• 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

Road to 350: What Does the US Navy Do Anyway?

AIRMMCPORET said:
Well we better figure it out because the Chinese army sitting on their laurels.
Click to expand...
The E in DIME is going to be far more impactful than any military response.

If China keeps going down its current path, its economy and military will be about as strong as Russia's in 20 years. They need massive amounts of our dollars to sustain themselves, and they don't have it anymore.

Also, a deterrent Navy does not necessarily have to be bigger (in terms of # of ships) than the nation it's deterring. It merely has to be big enough to give them pause about the cost of attacking.
 
Last edited:
A surface-based nuclear deterrent? Did I understand that correctly? It seems to me that will seriously limit the tactical flexibility of the platform.

Color me skeptical. The only positive step I see is in ship (not class) naming. I wouldn’t have thought this bunch of clowns had it in them, but Defiant is actually a pretty cool ship name.

I was a Star Trek and British naval history nerd growing up. Imagine my disappointment as a MIDN, learning we don’t tend to name our ships that way.

Trump class though? Hard pass. Though it will be fun watching him get frustrated as the PMA nitpicks and over-constrains things, ultimately neutering his namesake design.
 
Last edited:
CommodoreMid said:
I do like the name Defiant though. Would be nice to borrow from the Brit tradition of naming ships after attributes like that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the British naming convention of adverbs / adjectives to build morale is superior to our naming conventions. HMS Invincible has panache to it; USS Gerald R Ford does not. We used to have cool names for subs when they were named after aggressive fish, but that went by the wayside.

It also took me way too long that the British start almost every name of a ship in its class with the same letter.
 
sevenhelmet said:
A surface-based nuclear deterrent? Did I understand that correctly? It seems to me that will seriously limit the tactical flexibility of the platform.
Click to expand...

That went out of fashion with the USS Long Beach, which was originally supposed to have some Polaris's.

1766508470102.png
 
Spekkio said:
Yeah, the British naming convention of adverbs / adjectives to build morale is superior to our naming conventions. HMS Invincible has panache to it; USS Gerald R Ford does not. We used to have cool names for subs when they were named after aggressive fish, but that went by the wayside.

It also took me way too long that the British start almost every name of a ship in its class with the same letter.
Click to expand...
I was today years old when I learned that then!
 
sevenhelmet said:
A surface-based nuclear deterrent? Did I understand that correctly? It seems to me that will seriously limit the tactical flexibility of the platform.

Color me skeptical. The only positive step I see is in ship (not class) naming. I wouldn’t have thought this bunch of clowns had it in them, but Defiant is actually a pretty cool ship name.

I was a Star Trek and British naval history nerd growing up. Imagine my disappointment as a MIDN, learning we don’t tend to name our ships that way.

Trump class though? Hard pass. Though it will be fun watching him get frustrated as the PMA nitpicks and over-constrains things, ultimately neutering his namesake design.
Click to expand...
Do you have a Star Trek video game you can recommend? I still like Star Trek Starfleet Command 2 from about 2000.

taxi1 said:
Big Beautiful tarGet

My idea, take an existing ship and have it tow a barge with missilized containers.

View attachment 44182

Worst case, you cut the line...

View attachment 44180
Click to expand...

Do you anticipate it sailing with the battlegroup (where it would have the largest VLS capacity) or operating as the centerpiece of a surface action group?

That said, the refits for the Iowas discussed 400+ VLS so 128 seems disappointing.

Interested in the power plant, and how much power the engines will make - and will armor in any form make a comeback to help stop the naval drone / air drone threat.
 
Randy Daytona said:
Interested in the power plant, and how much power the engines will make - and will armor in any form make a comeback to help stop the naval drone / air drone threat.
Click to expand...

Talked to a colleague, who has a decent understanding of ship design and who has worked on railguns in the past, and he thinks it would need to be nuke powered given its size and everything they plan put on it.
 
Last edited:
CommodoreMid said:
I do like the name Defiant though. Would be nice to borrow from the Brit tradition of naming ships after attributes like that.
Click to expand...
My favorite carrier name has always been Intrepid. At one time there was a planned Reprisal (CV-35, an extended bow Essex Class). Similar names we could draw from are Independence and Ranger. From the UK we could steal Resolution, Valiant, Courageous, and Indomitable. I’d shy away from Boaty McBoatface.
 
Actually Boaty McBoatface and the like should be option for things like LCUs and LCACs. I’m pretty sure Army tank crews get to name their tanks officially unofficially, why is that not a thing for our ACU squadron Sailors?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top