USN to retire USS Harry S Truman

>The navy is already retaining its status as the weakest its been since the 1970's
Pic as of 2015.
I think we'll be ok.
And we have ships being built, and plenty mothballed.

Attached: usnavy_2015.jpg (3000x2000, 608K)

Yeah, but the Enterprise was.... special.

Attached: muddy sunday.png (967x1283, 615K)

Cutting military spending is anti-Semitic.

Attached: Toxic_Fandoms_Summary_Cartoon.png (920x764, 47K)

pathetic mods deleted the main Truman thread

don't ever post, you retarded boomer piece of shit.

you have nothing original to say, just old copypasta, old hearsay memes, and old "I'm not racist but the left is" boomer cuck political bullshit

Don't forget he masterbates to young boys.

Was at risk of melting down when they deactivated her. They did it because at that point she needed to be completely rebuilt.

>2015
vastly out of date. the Ohio's are starting to come out of service same with LA's

Wouldn’t doubt it, probably to transfer manpower to new Ford-class carriers. It’s incredibly expensive to operate these fuckers as is and Truman probably just didn’t make the cut.

I used to be pro-carrier, but I'm really starting to see where the carrier-skeptics are coming from. Just what are these ships for? The island chains are going to be too well defended for them to actually be used against China, and Russia is too weak to justify their existence.

They're a relic of the Cold War, buoyed by institutional inertia.

This. Hard to tell what role the carrier will have in a future of hypersonic ASMs. I imagine carriers will still be useful, but they might not dominate doctrine. I'd say take the money saved and use it to make sure sailors are getting their certs and actually know how to do their jobs. The rest of the money can go into research and figuring out what the future of the Navy looks like.

And sharks.

their point is to project power and make scary shows of force during diplomatic incidents

Makes sense. We have the Ford, that makes 11 carriers. So this is the once it was meant to replace. Puts us back to 10.

Ford replaced the Enterprise. It's U.S. Law that the Navy has to maintain 11 operational carriers.

The USN has wanted to downsize to 10 carriers for some time, especially if it frees up money for new stuff like Columbia boomers.

And just give the money straight to Israel

carriers are fucking useless. US got conquered with all these carriers around. they haven't done shit.

When Clinton was president there was an incident where the Navy had a carrier group do a few laps around Taiwan to demonstrate the point that the USA would defend Taiwan against China if necessary. They would never dare do anything like that today, it would be too risky. China is too strong to be intimidated like that now. The fact that the Navy has never done it again proves that point.

The USN literally just held an exercise to prepare for sending a carrier through the Taiwan straight.

In order to retire Truman early Congress would have to 1. Repeal 10 USC 5062 and then 2. Approve a budget decommissioning the Truman. There's pretty much no support in Congress for this to happen. Doesn't really matter what the Navy wants.

Just like they had to when the Enterprise was retired and the USN was left with 10 carriers.

Difference between "We have no choice, this carrier is old as shit" and this, where they're trying to retire a young carrier. Plus they knew the Ford would bring them back up to 11 in a few years, if they retire Truman early they're stuck at 10.

>They knew the Ford was coming.

They know 3 Fords are in the chute as well.

And they need to start retiring the Nimitz carriers. With current schedule they'll maintain eleven as Nimitz leaves and Fords come in. If they retire Truman early, it'll drop to 10 and stay there.

Not happening.

defensenews.com/naval/2019/02/28/house-seapower-chairman-early-aircraft-carrier-decom-is-a-non-starter/

Figures. Congress wouldn't cull carrier numbers if you put a gun to their head.

uh huh

why dont they sell it to an ally ? like Australia since they want to put pressure on China. or even the United Kingdom.

Attached: 1551029186552.png (141x155, 41K)

If they didn't retire the Enterprise it would have cost quite a bit more to scrape the remains out of the shipyard once it fell apart

UK already has two carriers coming out, Australia has no carrier experience, what would they do with it?

Hell, one of the UK carriers will probably be sold off asap because of budget cuts to the RN

>UK already has two carriers
>France can't keep their carrier running
>Spain recently downsized to a helicopter barge
>Germany: what's a navy?
>Canada: why have a navy?
>Australia: what's a carrier
>New Zealand: what?
>India already has one and it doesn't work
>Israel doesn't need one
?

Not only that, but Trump has pushed for 12 carriers. So Congress and the White House hate this, so I can't imagine what the hell the Pentagon is thinking trying to do this. They're just gonna get laughed at.

what would Trump do with 12 carriers, fit them together and open a new hotel?

