Being prepared for a conflict means keeping serviceable the old ships, especially carriers. Currently there are six oil fueled platforms in mothballs, but ready to spring to service if needed. Then Obama found them.
Since the start of 2014, the Obama Administration has been actually rushing these conventional-fueled ships to Brownsville, Texas, to be scrapped. Four of these ships, USS Forrestal (CV 59), USS Saratoga (CV 60), USS Ranger (CV 61), and USS Constellation (CV 64) have been towed to Brownsville, and a fifth, USS Independence (CV 62), is slated to join them.
That is bad enough, but a sixth carrier, USS Enterprise (CVN 65), was also slated for the scrap yard, and the Obama Administration has already begun that task, even as Russia and China have become more aggressive. How Obama guts the navy is on the next page:
MikeBledsoe. Your wall is as f**e as your comment. The ships should be repaired.. not dismantled.
Every time I see these pseudo patriots, this is what I think
https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/aXSVSE0iQLodzku26bP9xg–/dz03MDU7Y2M9NjA0ODAwO2FwcGlkPXNyY2hkZA–/http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Me8c83eb6415e40bc155f4462b2235579H0&pid=15.1
Alright… I did serve 10 years active. I served on 2 ships. The Kennedy and the Spruance. Broke my heart when they sunk her. The ships can be activated more quickly than building a new one. Even with the upgrades she will need. Only if they were taken care of to begin with. But if they didn’t then they are rust buckets. Can you agree with that? Or am I still a “pseudo patriot”?
Do you seriously think these old ships can be retrofitted with modern electronics and weaponry easier and faster than building a new class of ship from scratch?? From what I read, the time, cost and effort to retrofit an old ship is much more time-consuming and expensive than just building a new one.
Lisa, you never told me to “move elsewhere”, so your service makes you so much more than pseudo.
I live in Orange, Texas, where there is a “mothball fleet”, supposedly to be used in case of major war, where massive amounts of ships and firepower would be needed.
That concept derived after WWII, with what had happened after WWI in mind. We had been woefully unprepared in terms of ships, personnel, and materiel.
Today’s Navy brings more firepower in one Arleigh Burke class than a major cruiser in WWII had. Seeing the mothball fleet here, it is almost inconceivable to see them being ready, as they are closer to rust bucket, than fleet.
Thanks for your service sailor! My comment was more directed at one Alia…
Ray, what takes the most time is building the hull, than fitting out. Issue here is, as Lisa pointed out, the status as “rust bucket”, which is more of a danger than outdated weapons and systems. If hull integrity sucks, a new ship is better.
My whole point is BO is not reducing the Navy, in fact it has grown during his term. There is a perfectly good reason those ships are being scrapped—and it has nothing to do with BO being a muslim…………
Littoral warfare vessels. Carriers are the “quarterbacks” of the Navy, hence the faux anger.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Littoral_combat_ship
A carrier can’t do a lot of the things these guys can. Shallow draft is a big reason.