China says it is building its second aircraft carrier.....

I still remember serving when we hit 600 ships in our fleet. Seeing it now at less then half that size leaves me rather disgusted.

And more then that, the abilities of many of our ships is decreasing, and another entire class of ship is going to be retired within the next 12 years. Retired, with no plans to replace them with anything else. Just at a time where for the first time in over half a century we have a potential adversary which is apparently ramping up it's naval power to challenge our own and our allies.

And even worse, instead of trying to sell our retired combat ships as we had done for centuries, now we are scrapping them wholesale. We still have several Perry class Frigates that have been retired and are awaiting scrapping. A better use for these ships I think would be sale to the Philippines. Selling them the USS Nassau and Peleliu (along with AV8B and OV-22 aircraft) to the Philippines would go a long ways towards boosing their defenses, and giving China a bit more of a pause when it comes to taking potential offensive operations against them.

The Philippines are a major US ally in the region, one that we can not afford to suffer from Finlandization. Destroying ships that they could use I see as a criminal waste. Even if offered at the scrap metal price, it would be better then seeing them turned into razor blades. And a big improvement to them, allowing them to replace their 50-70 year old ships they use now.

 

I still remember when I served and we had a 900 ship navy.

1 active duty battleship, the USS New Jersey.

23 aircraft carriers.

35 cruisers.

219 destroyers.

50 frigates.

105 submarines.

41 ballistic boomer's submarines.

157 amphibious ships.


Well the U.S. Navy back then wasn't even close to what it was during WW ll with 6,768 ships !

But you'll will notice that it was the Democrats and three specific Democrat Presidents (Carter, Clinton and Obama) who are responsible of dismantling the U.S. Navy.

Obama's PC Navy of today with 285 ships, the smallest the U.S. Navy has been for over a hundred years, back in 1917 we had a 342 ship navy.

http://www.history.navy.mil/research/histories/ship-histories/us-ship-force-levels.html

 

The Chinese carriers are in the 50,000-ton range.

A Nimitz-class carrier weighs in at 100,000 tons.

There is a commensurate difference in capability, including number of aircraft, aircraft range, operating range and duration, etc.

It will be a long time before the Chinese provide serious naval competition.

As for the size of today's Navy, we no longer are fighting the Cold War, so we clearly don't need 600 ships. And simply comparing ship numbers isn't a very useful way to compare capabilities: A single Nimitz carrier group probably has more combat power than half of our WW II Navy.

So the question is, what is the Navy's job, and how many ships does it need to do so?

If you have specific criticisms about that, let's hear them. But simply whining that our Navy has fewer ships than it once did, without reference to changing mission requirements or the capabilities of individual ships, is pointless.

 

While looking to Japan, the Philippines, Vietnam and Cambodia to help counter China. I wonder who thought up that so called grand idea. Knowing they didn't have the ships. Japan just sold NAM a few of their old coast guard ships. 5 or 6 of them.

How can they even compete with China in the region?

 

Why do you make ridiculous claims that are refuted by the very sources you cite?

In modern times, the Navy peaked at 932 ships in June 1968. It then declined to 536 ships by June 1976 -- all of which occurred under GOP presidents.

It basically stayed static under Carter -- it was at 530 ships in September 1980.

Reagan raised that to a peak of 594 ships in September 1987. After that, the number declined to 471 in September 1992 -- again, all GOP presidents.

Under Clinton, the number fell to 318.

Under Bush, the number fell to 282.

Under Obama, the number has stayed steady at around 285.

So the vast majority of the shrinkage occurred under GOP presidents. Neither Carter nor Obama have overseen a decline in the size of the Navy, and the decline under Clinton was only 150 ships. GOP presidents, collectively, cut more than 400 ships.

Never mind that ship numbers are influenced more by actual need -- like, we were fighting a large-scale war in 1968 -- than with the party affiliation of a particular president.

 

You sound butt hurt Raytri.

There's more behind the numbers. For example the Obama administration lied to Congress to make the Navy seem larger than it really was by including hospital ships and little coastal patrol boats as warships. Obama got caught a couple years ago on that one.

When G.W. Bush left offiice only 13% of the Navy's ships weren't combat capable. Meaning being able to put to sea and fight. Under Obama they changed the term to "mission capable" but by the end of Obama's fifth year as CnC, 53% of the Navy's ships weren't mission capable.

Today the Navy has 10 aircraft carriers and 5 can't put to sea and the Obama administration has problems just keeping 2 carriers and it's escorts at sea and on station in their AOR.

