Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump Shifting Authority Over Military Operations Back to Pentagon

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Bass_Man86 View Post
    Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Now, let's see if the Donald takes it a step further and moves away from that "embedded reporter" idea. Freedom of the press is great, but it's applicable within the borders of the USA and its territories. Reporters tagging along with military units during military operations are nothing but a "security violation."
    Not to mention a right pain in the ass. I've seen it up close and personal and it's a damned nuisance.
    We are not now that strength which in old days
    Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
    Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
    To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

    Comment


    • #17
      High jacked the op.
      Nice work you leftist saboteurs!
      Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

      Comment


      • #18
        The CnC's job description is to put the right people in the right leadership positions. The CnC's approval or disapproval of how those people are leading their campaigns should be handled by those between the CnC and the campaign's leader....or in the extreme by relieving said leader of command. The CnC should never get involved in the 'on the ground' operations, not only does it put him directly in the line to have his tactical acumen questioned when his job involves Zero tactical acumen, it also shows a complete lack of confidence in those he's put in positions under him.

        As far as procurement goes, that is in the CnC's purview. I wouldn't say every humvee, or specific bits and pieces here and there for specialty stuff. But when you're spending umpteen billion quid, then the CnC should be in the 'advice and consent' role and stop the buck at his desk for final sign-off.

        Notice I haven't been saying President. Because CnC relationship works whether you're president or another elected official functioning as a Commander in Chief. I work for a Sheriff, and while he shouldn't be on scene directly supervising a deputy, or hand approving every purchase of a taser cartridge or set of tires, he should sign off on vehicle purchase and design, as well as other major end items.

        No one has been 'responsible' for the F35 or Ford CVN programs. Or the Zumwalt or LCS programs either. It's been a 'group effort' with 'group responsibility' and that sort of groupthink is idiotic and has proven to produce substandard work at superfluous price points. I'm a proponent of appointing an officer to run a program with the authority to shut the program down.....and hinging his career on the program. But since that's not going to happen, the President stepping in to put a hand on procurement and ask the hard questions, is better than continuing to 'trust the experts' blindly. A stupid person can ask simple questions which baffle the intelligent....ever seen a cop ask a doctor questions and you'll know what I mean. It does not take sweeping and perfect knowledge to ask meaningful questions....sometimes a 'why do you do it that way' or 'why did you go for this option when the older option works just fine' is vitally important to keeping things under control.
        Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by johns624 View Post
          Yeah, Donald Trump the "hands off" military president. Then why is he meddling in the AF1, Ford CVN and F35 procurements?
          That's the political budget process, not personally managing the Pentagon.

          Big difference. Do you let your kids decide what they want to buy at every store they go to?
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            That's the political budget process, not personally managing the Pentagon.

            Big difference. Do you let your kids decide what they want to buy at every store they go to?
            It would be okay if he was briefed on what he was talking about, but when he talks about "digital" catapults and says that his private jet (757) is bigger than AF1 (747), he comes across as a buffoon.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by johns624 View Post
              It would be okay if he was briefed on what he was talking about, but when he talks about "digital" catapults and says that his private jet (757) is bigger than AF1 (747), he comes across as a buffoon.
              At least he hasn't claimed to have visited all 58 States ...
              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                With some degree of forward vision, the hulls could have been placed aside in a completed fashion to allow their conversion to missile cruisers in the mid to late 50's as part of the ongoing Projects Bumblebee (became the Talos SAM) and Typhoon (eventually became Aegis).

                This would allow the USN to build an improved and not so crowded and grotesque missile cruiser...

                They did try to convert the ships into "Missile Cruisers", but with the draw down in ship building they decided they were not a good long term investment. The thing was they were able to convert a number of Cleveland Light Cruiser hulls into CVL's. If they could do a similar conversion on top of the Alaska Deck armor, they could have had a similar ship to the Midway class. With the Battlecruiser engines they would have been very fast.

                Pruitt
                Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                  The thing was they were able to convert a number of Cleveland Light Cruiser hulls into CVL's. If they could do a similar conversion on top of the Alaska Deck armor, they could have had a similar ship to the Midway class. With the Battlecruiser engines they would have been very fast.

