- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 8/27/26 at 8:40 am to B747Tiger
quote:
If you call cowardice messing up then sure, but it’s not solely on them. The US Navy had to direct one of the powerful warships in the history of the planet out of a war zone because some people “messed up.”
You’re a moron. We have always rotated our capital and other ships through a conflict. There’s a reason we have 11 (actually 12 at the moment) of them—only 4 or 5 can be in shape at one time.
Only idiots think sailors whining is the primary reason the ship rotated home. The GW replacement was planned way before that story broke.
A lot of things need fixing after nine months on a carrier that can’t be completely repaired or resupplied underway and we can’t use our bases in the region as a stopgap for obvious reasons. The Lincoln will be in a dock for months when she gets home.
This post was edited on 8/27/26 at 8:42 am
Posted on 8/27/26 at 8:44 am to Indefatigable
quote:
You’re a moron. We have always rotated our capital and other ships through a conflict.
Well we didn’t have another ship to rotate it out with at the time. It left early. Now we have zero carriers operating in the pacific.
We need more carriers. And more disciplined crews
Posted on 8/27/26 at 8:45 am to B747Tiger
quote:
We need more carriers. And more disciplined crews
No, we need more shipyards.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Just stop.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 8:46 am to Indefatigable
quote:
No, we need more shipyards.
Why do we need more shipyards if we don’t need more carriers?
quote:Nah
You have no idea what you’re talking about. Just stop.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 8:48 am to B747Tiger
quote:
I’d be hanging my head in shame if I were them. Sailing away from a war zone because some people got homesick.
That is better than the Sailors on the USS Liberty were treated.
Think about it. The Sailers on the USS Abraham Lincoln are defending/fighting for the trash that killed their brothers in arms.
Our Effing leaders are "TRASH"
Posted on 8/27/26 at 8:48 am to B747Tiger
quote:
Why do we need more shipyards if we don’t need more carriers?
Because maintenance and overhaul backlogs are the problem, not number of hulls. That applies to escorts times ten as well.
Again, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 8:50 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Because maintenance and overhaul backlogs are the problem, not number of hulls.
It’s absolutely the number of hulls. Not just for maintenance backlogs either. That’s why on the previous page I suggested going away from the Super Carrier fleet and instead having 20-30 smaller carriers.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 8:58 am to B747Tiger
quote:
It’s absolutely the number of hulls
Not for the CVN’s. No—it is not.
quote:which is just another example of you have no idea what you’re talking about. We already have 10 small deck carriers/amphibs that carry Ospreys and attack helos and are being built and/or refitted to carrier a small F35 detachment for the lightning carrier concept. They serve an important purpose but cannot come anywhere close to what a full carrier air wing brings to the table. Bringing 90 planes to the fight is the whole purpose and for that you need room for everything related to that (aka machinery and thousands of people)
That’s why on the previous page I suggested going away from the Super Carrier fleet and instead having 20-30 smaller carriers.
What we do need more of, more quickly, is escorts and we don’t have the dock space.
But to the earlier point—you are wrong. The carrier availability issue is entirely a dock space and backlog issue. We have one shipyard qualified to deal with the nuclear components, meaning everything relating to the RCOH’s are bottlenecked at NN.
Ford being first in her class and related issues also means she spends more time in the yard than her siblings hopefully will. We can only work on 2 or 3 of them in a meaningful way at time. Having more would just mean more sit at the pier waiting for their turn in the dock.
This post was edited on 8/27/26 at 9:00 am
Posted on 8/27/26 at 9:04 am to stout
You would be surprised that around half of the Sailors on the ship will have already spent 1/2 their money on the ship even when at sea
Posted on 8/27/26 at 9:04 am to Indefatigable
quote:
We already have 10 small deck carriers/amphibs that carry Ospreys and attack helos and are being built and/or refitted to carrier a small F35 detachment for the lightning carrier concept. They serve an important purpose but cannot come anywhere close to what a full carrier air wing brings to the table. Bringing 90 planes to the fight is the whole purpose and for that you need room for everything related to that (aka machinery and thousands of people)
The LHAs and LHDs are meant for amphibious warfare. When you cram a whole squadron of F-35s on them you don’t have any room left for ospreys and cobras and infantry Marines. The lightening carrier concept exists because we don’t have enough big deck carriers. That in turn reduces our amphibious capability. Having 25 smaller traditional carriers that exist solely to launch planes provides much more flexibility than 10 super carriers, half of which are non-deployable at any one time.
