Who's nose will grow the longest tonight?

[Fishpart]

I find it interesting that the Prez knows more about what Romney said in 2008 than whe he said on his apology tour where he was bowing to forgien leaders...

[likwid]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Err, no. We did streamline the military in the 90s, perhaps too much. But we did not streamline requirements and missions.

And at what point do we go from streamlining to gutting?

The 2000s were horrible for the Navy ship counts and this is only accelerating now (though to the O admin's credit somewhat stabilized for now though the can is still getting kicked).

The Navy is by hull count the smallest it has been in nearly 100 years. But the missions have not. Ships spend far more time deployed at sea, with smaller overworked crews (and less people to do the simple stuff), with bigger repair needs, than at any time since WWII.

That would indicate that there are not enough hulls to do the missions.

From the latest Naval shipbuilding fiscal plan (btw we're at 282)

In February 2006, the Navy presented to Congress a goal of achieving and maintaining a fleet of
313 ships, consisting of certain types and quantities of ships. On March 28, 2012, the Department
of Defense (DOD) submitted to Congress an FY2013 30-year (FY2013-FY2042) shipbuilding
plan that includes a new goal for a fleet of about 310-316 ships. The Navy is conducting a force
structure assessment, to be completed later this year, that could lead to a refinement of this 310-
316-ship plan.

So is another 30 too few?
I trust them more than I trust your assement.

Few more numbers, the 05 plan called for 260 ships, less than we have now.
06 was 313
11 continued the 313 number

These numbers may or may not change.
A few factors that are going to affect it, there's a new SSBN in development, which means current Ohios unless readily available, and in budget, will not be repaired.
We're going to be down a carrier as of next month until the Gerald Ford is launched in 2015.
Marines want 33 landing ships instead of 31 due to Marine Expeditionary Battalion needs. Something will have to get cut due to that.

So we already have a plan to increase the battleforce but its not an instant thing.
10 ships planned to launch next year, 7 in 2014, 8 in 2015, 9 in 2016, 7 in 2017.

There's some other stuff in there, but you should get the point now. That is, stop talking.

Also according to the budget and previous budgets (back to 06) we're currently on track.
The fleet will drop to its low points in 2015 (276 ships) break 300 in 2019. Not currently projected due to obselence and retirement dates to ever reach their "we'd really like to see this but hey, its a nice dream" numbers.

[RIJIMMY]

Im wondering if I watched the same debate as you guys. O seemed agressive, focused and clear. His answers were delivered carefully however he did not sound rehearsed. I agreed 99% of the time with his response. Romney seemed nervous, tripping at times, and would basically say his policy is to do exactly what Obama did. His lines seemed very rehearsed.
Jeez, am I becoming a lib? What the hell is happening to me?
My daughter had a mock election in class yesterday, she said she voted for Obama. WTF

[Jackbass]

If not looking like a condescending arrogant jerk is a win Romney won.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[likwid]

ps: according to the department of the navy, we were at 279 ships in 2007.

Neat other numbers:
1953: 1122 ships (for the most part transports)
1977: 464
1987: 568
Then downwards from there to 2007, now its growing again (slightly)

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Im wondering if I watched the same debate as you guys. O seemed agressive, focused and clear. His answers were delivered carefully however he did not sound rehearsed. I agreed 99% of the time with his response. Romney seemed nervous, tripping at times, and would basically say his policy is to do exactly what Obama did. His lines seemed very rehearsed.

As one line I heard was "Romney was looking like a student just trying to pass a class, not ace an exam"

When you keep flipping positions, it must get hard to keep it all straight in your own head...

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Romney kept his composure much better than Obama. Obama kept swallowing hard and looking nervous. Also, Obama got into his snippy mode trying to talk down to Romney because he can't handle someone pointing out when he's wrong.

Romney definitely missed some opportunities, but he came out looking composed and more presidential than the current President.

