Home » Aviation » Carrier USS Harry S. Truman Operating in the Atlantic as Russian Submarine Activity is on the Rise


Carrier USS Harry S. Truman Operating in the Atlantic as Russian Submarine Activity is on the Rise

USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) conducts a strait transit. Truman is currently deployed as part of an ongoing rotation of U.S. forces supporting maritime security operations in international waters around the globe on April 27, 2018. US Navy Photo

The aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) has left the Mediterranean Sea and is now operating in the Atlantic Ocean, a defense official confirmed to USNI News.

This week the carrier, the embarked Carrier Air Wing 1 and some of its escorts passed through the Strait of Gibraltar into the Atlantic after spending several days in port in Marseille, France.

“As a matter of longstanding policy, we do not discuss future operations, but I can tell you that the Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Group will continue to conduct operations in support of our NATO allies, European and African partner nations, coalition partners, and U.S. national security interests,” Cmdr. John Perkins, a spokesman with U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Africa, told USNI News.

The move to the Atlantic is arguably a continued expression of two constituent themes in the Pentagon as of late: a return to great power competition outlined in new strategic planning documents, and the direction from Secretary of Defense James Mattis that U.S. forces need to be “strategically predictable and operationally unpredictable.”

In terms of great power competition, there is growing evidence that Russia continues to push its newest attack submarines to operate the North Atlantic at a pace not seen since the Cold War, Navy leaders have continued to stress publicly.

Russian submarine Severodvinsk

“Russian submarines are prowling the Atlantic, testing our defenses, confronting our command of the seas, and preparing the complex underwater battlespace to give them an edge in any future conflict,” current U.S. Naval Forces Europe-Africa commander Adm. James Foggo wrote in U.S. Naval Institute’s Proceedings in 2016.
“Not only have Russia’s actions and capabilities increased in alarming and confrontational ways, its national-security policy is aimed at challenging the United States and its NATO allies and partners.”

Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at CSBA, said that carrier strike group operations in the Atlantic make sense for high-end exercises for the U.S. and partner nations. Both the U.K. Royal Navy and the French Navy field effective submarine forces that haven’t trained much lately with U.S. surface ships.

“Our Atlantic coast guys need a chance to train against good submariners,” he said. “Either they’re it doing with the French or the British for training or for hope of finding a Russian submarine.”

For its part, the Truman Strike Group embarked with an extensive escort fleet that will include up to six guided-missile destroyers and the German Navy guided missile frigate FGS Hessen (F 221).

Clark said the U.S. DDGs are equipped with an effective anti-submarine warfare packages that work well in the Atlantic but aren’t typically deployed there.

“You have to make a special effort to put them there,” he said.

German navy frigate FGS HESSEN (F 221) trails the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) while transiting the Strait of Gibraltar on June 29, 2018. US Navy Phto

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson has also alluded to an increased Russian submarine presence in public statements about the need for the Navy to operate differently in a new era.

“It’s an aspect of the security environment that it’s getting harder to do things without being observed, no matter where you are. So we’re going to have to be clever about that,” he told USNI News last month.

In line with the Mattis guidance, the Navy is using a so-called dynamic force employment model that in the last several months has broken from the traditional patterns of the last several years.

Earlier in June, the amphibious warship USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7) entered the Persian Gulf after a two-and-a-half-month gap of a capital ship in the region, while two other ships in the Iwo Jima Amphibious Ready Group – USS Oak Hill (LSD-51) and USS New York (LPD-21) – operated in the Baltic and Mediterranean seas, respectively.

“The Navy is making deliberate prioritization decisions in accordance with the [national defense strategy] which may disrupt the ‘business as usual’,” a Navy official told USNI News on Friday. “We must prioritize lethality, deterrence capability, training and readiness of the defined fighting unit, and will ensure the mission is met with the right capability and platform.”

While the Navy did not acknowledge Truman’s mission in the Atlantic, the move harkens back to an exercise from last year.

On its return to Norfolk, Va., the George H.W. Bush Carrier Strike Group operated off of the U.K. as part of Saxon Warrior, an exercise with the U.K., Germany, Sweden and Norway. The exercise was the first in the series since 2011 and was in part prompted by Russian operations in the region, USNI News understands. However, the Truman carrier strike group is expected to continue its deployment for several more months.

  • Zorcon, Fidei Defensor

    Ahh, the German Bundeswehr, that ought to shake the Russians in their boots…

    • retiredhistorynut

      lol once maybe but their militarism is long gone as we all know. They can give it another try with the new Euro force taking shape now

    • ONTIME

      Germans are great at re engineering/development and I would be a bit concerned if I were a russkie and the German military begins to expand….

      • Zorcon, Fidei Defensor

        “If” is the operative road.

      • kettlecorn

        The Germans can’t even keep their women from being raped in their own country by barbarian Muslims they let in, this is not Germany of the 1930’s and 40’s by a long shot.

        • Emiliani

          Thank God.

        • Beriaite

          Merkle will be gone soon…and so will the no go zones.
          PERIOD.
          MAGA

          • pandainc3

            One can only hope …

        • SDW

          You sound disappointed.

      • Mostlynew

        As I recall, the Russian bear is formidable when provoked.

        • Emiliani

          That’s before the country offed, I don’t know, maybe 50% of its population!! Not that Germany is much better, but Russia has contracepted and aborted its population to rather scant levels.

          When I was very young, they were supposedly a very populous nation; however, those demographic numbers were probably faked.

          But they’re a country with a very long history and great pride. They don’t have the as much self-doubt as we do … probably because, unlike they’ve done to the rest of the world, no one sends and pays for endless enemies to destroy them from the inside!!

          And then there’s this bizarre comment from either Lourdes or Fatima, that Russia — of all countries! — would lead the nations in its glorification of Jesus Christ in the not-so-distant future.

        • Beriaite

          Hmm

          Like when?
          Afyanistan?

          Maybe against the civilians of Syria, but this ain’t a French restraint and Trump ain’t gonna get fed no polonium.

        • Electric Dynamic Boogaloo

          Only after expending 40 million of its people.

    • aintnosenatorsson

      Sounds like a beer

      • Zorcon, Fidei Defensor

        Sadly, it is not.

      • Centaurus

        Gimmie some beer.

  • Retired

    Just send in our most proven and powerful ASW platform-the LCS, The Truman will be totally safe from those pesky submarine ‘swarms’ (ha ha ha ha ha ha ha….) sheesh!

    • PolicyWonk

      Indeed, if there were ever a sea-frame invented by human hands that could make a Russian sub commander lose control of his bowels, its the mighty “littoral combat ship”!

      • Duane

        He won’t have time to worry about his bowels after he takes a Mk 54 up the gut.

        • Desplanes

          Oh, you mean the mk54 that they fish out of the ship’s single magazine because somebody forgot to specify a separate magazine for the helos and UAVs ? Or the mk54 that they just leave sitting attached to the helo all the time because it will take too damn long to transfer from the magazine ? You’re right Duane, I’m sure our near peer competitors are frightened of our well designed near pier LCSs.

          • Duane

            No … the Mk 54 that the MH-60R drops on top of the submerged boat, using tracking and targeting data from either the world’s most advanced variable depth sonar that can sense a sub lurking under a thermal layer, which a hull mounted sonar or towed array cannot sense …. or from one of the dipping sono buoys deployed by the LCS’s MH-60R manned chopper, or from one or more of the two or three MQ-8Bs or Cs that are also deployed by the LCS, giving the LCS the world’s largest area of sonar coverage of any surface warship.

          • Desplanes

            There is no separate magazine for the UAVs and the MH-60, like on real warships.

    • Duane

      You should see a professional about your obsessive-compulsive LCS trolling that infects every thread you participate in.

      • Todd

        The rest of us here (that don’t have the “my precious” disease) have pointed out on endless occasions the severe limitations of the LCS, as per official tests, evaluations, exams, actual costs spent on building, endless official documentation, etc, but you simply wave them off as being “idiots” (which you’ve said dozens of times). You then call anyone “old” if they point out your hypocrisy, then your final insult is a full broadside of “sheesh” (as if you’re soooo much wiser than all of us). Perhaps you’re missing something in your life that causes you to have an emotional attachment to the LCS, thus feel honor bound to defend it against every perceived threat and slight? In fact, you’re incapable of having a single ‘normal’ conversation about any aspects of the LCS while pulling out your numerous claims of “one shot one kill,” “no one has ever been hurt,” “more powerful than an Arleigh Burke destroyer,” etc. Bottom line, your wild claims do not purport to any reality, fact, or documented history, but your own imagination. Perhaps you were a lonely child and now a lonely adult? Who knows? But it’s no wonder your nicknames are Fleet admiral and Gollum. But the question here is, ‘who’ really needs help, the 99.99% of us or you?

  • xman_11530

    With advent of satellite tracking and hypersonic missiles, large aircraft carriers are the Maginot Line of the 21st century.

    • Duane

      Bad analogy. The 19th century design Maginot Line of ground fortresses was not attacked and defeated, but simply bypassed by German mobile armor.

