bush_cheney2004 Posted August 16, 2011 Report Share Posted August 16, 2011 ...where is it written that countries can't protect it's territorial claims? the US is free to do so but no other country?...absurd logic...china can't protect it's claims without being called a threat to us meanwhile the US disputes our territorial claims but it is not a threat? Nope...the US has ignored Canada's "claims" as a matter of international law and Canada has saved billions by just granting passage permission after the fact. How pragmatic! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) You'd think that US Nimitz, didn't even have airconditioning originally for the Persian Gulf Operations, so realize the military doesn't think like non governmental civil planners.. somewhat practical why raise costs for frills you don't require...Canadian tanks never had AC, never occurred to anyone that we'd ever be in the deserts of Afghanistan...militaries everywhere first consideration is equipping themselves for the terrain and climate of their own countries...the Nimitz with no AC is a surprise... Edited August 17, 2011 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) The Chinese have one carrier TODAY and their military budget keeps growing by double digits every years. The US has 11 carriers TODAY but that will likely be down to about 5 in five or six years as budget cuts hit. Eventually, if the Republicans win the white house, they'll be down to rowboats as income taxes are slashed again and the US goes into bankruptcy. The old nimitz are being replaced by the new reagan etc... I don't think the fleet will go down, I can only guess that the nimitz will continue operating until their plants need servicing again. and then the hulks will be cleaned and put into mothball fleets. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_R._Ford_class_aircraft_carrier "On 15 January 2009, Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding was awarded a $374 million contract for design work and construction preparation for John F. Kennedy.[5] On 30 September 2010, Northrop Grumman announced a new Vice President for the construction of the Kennedy, Mike Shawcross, and that preparations were under way to begin construction.[6] On 25 February 2011, the Navy conducted the "First Cut of Steel" ceremony at Northrop Grumman Shipbuilding in Newport News, VA. This ceremony signaled the formal start of construction for John F. Kennedy.[7][8]" They cost less to operate than previous carriers so they will likely replace them all and that brings it to 2030 or so... I think the US would lay down new CVN hulls in the next 10 years. So I don't see where you are coming from with the force reduction. They keep the construction births running more or less. They have to build something. Edited August 17, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) The Chinese have one carrier TODAY and their military budget keeps growing by double digits every years. The US has 11 carriers TODAY but that will likely be down to about 5 in five or six years as budget cuts hit. Eventually, if the Republicans win the white house, they'll be down to rowboats as income taxes are slashed again and the US goes into bankruptcy. The old nimitz are being replaced by the new reagan etc... I don't think the fleet will go down, I can only guess that the nimitz will continue operating until their plants need servicing again. and then the hulks will be cleaned and put into mothball fleets. The ships coming out now are serviced for 20 years.. so it will be perhaps 2035 before they run their life... nimitz started being laid down in the late 70's meaning their service life has been about 30 years. The third of that class is due to enter service commissioning in 2021. This is already a 10 year time frame to phase in the new carriers. The idea behind that speculation is the Navy would maintain a force of 10 CVNs and save costs on two Nimitz class that require Refueling and Complex Overhaul (RCOH), Going forward the Navy would evaluate their strategy for Naval Aviation. For big deck carriers, construction of CVN-81 would begin as currently planned in FY21. However, the Navy may also choose to develop a new small deck class of aircraft carriers that capitalize on smaller UCAS-N aircraft beginning construction in FY21 http://www.informationdissemination.net/2008/06/slow-and-steady-on-ucas-n.html a lot can change in 10 to 15 years.. in terms of technology.. looking to 2025 is a hard thing to do. The US could be buying cheaper chinese imports by then. and that would throw off the figures by making them "real like" rather than MIC markups. With chinese ships they could probably buy 2 for 1. Also if China now has "3" air craft carriers... even old ones they may have more by 2025 .. thus the US cannot maintain its position if it doesn't have 10 etc.. China always suprises me with being far ahead of my projections.. they are far more efficient than the laggin NATO countries in terms of economic and technological advance. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/plan-overview.htm on the "upside" china may just be a mirror copy of the US in terms of military policy by then, so pro american people have nothing to worry about right? Edited August 17, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 The old nimitz are being replaced by the new reagan etc... I don't think the fleet will go down, I can only guess that the nimitz will continue operating until their plants need servicing again. and then the hulks will be cleaned and put into mothball fleets. The ships coming out now are serviced for 20 years.. so it will be perhaps 2035 before they run their life... nimitz started being laid down in the late 70's meaning their service life has been about 30 years. The third of that class is due to enter service commissioning in 2021. This is already a 10 year time frame to phase in the new carriers. http://www.informationdissemination.net/2008/06/slow-and-steady-on-ucas-n.html a lot can change in 10 to 15 years.. in terms of technology.. looking to 2025 is a hard thing to do. The US could be buying cheaper chinese imports by then. and that would throw off the figures by making them "real like" rather than MIC markups. With chinese ships they could probably buy 2 for 1. Also if China now has "3" air craft carriers... even old ones they may have more by 2025 .. thus the US cannot maintain its position if it doesn't have 10 etc.. China always suprises me with being far ahead of my projections.. they are far more efficient than the laggin NATO countries in terms of economic and technological advance. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/plan-overview.htm on the "upside" china may just be a mirror copy of the US in terms of military policy by then, so pro american people have nothing to worry about right? but then you still need to answer why would they throw away all their economic success by invading some desolate canadian arctic island for resources we will gladly sell them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorn Posted August 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 Dream on...that is not going to happen. The US will keep a minimum force structure that leverages modernization of surface, sub-surface, and airborne assets. Example: The Chinese and Pakistanis are still examining the "stealth helo" used in the Bin Laden assassination....wondering how the hell those damn 'merkins did it. The Chinese are probably reading Obama's email every night and scanning Gates' computer to see if there's anything on it they don't already have. And you can't keep up a military without taxes, and you guys don't want to pay any, so... rowboats it is, with the all volunteer New England militia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 And you can't keep up a military without taxes, and you guys don't want to pay any, so... rowboats it is, with the all volunteer New England militia. Paying taxes didn't help much in Canada....you still sent your forces to Afghanistan with Iltis jeeps and green camo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 ...where is it written that countries can't protect it's territorial claims? the US is free to do so but no other country?...absurd logic...china can't protect it's claims without being called a threat to us meanwhile the US disputes our territorial claims but it is not a threat? Who said countries can't protect their territorial claims? If a country decides to claim your territory, whatcha going to do about it. China's territorial claims will be what China decides they are, not us. Their ability to enforce those claims should not be ignored. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thorn Posted August 17, 2011 Author Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 Paying taxes didn't help much in Canada....you still sent your forces to Afghanistan with Iltis jeeps and green camo. We don't need a big, powerful military. We aren't hated by two thirds of the world like you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 "We"...when I think of the USA and Canada I think "we". I'm a rare Canadian these days, apparently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 ...which is why Canada gets away with a tiny military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 "We"...when I think of the USA and Canada I think "we". I'm a rare Canadian these days, apparently. Yes you are...thank you for not hating America like "two thirds" of the world. LOL! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 Yes you are...thank you for not hating America like "two thirds" of the world. LOL! Without the USA, Canada would be more of a chew-toy for Red China than it already is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 The Varyag is merely a training jump-carrier where newby Chinese Tom Cruises will be dumping copies of MiG-29s into the drink...similar to the ol' USS Wolverine in that respect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Wolverine_(IX-64) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 The government is about to embark on a huge ship building exercise to re-equip the Royal Canadian Navy. There is no question the navy needs new ships, but current events indicate that building new ones is uneeded and far more expensive than purchasing existing warships from other nations. The British navy is in the process of downsizing, and while I'll be the first to admit we screwed up in buying the submarines from the brits they have some very nice surface ships. More importantly, the United States Navy is very likely to soon undergo a massive and immediate downsizing. Entire aircraft carrier battlegroups will need to be mothballed and all their crews furloughed, or laid off. The requirement under the recently passed debt ceiling raise is that a super committee of six democrats and six republicans agree on how to find trillions in deficit reduction by thanksgiving. Since all six Republican members have vowed to oppose even one cent of new taxes it's unlikely a deal will be reached and passed by congress. When the committee fails, half a