This post was edited on 8/27/26 at 9:09 am
Posted on 8/27/26 at 9:06 am to Indefatigable
quote:
But to the earlier point—you are wrong. The carrier availability issue is entirely a dock space and backlog issue. We have one shipyard qualified to deal with the nuclear components, meaning everything relating to the RCOH’s are bottlenecked at NN.
Imagine, if you will, having a fleet of smaller carriers that don’t require the massive dry docks and gantry cranes to build and maintain and refuel the ships? That would open up a lot more dock space.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 9:08 am to B747Tiger
quote:
Imagine, if you will, having a fleet of smaller carriers that don’t require the massive dry docks and gantry cranes to build and maintain and refuel the ships? That would open up a lot more dock space.
And degrade the power of the carrier air wing to the point where it’s a useless platform. Like the Queen Elizabeth’s are. You’re also ignoring that our carriers need to be nuclear for anything we like doing to work—bringing us right back to the shipyard bottleneck at NN.
And are you under the impression that we can churn out the amphibs or something? They built them by turning one rivet every seven weeks or so down in Pascagoula.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 9:11 am to Indefatigable
quote:
And degrade the power of the carrier air wing to the point where it’s a useless platform. Like the Queen Elizabeth’s are.
The individual air wing would be smaller but there would be 2-3X as many of them in my concept. You’d gain capability over what we have now.
quote:
You’re also ignoring that our carriers need to be nuclear for anything we like doing to work—bringing us right back to the shipyard bottleneck at NN. And are you under the impression that we can churn out the amphibs or something? They built them by turning one rivet every seven weeks or so down in Pascagoula.
I’ll cede to you that we need more shipyards. And there’s no reason other shipyards can’t be made capable of handling nuclear material.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 9:28 am to stout
I would put one of those LBFMs through a wall at that age and that long at sea.
For those who don't know:
LBFM = LINK (definition of LBFM)
For those who don't know:
LBFM = LINK (definition of LBFM)
This post was edited on 8/27/26 at 9:30 am
Posted on 8/27/26 at 9:50 am to meansonny
quote:
Duties on a ship do not stop. Ever.
You think they stop downrange? Now get rid of the A/C, cots and hot meals with the same ops tempo.
quote:
But they aren't 247 for 9 months. No where close to that.
bullshite.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 9:51 am to Sams Crow
Or in jail. Abraham Lincoln did just that when they got out of line.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 9:55 am to BK Lounge
quote:
Just like my ancestors went from the old country to the US in search of a better life- the new American dream, is to leave America .
This is true. Lot of Americans looking at places like Thailand, Colombia, Costa Rica, Argentina, and a few others.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 10:17 am to B747Tiger
quote:
I’d be hanging my head in shame if I were them. Sailing away from a war zone because some people got homesick
Calm down there Meal Team Six. Just go enlist and show them how it's done.
Posted on 8/27/26 at 10:19 am to ronricks
quote:
This is true. Lot of Americans looking at places like Thailand, Colombia, Costa Rica, Argentina, and a few others.
Agreed, but, my opinion- if someone is "just looking" now- you've missed the boat... most indicators show that 2027 in the US is going to be really, really rough in terms of the economy, jobs, food supply, gas prices etc etc etc... im talking dark times .. hell, it's already pretty toxic in many ways in the US.. Nowhere in the world is perfect, and "stay & fight" is a cute slogan.. but unless you're a Billionaire, there are very few ways an average person can effect real change ... I realize moving abroad isnt feasible for everyone- but if you're a person with options, there's a ton of countries where you can have an awesome, affordable quality of life .. you just better get on it before you get caught up in all the crowds that, in my opinion, are going to soon be beating a path for the exits of the US .
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News