Feel the same way FB. Obama threw out so much stuff he was boring
and came across as condecending and angry whenever Romney pointed
out his failures. He looked hunched over, sophmoric, and far from being
the Commander in Chief.
Romney came across as competent, Presidential and ready for the job.
If Obama was looking for the women's vote, he fell far short with his
demeanor in this debate.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by justplugit

If Obama was looking for the women's vote, he fell far short with his
demeanor in this debate.

I was watching CNN and they have the line for women vs men for undecideds and Obama was soaring among women where it was pretty close in other debates.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I was watching CNN and they have the line for women vs men for undecideds and Obama was soaring among women where it was pretty close in other debates.

Jim:
There must have been a repeat of debate one run as a re-run, thats what I figure these guys watched....

[Jackbass]

Obama definitely won the debate the market is falling flat on its face
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Piscator]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Jim:
There must have been a repeat of debate one run as a re-run, thats what I figure these guys watched....

Maybe I'm biased in saying Romney won.

Snap polls award debate to Obama

[Bronko]

My take is both candidates based their performances/demeanor over their own very secretive internal polls they have.

Obama went on the offensive and tried to bait Romney into exchanges and was snarky at times. Romney on the other hand was more laid back, didn't get into pissing matches and tried to stay out of the fray and seemed a bit aloof.

My observations tell me that Romney is still riding the (undeniable) surge that the polls have indicated since the first debate. Obama is trying to reel back in some of the support he has lost.

Not sure if it was the tact that Romney should have taken, but he did. Snap polls had Obama winning decisively, but focus groups indicated although Obama won the debate, Romney is the guy they are trending to on the economy.

This is going to be soooooo close.

[FishermanTim]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Romney kept his composure much better than Obama. Obama kept swallowing hard and looking nervous. Also, Obama got into his snippy mode trying to talk down to Romney because he can't handle someone pointing out when he's wrong......
..Romney definitely missed some opportunities, but he came out looking composed and more presidential than the current President. Btw, how many times did Obama have to tell everyone he was "Commander in Chief" or the "current President of the United States"? Don't most people watching the debate aready know that? I think he just likes hearing himself say it.

First, Obama seemed to be throwing out lots of "facts and figures" (who's I can't say) and it looked like he wanted to steamroll over the true topic/question hoping Romney would falter. Only problem was Romney knew what the true topic/question was and would go back to the topic in order to stress his points. He had to do this repeatedly as Obama kept rolling along, question after question. I guess if you keep talking long enough, you hope to prevent your opponent from giving a rebuttal?

Second, Obama must be reminding everyone that he is "Commander in Chief" and "current President of the United States" because he may not be able to say it much longer!!!!

[Scuttlebutt]

Noun 1. hanging chad - a chad that is incompletely removed and hanging by one corner

chad - a small piece of paper that is supposed to be removed when a hole is punched in a card or paper tape

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by Bronko

This is going to be soooooo close.

Hopefully it'll be close enough that we can discuss getting rid of the Electoral College. Then, we can finally have a time in this country where every person's vote actually counts.

I can see how it may have been necessary 225 years ago, but it's completely nonsense today. At least Maine and Nebraska have it partially corrected.

[FishermanTim]

Oh, by the way, what would you call a post election international tour where you downplay and belittle the US to many of our strongest adversaries in the middle east? Surely not the "Hope and Change" World Tour!
I still can't get over some of his simple flops that made him look more like Dan Quayle than anyone else!

When he referred to the 57 United States!

When he gave the Prime Minister of Great Britian a box set of dvd's as a gift, and they were the US version not the UK, so they couldn't be played on a european ddvd player!

When he won the nobel prize for just being the first black president. Imagine winning an award for doing nothing but just "being"???
(I guess they gave enough of them to scientist and scholars already?)

When he went on his world famous "Apology tour" after his surprising win.

I'm sure there's plenty more where these came from.

