China's navy is getting bigger and Biden's budget makes our navy smaller

The helo carrier is not a fleet carrier. No catapult, no arresting gear, and small to boot. My LPH was 18,000 tons. The modern Wasp LHD is 40,000 tons. The USS Gerald Ford displaces over 100,000 tons. When a Harrier landed on our flight deck, the ship had to ballast fuel and water to get rid of the list. In a pinch, an amphib could ferry aircraft to some remote locations but they couldn't really fight along the way.

The point is that Ronald Reagan envisioned a 600 ship navy and now we have less than a 300 ship navy. The people who poo-poo, think that quality supersedes quantity. Maybe...but if one of your ten operational carriers is damaged enough to be removed from the theater, that is 10% of your aircraft off the board. It wasn't too long ago when we 14 aircraft carriers plus the support ships. Those hybrid ships (littoral) that can do this and do that, can't do any one thing very good. Some have already been taken out of service. Others are being overhauls to replace the gee-whiz technology that was so hyped. With the deadlier weapons loads available now we need a smaller class of ship with a solid punch like a corvette or coastal vessel. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

LHA/LHD may not be a fleet carrier, but they are carriers when they carry aircraft. it doesn't matter if they have catapult or arresting gear.

Harriers and F-35 were/are flown from those gator carriers.

early fleet carriers were small too. shall we say the lexington class carriers??? these gator carriers are of that size and low tonnage.

don't know why you got your dander up over this. its just plain ol hardware facts.

sounds like you wanted to serve on one of those big mama boats but didn't get a shot!

build a cheap fake Chinese island .. watch it sink




bahaahhaa Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

well... looks like vietnam is doing some TCB!

building island bases and no one noticed. lol

well... looks like vietnam is doing some TCB!

building island bases and no one noticed. lol Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

they are doing that because China is. looks like they are better at it lol. international maritime law has consistently ruled against China in disputes with Vietnam and the Philippines and probably Japan too over various islands in the region.


Vietnam has a solid claim based on maritime law, as does the Philippines.


here's a recent development i've been meaning to drop in this thread .. 20 years after the Philippines "kicked out" the US from Subic Bay naval station and Clark air base, now they suddenly want the US back! any guess why? China is trying to occupy island groups in the Philippines and the Philippines coast guard doesn't have the ships to effectively counter them so now they what their big buddy the US back!


what happened was, in 1992 the Philippines senate tried to jack up the land lease payments by the US nearly triple. the US bore all the costs for the bases to begin with, and was giving the Philippines about 400 million a year for the land. that's pure profit to them. their Senate demanded a huge increase like 800 million or more and US balked. the US countered with an increase but not more than 600 million i recall so the Philippine Senate voted the US out. now they realize what a huge mistake they made and the bases (or new bases) are going to be reopened.


in the early 1990's China was not a whitewater naval power so from a certain point of view the Philippines couldn't know 20 years later they would be and illegally encroaching on their islands. you could say the US should have foreseen this, and what's 800 million a year to the US? or even 1 billion. now in hindsight both the US and certainly the Philippines realize ending the US bases in the Philippines was a huge mistake. with a US fleet based in Subic Bay there's virtually no way the Chinese would be this aggressive in the area, unless they are spoiling for a fight.



US, Philippines to announce new sites for U.S. military as soon as possible - U.S. official

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-phi...al-2023-03-20/

LHA/LHD may not be a fleet carrier, but they are carriers when they carry aircraft. it doesn't matter if they have catapult or arresting gear.

Harriers and F-35 were/are flown from those gator carriers.

early fleet carriers were small too. shall we say the lexington class carriers??? these gator carriers are of that size and low tonnage.

don't know why you got your dander up over this. its just plain ol hardware facts.

sounds like you wanted to serve on one of those big mama boats but didn't get a shot! Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Never wanted to serve on a bird farm but I did want to be on the precom crew of the USS Wasp (LHD1). Earlier I tried to get a billet on the USS Arleigh Burke (DDG51). While going to school, I was approached by some interested in putting me on the USS Kidd (DDG993) as a senior petty officer. I passed. Funny story though. When I was at New London, I was trying to get on the Arleigh Burke but they wanted to send me to a tender down the river which I did not want. Claimed they didn't have the money to send me to Norfolk. Instead, I went to elevator school in San Fransisco and then to Norfolk on the USS Guam (LPH9). The funny thing is that I met a guy who looked a lot like me and he had orders to go to the Arleigh Burke.

