Register here

Author Topic: Gerald R. Ford Class CVN  (Read 29621 times)

Offline kaiserd

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 289
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: Gerald R. Ford Class CVN
« Reply #105 on: May 16, 2017, 12:27:02 pm »
So another thread hijacking.  Oh well.

Specific to Obama and quotes on military matters:

"You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military has changed."

(Obama lecturing Romney followed up by actual plans on cutting the number of aircraft carriers down to 8 or 9).

And about that:

"Defense News reported that, while no decisions had been made, the Pentagon is actively considering eliminating one of the eleven aircraft carriers the U.S. Navy currently fields as part of its 2015 fiscal year budget request. The report, which cited numerous unnamed sources “in the Pentagon, on Capitol Hill, [and] in the defense industry,” said that a carrier air wing could also be eliminated as part of the FY 2015 budget."

And

The new O-FRP (Optimized Fleet Response Plan) appears to be in keeping with one of the two strategic options U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the U.S. military had in absorbing defense cuts. Specifically, Hagel said that under option one, “we would trade away size for high-end capability … This strategic choice would result in a force that would be technologically dominant, but would be much smaller and able to go fewer places and do fewer things especially if crisis occurred at the same time in different regions of the world.” Under this plan, Hagel said the U.S. would reduce CSGs from 11 to eight or nine.

"Specifically re: this topic the media are not responsible for President Trumps ill informed (probably willfully ignorant) comments"

The media are distinctly responsible for how they treat a quote.  They can either bury it when it suits their purpose (look up "corpse-man" or 57 states) or they can make it into a crisis.  It reflects their internal bias.  Until you prove you are capable of performing invasive telepathy from thousands of miles away, where do you get "willfully ignorant" without relying upon your personal politics?

"more likely he saw a Fox News story or read an "alt-right" media article and absorbed it without critical analysis and then parrots it to try to sound sound like he's knowledgeable and engaged with the detail."

Possible.  My guess is that he talked to some crusty CPO during his visit to the Ford.  As a real life builder (and not a politician), I would guess Trump has had numerous talks to site supervisors on various building projects and has an inherent bias to believing them.

"Any similar suggestions that any remotely recent US President had behaved in remotely a similar way (lets limit that to the context of military procurement to stay within the scope of this topic) similarly don't stand up to any rationale scrutiny."

If you start a fight, you can not proscribe the responses to fit your own needs.  Moreover, you chose to inject "Oh no Fox News!" into your argument.  As a general observation, you repeatedly invoke your projections of other people's motives into an attempt to discredit or delegitimize their arguments.

"It seems very very unlikely that the US Navy would seek to now return to traditional steam catapults and one doubts Trump will persue (or retain any interest in) this once he has been politely briefed by the US Navy"

Partially agree.  I don't think he will lose interest but I would agree he will listen to opposing information.

The core of your argument is 100% political:  Trump is unfit to be President.  Got it.  Trump isn't my ideal President but I have long given up belief in ideal men.  Only those who can serve my greater interests and only as long as they continue to do so will receive my support (and this automatically means he will attract the very loathing we see from the usual people).  I wish Trump had checked with project experts but I would rather deal with this kind of thing than a fait accompli cancellation of a major weapon system (eg, F-22) over the objections of service leadership.

I am not looking to hijack this trend or make it into a broader political discussion; as Trump commented on the subject matter it is reasonable to comment on those comments and I made sure to focus on the topic of the US carriers and there captapult system.
It appears that it is you who are looking to broaden this out to wider politics (quoting rather unrelated comments by Obama from a debate with Romney?).
I would just add that you don't know that the current president wouldn't make the type of decision that you are trying to characterise the decision to cut short the production of the F-22 to be.
Even just limited to the wider defense/ foreign policy area this president has been more erratic/ less predictable than other recent Presidents and he does not necessarily appear to consult widely or particularly value advice that may contradict his own pre-existing views (in fairness should be recognised that some of his more extreme policy positions such as re: NATO have been rolled back). Based on this pattern of decision making he could easily make such a decision that you disagree with.
And re: the F-22 decision it is worth remember that this was not an Obama campaign policy position but was proposed by his Republican Secretary of Defense (Gates) and was enthusiastically support by fellow senior Republicans like John McCain. For better or worse the decision to stop producing the F-22 was the consensus defense establishment view everywhere except at US airforce senior brass level and Obama backed his Defense Secretary.
In this context the consensus view of the defence establishment appears to be to stick with the new catapults; based on his decision making style President Trump appears more likely than previous Presidents to listen to and go with other voices (for better or worse).