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by FishermanTim

When he went on his world famous "Apology tour" after his surprising win

Fact Checker - Obama's 'Apology Tour'

yeah... damn him and his apologies....

[Raider Ronnie]

[QUOTE=Bronko;965114]My take is both candidates based their performances/demeanor over their own very secretive internal polls they have.

Obama went on the offensive and tried to bait Romney into exchanges and was snarky at times. Romney on the other hand was more laid back, didn't get into pissing matches and tried to stay out of the fray and seemed a bit aloof.

My observations tell me that Romney is still riding the (undeniable) surge that the polls have indicated since the first debate. Obama is trying to reel back in some of the support he has lost.




I heard a great line this afternoon on talk radio that I agree 100% and sums up last night.

" last night Romney was playing chess while Obummer was playing checkers"

Romney baited him in beautifully a number of times.
Obama looked like an angry thug !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Fact Checker - Obama's 'Apology Tour'

yeah... damn him and his apologies....

.

Maybe Obama never used the word "apologize". But read the piece you quoted. Here is what Obama actually said, according to Karl Rove...

Mr. Obama told the French (the French!) that America "has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward Europe. In Prague, he said America has "a moral responsibility to act" on arms control because only the U.S. had "used a nuclear weapon." In London, he said that decisions about the world financial system were no longer made by "just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy" -- as if that were a bad thing. And in Latin America, he said the U.S. had not "pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors" because we "failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas."

You're going to sit there, and tell us, that Obama was not engaging in America-bashing?

When he was in France, did Obama remind the French that the only reason they call themselves "French" and not "subjects of the Reich", is 100% due to Americans' "dismissive" attitude towards Europe? Count the gravestones at the American military cemetary at Normandy, and tell the families of all those dead kids that America doesn't care about Europe.

We have moral responsibility to the rest of the world specifically because we used a nuke? Did we use that nuke in an act of aggression? Did Jimmy Carter fall on the button by accident? Or was it the most humane way (for Americans and especially the Japanese) to end a war that we did not start?

Did Obama mention the fat that we are the most generous country in the history of the planet Earth?

Jesus God Almighty, you're denying that Obama was trying to make up for all of our faults, on that repugnant tour.

How about a shred, just a shred, of honesty here? Rockhound, will it make you feel better if, instead of calling it the "apology tour", we call it the "reprehensible let's bash the awesome legacy of the country that just elected me, while I suck up to the European leaders who are flushing their continent down the toilet, just as I plan to do" tour?

Is that better?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

I was watching CNN and they have the line for women vs men for undecideds and Obama was soaring among women where it was pretty close in other debates.

Musta been those snarley feminists in attendance.
They love to see a guy they can hold it over.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

.

Maybe Obama never used the word "apologize". But read the piece you quoted. Here is what Obama actually said, according to Karl Rove...

Mr. Obama told the French (the French!) that America "has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward Europe. In Prague, he said America has "a moral responsibility to act" on arms control because only the U.S. had "used a nuclear weapon." In London, he said that decisions about the world financial system were no longer made by "just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy" -- as if that were a bad thing. And in Latin America, he said the U.S. had not "pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors" because we "failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas."

You're going to sit there, and tell us, that Obama was not engaging in America-bashing?

When he was in France, did Obama remind the French that the only reason they call themselves "French" and not "subjects of the Reich", is 100% due to Americans' "dismissive" attitude towards Europe? Count the gravestones at the American military cemetary at Normandy, and tell the families of all those dead kids that America doesn't care about Europe.

We have moral responsibility to the rest of the world specifically because we used a nuke? Did we use that nuke in an act of aggression? Did Jimmy Carter fall on the button by accident? Or was it the most humane way (for Americans and especially the Japanese) to end a war that we did not start?

Did Obama mention the fat that we are the most generous country in the history of the planet Earth?

Jesus God Almighty, you're denying that Obama was trying to make up for all of our faults, on that repugnant tour.