Nope, never wanted a bird farm but I do recognize that a gator freighter would be severely limited. Makes me wonder with all the downsizing, if we could field four MARGs again like we did in 1990. Probably not.

interesting comparison






the Chinese are using the pre WWII IJN playbook. in the 1920's Japan bought their warships from Britain then the supreme builders of naval vessels, with the US a close second.


the Chinese bought a piece of shit Russian carrier and made it operational which is more than Russia was able to do, as their one carrier is a piece of shit that is stuck in port rife with mechanical issues and reportedly in danger of sinking .. in port. bahhaaa


now China has created a new domestic designed carrier following the IJN's playbook of building their own designs.



this is a huge concern for Pacific not just the US but all allies, The Philippines (who suddenly want to kiss and make up with the US after their foolish decision in 1992 to end Subic Bay naval station and Clark air base) Japan and South Korea.



a new US led naval alliance should be created to stop China's illegal actions and illegal by maritime law occupation of various islands to defend the entire South China Sea.

Unfortunately, the Ford is not ready for service yet and we don't know how those new systems will shake out under stress.

Unfortunately, the Ford is not ready for service yet and we don't know how those new systems will shake out under stress. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

The Gerald Ford is operational. as of last year. it took several years longer than usual to shakedown the new design, mainly because many of the new systems such as the electromag launch and recovery system were being designed and tested while the Ford was under construction. this led to several years of refitting these new systems before the carrier was finally certified for active service.


interestingly the new Chinese type 03 carrier also uses electromag launch and recovery systems. it'll be interesting to see how many issues they have in getting their new carrier fully operational.


Operational service

Gerald R. Ford left Naval Station Norfolk for her maiden deployment on 4 October 2022. The carrier was to conduct operations and training exercises alongside NATO allies and partners throughout the Atlantic Ocean. Gerald R. Ford's Carrier Strike Group 12 included Carrier Air Wing 8, USS Normandy, Destroyer Squadron 2 with USS Ramage, USS McFaul and USS Thomas Hudner, auxiliaries USNS Joshua Humphreys and USNS Robert E. Peary, and the United States Coast Guard cutter USCGC Hamilton.[86] Among the first NATO ships assigned to CSG-12 was the German frigate Hessen.[87]



Gerald R. Ford returning to Naval Station Norfolk after completing its inaugural deployment to the Atlantic Ocean, 26 November 2022.


Gerald R. Ford's first port visit outside of her home country was on 28 October 2022, to Halifax Harbour in Nova Scotia, home of CFB Halifax, Canada's largest military installation and home port of the Royal Canadian Navy's Atlantic fleet.[88][89][90] On 14 November 2022 the ship arrived in United Kingdom waters, for a four day visit anchored in Stokes Bay near Gosport.[91]

interesting comparison






the Chinese are using the pre WWII IJN playbook. in the 1920's Japan bought their warships from Britain then the supreme builders of naval vessels, with the US a close second.


the Chinese bought a piece of shit Russian carrier and made it operational which is more than Russia was able to do, as their one carrier is a piece of shit that is stuck in port rife with mechanical issues and reportedly in danger of sinking .. in port. bahhaaa


now China has created a new domestic designed carrier following the IJN's playbook of building their own designs.



this is a huge concern for Pacific not just the US but all allies, The Philippines (who suddenly want to kiss and make up with the US after their foolish decision in 1992 to end Subic Bay naval station and Clark air base) Japan and South Korea.



a new US led naval alliance should be created to stop China's illegal actions and illegal by maritime law occupation of various islands to defend the entire South China Sea. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

the chinese carrier has more in common with the early variant of U.S. carriers (like Foresstal) than the Ford class.

the chinese carrier has more in common with the early variant of U.S. carriers (like Foresstal) than the Ford class. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

more like the Nimitz class which of course was based on the Forrestal


the chinese have studied all of the US carriers for many years in order to plan for their own design.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Forrestal


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz...rcraft_carrier


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65)



when the US Navy designed the Enterprise the Navy wanted an all nuclear surface fleet and built two guided missile cruisers also nuclear powered as a proof of concept. it was called Task Force 1.




Task Force 1, the first nuclear-powered task force. Enterprise, Long Beach and Bainbridge in formation in the Mediterranean, 18 June 1964. Enterprise has Einstein's mass–energy equivalence formula E=mc² spelled out on its flight deck. Note the distinctive phased array radars in the superstructures of Enterprise and Long Beach.


the concept was abandoned for non-carriers due to the cost, it would have limited the total number of ships compared to conventional powered ships with limited budget money to spend.


the type 003 is not nuclear powered. the type 004 is expected to be nuclear powered and is under design now, however no construction has begun yet.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chines...carrier_Fujian


given that the US holds a 4 to 1 advantage in super carriers (and classifying the non-catapult Chinese carriers as "super carriers" is a bit of a stretch) and 2 to 1 (possibly 3 to 1) in assault carriers the Chinese might be making a mistake by planning the type 004 a nuclear powered carrier. the cost is a factor, they are facing the same extended design and shakedown time the US is experiencing with the Ford class and given it takes years to build a carrier nuclear powered or not (the complexity goes up an order of magnitude for nuclear as the US learned with the Enterprise) and to catch up within 10-15 years the Chinese would need to built 5 plus in parallel.