France is the only one that would sort of make sense, since the Rafale could operate from it and they already operate a nuclear carrier. But even then it doesn't make much sense, since there's no way they have the manpower to run a ship that size or the facilities to maintain it, plus it's about the same age as the CdG so they're not even really saving anything in terms of lifespan.

>operate a nuclear carrier
barely

I remember when they wanted 600 ships.

Do a victory lap and gloat at Democrats at the end of his second term.

>2 More Ford classes under construction, with a third hull set to be laid down in 2022
>Still 9 more Nimitz's and 9 Wasps that can be used
>Kitty Hawk can be recommissoned and ready for steam within 6 months
>The US military could cut it's budget by 50% and still outspend China by well over 100 billion and still have a much larger navy

I think y'all will be fine

>implying trump could do a lap of 1 carrier without suffering cardiac arrest

have carriers launched drones in combat operations yet?

>It could be an attempt to get Congress' attention, as appears to have been the case when the US military tried to retire the USS George Washington early during the Obama administration.

Oh wait, it's just the Navy trying to manipulate Congress into giving them more money. Go figure.

If you mean catapult-launched, no. But the Navy has been using drones on all their ships for a long time. The Iowas were using RQ-2s back in the Gulf War.

welcome to any budget
>you were given a budget of $100
>well we used $85 this year
>okay next year you get a budget of $85
>but we need to upgrade
repeat

The Navy has been bitching for a long time that they're facing a budget crunch. Alot of classes of ship are coming up for replacement at the same time. FFG(X), Ford, Columbia, LX(R), Burke Flight III. They're going crazy trying to figure out how to pay for it.

maybe they could put that money into having an actual healthcare system like the rest of the civilized world

We would have the money had we not cut taxes under Bush II, and instead slammed shut every loophole and offshore money stashing zone we could grab.

Obama care made things less affordable, not more

Cutting military spending only causes the need for more spending down the road. The crunch in attack sub numbers for instance wouldn't be happening if Seawolf hadn't been curtailed back in the 90s.

>Cutting military spending only causes the need for more spending down the road
Lol no. And we aren't facing a crunch, the Virginia class is coming along nicely

youtube.com/watch?v=iWQtEd7hCNk

>Columbia SSBN
>FFG(X)
>LPD-17
>Ticonderoga replacement

If there is one thing that can unite coastal democrats in Washington and California and republicans in Virginia, it's the opposition of touching carriers and the economic impact that would have on the shipyards.

Really nobody makes sense, as the planned retirement would be at the mid life refueling and refurbishment. Outside the USN nobody else could afford to put it into working order.

They've tried before to retire a carrier early, but congress picks if it happens or not and they've always said no. This is mostly just pentagon-level politics where they rattle the cage of a senator to get something.

fpbp
even the Wisconsin can still be reactivated on demand

Attached: USS_Wisconsin.jpg (529x790, 547K)

For a 10-CVN fleet, with an expected lifespan of 50 years, you have to build 1 new CVN every 5 years just to maintain your base number. Ford took extra long because of first-in-class bugs and the high-tech catapults, arresting gear, and elevators. They will have to build the next few in less than 5 years apiece, or we won't even be able to keep 10 running.

Attack sub numbers will drop down to 42 subs during the 2020s before slowly crawling back up. They may end up refueling some of the LA subs to make up for this.

and are being replaced by the newer, more capable Virginia

nowhere close to the same rate. the new flight is being modified in an attempt to make up for the lack on numbers with more vls modules, but it remains to be seen and that is awhile off

Raise taxes. We can do it.

Itll be fine, and in fact, if necessary, we can quit moving the frames around to different docks and build more of them simultaneously
The Virginia's are under budget, ahead of schedule, and we are saving enough money to pay for extra boats.

retiring the forrestal was a mistake.

shut the fuck up chink

Imagine, mounting rail guns, lasers, missiles SA and SS...hundreds of missiles...hundreds and hundreds, mounted on auto loaders, more lasers and smaller rail guns.
Stop me anytime guys.

>dong'ed
breakingdefense.com/2019/02/pentagon-to-retire-uss-truman-early-shrinking-carrier-fleet-to-10/
>“You shouldn’t cut a carrier just to save money: It should be part of a broader strategic rebalancing of the force, and that’s what it sounds like this is,” Harrison said. “Carriers are increasingly less useful against adversaries that have anti-ship missiles with ranges greater than the range of strike aircraft on the carrier” — such as Russia and China.