How about a shred, just a shred, of honesty here? Rockhound, will it make you feel better if, instead of calling it the "apology tour", we call it the "reprehensible let's bash the awesome legacy of the country that just elected me, while I suck up to the European leaders who are flushing their continent down the toilet, just as I plan to do" tour?

Is that better?

and lets not forget -
In September 2009, US Ambassador to Japan John Roos reported to the Obama administration that the Japanese government did not think it was a good idea for President Obama to visit Hiroshima to apologize for the US having dropped an atomic bomb on that city

and that wonderful bow to the Saudi King

[buckman]

Originally Posted by justplugit

Musta been those snarley feminists in attendance.
They love to see a guy they can hold it over.

I think a lot of men watched football and game seven. Romney tried to appeal to women.
Virginia is up for grabs and Obama didn't help himself much with his Navy comments
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Raider Ronnie]

Rush was good enough to put many clips from Obama's apology tour on the front page of his site today so anyone hear Obama's own words.

It Wasn't Just an Apology Tour, It Was a Condemnation Tour! And We Have All the Evidence to Prove It Right Here... - The Rush Limbaugh Show

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

.

Maybe Obama never used the word "apologize". But read the piece you quoted. Here is what Obama actually said, according to Karl Rove...

Mr. Obama told the French (the French!) that America "has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive" toward Europe. In Prague, he said America has "a moral responsibility to act" on arms control because only the U.S. had "used a nuclear weapon." In London, he said that decisions about the world financial system were no longer made by "just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy" -- as if that were a bad thing. And in Latin America, he said the U.S. had not "pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors" because we "failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas."

You're going to sit there, and tell us, that Obama was not engaging in America-bashing?

When he was in France, did Obama remind the French that the only reason they call themselves "French" and not "subjects of the Reich", is 100% due to Americans' "dismissive" attitude towards Europe? Count the gravestones at the American military cemetary at Normandy, and tell the families of all those dead kids that America doesn't care about Europe.

We have moral responsibility to the rest of the world specifically because we used a nuke? Did we use that nuke in an act of aggression? Did Jimmy Carter fall on the button by accident? Or was it the most humane way (for Americans and especially the Japanese) to end a war that we did not start?

Did Obama mention the fat that we are the most generous country in the history of the planet Earth?

Jesus God Almighty, you're denying that Obama was trying to make up for all of our faults, on that repugnant tour.

How about a shred, just a shred, of honesty here? Rockhound, will it make you feel better if, instead of calling it the "apology tour", we call it the "reprehensible let's bash the awesome legacy of the country that just elected me, while I suck up to the European leaders who are flushing their continent down the toilet, just as I plan to do" tour?

Is that better?

[Bronko]

Rasmussen: Romney 50 Obama 46
Gallup: Romney 51 Obama 46

Among "likely voters"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnnyD]

Originally Posted by buckman

I think a lot of men watched football and game seven. Romney tried to appeal to women.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is a great point and makes quite a bit of sense. Real men were watching sports.

[JohnR]

Could it be another Armchair Admiral? That was what I could post in 3 minutes, below will be what i can crank out in 20 because dinner is almost ready and I have to work tonight.

Originally Posted by likwid

From the latest Naval shipbuilding fiscal plan (btw we're at 282)

In February 2006, the Navy presented to Congress a goal of achieving and maintaining a fleet of
313 ships, consisting of certain types and quantities of ships. On March 28, 2012, the Department
of Defense (DOD) submitted to Congress an FY2013 30-year (FY2013-FY2042) shipbuilding
plan that includes a new goal for a fleet of about 310-316 ships. The Navy is conducting a force
structure assessment, to be completed later this year, that could lead to a refinement of this 310-
316-ship plan.

So is another 30 too few?
I trust them more than I trust your assement.