      Carrior Strike Groups and their embarked aircraft are the world’s most mobile heavy strike force. The exact opposite of the Maginot Line.

      Oh, and that four and a half acres of carrier flight deck is the most heavily defended turf on earth. Shooting down hypersonic missiles is nothing new … we’ve been shooting down ballistic missiles that are all hypersonic for decades. For those who say hypersonics are more maneuverable than ballistic missiles, that may or may not be true, but in order to maneuver radically to avoid counterfire, they must necessarily slow down below hypersonic (Mach 5), and that simply turns them into nothing-special supersonics that we’ve also been shooting down for decades.

      Hyper-sonic is mostly hype … yes, a hypersonic can cover ground faster, but in order to maneuver radically to hit a moving ship or to avoid counterfire from a supersonic SM-6 it will have to slow down.

      • xman_11530

        The Maginot Line was heavily defended as well.

        Yes, carriers are mobile, but they are sitting ducks in the event a major power decided to eliminate them.

        Sending them chasing after Russian submarines is a perfect example. It’s a completely pointless risk when we have hundreds of land-based Orion’s sitting in the desert near Tucson,Az. In the event of war, the Russians would love to trade multiple submarines for an aircraft carrier or two.

        Heavily defended or not, the USN already does not send them deep into the South China Sea or past Straits into the Arabian Gulf as they know what would happen if the balloon went up.

        • Duane

          You missed the point … the Maginot Line was heavily defended, but it could not defend against a highly mobile armored assault. The Germans simply maneuvered around the north end of the line and came at the French from the rear. The French guns were incapable of training fire to their rear, and were quickly forced to surrender or be massacred.

          Again, you used a very bad analogy for our CSGs.

          You are also wrong … we routinely send our CSGs to the South China Sea. And we forward base one of them in Yokosuka, just a few hundred miles from the coast of China. And we routinely send CSGs to the Med, easily in range of Russian forces.

          You need to get out more, or read something other than RT.

          • xman_11530

            You have missed my point.

            With modern technology, even though a giant ship and her support group can move around the world at 40 knots, she might as well be stationary as the enemy knows exactly where she is and can either go around it or overwhelm it with weapons that are much cheaper.

            These ships are gigantic bullseyes costing billions. They are great against poorly armed desert tribesmen, but against a determined and technologically equivalent enemy they will be useless after a few hours. Either eliminated or moved so far from the action they are for all purposes useless.

          • Duane

            You are ignoring the hundreds of VLS tubes and multiple AEGIS combat management systems and radars and sonars and hidden SSNs (688 or Virginia class, or both) plus at least 76 aircraft (ISR, ASW, and attack, both fixed and rotary wing, manned and unmanned) that make up every Carrier Strike Group, every element of which is extremely mobile and equipped with extremely capable physical and electronic defenses. Plus numerous land based ISR, attack, and ASW aircraft that fly scout for the CSGs.

            Anyone who thinks a CSG is an easy target is clearly misinformed.

          • xman_11530

            Not easy, but vulnerable, especially from waves of guided missiles or a lucky Russian submarine captain who -from satellite intel- parks his sub in the path of a moving CSG and waits or a proximity airburst nuke ICBM.

            Even in your example, look at all the resources USN has to expend simply to defend these sitting ducks. Yet, far less expensive subs still get through the screens. They simply aren’t 21st century weapons.

          • Chiron

            Wow, you just can’t admit you are wrong. Also, if any nation targets a carrier they are going to get a mouthful of tactical nukes, duh.

            Washington D.C. is a ‘sitting target’. Yeah, shoot a B Missile at it and watch what happens. Get the point?

          • xman_11530

            An attack on a CSG in the middle of the ocean will elicit a completely different response than a nuke hitting a CONUS city.

            Anyone with even half a brain can recognize this. Look at the drastically different responses to Beirut barracks, USS Cole and 9/11 attacks.

            Unlikely that US starts Armageddon over an attack on a CSG any more than we were willing to nuke PRC when they invaded ROK 60 years ago and killed thousands of American soldiers. PRC didn’t even have nukes of their own back then.

            It’s also why having these big, expensive, juicy targets floating around is going to bite us on the butt at some point.

          • alpha1six

            Did the red Chinese move south of the 38th parallel?

          • xman_11530

            I believe so.

          • Electric Dynamic Boogaloo

            5,000 sailors on a CVN. How many did we lose on 9/11 again? So, yes, we’ll turn something of the enemy’s into glass.

          • xman_11530

            Russia and China aren’t Afghanistan or Iraq (or DPRK).

            If we can “turn something into glass”, so can they.

          • PilotDave

            Chiron, be easy on Sasha (Alexander) – his shift is almost done. It is very hard work for him to compose in English (We have 26 characters and he has 33.)

          • xman_11530

            The idiocy of your post speaks for itself.

          • John Wells

            That’s why its still called MAD.

          • Duane

            Listen, the instant any Russian nuke lights off, Russia will cease to exist as anything but a large number of smoking holes in the ground, so stop bullshitting about such ridiculous scenarios.

            A CSG is obviously not invulnerable, but it is vastly more survivable than you apparently wish they were on behalf of your trolling masters in the Kremlin.

            You are correct that a vast barrage of cruise missiles fired at a CSG might well overwhelm the defenses. But we are working hard to bring railguns and lasers to the fleet in the next decade to overwhelm any such missile barrages.

            I would not bet on Ivan the submariner besting our ASW screen, though, particularly from our SSNs that escort every CSG. When I served in SSNs a few decades ago in the Cold War we always got the best of Ivan, no contest.

          • xman_11530

            If I was truly trolling on ‘behalf of the Kremlin’, I would want the USN to continue to pour billions of $$$ into obsolescent weapons systems like large aircraft carriers (and B-1 bombers) that require tremendous resources to defend.

            By the way, it’s not clear to me that Russia (or China) would ‘cease to exist’ if they used a nuke on a CSG in th middle of the Atlantic (or Pacific). It’s not so obvious that POTUS would want to trade NYC for St Petersburg (or Tianjin) because the Russians (or Chinese) detonated a nuke in the middle of the ocean and killed 20,000+ sailors. Trump? Maybe. Obama? Unclear. If we retaliated on Russian cities, they would have a second strike and we would cease to exist as well.

            FWIW, I was SWO in USNR 30 years ago and understand how hard it is to find a submarine. Also, we cannot sink them until they shoot first, so we lose some CSG’s in first minutes of a shooting war.

          • uscgvet

            Obviously you miss one massive point. The USA is the only country in the history of the planet to use a WMD of massive destruction on another country. Make no mistake about it, the USA is a “first strike nation in the use of nuclear weapons”. Russia knows how to build massive machines, but on an epic scale they fall short of a maintenance supply line. Their organization model for their military hasn’t changed much since WW2. In the coming decades they will pale in capability from the country at their southern border aka China. Eventually a nuclear war will happen. They were not built to just sit in silos, subs and other vehicles. They are meant to be used. So, the POTUS will trade NYC for St. Petersburg. Only a fool would think otherwise.

          • xman_11530

            POTUS would trade NYC for St Petersburg, but likely not start that chain of events solely because a CSG was attacked at sea.

          • Sanity22

            No, they would nuke Murmansk and maybe Vladivostok. Wouldn’t really need Tridents to do it either. One thing is certain. We now have 2 strategic rivals heralding a new Cold War.

          • xman_11530

            And the Russians would let the US nuke Murmansk with no reprisal, right.

          • Sanity22

            Provide context. We nuked Japan and SAVED millions of lives. NATO doctrine always stated the use of nukes to prevent Soviet takeover of western Europe was an option. It is as likely or more so that India and Pakistan throw down, or even China v. Russia, than US v. Russia.

          • Caleb Abell

            Nuking Japan didn’t save any lives. The Japanese were ready to surrender. Truman murdered a quarter million people in Japan to convince Stalin that the US was capable of anything.

          • alpha1six

            The Japanese would not have surrendered before an invasion was launched and hundreds of thousands of Allied troops were killed. The bomb put them in just the right frame of mind to give up. Thankyou President Truman.

          • Sanity22

            That isn’t our ROE for subs getting close to a carrier. I guess China is stupid for deploying a carrier too? There are certain places where putting a carrier would be vulnerable, but in the open ocean, subs cant keep up without making noise. Our fast attacks, helos, and coming soon, drones will provide an effective ASW screen.

          • John Wells

            No – carriers are useful for use against weak nations and for humanitarian missions.

          • Sanity22

            Well, we will see wont we? You completely discount the men who serve. The Russian navy doesnt come close in terms of personnel.
            And assets don’t win batrles, people do.
            If they ate so impotent, why does the Chinese amd Russian navies make sinking them their top priority? And why do the Chinese think it’s so important to have them?

          • xman_11530

            China wants a carrier. It’s a matter of national pride and they are great at projecting power against local tribesmen. China wants to project power into Africa, a natural fit.

            OTOH, against US or Russia, the Chinese carrier would last all of 5 minutes.

