Chinese, Russian Navies Launch Largest Ever Joint Drill In South China Sea

[Crispin]

Which parts are "breaking down"? The article doesnt seem to convey it as a critical problem, and far from indicates it would be an issue in an actual war.

You also seem to miss this part on the USS Ford

“The USS Ford, like every first-of-class ship ever built, has and will continue to face challenges,” Commander Mike Kafka, a Navy spokesman, said in an interview. “However, the capabilities resident on Ford are needed now and in the future, and the Navy will continue to work hard to get Ford completed and into the fleet, paying close attention to both new and legacy systems.”

Apparently (and obviously for most new tech), but I can see how you'd rather read it as "hah! They're failing hurray!"

[Kellhound]

"Navy: Half the Carrier Fleet Tied Up In Maintenance, Other 5 Strained To Meet Demands"


Please, keep digging.

You know, what you posted actually backs up what I am saying. Four deployments with only one maintenance availability, 24 months of availability instead of the planned 14, having to use the carriers more than they were designed for.... I am going to assume you are not a mechanically inclined person, or you would understand.

- - - Updated - - -

Which parts are "breaking down"? The article doesnt seem to convey it as a critical problem, and far from indicates it would be an issue in an actual war.

You also seem to miss this part on the USS Ford



Apparently (and obviously for most new tech), but I can see how you'd rather read it as "hah! They're failing hurray!"

The main problem is she is revolutionary and not evolutionary. That tends to lead to more teething issues.

[ringpriest]

You know, what you posted actually backs up what I am saying. Four deployments with only one maintenance availability, 24 months of availability instead of the planned 14, having to use the carriers more than they were designed for.... I am going to assume you are not a mechanically inclined person, or you would understand.

"US Navy Faces $848 Million Ops & Maintenance Shortfall"

As the Navy moves through the fiscal year’s third quarter, officials are preparing to take several actions to limit 2016 spending:

• Deferring overhauls on four surface ships and one submarine from the fourth quarter of fiscal 2016 into fiscal 2017’s first quarter;
• “descoping” or deferring continuous maintenance for the assault ships Makin Island and America amphibious ready groups and the Carl Vinson aircraft carrier strike group;
• Restricting Carrier Air Wing 1 (CVW-1) flying hours, including imposing a four-month no-fly period, and limiting other flying hour program costs; and
• deferring “various other contracts.”

We are not currently providing our Navy with the resources it needs to do what we ask,” Forbes said Thursday in his opening statement. “At least not without burning out our ships and our planes and our sailors and undermining our long-term readiness.”

The Navy itself, Forbes said, notes that the service is at its “lowest readiness point in many years.

“The resources we have been allocating to that critical function of government have been woefully inadequate,” he intoned.

While Fleet Forces Commander Adm. Phil Davidson read an opening statement, the hearing sought to bring the readiness issue closer to the deck plates, and four Navy captains testified as to the effects on their commands and communities.

Capt. Randy Stearns, commodore of Strike Fighter Wing Atlantic, said one in four aircraft were usually deployed and noted there were extreme issues with older F/A-18 Hornet strike fighters and CH-53 helicopters. Non-deploying aircraft were regularly being robbed of parts to keep deployed planes flying, he said, with the result that the fleet had little surge capacity should more aircraft be needed in action.

You don't seem (willing) to grasp the point - the US is pushing its men and machines beyond their limits (and their replacements are not up to snuff); you can eat your seed corn for a while, but eventually you run out completely - typically at the worst possible time. The PLAN doesn't need to kill a carrier, it can just wait for an inopportune maintenance casualty from which the US will have no way to recover - meanwhile there are no real plans to pull back and get everything back to the baseline that it was once at, that let the USN get away with years of deferred maintenance, instead it's just year after year of the USN spouting grandiose plans while kicking the same can down the road until they current crop of admirals have their fat sinecures. But don't worry, I'm sure the spirit of bushido will see the US through, by jingo; it's so much more effective than acknowledging reality and planning around it - just look at how well it worked for the IJN!.

[Raldazzar]

Whilst I do not disagree with the sentiment.. the amount of yanks here who think they could stomp all over everything all the time.. its like don't you see? this is why the world hates you.. hubris. and for no great reason. time and time again history has shown us, money doesn't make the winner, hell your own countries history tells that! so why do you think that same does not apply TO you?

Russias ships may be older, same for planes, but they are just as deadly. and capable of messing up your day real bad if underestimated which it seems like they are.

[ringpriest]

The main problem is she is revolutionary and not evolutionary. That tends to lead to more teething issues.

The "main problem" is that the Ford is an aircraft carrier fundamentally unsuitable for conducting air combat operations - what's wrong with the electromagnetic catapults is that they don't work well enough (because they're not reliable enough for combat operations); and the Navy has been at that point for years. The Ford review, like the recent LCS review, is likely going to be something of a "let's make lemonade" conclusion, but there's no getting around the fact that lemonade wasn't supposed to be on the menu in the first place.

[Kellhound]

"US Navy Faces $848 Million Ops & Maintenance Shortfall"



You don't seem (willing) to grasp the point - the US is pushing its men and machines beyond their limits (and their replacements are not up to snuff); you can eat your seed corn for a while, but eventually you run out completely - typically at the worst possible time. The PLAN doesn't need to kill a carrier, it can just wait for an inopportune maintenance casualty from which the US will have no way to recover - meanwhile there are no real plans to pull back and get everything back to the baseline that it was once at, that let the USN get away with years of deferred maintenance, instead it's just year after year of the USN spouting grandiose plans while kicking the same can down the road until they current crop of admirals have their fat sinecures. But don't worry, I'm sure the spirit of bushido will see the US through, by jingo; it's so much more effective than acknowledging reality and planning around it - just look at how well it worked for the IJN!.