Remember when the chi-coms were rattling their sabers and G.W. Bush as CnC was able to put 8 Carrier Battle Groups (CBG) to sea ? (CBG not CSG that we have today. A CBG was 1 carrier and it's AW, 2 cruisers and 6 destroyer. SCG is usually 1 carrier with it's AW, 1 cruiser, and 2 or 3 destroyers.)

From 1946 to 2008 every President was able to keep a CBG in the 6th Fleet AOR (Mediterranean Sea) 24/7. Obama can't do it. After Obama armed Al Qaeda in Libya and Al Qaeda attacked our consulate in Benghazi there were only 3 destroyers in the entire 6th Fleet AOR and no Amphibious Ready Group. The last eleven President s before Obama had no problem keeping a CBG and ARG in the Mediterranean, why not Obama ? Is Obama an incompetent CnC ?

Back track to the Vietnam War, 1969 to be precise. First the North Vietnam government told the Nixon administration that they wouldn't even discuse holding peace talks as long as the battleship USS New Jersey was still in the Western Pacific waters. The most feared weapon that North Vietnam feared was not B-52's dropping thousands of tons of bombs over North Vietnam but the 16" guns of the New Jersey. So Nixon ordered that the New Jersey be deactivated. Then Nixon ordered "Vietnmization" of the war and started the gradual withdraw from the war.

1973, the radical left aka the "New Left" had gained control of the Democrat party and the enemy was anyone who wore a uniform. If you served back then you would remember when soldiers, Marines and sailors wouldn't even go off base wearing the uniform. You could say, no Republican or conservative has ever spat upon an American soldier. Liberals can't make that claim.

During the Carter administration the U.S. military became a hollow force. The Navy had the ships but not the crews to man them. 1/2 of the Air Force and Navy's aircraft couldn't fly because the lack of maintenance and spare parts. Navy ships left port for their cruise in their assigned AOR and had no ammunition and missiles and would meet the ship they were relieving at sea where munitions were transferred from one ship to the other.

Reagan became CnC in 1981 and his main priority was to repair the damage inflicted to the U.S. military during the 1970's. By the time Reagan became CnC every 8" and 6" gun cruiser had been decommissioned and scheduled to be scrapped. The Marine Corps found itself with no cruisers to provide naval shore fire support. So Reagan reactivated al;l four of the Iowa battleships. Also the Iowa's were able to fullfil the aircraft carrier gap.

The U.S. Navy has five AOR's that requires a CBG in each AOR. Which means you need 15 carriers and its escorts to accomplish that mission. One thing about an Iowa class BB, it can put more tons of ordnence on target in one hour than an entire carrier air wing can in 24 hours.

The 1990's and Slick Willey as CnC and the liberals who wanted a peace dividend after Reagan won the Cold War. The over downsizing of the Reagan military that G.H. Bush as CnC won the first Gulf war (Desert Storm) with just in a few days. 500,000 American boots on the ground that the Weiberger /Powell Doctines called for. But it just wasn't downsizing the size of the military but closing of military bases and ship yards and changing the mission of the military of being used for liberal social engineering.

But one day there was this destroyer named the USS Cole, it was in October of 2000 and it was getting low on fuel. The U.S. Navy going back to the 1930's had perfected refueling it's ships at sea so they didn't have to return to port for refueling. But there was no Navy oilers in the 5th Fleet AOR to refuel the USS Cole. How could that be ??? Clinton and the liberals deactivated close to 1/3 of the Navy's oilers, that's why.

So the USS Cole had to head to the Yemeni port of Aden to refuel. Guess what Al Qadeda did ?

FYI: When America went to war against Iraq in 2003, Bush went to war with Clinton's military and was only able to put 200,000 boots on the ground. What should have been a six month war if Bush went to war with Reagan's military turned into a five year war. 200,000 American soldiers, Marines, sailors and airmen would have no problem of accomplishing the mission of regime change in Iraq but it would need a minimum of 400,000 boots on the ground to occupy Iraq and prevent a second war known as the Iraqi insurrection.

 

???

Um, you said "But you'll will notice that it was the Democrats and three specific Democrat Presidents (Carter, Clinton and Obama) who are responsible of dismantling the U.S. Navy." That was flat-out false. Now you want to change your claim.

Uh, they weren't counted as "warships". They were counted as "deployed ships" when deployed, making them part of the fleet. And the effect was tiny: it changed the number of ships from 283 to 290. Oh nos!
http://www.defensenews.com/story/de...ng-congress-battle-force-deployable/24516885/

What a massive scandal! OMG!

