Very good point. I didn't mean to imply it was like an old Chrysler K-Car you kept in the backyard. Care, maintenance and operational capability are critical things to keep up - and expensive.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Pentagon To Retire USS Truman Early, Shrinking Carrier Fleet To 10
- Thread starter Maxillarious
- Start date
In a perfect world it is actually a decent idea, unfortunately the Navy and DoD will not use the asset that way and a lot of folks would get screwed over again.
I can't believe this is real. It looks like it was written by a high school student armed with Wikipedia and a tenuous understanding of proper nouns who couldn't stop resting his hand on the period button.
exNavyOffRec
Well-Known Member
A CVN isn't something you can just park, turn off the lights and come back to it when you need it, there are requirements for maintenance, requirements for nuclear watchstanders, and aging of the systems. A CVN is something that if you are going to have you need to be using it.
No, it isn't but a CVN in a semi-permanent 'reduced readiness' status, where she is still operated but not regularly deployed, isn't necessarily a bad idea if it could save significant money. Unfortunately it likely wouldn't work for a myriad of reasons, namely the savings likely wouldn't be significant enough to justify it.
Maybe not the best comparison, but putting JFK into a reserve status in the mid 1990's turned out to be a bad decision when we needed to spin her back up. Seems like that's a fresh lessons learned file.
With a CVN, I can see where the problems from layup to spinup would be orders of magnitude greater.
With a CVN, I can see where the problems from layup to spinup would be orders of magnitude greater.
That is the example I used earlier, it didn't go well after they reversed the decision but didn't fund a lot of necessary fixes.
In a constrained fiscal environment it may make sense though, the Brits are going to effectively do to do that with their 'spare' carrier when the other one is fully up and deployable, we likely wouldn't let it work though.
“Air dominance since 1953 ... the last time an enemy aircraft killed a U.S. service member”
Are you fucking kidding me?
The ellipsis shit alone is worthy of a throat punch.
For god knows whatever reason, I saved this on a C: drive a long time ago, and it has followed my system changes ever since. A grim read (even if it is all caps...).
Believe it or not that is actually a really big talking point with the USAF, I've heard it repeated many a time by air superiority...sorry...Air Dominance (sts) advocates.
And completely false
When was the last time then? I laugh at them about it but I thought it was accurate.
EDIT: Good article on the incident in 1953. After the USAF's F-94's couldn't intercept the low, slow fliers the North Koreans were using for night time attacks they called in Navy Corsair night-fighters and the Navy's only Korean War ace, Guy Bordelon, was the result.
Last edited:
Lots of air to air kills by the enemy since then. Aircrew are servicemembers. I’d say the last time was 1991.
True, and would that be the Speicher incident?