Few more numbers, the 05 plan called for 260 ships, less than we have now.
06 was 313
11 continued the 313 number

These numbers may or may not change.
A few factors that are going to affect it, there's a new SSBN in development, which means current Ohios unless readily available, and in budget, will not be repaired.
We're going to be down a carrier as of next month until the Gerald Ford is launched in 2015.
Marines want 33 landing ships instead of 31 due to Marine Expeditionary Battalion needs. Something will have to get cut due to that.

So we already have a plan to increase the battleforce but its not an instant thing.
10 ships planned to launch next year, 7 in 2014, 8 in 2015, 9 in 2016, 7 in 2017.

There's some other stuff in there, but you should get the point now. That is, stop talking.

Also according to the budget and previous budgets (back to 06) we're currently on track.
The fleet will drop to its low points in 2015 (276 ships) break 300 in 2019. Not currently projected due to obselence and retirement dates to ever reach their "we'd really like to see this but hey, its a nice dream" numbers.

I trust my assessment more (and that of the CBO) than I trust them and your 5 minute blurb - So in that light, a couple things numbers boy

313 Was the number of ships they felt would be necessary to do their current missions - not all Navy mission is killing other ships. The true "Battleforce" is somewhere around 125 ships Carriers, Cruisers / Destroyers, Frigates - oh, but the 25 frigates remaining are not really "battleforce" ships as they cannot much reach out and touch someone (see below). I'll debate you either way - with carriers or without.

The FY2013 shipbuilding plan which plans out the next 30 years assumes higher amounts per year (17-18% - CBO's numbers not the Navy's) in shipbuilding budget than what was spent in previous years.

You said yourself we were at 282 - and yes, 30 ships does make a difference. Especially as we "pivot" to the Pacific we actually need more hulls to make up for the tyranny of distance. Or we can keep doing what we are doing which is sending undermanned ships for longer and longer deployments, wearing out both man & machine faster in the process. This forces earlier retirement of ships (think 250 ships in 20 years the way we are going). "Saving money" forces other ships to retire early so "battleforce" ships retired last decade averaged 21 years old - not the hope for or "planned for" 30.

Part of why we are at 282

Ships retired last decade:

8 FFGs (and the rest were Neutered) - average ship life 21 years - ships were "planned" for a 30 year life

24 DD Spruance (VLS / Non VLS) - average life for the VLS ships? 21 years

These were ships that were retired early to save money to buy more ships. The 24 Spruance class? Will be replaced by 3 DDG-1000, and some Arleigh Burke DDGs (good ships)


313 ships under current "plans" is a function of PowerPoint and little more.

BTW - I actually believe that by "pivoting" to the Pacific means we'll just gut the forces less there.

The ships being used to make up this 313 ship fleet will probably guarantee that we don't get there.

30 FFG FF (the G was lost when the pulled the Standard Rail Launchers a mid-late 2000s?) Perry class frigates are being stricken / transferred foreign sale en mass. The newest being 20 something years old and the oldest still in active service was commissioned while you were wearing a bib ( I was a sophomore in HS). These ships are being replaced by "54" LCS ships, split between 2 designs, both with lots of issues. Trust me - they will not build 54 of these (replacing more than the just the 20 Perry FFs) - I'll bet you a bottle of Scotch on that.

LCS is not considered a "warship" and is not designed to be survivable in a combat situation. They would not likely survive a Stark / Sammy B type damage.

They are weaker, less survivable, and probably have a higher pukability factor than those FFG they replace. They have range issues and cannot do one of the frequent missions of the Perry - barely hanging on with a carrier Strike Group. Even if they had the ASW mission module which is not close to being ready.

On top of that they are riddled with issues - some resolved, some resolving, some ain't gonna happen

Off Course: Did Navy Underplay Steering Problem Before Awarding Ship Contract?