            We are spending a disproportionate share of our defense budget around our carrier fleets, China is not.

          • Rocco

            Yeah only your missiles are inaccurate!!

          • xman_11530

            USN missiles are likely most accurate on the planet, but that isn’t the point.

          • larrybudwiser

            You had agreeing with you on the tactical stuff until you pulled the kremlin troll stuff. Unnessary.

          • muzzleloader

            Kremlin troll stuff is Duane’s favorite tactic.

          • Richard Johnson

            It is funny to see Duaney arguing with the trolls that have invaded the USNI site.

          • Trevor Phillips

            Correct. Russia is only good at lying and drunkenness.

          • John Wells

            And military empires have always lasted FOREVER – not.

          • Trump Versus Dark Ages Part II

            Space Force will be a front line defense and offense, neutering “the enemy”
            lasers and hyper rockets can strike anywhere in the world in less than a moment
            another Trump Check and Mate
            Trump the MEGA MAGA President
            Trump 2018 2020

          • Sanity22

            Yes, we train how we fight. Which is why we will win.

          • Negan2

            I guess Scapa Flow is your solution.

          • xman_11530

            Smaller, less expensive targets.

            When we spend $100 million on a single fighter or $1 billion on a single destroyer, a single loss or malfunction is a big deal.

          • Sanity22

            Yes, we should scrap them tomorrow. You should be glad we deploy such obsolete weapons.

          • Caleb Abell

            No need to scrap them. We can sell them to Royal Caribbean. If you think the Zip Line was exciting, wait til they strap you into the catapult on the flight deck.

          • xman_11530

            No need to scrap them, but we certainly don’t need four more.

          • Electric Dynamic Boogaloo

            What are your bona fides in this discussion? You appear to be a civilian or spreading disinformation.

          • xman_11530

            My ‘bona fides’? Lol. We are discussing this on a open chat board not in front of House Appropriations.

            My main ‘bona fides’ are that I am smarter than the average duck, read a lot and have been around the world a few times (professionally and personally, literally and figuratively).

            FWIW, I held a commission for 7 years in the USNR with a Merchant Marine SWO designator. That and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

          • Jim

            Battleship mentality.

          • Sanity22

            And that’s what we know of. Do you think that there’s some capabilities that arent advertised?

          • PilotDave

            xman_11530 – “technologically equivalent enemy” ??? Yupe Tvoyu Mat ! There is no “technologically equivalent enemy” – Neither Russian nor China has a 5th generation fighter – your RT claims the Su-57 to be such, but lacks a key factor to be 5th generation – SuperCruise. Only the USA has the technology to maintain supersonic speeds without afterburners on a fighter, Besides, Your Mother Russian first “released” this toy plane in 2009, yet only 10 have been made to date. BTW, how are your troops in Donetsk? Have the Ukrainian forces being training by US Special Forces to use the 121 Javelin high tech tank busters started using them against Russian tanks in Ukraine ? Will be interesting.

          • xman_11530

            If someone questions the lunacy of spending billions on a floating Maginot Line and using ridiculously expensive weapons to chase subs in the North Atlantic, you immediately know they are Russian? That’s demented.

            Do you think we will have our edge for the next 40 years?Where are most high tech gadgets manufactured nowadays?

            We already don’t send carriers deep into the China Sea or AG. In event of war with Russia, do you think we’d send into Baltic or Black Sea? Of course not. Too vulnerable and too expensive.

          • PolicyWonk

            This is true, especially since the USN gave up its long-range fighters and strike aircraft – everything we have now is (comparatively) short range, and the F-35 doesn’t help.

          • katzkiner

            The F35 with its’ data link can hand off an SM 6 @2500k.
            It was 1986 when an F15 shot down the first ICBM incoming warhead.
            The Navy has come a long way baby.
            Ivan ain’t that stupid.

          • Trump Versus Dark Ages Part II

            your issues were answered and updated often, your bulls eye theory is weak, nice try upsetting patriots but you are full of ..
            technology has increased shield and preventative protection additionally Trump’s Space force can destroy any target on the earth within moments of aggression the rest of the country will take minutes

          • xman_11530

            Technology changes. We are crazy to keep fighting the next war based on the last and spending disproportionate defense dollars to do so.

            The carrier admirals of this generation are as bad as the battleship admirals of the last or the sail admirals before them.

            Big juicy targets like aircraft carriers mean our enemies will innovate ways to defeat them. Likely already have.

            The Titanic was deems unsinkable as well. The USS Arizona should be daily proof that hubris is bad.

          • Trump Versus Dark Ages Part II

            dudley know nothing has spoken

          • xman_11530

            Clearly, this means you grudgingly agree, but have to insult because you have nothing constructive to say.

          • Bridgette

            You assume in a hot war that we would allow them to fire on our CV’s? We would knock out their command and control and eliminate their ability to fight, or launch. A few might get through, but our screening forces and the CV itself have many anti-missile defenses.

            Not to mention, I don’t see a hot war with China or Russia happening. And if it does, will it not go nuke pretty quick? Who cares about CV’s when ICBM’s are inbound US cities? We’d all better hope it never happens. I’d bet our black ops guys have bugs buried deep in their missile systems. With the click of a mouse they all get disabled.

          • xman_11530

            We have fought PRC already in last 60 years and it did not go nuclear.

            If China or Russia decided to attack our CV’s, it’s highly unlikely they would tell us beforehand.

          • Bridgette

            Did the PRC have nukes when we fought them? NO, so your point is quite stupid. It couldn’t have gone nuclear, Dippy.

          • xman_11530

            The US had atomic weaponry when it and the PRC were fighting on Korean Peninsula. Although PRC had zero atomic or nuclear counter-threat, the US did not use atomic weapons, even when large US conventional forces were faced with annihilation.

            Now that PRC and US both have credible nuclear arsenals, it is even less likely either would choose to use them against the opposing civil population.

            However, against a juicy military target 1000 miles at sea away from all witnesses? Quite possible. The problem for US is that no other nation has an attractive military target like an aircraft carrier. PRC /Russia would gladly sacrifice their navies in order to counter ours. Most of their ships are designed for a first strike only.

            If a ‘hot war’ did erupt, it’s unlikely the Chinese or Russians would signal their intentions of first strike until after they fired (see Pearl Harbor). What we ‘allow’ won’t matter.

          • Bridgette

            You’re ignorant of the facts, and unworthy of debate. Nowhere on earth can a nuclear weapon be detonated without being witnessed. You really have no comprehension of our capabilities.

          • xman_11530

            Again. Would the US be willing to swap Seattle, Wa for the Harry S Truman if we retaliated and nuked Tianjin? That’s not certain.

            Certainly if a CG was hit by a nuke, sensors would detect. However, 1000 miles from shore, both China and Russia would likely claim this was misinformation by US or that it was an accident aboard ship.

            The world- not wanting a full scale nuclear war- would likely accept Russian and Chinese prevarications and pressure US to limit its response.

          • Bridgette

            Everything you’ve said is wrong.

          • xman_11530

            How so?

          • Rocco

            You have no idea what your talking about!!

          • xman_11530

            I beg to differ. The facts speak for themselves.

          • thomas

            When the insults begin…you are losing.

          • John Wells

            Yokosuka Japan to Shanghai is over 1000 miles.

          • Sanity22

            Yeah. the trolls are pretty obvious

        • stopht

          just another red flag for war

          • xman_11530

            Yup.

        • alpha1six

          Chasing Russian subs in peace time is good training in case we have to do it for real sometime. Lots of intel gathered into tactics and capabilities.

          • xman_11530

            Intel is gathered by both sides. The Russians will learn as well.

            Since we have more to lose in a carrier vs sub trade, it seems an expensive way to conduct business if we are truly worried about Russian subs threatening the USAC.

      • ohpleaseDOschoolme

        So many Generals and Admirals here, that I stand in awe of their breadth of experience and encyclopedic knowledge of all things military and history. Just one question:
        Why post it here? Why not grab the ear of the Department of Defense?
        They’d be fascinated.
        I’m sure.

        • rusty

          You have to have money. If you have money you can get a lobbyist to pay the right politician the right bribe and your in. Solutions are really quite simple. But DC runs on bribes. End of story.

          • J A Apache

            True statement world wide. But today we are making defense contractors more competitive. Proto-typing competitions for future plans are heating up after decades of slow walking new technology (shameless, too, with cost over-runs seemingly inevitable; chopping the end results in terms of numbers of actually purchased items).

      • waymore43

        Exactlty…let me add..too many YOUTUBE videos spout bs…A carrier group is MORE POWERFUL(not necesarily bigger) than 98% of most navies…plus there are many fast attacks that protect it….That german frigate was ALLOWED to get within miles(because it is an ally) ship……..All this BS about hypersonic..is BS….There are working laser weapons that can knock out an ICBM before it reaches apogee- at the speed of light-their are working railguns that fire projectiles faster than most missiles….IF IT WERE NOT SO, our Navy would already have been tested……We have been ahead of the GAME for decades….Trump proved it …..all the other presidents did not have the mental brass to do it…That is why providence removed FDR..so that Truman could hit Japan…twice…..Truman and Trump are of the same metal…that is why providence gave us Trump……to protect the Supreme Court from socialism…….my friends say….’you always call it right”

        • Caleb Abell

          Truman? I remember him. He;s the guy who signed the National Security Act which gave us the NSA, CIA, and the rapidly evolving police state.

