• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Romney-We have fewer ships.....

TSR

Well-known member
Ok guys come on now, We have fewer (naval) ships than we did in 1916?? This is gov. Romney's criticizm of the president??????Lets see,Lets see, would current technology have anything to do with that????? Or Mr. Romney are you going to build more and drive down the deficit at the same time??? :???: :lol:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
If others have the same tech. as in 1916, would having fewer be an advantage?


Controlling the seas is #1, when it comes to being the "global police force" that obama was talking about.

How can obama "police" Countries like Syria, like he wants to do, without the Naval force to protect against Russia, which he says is no longer a "global force"
 

TSR

Well-known member
The statement was"We have fewer ships now than in 1916" to which the president replied basically that this is not 1916. Geesh!
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
TSR said:
The statement was"We have fewer ships now than in 1916" to which the president replied basically that this is not 1916. Geesh!


so is the tech. the same, amongst Countries, will the number of ships matter?


Same as if it is soldiers.

Will the amount of night googles matter? US soldiers have 1000, compared to 100 of taliban soldiers.
 

TSR

Well-known member
So by your logic, since it would only take 100 nuclear bombs (today's bombs) lets say another country had 200 of those bombs, then we as a nation should push to have 400 irregardless of our economic woes and bombs don't cost as much as ships.

BTW you haven't answered my question below about Mubarrak's ousting.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
TSR said:
So by your logic, since it would only take 100 nuclear bombs (today's bombs) lets say another country had 200 of those bombs, then we as a nation should push to have 400 irregardless of our economic woes and bombs don't cost as much as ships.

BTW you haven't answered my question below about Mubarrak's ousting.


Mubarrak's ousting? that was peaceful wasn't it? How are those "non muslims" doing?

Democracy is great for non Muslims in those parts of the World eh? almost like the citizens are living under Fascism.


Let's see what happens when female children want to continue attending school like they did under Mubarak.
 

Steve

Well-known member
TSR said:
The statement was"We have fewer ships now than in 1916" to which the president replied basically that this is not 1916. Geesh!

a fleet of 298 ships is optimistic given that the Navy's latest plan overinflates force levels due to excessive ship life estimates. The new plan assumes 40-year hull lives for DDGs and 35 years for cruisers. This means the gap in major surface combatants is now underrepresented in the revised proposal.

Perhaps the most troubling part of the new shipbuilding plan and the 2013 budget is that they simply build fewer ships. As little as five months ago, the administration said the Navy needed to construct 276 ships. Today: 268. While the difference seems slight, what it means is that with fewer new ships, the Navy will be forced to put increased stress and strain upon the rest of the fleet as older ships are kept in service past their intended retirement dates. Ships are already sitting out missions because of decreasing readiness,
http://defense.aol.com/2012/03/30/navy-shrinking-while-obama-pivots-to-asia-does-not-add-up/

sadly we can't even handle the current mission requirements..

But there is one big fat problem with all this, as became clear during a House Armed Services hearing yesterday afternoon: the current Navy is having trouble handling its current load.

"We're not good to go right now," Vice Adm. Kevin McCoy, head of Naval Sea Systems Command, told the HASC readiness subcommittee. And he told the committee that things may well get worse in the near term before they get better.
http://defense.aol.com/2011/07/13/navys-may-be-force-of-future-but-will-its-ships-sail/

a hollow force can not project force.. only react.. and it can't even do that well..

think of it this way to do your job effectively.... you need x number of classes and x number of teachers.. in Navy terms.. you only get x number of teachers per class...

so if they cut 20% of the classes you must also cut 20% of the teachers..

and that is fine if you have "less" students.. but reality is they are expecting more not less.. so you have to cut something,.. training time, maintenance, upgrades. rotations, it all goes..

so in the end,.. as the president demands more world presence.. with less ships and sailors.. eventually it falls short..

but don't worry this was the Rumsfeld plan ..
 

Steve

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
To me the 1916 reference date was to show that the US wasn't ready for war in 1916 and isn't ready today.

what? you didn't like Obama's condescending rebuttal ?
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Steve said:
Big Muddy rancher said:
To me the 1916 reference date was to show that the US wasn't ready for war in 1916 and isn't ready today.

what? you didn't like Obama's condescending rebuttal ?

I liked the marine's Tweet that they still use bayonets. :D

I wonder if Obama knows US used horses in Afghanistan.
 

Traveler

Well-known member
http://therionorteline.com/2012/10/22/we-have-fewer-horses-and-bayonets-too/

http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/navy/217687-navy-shipbuilding-plan-wont-meet-commanders-needs-admiral-says-
 

Traveler

Well-known member
Quite a few bayonets as well.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/how-many-bayonets-does-the-u-s-have-quite-a-few/?cid=ESPNheadline
 

Steve

Well-known member
It was the news the world breathlessly waited for immediately after the 9/11 terror attacks: a report of the first American troops on the ground in Afghanistan. All at once the world’s attention focused on an iconic photo of those Special Operations Forces doing something no American military had done in nearly a century: They rode horses into combat.
http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/afghanistan-conflict/secret-mission-the-horse-soldiers-of-9-11/1224907912001/

Military Mounts at Fort Bragg

Although the glory days of the United States Cavalry are long gone, horses still serve the military

the horses’ most important role is their real job. They help prepare active duty personnel, particularly Army Special Forces troops, for challenges in foreign countries.

“The first time we used our horses to train Special Forces was right after 9/11,” explains Mark Rossignol, business manager for Smith Lake Stables. Fort Bragg is home to the U.S. Army’s Special Operations Forces. “They were being sent to Afghanistan, and often the only way they can travel over there is by horse.”

The rocky terrain found in remote areas of Afghanistan isn’t easy to traverse, even by jeep. Native horses become a mode of transportation. Pack animals, especially donkeys, also become familiar partners.

For some of America’s elite troops, however, knowledge of horses and their four-legged relatives isn’t familiar territory. The first time they actually halter a horse, saddle it and ride it may be at Smith Lake Stables.

“That’s why the only horses we get, that the government buys, are what we call dead broke,” Rossignol says. “We can’t afford to have anyone get hurt.”

But there’s more to it than just learning about tacking up and riding a horse, Rossignol says. The troops also learn herd management and how to treat common equine health issues affecting equines.

“We teach them about anatomy and basic vet care,” he says. “That’s because many times these troops are working with the local people.”

That’s one side of the Special Forces that isn’t often seen by the Americans at home

often for as much as things change,.. they stay the same...
 

Larrry

Well-known member
I just love the lefts refusal to try and refute the despicable acts of the obama regime and only come back with snarky replies :lol:
 
Top