Even with 5 carriers, there is never a time the USN cannot send a carrier to sea if needed. But I know you have no understanding of how the USN operates and what is is capable of when required. Also, we were talking about reliability, not deferred maintenance, but I know you are duty bound to only find fault. As for the Ford, she has about 8 years to be corrected before the Nimitz has to be retired.

Oh, and fyi, CVW-1 isnt assigned to a carrier, so cutting back on their flight hours does not impact readiness and the Carl Vinson just finished a Planned Incremental Availability. I am not arguing the USN is less prepared to perform surge operations than it should be, but it is still capable of deploying more major surface combatants than any other navy and shall remain able to do so for the foreseeable future.

- - - Updated - - -

The "main problem" is that the Ford is an aircraft carrier fundamentally unsuitable for conducting air combat operations - what's wrong with the electromagnetic catapults is that they don't work well enough (because they're not reliable enough for combat operations); and the Navy has been at that point for years. The Ford review, like the recent LCS review, is likely going to be something of a "let's make lemonade" conclusion, but there's no getting around the fact that lemonade wasn't supposed to be on the menu in the first place.

The Ford is still able to conduct air ops better than any non-US carrier in existence.


Keep in mind, even with the issues, right now 3 carriers and 4 aviation amphibs are at sea, a total of 84 battle force ships are underway, and 3700 aircraft are OPERATIONAL.

[Bakis]

18 ships, they must have dug deep in their pockets *smirk*

[caervek]

I wish Regans space Lazer dream came true

I heard they scrapped it to focus on lasers

[Guy4123]

Whilst I do not disagree with the sentiment.. the amount of yanks here who think they could stomp all over everything all the time.. its like don't you see? this is why the world hates you.. hubris. and for no great reason. time and time again history has shown us, money doesn't make the winner, hell your own countries history tells that! so why do you think that same does not apply TO you?

Russias ships may be older, same for planes, but they are just as deadly. and capable of messing up your day real bad if underestimated which it seems like they are.

You can't underestimate something that basically doesn't exist. Russia's navy is mostly made up on patrol boats and corvettes. If war ever broke out it's navy would be a non factor.

[caervek]

Dragon and Giant Panda (Two national animals I think).

Well, one animal and one mythological creature.

They should have gone all out with the giant dracopanda!

[Deleted]

Google says it's the Panda. Which isn't a bear, I think.

I think Pandas are hamsters, my cousin claimed.

[Ulmita]

You can't underestimate something that basically doesn't exist. Russia's navy is mostly made up on patrol boats and corvettes. If war ever broke out it's navy would be a non factor.

Russia's navy is built around defense. Small ships packing a huge punch. It also has some of the world's best submarines and in some case (like diesel electric) world's best.

[caervek]

Google says it's the Panda. Which isn't a bear, I think.

They are a descendant of the bear subtype, the reason they spend the whole day eating bamboo instead of eating meat (they will eat meat instead if they find a decent corpse ofc) is simply because they have gotten so fat and slow from generations of sitting around eating and sleeping that they are now incapable of catching their natural prey, they basically evolved into Americans

[Deleted]

Russia's navy is built around defense. Small ships packing a huge punch. It also has some of the world's best submarines and in some case (like diesel electric) world's best.

FIRST VIDEO: Russian warships attack ISIS positions in Syria from Caspian Sea.

RT
Oct 7, 2015



Russia’s Defense Ministry has published a video of its warships firing cruise missiles from the Caspian Sea to hit the positions of Islamic State militants in Syria.

[Keeponrage]

is simply because they have gotten so fat and slow from generations of sitting around eating and sleeping that they are now incapable of catching their natural prey

what? wwwwwait... according to you, agile pandaren monks is all lies? No way!

[Flarelaine]

You can't underestimate something that basically doesn't exist. Russia's navy is mostly made up on patrol boats and corvettes. If war ever broke out it's navy would be a non factor.

Nuclear strike submarines tho.

[Deleted]

Oh, and fyi, CVW-1 isnt assigned to a carrier, so cutting back on their flight hours does not impact readiness and the Carl Vinson just finished a Planned Incremental Availability. I am not arguing the USN is less prepared to perform surge operations than it should be, but it is still capable of deploying more major surface combatants than any other navy and shall remain able to do so for the foreseeable future.

but that doesn't matter - Because the US navy will never engage enemy surface forces singularly, they will always have land based support.
Which means that China and or Russia does not need to be able to beat your navy, it barely needs parity.
While UK doctrine required a stronger navy than everyone else combined, You require a navy even stronger than that.
A US with no Navy is a country with no force projection capabilities to speak of, Russia or China with no navy still have force projection (in Eurasia, which is what matters). (the US also has a lot of allies in the regions but we skipped those)
The US is Australia made big.

[Ausr]

Is this another thread where Ulmita has to pretend Russia and China are bestest buddies and to prop up some laughable navies?

[Ulmita]

FIRST VIDEO: Russian warships attack ISIS positions in Syria from Caspian Sea.

RT
Oct 7, 2015



Russia’s Defense Ministry has published a video of its warships firing cruise missiles from the Caspian Sea to hit the positions of Islamic State militants in Syria.

And those are tiny ships. The horror of thinking they can put basically Tomahawks on such small ships..

[bison91]

So they actually gathered all 5 of the ships they have that could sink a single destroyer with focused fire before being sunk by a fishing ship crashing into them? WITHOUT one's engine burning out?

..was the first thought that came to mind. I'd apologize but I'm fairly sure even combined they'd struggle against the US's naval forces alone. Much less throwing in any potential allied navies. They can try to intimidate us all they want, it's actually adorable.

stop with the god damn propaganda, cant u be nice to other nations expect ur ego nation?!