• 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?

With aesthetics as the top priority for our ships, I would suggest two measures to improve the look of American aircraft carriers:
1) The flight deck is typically very visually cluttered with aircraft, aircraft handling equipment, etc. Let's reduce the clutter by stowing the entire air wing on the hangar deck. Just bring them up when you want to launch.
2) The straight line of the flight deck is not aesthetically pleasing. Make it curvy.

Anybody with me on this, or is it just POTUS and me?
 
taxi1 said:
Might even just be you on this one.
Click to expand...
I recognize the first aesthetic modification requires trade-offs; the new carrier air wing would probably be a single VFA, a reduced size VAW with perhaps two E-2Ds and a det with just a few helos. But since everything below the hangar deck would be the same, you'd have terrific fuel and ordnance capacity for the wing, reducing unrep needs. You'd need many fewer personnel for the much smaller wing; new JOs would have spacious staterooms and LCDR-up would have suites. I think of it as a win-win. But of course a major lose on combat effectiveness.
 
Llarry said:
I recognize the first aesthetic modification requires trade-offs; the new carrier air wing would probably be a single VFA, a reduced size VAW with perhaps two E-2Ds and a det with just a few helos. But since everything below the hangar deck would be the same, you'd have terrific fuel and ordnance capacity for the wing, reducing unrep needs. You'd need many fewer personnel for the much smaller wing; new JOs would have spacious staterooms and LCDR-up would have suites. I think of it as a win-win. But of course a major lose on combat effectiveness.
Click to expand...

Since nobody would ever build it anyway, does combat effectiveness even matter any more?

I’m kidding… sorta.
 
Llarry said:
I recognize the first aesthetic modification requires trade-offs; the new carrier air wing would probably be a single VFA, a reduced size VAW with perhaps two E-2Ds and a det with just a few helos. But since everything below the hangar deck would be the same, you'd have terrific fuel and ordnance capacity for the wing, reducing unrep needs. You'd need many fewer personnel for the much smaller wing; new JOs would have spacious staterooms and LCDR-up would have suites. I think of it as a win-win. But of course a major lose on combat effectiveness.
Click to expand...
By the time we’re done converting our carriers to steam catapults there won’t be any manned strike aircraft anyway.

carnegieendowment.org

Are All Wars Now Drone Wars?

From Sudan to Ukraine, UAVs have upended warfighting tactics and become one of the most destructive weapons of conflict.
carnegieendowment.org carnegieendowment.org
 
sevenhelmet said:
Since nobody would ever build it anyway, does combat effectiveness even matter any more?

I’m kidding… sorta.
Click to expand...

It is odd that after all this talk of "lethality," aesthetics seem to be a top priority.

Kind of like how the President's major fixations appear to be a ballroom that looks like Liberace's bathroom and DC's biggest musical theater venue. Every "Alpha" is deeper in the closet than fucking Narnia.
 
$40T in debt and counting... I'm thinking government business and bonds aren't great places to be for long-term planning.

The Brits overcame debt at 260% of their GDP after the Napoleonic wars, but it took a century and an industrial revolution, and they still never got back to where they were before.
 
sevenhelmet said:
$40T in debt and counting... I'm thinking government business and bonds aren't great places to be for long-term planning.

The Brits overcame debt at 260% of their GDP after the Napoleonic wars, but it took a century and an industrial revolution, and they still never got back to where they were before.
Click to expand...
If T-bills tank, nothing is safe. They undergird the whole financial system as a safe harbor, and are the baseline for a no-risk interest rate.
 
phrogdriver said:
If T-bills tank, nothing is safe. They undergird the whole financial system as a safe harbor, and are the baseline for a no-risk interest rate.
Click to expand...

Not sure they'll tank (at least not immediately), but with interest costs crowding out an increasing fraction of the budget, I think it'll get harder and harder to make money on government contracts, and government services will continue to deteriorate.
 
phrogdriver said:
It is odd that after all this talk of "lethality," aesthetics seem to be a top priority.

Kind of like how the President's major fixations appear to be a ballroom that looks like Liberace's bathroom and DC's biggest musical theater venue. Every "Alpha" is deeper in the closet than fucking Narnia.
Click to expand...
Isn't the "ballroom" just an upper level for the POTUS fuhrer bunker?
 
sevenhelmet said:
Not sure they'll tank (at least not immediately), but with interest costs crowding out an increasing fraction of the budget, I think it'll get harder and harder to make money on government contracts, and government services will continue to deteriorate.
Click to expand...
And yet there is a huge cohort of techno-optimists that believe AI will create so much value as to eliminate the impact of our debt over time.

We'll see.

I'm in the camp that any serious attempt to address deficit spending and our debt is impossible in the current political construct. My personal fear is there is nowhere to hide financially, even with a fairly diverse savings/investment portfolio.

I'm praying smart people are working on all this.
 
ChuckMK23 said:
And yet there is a huge cohort of techno-optimists that believe AI will create so much value as to eliminate the impact of our debt over time.

We'll see.

I'm in the camp that any serious attempt to address deficit spending and our debt is impossible in the current political construct. My personal fear is there is nowhere to hide financially, even with a fairly diverse savings/investment portfolio.

I'm praying smart people are working on all this.
Click to expand...

Own real things and diversify. That's really the best you can do.

"Smart" people are either profiting off current conditions, or completely decoupled from them. Nobody is coming to rescue us, except us.
 
Llarry said:
I recognize the first aesthetic modification requires trade-offs; the new carrier air wing would probably be a single VFA, a reduced size VAW with perhaps two E-2Ds and a det with just a few helos. But since everything below the hangar deck would be the same, you'd have terrific fuel and ordnance capacity for the wing, reducing unrep needs. You'd need many fewer personnel for the much smaller wing; new JOs would have spacious staterooms and LCDR-up would have suites. I think of it as a win-win. But of course a major lose on combat effectiveness.
Click to expand...
Catapult direct from the hangar, angled up 20-30 degrees. Just saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top