trillion in military spending will have to be cut. That means lots of ships, planes and military vehicles will be on the market at cut rate prices. Now the inclination will be for the Americans to mothball their older units first, but if there is the possibility of selling some that could be reconsidered. And really, so many ships will have to be scrapped that there are bound to be a lot of excellent quality, fairly new ships we can buy for the RCN. We could pick up a lot of army gear while we're at it, including trucks and personnel carriers, for far less than buying them new. No carrier battle groups will be mothballed, they’re slowing production of the Ford class, and this will concede with the retirement of the Enterprise………For a few years, they’ll be down to 9 battle groups well one is being refuelled and the Ford will be working up……. Any cuts in the DoD will likely come from namely the army and any savings realized when the troops pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan fully……. We don't need any former USN & RN cast-offs....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 china has one "training carrier" the US has 11 carrier fleets...ya those chinese really seem hellbent on global domination...china's only objective is controlling/protecting it's own costal waters...seeing it from their viewpoint the most imperialistic aggressive nation on the planet has carrier fleets constantly of it's coast, it should come as surprise they want to counter that threat...we've paranoid forum members wanting us to counter a chinese threat that doesn't exist and go into a panic because the chinese have ONE training carrier... They're currently building larger ones of a home grown designs............their purpose? Like any Navy, sea control, defence of shipping lanes etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 ...We don't need any former USN & RN cast-offs....... ...but cast off US Army CH-47's were mighty welcomed with a BIG KISS! http://www.ody.ca/~bwalker/CF_CH147.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 You'd think that US Nimitz, didn't even have airconditioning originally for the Persian Gulf Operations, so realize the military doesn't think like non governmental civil planners.. Bullshit, they couldn't deploy with computers in CIC overheating..........maybe it in some crew spaces, but not the entire ship Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 ...but cast off US Army CH-47's were mighty welcomed with a BIG KISS! http://www.ody.ca/~bwalker/CF_CH147.html They where zero houred and we where left with no other options for medium lift.........our first new CH-47F is rolling off the plant floor as we speak..........and 25 year OHP wouldn't do us any good... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 ...which is why Canada gets away with a tiny military. No it isnt. The reason Canada doesnt need a large military is because we only have one international border, and its with our largest trading partner and ally. Both the US and Canada could get away with a relatively small militaries if they were really used for defense and not offense. We are pretty lucky over hear. Excellent geographical defense, and lots of room. It Canada was smack dab in the middle of the Balkans then ya... wed have to arm up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 ...Both the US and Canada could get away with a relatively small militaries if they were really used for defense and not offense. The best defense is a strong offense - Vince Lombardi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 The best defense is a strong offense - Vince Lombardi I dont think thats true for Canada though. We have very little need for offensive capabilities and very little money to spend on them. Furthermore if Canada every spent a lot on its military and got serious about defense, maybe built a modest nuclear deterent we would just make the US nervous and jeapardize our relationship with them. Out military is about the right size and like I said. Our biggest asset is we only have one international border and its with a close ally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) I dont think thats true for Canada though. We have very little need for offensive capabilities and very little money to spend on them. Canada has collective treaty commitments that says otherwise....so spend the money or leave NATO/NORAD/UN. Edited August 17, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 Canada has collective treaty commitments that says otherwise....so spend the money or leave NATO/NORAD. Nato is chickenshit organization and even the countries that have way larger militaries than Canada routinely refuse to show up. Theyll be glad with anything we contribute and if they dont like it they can suck my balls. Canada does more than its share on Nato missions while many other nato countries refuse to do jack shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted August 17, 2011 Report Share Posted August 17, 2011 Our biggest asset is we only have one international border and its with a close ally. That's true of land borders. What about sea borders? Canada has sea boundaries with Denmark (between Baffin Island and Greenland) and France (between the island of Newfoundland and the territory of St. Pierre and Miquelon). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_that_border_only_one_other_country If you're going to assert and defend sovereignty then all borders, land and sea, must to be included and considered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.