      • J A Apache

        Plus, we are now heavily invested in rapid procurement and delivery of advanced drone fleets to further protect such carrier groups. Sub-Drones and Air-Drones, each with its own swarm fleets of recon and defense/offense rapid response capability mini-drones. They are designed to handle jamming and spoofing in contested areas. What we don’t know about such technology is far greater than what we do know. MAGA definitely includes Make America Safe Again. Improving military readiness is a top priority of POTUS 45.

      • Jim

        Low-intensity conflicts, sure. High-intensity conflicts, they’ll last 5 minutes.

      • VESENG

        And of course, throw up some ball bearings or even buckshot in the missile’s path and watch what will happen.

      • Anonymous247

        An unnamed DoD contractor recently invited me to help upgrade a well-known-but-unnamed-here anti-missile software-guidance system. How many models does the US have ? Talking to them about what tech they use… it’s from the 00’s, if not the 90’s. Knowing this is keeping me up at nights.

        I read a transcript from Putin in 2016 talking about how he’d prefer a joint venture for the tech for developing anti-missile systems. What’s your opinion?

    • PilotDave

      xman_11530
      You may have missing it, we are the only force with Stealth fighters on our aircraft carriers. We call this a force multiplier. Also, as Putin demonstrated in 2014, boots on the ground is the only way to take a country (parts of Ukraine with newly found oil & gas) – our carrier battle groups enable that. Russian and Chairman Mao’s Navy both lack such battle groups. Most important for our battle group, we have state of the art Intel and command and control in theater, not several seconds away in each direction. Remember the disaster this latency caused in Mogadishu ?

      • xman_11530

        The fighters are stealth. The carrier is not.

        Carriers are great in low intensity wars against poorly armed desert tribesmen.

        Against a modern and determined foe like China or Russia, they are as useful as the Maus would’ve been against the AUS.

        There are a lot better ways to spend billions of defense $$ than carrier groups and all the ships that serve only to protect them.

    • StevenRobert

      Got to agree to some extent. Carriers are great for force projection in the current geopolitical climate where it probably isn’t possible to have a ground base in many countries which aren’t friendly to the US.
      They likely do have vulnerabilities.

      The Chinese have been working on “carrier killers”, or ballistic missiles for some time.

      It’s hard to say how effective they would be in any generalized conflict.

      In the current geopolitical climate, the US Navy needs to carry on in a war time status, meaning don’t take anything for granted and be willing and able to defend themselves against all comers at all times, especially while at sea.

      The Russians have had hypersonic, or mach 3 antiship missiles for some times, the Onyx class P800, ramjet powered missiles which have been designed for mass attack, and to communicate with each other so they can perform coordinated attacks, or like “wolves” in attacking from all directions and altitudes.

      Besides being ship based, they can be land based as well so will make it dangerous for large ships, probably any ships at all, to operate close to shorelines. Likely they will need to operate beyond horizon and so any ship to shore activity will need to be aircraft based, things like tilt rotor aircraft such as V-22 Osprey, and perhaps small amphibious craft such as aircushion vehicles for any over the beach operations.

      That doesn’t mean the days of the carrier are over, but there will need to be increasing emphasis on defenses, more anti-aircraft missiles and radar, more antisubmarine, perhaps even antimine, and mobile mines will probably be in the works for area denial.

      It will reach a point where probably moving carriers into near shore operations will be too dangerous and they will be restricted to over the horizon operations and long distance aircraft with refueling capability.

      Probably amphibious ships will assume more responsibility and there will be upgrades to aircraft, such as vertical takeoff F35’s for the Marines which will enable amphibious ships to take on more of an offensive and defensive mission which had been performed by top line carriers previously. Amphibious ships will probably be the only ships which get close to shore and then probably only after there have been extensive sterilizing operations to make it relatively safe from cruise missiles and even land based artillery and artillery missiles which are undergoing a transformation to have much longer range and lethality.

    • Guido FL

      WW2 strategy of carriers is yesterdays threat and today’s ” Missile Magnets “. If there is another serious war, subs will rule the oceans as missiles and torpedoes wipe surface ships off the chess board.

    • Ed Ward

      USN has tech of which you are not aware. Moreover, you hit a CSG and you best understand DEFCON…

      • xman_11530

        In a China (or Russian) vs US war, denial of sea lanes is enough for them to win. We have to keep lanes open to support our allies.

        • John Wells

          …………..and China has to keep sea lanes open to support themselves.

          • xman_11530

            Which is why they are building the Belt and Road initiative and working with Russia to obtain energy by pipeline.

        • Ed Ward

          That is pure understood Logic 101–Likewise, look for the Iranians to foment conflict in the Strait of Hormuz which further illustrates the power of ‘Gunboat Diplomacy.’

          • xman_11530

            I am old enough to have worked during the Iran v Iraq tanker war and saw what it did to shipping and insurance rates.

          • Ed Ward

            Indeed–with the sanctions increasingly hurting the Iranian Economy and perhaps causing domestic discontent added to yesterday’s OPEC announcement that they will immediately be bringing millions more barrels of oil to market, Iran will become increasingly desperate…

          • xman_11530

            Unfortunately, our prior Administration gave them a Wall Street worthy billion $$$ bailout.

    • Negan2

      Who has access to those? Well, guess what snowflake, these ain’t for them.

      • xman_11530

        The Russians don’t have spy satellites? Really? Who has been launching most of ours over the last 20 years?

  • SSMcDonald

    Comments are missing the point of, “where is the P3 Orion?” While the Navy mothballs the very competent P-3, they increase the not-so-competent P-8. WHY? The P-8 is easier for women to fly than the P-3! Screw the mission, make the Navy more PC.

    • muzzleloader

      In my job I get to be around a lot of MP types, and they love the P-8.
      PC as the basis for the P-8 is silly.

    • PilotDave

      Could it be also that the P-3 was taken apart by Chairman Mao’s people, so very few secrets ? (crypto and black bags not being part of that disclosure) Can a P-8 with missiles defend against capture by a pair of J-8 “fighters” ?? I don’t have a clue, but maybe this is part of why the P-8 has missiles ? The P-3 has a published and believable top speed of 473 mph and the P-8 564 mph – but likely can go faster… about 100 mph more might have allowed a P-8 to out distance the J-8 as the very old technology Chinese fighter has only a 500 mile range due to very thirsty engines.

  • News Reporter

    Nice. Another Kursk for the bottom of the ocean.

  • Alanson McCord

    CVNs as sub hunters. That’s why they retired the S-3s years ago. Trump is right about NATO – an alliance in search of a mission, a black hole for US tax dollars.

    • To many civilians, NATO seems to be an outed alliance whose scope has exploded. Like the UN, we are leading (paying for) nations who don’t come close to having our best interests.

      • Feldwebel Schultz

        NATO, like the UN are an idea whose time has come and gone. NATO bilks the US so they don’t have to pay their fair share; and the UN is the largest concentration of corruption outside of D.C. Neither do service to their benefactor.

        • bobsprinkle

          I ABSOLUTELY agree with you on the UN…..useless nothings

          • Feldwebel Schultz

            Parasites feeding on the US Treasury.

    • retiredhistorynut

      That’s for sure. An alliance geared toward an enemy that no longer exists and that whose successor has zero intention or ability to conquer anything.
      On Drudge’s conservative competitor Whatfinger News, they have a few interesting videos in theri scoop section on this, and on some real issues facing America, like Iran and if we should help the people overthrow the Ayotollah.
      We should save our money with NATO, slice our troops in half in Germany at least, and throw a few bones towards people who are ready to fight for their freedom, before their country gets nukes.
      They have one video there now (on that Whatfinger) taken on someone’s cell, showing the growing revolt by the people there in Iran. They want to be Persia again and kick Iran to the dustbin of history. We should help, let loose some crates of weapons in cities as their economy collapses more and more every day now thanks to Trump’s actions. Total opposite to Lord Obama and how kowtowing.

      • ONTIME

        Saw some video on the unrest that’s growing in Iran against the mullah military and the lack of money going toward helping the iranian civilian economy……the citizen crowds are growing….and so are the Iran govs threats…..

      • Chris Feige

        Merica! We dont need no stinking peer review. we’ve got youtube.

      • cylonslayer

        Do you get paid for your posts?

      • Centaurus

        Well, we vote that you can single handedly assault Tehran from the Land, Sea and Air… all the while, swinging your wee-wee at the Farsi-shouting and America-loving spectators awaiting you !