>If you retire Truman, you could “theoretically” disband one of the Navy’s nine current carrier air wings, said retired Navy commander Bryan Clark, now with thinktank CSBA. (Traditionally, there’s one less wing than the number of carriers, since at any given time one ship is in overhaul and unavailable). But Navy aviation is so short of personnel and flyable fighters that it would probably just reallocate the dissolved wing’s assets to fill holes in the other eight — improving readiness but not saving much money.

Attached: 1920px-Dong-Feng_26.jpg (1920x1434, 809K)

>wanting to pay for the healthcare of niggers and illegals
I'd rather more carriers

We need to keep some going, (5 or 6?) to maintain those skills.
Others we can put in storage.

>Columbia SSBN
Will reuse as much Virginia tech as possible to save time and costs
>FFG(X)
Hopefully they pick the Cutter, which is already in production locally with the kinks worked out
>LPD-17
Already out and about, just needs VLS
>Ticonderoga replacement
Probably just more Burkes; I hope they build a stretched one with the same bow and stern but 128 cells (like pic related) to BTFO the chinks

Attached: 88540dd4-cb09-4691-b8d5-a13ce12acad8.jpg (654x368, 39K)

If only there wasn't an unbroken record of taxes being pissed away on pet causes, graft, or otherwise being diverted away from their intended destination. Did you learn nothing from social security? You never wondered why the high taxed richest state in the union didn't fix that dam they raised funding for, knew was fucked up, and when SHTF they cried to the feds that the money was gone and leaned on our morality to extract tax dollars from the rest of the country to fix it?

At some point you can't pretend to be naive and greedy, but rather a denier of economics and humanity. We will always be fleeced; only a moron would allot any more to those jackals than the bare minimum necessary to satisfy the basic functions of a government.

Why would they retire the Truman of all ships, the Nimitz is older and the Washington is more fucked up

Think he means the author of the article

Attached: 5C6CC8A1-E166-44FE-87DC-A709B29A097E.png (966x662, 958K)

Just uses his golfcar

>be Trump
>ree about libtards like Bezos not paying enough taxes
>but do nothing to close the loopholes in tax reg's that lets him do it
>because that would force his neocon rich friends to pay more as well

Its about as funny as the dems throwing a fit over trumps immigration attitude, when its pretty damn close to what obama said was needed back when he was a senator

Kek. You kids...

Don't know where you came up with this shit,but the USN is not going to retire a 20 old CVN and keep a 45 year old CVN (Nimitz) in service.

>when someone who has no idea what is going on still thinks his commentary has value

>m8 we could actually cut our military spending in half and still outspend China by a 100 billion
do you have any idea on what that would do to our military? Our combat readiness would go to zero overnight.

Retyped version

Attached: dfcfw9xhwk711.jpg (1548x2095, 575K)

Attached: 1548692160506.jpg (1180x1736, 413K)

Oh blow it out your ass.

this is a funding stunt, guaranteed.

Attached: youthoughtyoucoulddefeatme.jpg (155x162, 24K)

>but do nothing to close the loopholes in tax reg's that lets him do it
Except for eliminating the the salt deduction, which had allowed rich people to deduct their state taxes from their federal ones and was effectively a subsidy for high tax states.

Nice response retard

Of course, if the Navy actually wanted to get rid of a carrier, it would be one of the clunkers like Nimitz, not a relatively brand new one like Truman.

The USN is doing a lot more now than what it did during the Cold War
I don't think you realise how overworked the 7th fleet is
The navy is very badly undermanned and needs a frigate fleet of at least 40 FFGs to help support the current fleet

Attached: image.jpg (467x315, 21K)

>Implying the Navy knows literally anything about oil-fired steam turbines and 1940's gunnery methods anymore.
user I.

thats apparently what the navy is looking at doing. were about to see some major ramping up from the US.

This and the Navy attempting to push back amphibious ship deliveries is nothing more than budget blackmail. They're basically saying "If you don't give us more money we're going to shit the bed." It's childish and ridiculous, and i'm glad Congress (on both sides of the aisle) is calling them out on their bullshit.

There are now 13 LCS active with 14 under construction and another 8 on order, and then the 20 planned FFGX.

and the navy is also eyeing up the British frigate as well.

Congress needs to fund the USN to do the tasks they require the USN to do, how many ships do you think could be freed up from doing circles in the Pacific by something like an Aegis Ashore on Guam?