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 784
Re: Gerald R. Ford Class CVN
« Reply #106 on: May 16, 2017, 04:02:34 pm »
I am not looking to hijack this trend or make it into a broader political discussion; as Trump commented on the subject matter it is reasonable to comment on those comments and I made sure to focus on the topic of the US carriers and there captapult system.  It appears that it is you who are looking to broaden this out to wider politics (quoting rather unrelated comments by Obama from a debate with Romney?).

Your "comments" consisted of pejorative attacks on Trump, his character, and his politics.

My response began on the topic of naval power as defined by carrier strike groups and Obama's desire to drastically curtail them as introduced through a quote.  As I mentioned, you do not have the power to sanction the scope of your opposition's response in order to suit your needs.

I would just add that you don't know that the current president wouldn't make the type of decision that you are trying to characterise the decision to cut short the production of the F-22 to be.

You might say I don't know whether Trump might suddenly embark upon a worldwide apology tour.  I am willing to take the risk.

Even just limited to the wider defense/ foreign policy area this president has been more erratic/ less predictable than other recent Presidents and he does not necessarily appear to consult widely or particularly value advice that may contradict his own pre-existing views (in fairness should be recognised that some of his more extreme policy positions such as re: NATO have been rolled back). Based on this pattern of decision making he could easily make such a decision that you disagree with.

Trans Pacific Partnership:  dead. Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership:  dead.  NAFTA:  renegotiation or dead.  NATO:  Merkel says:
"Chancellor Angela Merkel told her home northeastern constituents on Saturday that Germany was obligated to lift its defense spending from its current 1.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) to the 2 percent agreed by NATO members at its summit in 2014. (DW)"
NATO adjustment to terrorism: "NATO moves closer to Trump priority of fighting terrorism (DW)"

I personally would like to see the US leave.  I admit I might be in the minority here.  I would extend bilateral defense treaties to individual European countries that asked for it contingent upon their full reciprocity in burden sharing.  In the end, Europeans are certainly no longer taking the US for granted.

Border Wall:  bids are coming in, surveying teams are on site.

In other words, I don't see the usual Republican stab in the back that I have come to expect from the likes of John McCain and the DC establishment.  Indeed, it is the intensity of disdain and horror from the media that best informs me that Trump is still moving in the right direction.

And re: the F-22 decision it is worth remember that this was not an Obama campaign policy position but was proposed by his Republican Secretary of Defense (Gates) and was enthusiastically support by fellow senior Republicans like John McCain.

Indeed.  Gates was held over precisely because Obama could see the benefits.

For better or worse the decision to stop producing the F-22 was the consensus defense establishment view everywhere except at US airforce senior brass level and Obama backed his Defense Secretary.
In this context the consensus view of the defence establishment appears to be to stick with the new catapults; based on his decision making style President Trump appears more likely than previous Presidents to listen to and go with other voices (for better or worse).


Obama naturally backed his SecDef doing what he wanted.
The way senior Air Force leadership were removed just prior to cancellation is interesting. The immediate pretext was convenient and their replacements were more than happy to go along.

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7603
Re: Gerald R. Ford Class CVN
« Reply #107 on: May 16, 2017, 09:19:18 pm »
Well, I think, it's time to get back on topic again ! And that hopefully will end,
what has become the starting point of personal quarrels.
Remember: This thread is about the Gerald R.Ford CVN, NOT about the F-22, NOT
about the F-35 and definitely NOT about President Trump !

It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8903
Re: Gerald R. Ford Class CVN
« Reply #108 on: May 19, 2017, 11:08:27 am »
And. . .what should come as a surprise to absolutely nobody:

"General Atomics, San Diego, California, is being awarded $195,180,206 for modification 00013 to a previously awarded firm-fixed-price contract (N00019-14-C-0037) to exercise an option for the manufacture, assembly, inspection, test and checkout of the advanced arresting gear for the CVN 80 shipset, including installation and checkout spares, repairs, technical data, and drawing changes. "

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/183764/ga-wins-extra-%24195m-for-cvn_80-arresting-gear.html
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline fredymac

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 784
Re: Gerald R. Ford Class CVN
« Reply #109 on: May 27, 2017, 03:51:19 pm »
Acceptance trials underway.


Offline VH

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 177
Re: Gerald R. Ford Class CVN
« Reply #110 on: May 27, 2017, 08:03:12 pm »
She's a beauty!

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1556
Re: Gerald R. Ford Class CVN
« Reply #111 on: Yesterday at 09:23:51 am »
Yup, what an impressive ship. Kudos to America for building such an enormous marvel of engineering.
Conservatoire de l'Air et de l'Espace d'Aquitaine - Bordeaux - Mérignac / Dassault aviation museum
http://www.caea.info/en/plan.php