LHA/LHD may not be a fleet carrier, but they are carriers when they carry aircraft. it doesn't matter if they have catapult or arresting gear. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

LOL... yeah... you are simply wrong here.

Harriers and F-35 were/are flown from those gator carriers. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

F-35B's... not A's or C's. Harriers have been out of service for a long while.

early fleet carriers were small too. shall we say the lexington class carriers??? these gator carriers are of that size and low tonnage. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

LOL.. the reason they were that size and tonnage is because the aircraft flying off them were tiny in comparison to the size and weight of the aircraft today...

more like the Nimitz class which of course was based on the Forrestal


the chinese have studied all of the US carriers for many years in order to plan for their own design.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Forrestal


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimitz...rcraft_carrier


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Enterprise_(CVN-65)



when the US Navy designed the Enterprise the Navy wanted an all nuclear surface fleet and built two guided missile cruisers also nuclear powered as a proof of concept. it was called Task Force 1.




Task Force 1, the first nuclear-powered task force. Enterprise, Long Beach and Bainbridge in formation in the Mediterranean, 18 June 1964. Enterprise has Einstein's mass–energy equivalence formula E=mc² spelled out on its flight deck. Note the distinctive phased array radars in the superstructures of Enterprise and Long Beach.


the concept was abandoned for non-carriers due to the cost, it would have limited the total number of ships compared to conventional powered ships with limited budget money to spend.


the type 003 is not nuclear powered. the type 004 is expected to be nuclear powered and is under design now, however no construction has begun yet.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chines...carrier_Fujian


given that the US holds a 4 to 1 advantage in super carriers (and classifying the non-catapult Chinese carriers as "super carriers" is a bit of a stretch) and 2 to 1 (possibly 3 to 1) in assault carriers the Chinese might be making a mistake by planning the type 004 a nuclear powered carrier. the cost is a factor, they are facing the same extended design and shakedown time the US is experiencing with the Ford class and given it takes years to build a carrier nuclear powered or not (the complexity goes up an order of magnitude for nuclear as the US learned with the Enterprise) and to catch up within 10-15 years the Chinese would need to built 5 plus in parallel. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I was going by tonnage. the chinese carrier is in the 80K range.

while Forrestal was a smallish carrier, it was cool to see that a C-130 Herc land on it.

LOL... yeah... you are simply wrong here. Originally Posted by texassapper

actually, no. every naval experts have said that they are carriers.

so, are japan's carriers aircraft carriers even tho they claim it isn't?

F-35B's... not A's or C's. Harriers have been out of service for a long while.

it was a general reference to the aircraft involved. the harrier reference is referenced to Barley's time in the navy.

LOL.. the reason they were that size and tonnage is because the aircraft flying off them were tiny in comparison to the size and weight of the aircraft today...

no. it wasn't because of the size of the aircaft. the ship building & design tech wasn't where a larger size could be justified.

B-25 bombers took off from the Hornet aircraft carrier. why didn't they build bigger carriers then?

Once again the barley guy is completely wrong about the branch he claims to have served.

"Yes, The Chinese Navy Has More Ships Than The U.S. Navy. But It’s Got Far Fewer Missiles."

China now possesses the biggest navy in the world by number of hulls, the U.S. Defense Department confirmed in its recent report on Beijing’s armed forces.
But that’s not necessarily the metric that matters. “There’s more to the comparison than number of hulls,” Jerry Hendrix, author of To Provide and Maintain a Navy. “The real number in the competition is the number of missile tubes.”

Comparing the offensive missile capacities of the U.S. and Chinese fleets is illustrative. Yes, the People’s Liberation Army Navy has 355 front-line warships at least as large as a corvette—and more than 400 if you also count small coastal missile boats. The U.S. Navy by contrast has just 305 front-line ships.
But the American ships pack more than twice as many offensive missiles—and that’s not even counting the missiles that the U.S. fleet’s carrier air wings could bring to bear.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidax...-missiles/amp/

In your ignorance, you call for impeachment. If only you were smarter. You would realize China wouldn't let your lack of knowledge onto their ships. You try to undermine our navy by talking theirs up.

Kowtow much?

Yep, smaller. Far from the 600 ship navy envisioned by Ronald Reagan and the 350 ship navy put together by George W Bush. Biden wants to shrink the navy down to 296 ships. Seems that climate change is a bigger problem than China.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/na...et/ar-AA18Mru4

I would consider this an impeachable offense for giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

https://americanmilitarynews.com/202...dget-proposal/ Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

Okay, who's gonna pull out the Jane's Manual?

Speaking of the Lexington (class), there is a good series of post on IG by Grey Haze or Haze Grey about them. Guy is REALLY good with his post.

Otherwise, for y'alls entertainment before tempers flare