serve to fuel domestic U.S. political debates over whether the United States risks losing critical military advantages over near-peer competitors. Nevertheless, America still dwarfs the rest of the world when it comes to individual national levels of spending. This will remain true through 2020 and most likely for many years afterward.

Moreover, defense spending alone is an imperfect proxy for national military capability.

The United States, with its advanced economy, high levels of R&D spending and technological superiority, is able to get more bang for its buck when it comes to defense expenditures than any other country. Conversely, a state like China faces significant technical and operational challenges to its military modernization efforts, no matter how much money Beijing can pour in.

The large numbers of personnel in China and Russia mean the United States spends almost five times as much per service member, generating unique advantages in training and equipment.

And even though the age of U.S. dominance in worldwide military spending is gradually winding down, with 2014 marking another milestone, IHS maintains that this trend should not over interpreted. The United States will remain the biggest military spender for the foreseeable future and enjoys unique advantages that will only reinforce its preeminence.

Furthermore, the long-standing military posture of the U.S. will largely be preserved through continued investment in military personnel, equipment, capabilities and training.

This analysis draws on forecasts in IHS Jane’s DS Forecast and IHS Jane’s Defence Budgets. IHS also produces an annual study into global defense budgets: The Balance of Trade: The Changing Worldwide Defense Trade Market

Its not commissioned yet and we've been waiting for the F-35 since Reagan. Don't hold your breath.

At least, it arrived at her home port a couple of days ago. But from there, a lot more of seaa trials areto be done.

I'm sure the fact that the ship didn't sink was a huge consolation to the sailors who drowned while trapped in their (likely pitch black) compartments.



You are the only one here who is denying reality.



I'm not the one who is denying reality.



I will of course provide facts to back any claims that I make about a debate issue. No need when I am simply responding to an incorrect claim about my level of knowledge.



You certainly can't show anything about my statements that fly in the face of reality.

When it comes to China, your belief that they will somehow be unable to build up their navy seems a bit unrealistic. If they choose to build more warships, they will do so. And quite clearly they have chosen to do so.



Maybe so. They've begun that journey however. Your attitude towards China reminds me of the hare in the fable about the tortoise and the hare.



I am not falsely accusing you of red herrings the way you did with me.



I doubt that the Marines would agree with that. They seem to be under the impression that they are their own independent service. They also seem to think that their warships belong to them and not to other services.



Speculation about a possibility is not a red herring.



None of the above.



I have more knowledge about the nuclear navy than your total knowledge about everything in the universe.



We'll see. I won't hold my breath.



I already know it.



A 100kt warhead from an American sub will not be any more powerful than a 100kt warhead from a Russian mobile ICBM.

A 455kt warhead from an American sub will not be any more powerful than a 550kt warhead from a Russian heavy ICBM.

Of course our subs are more secure from attack than Russian heavy ICBMs are. Although the insecurity of Russian heavy ICBMs is not necessarily a good thing if it makes them jumpy with the launch button.



It's a fact that I addressed in a previous post. Is there a need for repetition?

I can cut-n-paste my earlier reply if you like:

"There is nothing wrong though with America having a vastly superior navy. We patrol the entire world. Other navies don't. It is fitting that we are vastly more powerful than others."

Note that all those Marine aircraft carriers that you're so eager to donate to the Navy require the F-35B in order to be anything more than helicopter launchpads.

Since you wrote so twice: do you think that the US Marine Corps has aircraft carriers?
I certainly rely more on the facts given by the aircraft carrier commander (ret) here than on those by a coach seaman.

I know so. They have nine or ten of them. Not as big as the ones used by the US Navy, but certainly full sized by the standards of most of the rest of the world.

Although with the retirement of the Harriers and the wait for the F-35B, the Marine carriers are much like the British carrier: currently without fighter jets.



If you wish to ignore reality it is your right to do so.

They must be very secret aircraft carriers - or are you referring to the amphibious assault ships?

Not really.



You know very well that I am. What's with the silly mind games?

No. You wrote about aircraft carriers (CVN's) and not about LCC's or LHC's.

Now I am not playing around with you. You have no clue what you are talking about.

Those ten gave their lives through a covenant held with all those "in peril on the sea" that's made to protect the ship in an emergency: when the hull is breached hatches are closed and dogged even knowing there are living men on the other side. In effect the way bulkhead and hatch have become the new hull and those sailors are outside of it. They can expect to drown from this (or burnt to death if there was a fire or if high pressure super heated steam gets loose). And the hand that turned the dog knows this and so does everyone on else on the crew top to bottom.

I would hope you might be a little less blithe in your description of the honored 10 crewmates who sacrificed and were sacrificed.

I've had enough of you for today.

I'm tired of speaking with oralloy today, but I'll post this one for him here because he hasn't ragged your nerves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assault_ship

The Wasp class is a class of Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) amphibious assault ships operated by the United States Navy. Based on the Tarawa class, with modifications to operate more advanced aircraft and landing craft, the Wasp class is capable of transporting almost the full strength of a United States Marine Corps Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), and landing them in hostile territory via landing craft or helicopters. All Wasp-class ships were built by Ingalls Shipbuilding, at Pascagoula, Mississippi, with the lead ship, USS Wasp, commissioned on 29 July 1989. Eight Wasp-class ships were built, and as of June 2017, all eight are active.

How odd. An aircraft carrier can't be an aircraft carrier unless it has the letters CVN painted on it?

If I paint the letters CVN on my car, does it become an aircraft carrier?

You mean those sailors were happy to drown trapped in a small pitch black compartment?



The only person here who was blithe about their deaths is the person who dismissed the collisions by noting that they didn't sink any ships.



Come back when you're ready to learn more.