      • alpha1six

        Yea, Comrade Putin, is no threat. He only invaded Georgia and Ukraine because he was bored and the red army got lost. Seems to me that the people in Europe who know from experience how much you can trust the Russians are stepping up their defenses, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Poland and the Baltic countries. Poland asking for a permanent U.S. base in their country and willing to pay for it. They spent more than 50 years with the red army as uninvited guests and aren’t interested in a return engagement. The Baltics were also under the boot of Moscow.

        Putin is an insecure little bald guy who has some delusion that he can resurrect the old Russian/Soviet empire. He demonstrates his insecurity every time he has one of his opponents or media critics arrested or murdered.

        I’m kind of surprised that the Russian Navy has any subs that are sea worthy enough to go over the horizon. Heck how far from land was the ‘Kursk’ when it sank with all hands.

        I think that despite what people think of Trumps blasts at NATO (I think they are immature) the members are beginning to take their commitments for mutual defense seriously. They know that the OLD mission is the NEW mission. Keep colonel Putin and the red army within the Russian borders.

        • John Wayne

          How far from land the Kursk was is neither here nor there. They were using unmaintained torpedoes and one exploded in the loading tube.
          Don’t ever underestimate your enemy no matter how ill equipped they may be.

          • alpha1six

            At least some of the crew in the Kursk might have been saved if Putin had acknowledged the sinking and allowed the Norwegians and others to begin rescue attempts immediately. But instead he sat on his thumb and let them all die rather than admit that they had screwed the pooch.

            I do not underestimate the enemy. Politicians do that. I am very happy having Jim Mattis as SecDef.

          • Rocco

            The Kursk had a Nuke leakdown!!!

        • DG

          How many times has Europe invaded Russia? How many times has Russia invaded Europe?

          • alpha1six

            Well let me see. Poland was invaded several times by pre-Soviet Russia and the red army has invaded in the 30’s and again in the 40’s. Remember the Katyn forest massacre and the Warsaw ghetto slaughter. I think that people in countries like Finland, Poland, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, Georgia, Albania, Bulgaria and Armenia all probably would have something to say about how much they enjoyed having the red army and the KGB in their countries.

        • carl6352

          putin wants whats good for russia nothing more and he has no intention of starting a war in europe! ground troop wars are over, air and sea wars rule! today’s wars are economic not ground fighting and we have had decades of wimps who give more to them as we got nothing like nafta and tpp! china and mexico got rich and we paid for it losing jobs and money with our trade deficits! you cannot have trade deficits in the 3-5 hundred billion a year range and have a thriving economy! they take more and we get less is the mantra of three decade of both parties! obama was the worse with that tpp deal that never happened! after reading what was in it i voted trump, haven’t voted for president since 1984! i am very happy i added to his victory! a citizen legislator, we have not had one since our forefathers!

          • alpha1six

            No, You are right he probably would prefer to rebuild the old Soviet Union without risking war which he knows would be him against the rest of the world and would destroy Russia. However he has invaded Georgia and Ukraine and annexed the Crimea and gotten away with it. He has the red army in Moldova and Syria. He has threatened the Baltics and seems to think that when Norway invited 700 US Marines to conduct joint training it was a threat to Russia. He is more than a little paranoid like most Russian leaders.

          • Electric Dynamic Boogaloo

            Whatever commie troll.

          • carl6352

            Thanks. The commies are on your side and one of the just won in nj her tag the communist party of America must be a burner supporter! Your party is in psychotic mode over trump

          • Rocco

            There’s no our in your forefathers where you come from!!

        • Rocco

          He even kicked the crap out of the Family guy last night!! Lol

      • Icansee4miles

        How the North Korea nuke talks doing with Your Sucker Trump?? OOPS!!

        • s pin

          It’s going a little better than the talks Obumbler had with NK, since there are actual talks.

          • Icansee4miles

            President Obama relied on the US Military; unlike your Sucker Trump!

          • s pin

            You mean like when Iran took US sailors hostage and Obama paid the Iranians $1.7 billion in ransom. Was it then Obama relied on the military or was it a different time?

          • Icansee4miles

            What A Lie!! LOLOL!!

      • Electric Dynamic Boogaloo

        “and that whose successor has zero intention or ability to conquer anything.”
        Like the Crimea or Ukraine. Give us a break.

        Oh and troll-publicize your crappy mag elsewhere. Blocked like all of your other advertising accounts.

      • BroccoliRob

        Crimea is a complicated issue. Krushchev (a Ukrainian) gave it to the Ukraine Soviet Republic in the 1950s, for administrative purposes. No one could anticipate (at that time) the Ukraine would be a separate country. The people there are overwhelmingly Russian. Russia has its major naval base there at Sevastopol. The economy in Crim was bad before the annexation and now is even worse. If Ukraine joined NATO, could a major Russian military base be in a NATO country?

        The old resorts as still in operation there. Maybe they can make Crim the Las Vegas of the Black Sea! That would seem to be the best hope there.

    • Mostlynew

      The President is forcing NATO slackers to rearm in their own defense. The gravy train is over.

      • SWDC

        WHEN IS Germany PAYING ITS 70 YEAR OLD NATO DEBT WITH INTEREST?

    • waymore43

      That is NOT TRUE!!…The US has more FAST ATTACK(sub-killers) submarines …than all the submarines in the WORLD COMBINED….Los-Angelas and Virginia class of sub-killers or ‘fast-attack’…I know personally…….This article shows a NATO frigate…but trust me…there are American killer subs nearby…..however…when you go through a canal-zone you must go in line…………To add a Carrier..never…I mean never..goes to sea with out a group of protection…it is called a carrier group…military publications..publish on a need to know basis….and the public ….does not need to know everything

      • Chamcool Breeze

        you are a long winded fruckstick!!!!! quit trying to impress yourself with all your worthless bulllllschit.

        • Negan2

          Troll. Idiot Troll. Idiot.

        • Chris Smith

          Sit back and STFU the adults are having a conversation.

        • TheJacob

          He’s impressing me!

        • carl6352

          he obviously served on a sub as i did and what he wrote is a fact! we send boats into the northen sea to track there boats leaving and coming backthey send there boats along are coast also but you don’t see it as they are over 300 feet below you. that’s why we have sosus along the coast and asw in the air. with the carrier, maybe the sosus line along the coast may be down for maintenance or a upgrade!

          • Rocco

            You mean Their!! Not There!! So their!!

        • Mary George

          You might go to the corner, and then sit in the middle of the school house with a dunce hat on your head.SHUT it.

        • Rocco

          If you’re gonna curse be a man & do it troll!! Otherwise get off this blog because you don’t know Jack!!! Do you know what a jack is in Navy terms!!!???………

          • CVN65

            I don’t know what a “jack” is in Navy terms and I spent five years in with three on Big E. Please enlighten me.

          • alpha1six

            I believe it’s the little flag flown on the bow when a ship is tied up at a pier or mooring? Seems prevalent in all navies. Not sure what it has to do with the fact that colonel Putin is a little man with serious insecurity issues.

        • Matthew

          Comrade Troll

      • Won Hung Lo

        I’d pay good money to see an aircraft carrier go through the Panama Canal. I’d pay DOUBLE when a sub does it….genius….

        • s pin

          I believe most US Super Carriers such as the Nimitz class cannot fit the Panama canal. Iowa class Battleships will fit, barely.

          • OldSailor

            I believe the new Panama Canal expansion locks will accommodate a USN CVN though none have made the trip as yet. Those locks opened in 2006.

          • s pin

            Thank you for that info.

          • Rocco

            Yes agreed

          • Rocco

            They can now!! When the BB’s went through it was before the expansion. It’s the overhang on the port side that was the issue getting through it.

        • carl6352

          why should a sub go through a canal! we have sub groups in the atlantic and pacific. even carrier groups on both sides but the majority are in the pacific, more open space

          • Won Hung Lo

            Because, genius. First, Navy ships don’t go through the canal. Aircraft Carriers and their battle group sail AROUND the Cape of Good Hope. It was expert sarcasm, troll level: Genius.

          • Weigh me down

            Battle groups may go around the Cape of Good Hope if they are going to India. Cape of Good Hope is in Africa. You mean Cape Horn near Tierra de Fuego in Southern Chile. YOU are the real GENIUS!

          • Rocco

            Navy ships don’t go through the canal!!! Before you mock someone check your facts!! FYI the canal was just widened not to long ago!! Essex class Carrier’s were designed to all fit through the canal in WW2!

          • DWC

            If the ship can fit it usually goes through versus a transit of several thousand miles around South America. Saves time and likewise costs with respect to getting to the duty station assignment .

          • TomD

            “why should a sub go through a canal! ”

            To change homeports, for one reason. I knew a guy who served aboard a fast attack boat. They were transiting the Panama Canal and for some reason I can’t recall (other shipping problem perhaps) they got stuck in a lock. The reactor intercooler began to heat the water in the lock, and it got close to the point they were going to have to shut down the reactor. They resorted to cracking open the upstream lock doors to flood out the hot water.

            So subs DO go through canals.