                  Pruitt
                  You don't understand the difference, do you? The USN needed a CVL and had a large number of the same CL hull available for conversion, so the design work was cost effective. The navy already had a fine CV in production, the Essex-class, and the design work for a couple of one-off conversions wasn't worth the money and time required.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
                    You don't understand the difference, do you? The USN needed a CVL and had a large number of the same CL hull available for conversion, so the design work was cost effective. The navy already had a fine CV in production, the Essex-class, and the design work for a couple of one-off conversions wasn't worth the money and time required.
                    The same thinking kept the Navy from building the CVX type ocean liner conversions that were part of pre-war planning. The USN had colluded with shipping companies and builders to construct a number of large ocean liners in the 20's and 30's that had designed in features making their conversion easier to do. USN pre-war planning had designated 8 such CVX conversions.
                    But, by the time war came, the 23 to 26 knot liners were considered a poor use of resources and would have made marginal carriers. The similarly, if less planned, conversion of liners by the Japanese into Hiyo and Junyo showed this clearly.
                    Those two carriers couldn't operate effectively with Japanese 30 knot plus fleet carriers. They carried fewer planes for their size because of inefficiencies in layout, and had less ordinance storage.

                    Likewise, the CVL Independence class had serious limitations in terms of design. The hulls had to be bulged to improve stability. The small air wing wasn't flexible, and these ships generally became fighter carriers for CAP operations over the rest of the fleet. Their defensive armament was considered quite inadequate, as it consisted of just 20mm and 40mm AA guns.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Alaska Class - BC - Use and Varibles ~

                      So with nine 12" guns as main battery, we are talking something in the niether of Crusier to Battleship. These excerpts of Wiki may provide some perspective ...
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska-class_cruiser

                      Select EXCERPTS:

                      ...
                      The Alaska class was a class of six large cruisers ordered before World War II for the United States Navy. They were officially classed as large cruisers (CB), but others have regarded them as battlecruisers. They were all named after territories or insular areas of the United States, signifying their intermediate status between larger battleships and smaller heavy and light cruisers.[C] Of the six planned, two were completed, the third's construction was suspended on 16 April 1947, and the last three were cancelled. Alaska and Guam served with the U.S. Navy for the last year of World War II as bombardment ships and fast carrier escorts. They were decommissioned in 1947 after spending only 32 and 29 months in service, respectively.
                      The idea for a large cruiser class originated in the early 1930s when the U.S. Navy sought to counter Deutschland-class "pocket battleships" being launched by Germany. Planning for ships that eventually evolved into the Alaska class began in the late 1930s after the deployment of Germany's Scharnhorst-class battleships and rumors that Japan was constructing a new battlecruiser class.[7][D] To serve as "cruiser-killers" capable of seeking out and destroying these post-Treaty heavy cruisers, the class was given large guns of a new and expensive design, limited armor protection against 12-inch shells, and machinery capable of speeds of about 3133 knots (5761 km/h; 3638 mph).
                      ...
                      The initial impetus for the Alaska design came from the deployments of Germany's so-called pocket battleships in the early 1930s. Though no actions were immediately taken, these thoughts were revived in the late 1930s when intelligence reports indicated Japan was planning or building "super cruisers" that would be much more powerful than the current US heavy cruisers.[3][6][11][13][E] The navy responded in 1938 when the General Board asked the Bureau of Construction and Repair to conduct a "comprehensive study of all types of naval vessels for consideration for a new and expanded building program".[14] The US President at the time, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, may have taken a lead role in the development of the class with his desire to have a counter to raiding abilities of Japanese cruisers and German pocket battleships.[15] While these claims are difficult to verify,[6][16] they have led to the speculation that their design was "politically motivated".[17]

                      ...
                      Possible conversion to aircraft carriers



                      Alaska being launched on 15 August 1943.


                      Yet another drastic change was considered during the "carrier panic" in late 1941, when the US Navy realized that they needed more aircraft carriers as quickly as possible. Many hulls currently under construction were considered for conversion into carriers. At different times, they considered some or all of the Cleveland-class light cruisers, the Baltimore-class heavy cruisers, the Alaska class, and even one of the Iowa-class battleships; in the end, they chose the Clevelands,[22] resulting in the conversion of nine ships under construction at the New York Shipbuilding Corporation shipyard as the light aircraft carriers comprising the Independence-class.
                      A conversion of the Alaska cruisers to carriers was "particularly attractive"[22] because of the many similarities between the design of the Essex-class aircraft carriers and the Alaska class, including the same machinery.[23] However, when Alaska cruisers were compared to the Essex carriers, converted cruisers would have had a shorter flight deck (so they could carry only 90% of the aircraft),[22] would have been 11 feet (3.4 m) lower in the water, and could travel 8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km) less at 15 knots (28 km/h; 17 mph). In addition, the large cruiser design did not include the massive underwater protections found in normal carriers due to the armor weight devoted to counter shell fire. Lastly, an Alaska conversion could not satisfy the navy's goal of having new aircraft carriers quickly, as the work needed to modify the ships into carriers would entail long delays. With this in mind, all planning to convert the Alaskas was abandoned on 7 January 1942.[24]