It's called "sequester". And it wouldn't be happening if Congress didn't have so many "no compromise" extremists in its ranks.

That was more than 60 years ago. You're still fighting a war that ended long ago. And what you experienced was the (misguided, I agree) fallout of the US being involved in an unjustified, unpopular war.

Never mind that the whole "spitting on American soldiers" story is, in large part, a myth:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...ticles/2005/04/30/debunking_a_spitting_image/

Were returning soldiers sometimes treated rudely? Yes. Could there have been spitting incidents? Yes. But it was apparently uncommon, because there is NO contemporary documentation of it. Just claims by some veterans made years afterward.

I was in the Army in the latter half of the 1980s. I never encountered a problem.

Yes. Again, the fallout of the failed end of an unpopular war. I came in as the military was rebuilding from that time. Our sergeants would tell stories about what it was like to serve immediately after Vietnam. It wasn't pretty.

But blaming that on Carter is rather beside the point. We switched to a volunteer force in 1973 -- under Nixon. And because of the fallout from Vietnam, nobody wanted to join, and there was not much stomach for funding the military, either. Carter was in office for just four years -- if your logic about Bush and Clinton is valid, then he was stuck with Nixon's military. If you want to blame someone for a "hollow" military, blame Nixon. But really, blame Vietnam.

LOL! Actually, it was H.W. Bush and his defense secretary, Dick Cheney:
https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=OoUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4229,7082896&hl=en

Cheney canceled the B-2 and pushed for deep military cuts, complaining that Congress was forcing him to keep weapons programs he didn't want. Bush wanted to cut military spending by 30 percent.

Cheney tried to cancel the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the M1 Abrams, the F14, the F16, the Apache -- basically, every major weapon system we use today.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/tricky-dicks-turn-about/

If you're talking about the Wichita-class oilers, they were decommissioned commensurate with the overall downsizing of the Navy -- fewer ships meant fewer oilers needed.

There was no oiler available for the Cole because she was a single ship traveling alone -- transiting from the Med to the Gulf. You don't generally send an oiler to accompany a single ship. In fact, that was against Navy policy at the time.
http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/docs/man-sh-ddg51-001025zd.htm

 

I just can see how a Kiev class vessel, which is more of a helicopter carrier, than an AC, supported your argument in the message I was quoting.


Speaking of Liaoning, must be someone toying with the description.

Actually, if you pay some attention to the article itself, there is this:

Article on sinodefence states this:

Besides, P-700 are no longer in production.

 

Yeah, and it's building it with OUR cash. But that's fine with our business guys and trade representatives. We can also build more a/c carriers with money BORROWED from the Chinese, let future generations worry about paying it back, and allow our business guys and trade reps go ahead and make their money in the present. Theft? You be da judge. One thing I know is that Mexican illegals don't have anything to do with it. But they'll draw the fire. That's the way we roll in the shire.

 

Borrowed form China? Our cash?

Please let me know when you want to discuss this in an adult manner. We do not "borrow money from China".



There is US debt held by China, 8.2%.

But please, come back when you want to actually discuss the issue, and not try to sidetrack it into conspiracy theory.

 

http://www.hudson.org/research/10177-hospital-ships-to-be-counted-in-u-s-combat-fleet

To continue:

 

It started before Obama's sequester.

By the time Congress was tricked into supporting for Obama sequestration, 27% of the navy's ships weren't combat capable (mission capable) Remember when Obama entered the White House it was 13% of the navy ships weren't combat capable, meaning able to put to sea and fight.

And it's Obama's sequestration, remember when Obama signed it into law he said if Congress tries to end the sequestration he would veto any attempt to do so.

Then the liberal journalist busted the Obama administration big time, it was the Obama White House idea of the sequestration, not Congress.


excerpt:

 

You're making (*)(*)(*)(*) up which is common liberal SOP. Nobody ever said that most soldiers, Marines or sailors were spat upon when returning to the CONUS after their tour of duty in the Nam. But there was incidents mostly at SFO. (San Francisco International Airport.)

Who started the myth that no returning vets were spat upon was a liberal journalist or historian who made an observation at the Travis USAF Base where most who served in Vietnam returned to the "world" through Travis. Anti war activist weren't allowed aboard Travis AFB during the Vietnam War and that's why this revisionist lib didn't see any returning vets being spat upon or spat at. But from Travis the returning vets would usually take a bus to SFO where they would catch a flight to their final destination.