          • carl6352

            Subs are not moved from ocean to ocean! They are assigned to sub group and stay there, now if a crew member gets transferred he may go through the canal or fly reg or a Mac flight for free!

          • TomD

            You know nothing, here are a few of hundreds of examples proving you wrong.

            USS Woodrow Wilson departed Vallejo, Calif., on 9 January 1964, bound for the east coast on a route which would take her through the Panama Canal. After stopping briefly at San Diego, the submarine proceeded on to Panama, arriving on 19 January at the west coast end of the canal. Violent anti-American demonstrations and riots over a recent flag-displaying incident had resulted in an extremely tense atmosphere. As a result, the submarine transited the canal in a record seven hours and ten minutes while combat-ready marines and soldiers guarded the locks…Woodrow Wilson subsequently operated in the Atlantic until the autumn of 1969 conducting her patrols from forward bases at Rota, Spain, and Holy Loch, Scotland. She was then transferred to the Pacific and arrived at Pearl Harbor on 19 November, via Charleston and the Panama Canal.

            Underway for the United States East Coast on 10 August 1966, USS Robert E. Lee transited the Panama Canal on 20 August and arrived at Charleston, South Carolina, on 4 September 1966…Transiting the Panama Canal early in August 1973, she arrived in San Diego, California, on 17 August 1973…The Gold Crew transisted the Panama Canal January 1979.

            USS Seawolf operated along the East Coast until 9 November 1970 when her home port was changed to Vallejo, California, and she sailed for the West Coast. The submarine transited the Panama Canal on 17 November and changed operational control to Submarine Force, Pacific Fleet.

            During the cruise, USS Phoenix made a port visit to HMAS Stirling, Western Australia, in July 1983, then transited the Panama Canal eastward en route to Norfolk to complete her record-setting 203-day, 65,000-mile (105,000 km) circumnavigation of the globe.

            In 1996 USS Key West transited the Panama Canal on the way to its new homeport in Hawaii.

            Give it up dude.

        • DWC

          On April 17, 2017, a USN nuclear submarine transited the Panama Canal.

          • Rocco

            Thankyou!!

        • Rocco

          They have!!

        • DWC

          A genius you’re not. Pay up then. Easy to look up with photos and video of USN nuclear attack sub transiting the canal.

      • carl6352

        probably there asw capabilities is why they sent them in. even with sosus and attack boats going up and down the coast they can slip by! a lot of traffic goes through the atl’ whether above or below! just the ship and not the group? that is strange.

        • Rocco

          It’s their not there dude!! Get your grammar school books out!!

          • carl6352

            Parsing is not allowed on diqus just the discussion! So there!

          • Rocco

            Seriously at least use correct grammar troll

      • profwatson

        Unfortunately, German Frigates are accident prone. A missile misfired and scorched the deck of a German navy frigate that was 18 years old. “A missile misfired and scorched the deck of a German navy frigate” “The rocket had also been inspected prior to the launch and was assessed to be in a perfect technical condition.” Same goes for the Germany military as a whole. “Broken fighter jets, grounded helicopters and idled tanks: Germany’s military is ailing”

        This reflects that fact that Germany only spends a little over 1% of their GDP on the military.

        • Borris Kutzyanutzoff

          Same happened to the Sullivans back in 2015, cosmetic damage.

        • Hugh

          Their subs seem to be on the Fritz too.

          • Gerardo Señoráns Barcala

            The German navy has six submarines, and none of them is working!

        • Bloodaxe

          They’re too busy surrendering to Muslims.

        • ElmCityAle

          That was an American SM-2 that failed on the German frigate, for those that care.

          • profwatson

            The American manufacturer said it was not their fault, it was the launcher and/or lack of proper maintenance. Apparently the Germans are short of funds and don’t do all the proper maintenance. .”The rocket had also been inspected prior to the launch and was assessed to be in a perfect technical condition.”

          • ElmCityAle

            The accident just happened, how could Raytheon possibly have conducted an investigation and determined the root cause? Besides, the same model missile failed in a similar launch situation 2-3 years ago on an American ship.

          • profwatson

            “The rocket had also been inspected prior to the launch and was assessed to be in a perfect technical condition.” The canister did not discharge the missile as it should. “FGS Sachsen sailors will evaluate the damage, try to determine the causes of the failure and identify necessary repairs.” info from Navaltoday. Raytheon builds state of the art missiles that are used worldwide. Blohm+Voss built the ship. For further information, contact them.

          • profwatson

            USS The Sullivans (DDG 68) “As far as the missile goes, these are complex rockets, packed in a sealed coffin for long periods of time and battered by the sea for months at a time. Failures are bound to happen, especially with older stocks. As long as they don’t occur in VLS cell itself, the ship, in most cases, can just launch another and continue to fight.” See, here again, it is not the fault of the manufacturer Raytheon. I can not over emphasize the need for proper maintenance. Under Obama, maintenance did not happen as it does under the current POTUS .

          • ElmCityAle

            “Under Obama, maintenance did not happen as it does under the current POTUS” – that has little to do with the person in the White House and much to do with Congress and the military leadership.

          • profwatson

            POTUS is the Commander in Chief. POTUS is the head of the military.
            “The message Navy leaders are sending to President-elect Donald Trump’s team is: We need money to keep the current 274 ships in the fleet maintained and modernized first and then give us the money to buy more ships.
            Speaking to the press at the Surface Navy Association meeting Tuesday in Crystal City, Va., Vice Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Bill Moran said the transition team “has really been open-minded” and asked probing questions about the service’s plans.” “Trump’s 2018 request calls for a $9.8 billion increase in the Navy’s base budget. But $6.9 billion of that bump would go toward operation and maintenance for a force that has been pushed hard over the past 15 years. Procurement spending would essentially remain flat at about $46.7 billion.” POTUS heard the Navy and dramatically increased the maintenance budget.

          • Graniteman31

            “Budget” & “request” are the key words here. the exec proposes, the Congress “passes” – or maybe just never gets a round tuit.

          • RDF

            Its not maintenance. Its environment of the missile storage over time. We need a good missile-ex to shoot off all this old stuff. Ask Putin to supply some aerial targets.

          • RDF

            Unless they can image the propellant through the case, any external exam is pointless for this failure.

          • profwatson

            “Atmospheric and environment conditions are the primary cause of corrosion, and they hasten the process once it has begun. Moist, oxygen-rich air, especially if it carries salts from ocean waters, is particularly damaging to metal components”. The Germans did not maintain the system properly. The SM-2 passed all inspections when it left the factory and the manufacturer is not responsible for lack of proper maintenance by the customer. Contact Raytheon for further information. Take a look at this report.

            Maintenance Symposium
            Eric Herzberg
            November 14, 2012
            Impact of Corrosion on Cost
            and Availability to DoD Corrosion Prevention and Control
            Integrated Product Team

            There are many articles about the failure of the German military to properly maintain their equipment.

          • Gerardo Señoráns Barcala

            German maintenance and non professional attitude. ….

          • Centaurus

            They just hadn’t bought the “upgrade” from MS .

        • RDF

          It was a low order case rupture. Not a big deal. That is why they make everyone watch through the Windows. :-] propellant cracks if the storage of the motor was improper.

      • Jim

        attack subs are attached to every battle group and have been since their inception

      • BroccoliRob

        We do not have more fast attack submarines “than all the submarines in the world combined.” We currently have 53 Fast Attack subs with 15 Virginia class in various states of construction.
        As the new boats come on line, older Los Angeles-class subs will be retired.

        • Rocco

          Look again!! Doesn’t mean or matter if a ship or sub is not deployed!!

        • RDF

          But our FA lads are the best in the world. Kill a sub, send a sub.

        • waymore43

          I know about Wikipedia…trust me….there are things that the internet does not know…you can use a computer to find some things..but the US Department of Defense has inventory that is not known..even to most active duty personnel…and definitly not to online “keyboard warriors”…The US military is massive and secretive…the only weak link is the obvious…personnel….

      • Billy G

        What are you smoking? The US has 53 attack subs. China has 98 alone.

      • CVN65

        Not exactly. I served on a carrier for three years. Aside from picture ops, we usually made due with one picket ship, usually a cruiser or destroyer. Sometimes we’d have a frigate around as well but that was not often. Pretty certain that we had fast-attack sub close by at all times but only ever saw them during Suez transits. There were times that we were in the Red Sea and part of our group was in the Med or the Indian Ocean and we pretty much never saw the amphibs. The whole notion of a ring of ships around the carrier might be the fact during attack by a major force but not in everyday naval ops. Have a nice day. Happy 4th.