                      ...
                      Service history



                      Guam during her shakedown cruise on 13 November 1944


                      Alaska and Guam served with the U.S. Navy during the last year of World War II. Similar to the Iowa-class fast battleships, their speed made them useful as shore bombardment ships and fast carrier escorts. Both protected Franklin when she was on her way to be repaired in Guam after being hit by two Japanese bombs. Afterward, Alaska supported the landings on Okinawa, while Guam went to San Pedro Bay to become the leader of a new task force, Cruiser Task Force 95. Guam, joined by Alaska, four light cruisers, and nine destroyers, led the task force into the East China and Yellow Seas to conduct raids upon shipping; however, they only encountered Chinese junks.[1][2] By the end of the war, the two had become celebrated within the fleet as excellent carrier escorts.[8] During the war, both ships were part of Cruiser Division 16 commanded by Rear Admiral Francis S. Low, USN.[29][30][31]
                      After the war, both ships served as part of Task Force 71, the designation for the U.S. Seventh Fleet's North China Naval Force. Its mission was to support the allied occupation of the Korean peninsula.[32][33] This included executing various show-the-flag operations along the western coast of Korea as well as in the Gulf of Chihli. These naval demonstrations preceded Operation Campus, the amphibious landing of U.S. Army ground forces at Jinsen, Korea, on 8 September 1945.[34][35] Subsequently, both ships returned to the United States in mid-December 1945, and they were decommissioned and "mothballed" in 1947.[1][2] after having spent 32 months (Alaska) and 29 months (Guam) in service.[19]

                      ...
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska-class_cruiser
                      TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        In consideration of above, I'm wondering if the Alaska Class couldn't have been seen as an Amphibious Landing Bombardment Support Ship ~ AL/BSS ~ for any Support Task Force assisting any overseas landing efforts. ???

                        Bottom-line, is keeping a couple of 12"ers more cost effective over 2-3 16"ers (Missouri Class BB) and/or complimentary? Image a mix of say three 16" BB and two 12" BC, where anywhere from 2-3 might be deployable to support any over shore landing/insertion Operation, over a six to twelve month scope of operations. ???

                        Something to be said about "dead-weight" ballistics impacts over costly precision-guided - self-propelled in some applications at least ...

                        Even terminally guided ballistic warheads are cheaper than self-propelled(missile) ones. IMO!
                        Last edited by G David Bock; 12 Jun 17, 18:36. Reason: text adjustments
                        TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Perhaps you should consider that there were only so many berths available to build Essex Carriers and they were in use building them. If you convert the three Alaskas, you would have three more Essex size Carriers and not Independence Light Carriers. They would not have had as much armor as the Battlecruisers, and that may have offset the hull shape. The Independences were very vulnerable to battle damage.

                          I think they should have at least tried to convert the Alaska before it was too far down construction. I don't really care if you don't like the idea. It has just been shown that the Admirals did consider the idea. By the way, the US also built more CVE's than any other Navy. These were not Essex's but they were very valuable when there very few Carriers period.

                          Pruitt
                          Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                          Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                          by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Do you realize how many thousands of hours engineering and draft work would be required? You just can't have a ship sitting in a drydock waiting for design work.
                            You say the admirals considered; and rejected it, but I guess that means that you're smarter than the admirals. Why don't you, for once in your life, admit that you're wrong, because now you look foolish.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              So far you are the only one that thinks I look foolish. I can live with that, can you? Besides if the Independence class could be produced quickly, I think an Alaska conversion would not be a lot of work. Besides why are you making this personal? You should debate the idea, not the person.

                              Pruitt
                              Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                              Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                              by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Pruitt View Post
                                So far you are the only one that thinks I look foolish. I can live with that, can you? Besides if the Independence class could be produced quickly, I think an Alaska conversion would not be a lot of work. Besides why are you making this personal? You should debate the idea, not the person.

                                Pruitt
                                I am debating the issue; you're just not listening. What would be the purpose of doing a complete redesign of the Alaskas when there are only 2? It takes as much to redesign if you're making two or ten, but the ten is more efficient. Besides, the Essex class was being built and was purpose built to be carriers. Who cares how fast the Alaska-class carriers would have been if the rest of the fleet couldn't match their speed. Read TAG's post. He said the same thing.

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X