 

As I pointed out, I used Wikipedia as a source and Wikipedia isn't a reliable source.

I usually use "Janes" as my source and "Janes" isn't cheap.

 

Exactly. You might not call it "borrowed" but since China buys U.S. securities and the U.S. has to pay them off (with WHAT, you might ask), I call it "borrowed". How about $1.3 trillion dollars worth as of last May. And let's not even talk about the trade deficit that China is free to buy those treasuries and build aircraft carriers with, eh skippy? It's an absolute conspiracy theory.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/18/news/economy/china-us-debt/

 

You realize if China is using their American dollar reserves to buy U.S. Treasury notes- those are dollars that they do not have to build aircraft carriers with?

It is an either or situation- China has either loaned cash to the United States or China is using that money for building its military- can't use the same cash for both things.

 

Walmart pays for building the chi-coms navy.

In layman terms, the Walmart shoppers are paying for building the PLA-N second aircraft carrier.

 

Don't forget the DollarTree stores.

 

Or Target or China Freight Tools.

 

Not only that, the US really has no say in who buys these notes.

It can be China, it can be England. It can be General Motors or Mr. and Mrs. Smith of Chicago in their mutual fund. The US has no more to say with who buys or owns their T-bonds and T-bills then South Africa does with who buys their Gold bullion. And most who buy it use it for various reasons of their own.

Most use it as a Reserve Currency, to prop up their own currency. But these are long term investments, and can not be called in until they are mature.

Buting this kind of "debt" is like somebody buying all of the bonds made to build a new school, then saying that you own the school because you financed it.

 

Nuke it.

 

What??? China has our cash. It can do whatever it chooses to do with our cash. It can lend it to us, it can build aircraft carriers with it, it can build canals in Panama with it.

 

No- we have China's cash.

If you are speaking about the notes that China has acquired- and loaned their cash to us.

As I said

You realize if China is using their American dollar reserves to buy U.S. Treasury notes- those are dollars that they do not have to build aircraft carriers with?

It is an either or situation- China has either loaned cash to the United States or China is using that money for building its military- can't use the same cash for both things.

 

Pretty much every company. It just makes economic sense- no matter how much say Sears wants to build Craftsman tools in the United States- and have the prestige of selling 'made in the U.S.' tools- those tools can't compete with the same tool selling for 20% of the price.

However, as labor costs increase in China, importers are looking to Vietnam and other countries with lower wages.

 

For those that are not aware, this is actually a canal in Nicaragua, not Panama.

The Nicaragua Grand Canal is a project that is so far behind schedule, it is not even funny. And a human rights disaster that ensures it will never happen.

Proposed in 2013, construction was to start in 2014. Then 2015. Now it is supposed to start in 2016. However, opening date is still expected to be in 2020.

And the working conditions, almost slavery. Workers will be locked into work camps, unable to leave. And work 12 hour days 7 days a week. Local workers get 2 weeks on, one week off. Foreign workers get 22 weeks on, 4 weeks off. Think about that, almost 5 days working, 12 hour shifts, locked into a camp with no days off.

And with the finances of the main backer, Wang Jing going in the toilet over the last year, most do not think this will ever happen. Even before this latest meltdown of the Chinese financial industry, his net worth has fallen by 2/3 in the last 2 years.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-canal-lost-85-of-his-fortune-in-stock-market

But this is the problem with making silly claims with incorrect half-truths. You then get people like me who know what they are talking about, and know how to do research. For most of the last 12 months, the Chinese economy has been in almost freefall. Much of their recent frantic buying up of US treasury notes are for use as a backing to prop up their own economy.

You really do not know much of how International Economics works, do you? China in the last 24 months has actually been buying less Treasury Notes then before, they simply do not have the money to do so (and have actually been selling some off). Currently, the country increasing their stockpile faster then any other is Japan. And they hold just under $150 billion less then China does.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-...mping-us-treasuries-leaves-goldman-speechless

At this rate, by the end of 2017 it is expected that China will no longer be the largest holder of foreign debt. In case you have been asleep for the last 24 months (and especially this week), you would know their economy is in shambles. And foreign companies are putting less into their economy, and looking for ways to remove their assets so they can invest them elsewhere, like Philippines, Vietnam, and other Pacific Rim nations.

China can build whatever in the hell they want to with their money, I could not care less. And even if they build 20 aircraft carriers, that largely means nothing. Because it will still be decades before they are able to use them proficiently. It takes much more to operate a carrier task force then to put airplanes on a ship.