        • Rocco

          Kudos!! CV-59-68- & 16

    • RM

      As an ASW specialist (naval aviator with a proven ASW subspeciality AQD) back when ASW was declared our most important mission we knew how to conduct ASW ops. Carriers (we still had conventional CV’s back then) were pathetic at ASW. THE S-3 and H-3 we’re capable ASW platforms, but between H-3’s performing plane guard in Starboard D and S-3’s reduced to pumping gas (hey Texaco), the heavy lifting on ASW was left to SSN’s, VP, and surface units equipped with towed arrays and LAMPS helo’s. In the late 80’s our govt freaked when 3 Victor 3 Soviet subs transiited the Atlantic submerged while we frantically tried to find them. We ran out of sonobuoys trying to find them (passive sonobuoys). They popped up north of Cuba. Submarines have gotten much better since then and we have, predictably, not kept up WRT to our ability to prosecute them. We can’t do the basics, such as navigation without running into civilian tankers, etc. The highly complex chess game that is ASW takes time to hone your skills to conduct. But, the time to create successful,warriors has been taken up with virtue signaling about what great SJW’s our Navy can be.

      • Tony B.

        Are you capable of writing in words instead of strings of acronyms?

        • Electric Dynamic Boogaloo

          Google is your friend. Mil acronyms…if you don’t follow them, you’re probably out of your depth.

        • RM

          I’m writing to those with an IQ above room temp…

    • Sane Person

      “”and U.S. national security interests,” Cmdr. John Perkins, a spokesman
      with U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Africa, told USNI News.”

      Hopefully they’re headed for the real problem, Mexico. Finally!

    • sandy pretoriat

      What ever the despicable Kenyan whispered to the Russians before his Affirmative Discrimination ‘white guilt’ selection didn’t work good enough. Too bad Obama, America is becoming GREAT AGAIN! MAGA!

      • PolicyWonk

        Not according to the WSJ. They’ve openly scorching him, and consider his ideas w/r/t foreign policy and trade negotiating to be far below competent.

        I never thought I’d live to see the day a GOP president lost the WSJ – but here we are.

    • Icansee4miles

      Putin disinformation at work!

      • John Wells

        Bush was CIA – oh the horrrors.

        • Icansee4miles

          Bush knew who the enemy was; and your stench is that of a Russki!!

          • John Wells

            Your trail of defecation gives you away as a nuclear war craver and an armchair little corporal watching MSNBC, the biggest warmonger network of them all (only after Trump got elected).

          • TheJacob

            Nuclear war over submission any day!

          • xman_11530

            This is a ridiculous choice.

            How exactly is Russia ever going to force US into ‘submission’? Absurd.

          • Electric Dynamic Boogaloo

            Hyperbole from the cheap seats.

          • Icansee4miles

            You’re a Putin Loving Pr*ck who enjoys undermining Western Civilization, like the Orange Julius in what used to be a respected Oval office; now it’s the OFFAL OFFICE!!

    • Borris Kutzyanutzoff

      S-3 was a fantastic aircraft for it’s day, over 3000 mile range and a good suite, but the P-8 and MQ-4C Triton have more than adequately taken its place. Surface drones and submersed Drones are the future as they extend the SSN net- by how much of a “factor” is the question.

    • Rocco

      Try 10 yrs ago!! & It wasn’t sub hunting!

    • RDF

      The only time S3 could find a hiding sub was when it was tied up at a pier in the kola. Find a sub, send a sub.

  • Conans River

    Scram jet missile volley will win against an air craft carrier group.
    Scary stuff
    Mach 10 +.
    Need laser cannons now.

  • Leroy

    Let’s get fixed-wing ASW (VS) back on the CVN. The quickest way to do that would be with an MV-22 anti-submarine derivative. Make sure it is compatible with MQ-25 for refueling. Fixed wing speed combined with a rotary wing’s dipping sonar would make it a formidable air-ASW platform. Like combining a P-8 with an MH-60.

  • videoctr

    At a time when Trump is talking about meeting Putin? This smells like a deep state clown action to undermine Trump.

  • thomas

    I hope we aren’t putting all our eggs in one basket. Carriers won WW2 but against the weapons of today could they do so again?

    • Patriot67

      No.

    • John Wells

      Carriers won against the Japanese, the Russians clobbered the Germans, not carriers.

    • Sanity22

      They are part of a system, and it is effective at striking power. Are subs a threat? You bet, hence why the Virginia class is designed to be a superb anto sub platform. Are carriers still hard to kill? Yes. All the missile tech will be will be less effective when lasers are fully deployed as missile killers.

  • Patriot67

    If the Russians are smart the first thing they would do is go after u.s. satellites/communications, and carriers at the same time.

    • Archie Dunbar

      Finally, some one mentions satellites. Hopefully we have already weaponized space. Cannot believe the Russians and Chinese have not. We are decommissioning many ground based navigation aids. Everyone relies on the GPS systems, for everything; navigation, survey, artillery, aerial weapons delivery. Now what happens if the satellites are killed or shut down or have an encryption system that allows only the military to access them. I hope this is something that has been planned for. I have not heard about it but it would be nice if there were military plans that were not common knowledge.

      • shropster

        The head of Lockheed “Skunk Works” some 20 years ago said that “We’re 50 years ahead of where you think we are. If you can imagine it, we can do it.”
        Not worry – I hope.

        • John Wells

          If that’s the case, why are we still mired in Afghanistan against sheep herders and poppy growers?

          • Caleb Abell

            “… why are we still mired in Afghanistan against sheep herders and poppy growers?”

            Two reasons:

            First, in regard to the sheep herders, the illiterate pajama wearing goat herders with 50 year old AK-47s are fighting agaonst a foreign army that invaded their country. As I recall, in the late 1700s, a bunch of illiterate farmers in North America defeated the world’s most powerful army at the time. People defending their country from foreign invaders can be ferocious fighters.

            Second, the poppy growers work for the CIA.

          • TomD

            Sorry, can’t address the boys down South, but 1776 New England was just about the most literate place on earth at the time.

          • TomD

            Because we sprayed defoliants on the poppies instead of buying them up for an incinerator.

      • Emiliani

        We have.

        I forget the name, but they have “Zeus’ Thunderbolts” ready to be deployed at a moment’s notice. It can strike and vaporize a rather small target anywhere, anytime. In fact, I sort of wonder if this is what caused the underground Nuclear Facility in N. Korea to collapse, even though it was built under a mountain.

        Ok, I just looked it up, the conceptual idea was called Rods from God. They’re basically 20-foot rods in space that are released and guided to their target … the kinetic force is MASSIVE, destroying even compounds deep underground.

        Yeah, I think THIS may have been what brought N. Korea to the table. But it could have been their engineering incompetence also.

        Whatever OUR problems are with whatever system, our enemies will ALL have similar problems exploited by us.

    • Emiliani

      That could buy them some time … but then they’d be completely routed by our many other assets. Russia’s economy is about half the size of CA’s. I’d suggest they keep doing what they’re doing: pushing us uncomfortably, taking advantage of our ambivalence, and then backing off/laying low to avoid any real confrontation.

      They seem to be advancing their agenda by doing this. I’d call that SUPER-SMART.

      You have to wonder what their end game is. They don’t want to rule the world anymore (I don’t think, but who really knows?) … so what is it that they’re after, other than regional hegemony?

      • John Wells

        Sure – and just how are they pushing us to the brink? We’ve been the ones with the military build-up on their borders for years now.

  • Caleb Abell

    USS Harry S. Truman (CWP-75) is on patrol, no doubt scaring the bejeezus out of those Russkies.

    P.S.
    CWP is navy talk for a Cemetery W Propellers.

  • Leone

    Actually, I see this as an opportunity…To have our own attack sub Skipper’s hone their already incredible skills…What’s the point of war gaming with the French Navy? They haven’t won a sea battle since Yorktown…We need to practice against real enemies.

    Send our guys to match these Russian tricksters…Follow them…Hunt them…Drill against them….Play footsie with them…Just stop short of sinking them…But definitely spook ’em all we can.

    Don’t be shy….Let them know that we got their number…Anytime….Anyplace, comrade.

    • xman_11530

      They are learning too.

      In a shooting war, we’d have a lot more to lose if we start trading carriers for submarines.

      • Leone

        I’m talking simulated sub warfare my friend…Virginia Class…

        Stalk them…Just like we used to during the Cold War…They’re doing it to us…Why continue to pretend their intentions are peaceful?

        Time to give back that peace dividend…Pony up…And rearm.

        And remind Russia exactly why they lost the first Cold War.

        • xman_11530

          We are sending Truman to stalk Russian subs. This will be a learning exercise for both.

          • Leone

            The stalking will be done by her escort vessels and hunter killer planes and helicopters.

            Carriers are launch platforms and command ships when part of a Strike Group…They’re standoff vessels.

            Truman is no danger…This is just how we used to dance with the Russians all thru the Cold War.

            Face it, the Bear is back.

          • xman_11530

            The Bear is back because it’s far more profitable to make weapons systems to fight them than some tribesman sporting an AK-47 and planting IED’s that foil our M-1’s.

          • Leone

            Right…Our defense industry brought back the Bear…And Putin and his unrepentant Soviet crony capitalist lackeys and 24 years of weak American leadership had absolutely nothing to do with it…Gotcha.

          • xman_11530

            Putin’s not a nice guy, but -other than launching a nuke- Russia poses zero threat to CONUS.