The Navy?s New Class of Warships: Big Bucks, Little Bang | TIME.com (to be fair, a Navy Public Affairs chief of information offers a rebuttal LCS: Let?s Talk Facts )

Here is an example of FY13 a recent announcement that several Crusiers will be decomm'd early: Anzio, Vicksburg, Port Royal, and Cowpens. Add to that 6 FF nee FFGs are to be decommissioned. These 10 are for next year, plus the Big E, for 11 ships.

They are being replaced by 4 ships, 1 LCS, 1LPD, 1 LHA - the first 2 have loads of issues in their class and the third is a semi-new class so expect issues and a Virgina SSN (great boats)

This is the trend. 2014 has 2 ships, a LCS and a SSN, 2015: 2 DDG1000 ( major first class issues and development / testing), The Ford CVN ( major first class issues and development / testing), and another LPD and a SSN.

DDG1000 is going to have massive issues that I don't want to even link to as it is still too early but it ain't looking good.

DDG Burke Restart won't see anything until who knows when and Burke FLT III ships are an enigma because they cannot stuff the power generation in those to support AMDR and such.

The Ohio replacement SSBNx will blow the Navy Shipbuilding budget. Just crush it. Each ship could cost 1/3 of the total shipbuilding budget (I actually believe SSBNs should be funded outside of Navy shipbuilding). The Virginia is too small to rework even though that has been suggested (Trident D5s are larger than the hull) and the Ohio is tooooooo old to restart production. It would take years to scan the drawings (yes, paper) and recreate in 3D intelligent CAD systems. Seawolf might be able to be reworked but we stopped those at 3 because they were too much $$$$


This is where our Navy is today and for the near future.

Put that in your 313 Horse & Bayonet pipe and smoke it

[likwid]

Originally Posted by JohnR

Could it be another Armchair Admiral? That was what I could post in 3 minutes, below will be what i can crank out in 20 because dinner is almost ready and I have to work tonight.

If this took you 20 minutes to come up with then you really need to read more.

I trust my assessment more (and that of the CBO)

I don't trust you at all, so I guess all is fair, and where do you think the CBO got their numbers? The ship fairy?

*giant snip because its all irrelevant*

So basically now you're admitting that Romney was wrong? Great! Good to see were on the same page.

The Ohio replacement SSBNx will blow the Navy Shipbuilding budget. Just crush it. Each ship could cost 1/3 of the total shipbuilding budget (I actually believe SSBNs should be funded outside of Navy shipbuilding). The Virginia is too small to rework even though that has been suggested (Trident D5s are larger than the hull) and the Ohio is tooooooo old to restart production. It would take years to scan the drawings (yes, paper) and recreate in 3D intelligent CAD systems. Seawolf might be able to be reworked but we stopped those at 3 because they were too much $$$$

Congratulations! How's 2008 working out for you? Virginia replaces Seawolf. Seawolf is done due to stupidity and massive overruns. The new SSBN will be modeled after the Virginia program to stay on budget, which amazingly GD has done very well (and kept a ton of Americans employed in Groton and Quonset.)

Put that in your 313 Horse & Bayonet pipe and smoke it

How's that "lowest number since 1916" working out for you? I hope well.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

This is a great point and makes quite a bit of sense. Real men were watching sports.

LOL JD.

[justplugit]

John R, not to worry about Obama's unbelievable knowledge of the Navy.
Fox showed a clip of Obama, Commander in Chief, using his teleprompter in a speech
calling Navy Corpsman, Corpse men four different times.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by likwid

*giant snip because its all irrelevant*

Yawn. Bottle of Scotch. I speak the trooth

BTW - reread it without the chip on your shoulder and the happy juice. And for the SSBNx - the Virgina class has a 34' beam. The D5 is 44' in length. It won't fit. Even with a hump (a la Russian Deltas) which is not outside the realm of possibility it is too small of a hull. The Ohio is way old. Redesign might cost about as much as a clean sheet of paper. If you redesign a new missile to fit in a smaller Virginia style hull you double the costs and loose range.