            Further, our NATO allies are so unconcerned about the Russian threat that we have to badger them to live up to their treaty obligations.

            On the other hand, we have provocatively pushed NATO to within 100 miles of St Petersburg and overthrew the government of the country hosting the Russian fleet. Why did they wrest Crimea from Ukraine?

            This is a paranoid nuclear power and we feed into their paranoia.

          • Leone

            Thank you, Dr Freud…Russian paranoia made them an expansionist power?

            When you admit nobody has any designs on, or concerns about, a fallen 2nd rate world power like Putin’s Russia?

            Making excuses for Russia is something the Left had been doing all thru the Cold War…Get therapy…And take the Russians with you…But rebuilding our military and standing up to aggression…Peace thru strength…That’s our foreign policy, once again…Thank God.

          • John Wells

            Wrong – that’s when it was the Soviet Union and we won that Cold War. We and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl promised Gorbachev that we would not expand NATO eastward “one inch” if they tore down that Wall and subsequently withdrew hundreds of thousands of military forces out of East Germany.

            And that ridiculous comment about “standing up to aggression” is a joke. Name the countries that Russia has bombed in the past 20 years and then look at the aggressors bombing countries at will.

          • Leone

            What treaty, mutual agreement or understanding with the former Soviet Union is valid or binding now?

            They’re long gone…But former Warsaw Pact nations wanted to integrate with Europe…As was their right…And with EU membership comes security guarantees.

            European History 101, man…What used to be, is no more…It’s a whole new world order.

          • John Wells

            The word of the Secretary of State of the United States and the Chancellor of Germany. Pathetic betrayal of Russia that wanted to join the EU and the West, but we just couldn’t get rid of that Military Industrial Complex for the warmongers could we?

            Just pathetic that we could all get reduced to radioactive cinders by letting 3rd rate 3rd world countries into NATO that have not, and never will assist the United States in our actual Defense. That’s how WWI started with ultimately led to WWII.

          • Leone

            Did you really just answer twice to the same post, Lefty? Talk about pathetic….Obsess much?

            Chicken hawk Lefties now defending Putin?…As Trump stands up to him…Like Obama never did….Total reset fail?

            Just what kind of hypocrites are you people?

          • John Wells

            Now which countries has Russia bombed?

          • Leone

            How can you be so uniformed as to ask?

            Gee…Georgia, the Crimea, the Ukraine, Chechnya, Dagestan, Syria….I mean, they virtually leveled the city of Grozny…Assassinations of journalists…Passenger jets shot down…Political hits by poisoning…False flag apartment bombings…Etc etc…

            Born yesterday, were ya, Lefty?

            Damn…Low info vote much?

  • commenter

    Remember Obama at the 2nd 2012 debate scoffing at the idea of naval assets being vworthy, and laughing off Russia as a threat (still the only country able to destroy the US). Obama was a great politician with his lies and derisive identity politics, but Obama was a [email protected] president.

    • PolicyWonk

      Obama was a vast improvement over his predecessor, no matter how you cut it. The job of POTUS is arguable the most difficult job on the planet in the best of times. Look at what Obama inherited from G W Bush:
      – 2 incompetently managed wars, with one massive nation-building program
      – the worst string of national security and foreign policy disasters in history
      – a staggering defeat in the GWOT
      – the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression, 6M+ jobs lost in the previous 6 months, and 800k job losses/month
      – a military at it lowest state of readiness since Vietnam
      – the rest of the planet believing the USA was a larger threat to world peace than IRAN

      Considering what Obama had to deal with, and the condition of the nation when he left office, by any reasonable measure he did a decent job. Trump is still basking in the glow of the Obama economy, that he’s now putting at risk, according to the WSJ (and IMF), who find his ideas of trade negotiation and foreign policy to be, um, incompetent (to be generous). They’ve been scorching his ideas of “trade negotiations” on their editorial pages: when a GOP president loses the WSJ, all bets are off.

      Don’t even get started with the lies, especially given Trump lies over 9X/day, and is nearing 4000 whoppers since taking office. Obama was largely right about Russia at the time – yet now you have Trump on his knees to Putin – while gushing over Kim Jong Un and other global lowlifes.

      Maybe you should stop drinking “The Kool-aid[tm]”, because it isn’t helping.

      • xman_11530

        Obama was an unmitigated disaster. The would was less safe in 2017 when he left office than when he took over in 2009.

        The Russia issue is due to his ignorance.

        Politicized CIA and FBI. A navy that’s become less seaworthy.

        Don’t even talk about Trump’s ‘lies’ when Obama’s healthcare lie costs me over $1500 per month with higher health insurance premiums each and every month.

        Trumps election a direct result of people wanting a 180 degree change from Obama.

        • PolicyWonk

          Trump lost the popular vote by over 3M, and his election was undeniably helped by the Russian security services, according to all 17 US intelligence agencies, in addition to those of our allies.

          Politicizing the CIA and FBI: BRAVO SIERRA. Stop reading InfoWars and Brietbart – its not helping you.

          The world was vastly safer when Obama left office, and that’s according to all US intelligence Agencies: if you want the master of disaster w/r/t national security: the lions share of the credit goes to George W Bush: go and read the 2008 US National Intelligence Estimate.

          But then you have this lower-than-junior-varsity Blabbermouth-in-Chief, giving code-word secrets to our enemies, while selling out our allies, while sucking up to the planets dictators, the most recent one being Kim Jong Un. If Obama had done such a thing, and had held a press conference like the one following that lame summit, the GOP would’ve impeached him and had the gallows built before AF1 was wheels down on American territory.

          Here’s something simple you can do to entertain yourself: Compare the state of the union inherited by George W Bush, to the state of the Union inherited by Barack Obama. The compare that State of the Union inherited by Barack Obama. Got the picture? Because that’s what Trump has been bragging about!

          But excellent comment there comrade – Putin loves suckers – and you’ve bought the BRAVO SIERRA hook, line, and sinker.

          Cheers.

          • xman_11530

            Fortunately, the Constitution doesn’t care about popular vote.

            Obama (and our politicized intel agencies) single-handedly restarted the Cold War.

            If world is safer, how come we are dispatching aircraft carriers to hunt down submarines from the 2nd largest nuclear power on the planet?

          • PolicyWonk

            Obama single-handedly restarted the cold war? On what planet have YOU been living?

            Apparently you have no problem with the annexation of the Crimea, or invading Ukraine?

            Are you on your knees to Putin like Trump is? How about all that wonderful gushing over Kim Jong Un?

            I never thought I’d live to see the members of the GOP becoming Commie-lovers.

          • xman_11530

            Who was the POTUS that promised Putin flexibility after his re-election?

            Who was the POTUS that pushed NATO to Russia’s border and then overthrew the pro-Russia regime in Ukraine?

            Which POTUS then watched after Russia took back the Crimea?

            Hint: Obama.

            Recognizing reality and an understanding of history doesn’t make one a ‘Commie-lover’ which I most certainly am not.

          • PolicyWonk

            1. That was when Putin was making noises w/r/t increasing detent with the USA, and that’s where Obama was trying to go with that.
            2. NATO pushing to Russian’s border was a bi-partisan effort highly desired by that used to be Republicans.
            3. The GOP continuously pushed for US forces to be pulled out of Europe, and then when it was done (with all but unanimous GOP support), they complained about it when Putin annexed the Crimea. Also note, the USA had close to zero forces in the region; a multi-thousand mile logistical burden in getting forces there; the Russians shared a border with them; and we had zero treaty with the Ukrainians for mutual defense.

            Your pathetic excuse that everything is Obama’s fault? Hint: That dog don’t hunt. Ignoring history gains you ZERO credibility, just like with the dolts who claim Obama destroyed the military, somehow pretending everything was going just ducky until he took over.

            But try entertaining yourself by: comparing the state of the union inherited by GWB, and compare that to the state of the union inherited by Trump.

            By any reasonable measure (I realize facts are hard things for today’s conservatives to grasp – but bear with me), while Obama wasn’t a great POTUS, he was a vast improvement over his predecessor.

          • xman_11530

            Not going to defend Bush because I don’t blindly play the D vs R game that most in DC like to play. It’s not relevant. Bush inherited a mess that allowed planes to bring down the WTC. He was playing defense his entire presidency.

            I don’t consider myself a R and since I dont work in government -as long as my taxes don’t go up- it does not affect my livelihood which party is in power. Sounds like you are an unrepentant D, good for you. However, I refuse to play.

            The NATO expansion happened on Obama’s watch. I don’t care what R’s wanted. POTUS gets to decide foreign policy. He decided and it’s goong to end in tears. Read up on it.

            Obama encouraged Russian aggression and the Russians felt they had a legitimate grievance. End result? Russians nullify the 1954 gift to Ukraine and take Crimea back.

          • PolicyWonk

            HA!

            NATO’s expansion started under GHWB’s watch after the fall of the USSR, and continued under WJC, after which it slowed down to a much more drawn out process. NATO expansion didn’t only happen under Obama’s watch, by any stretch of the imagination. Your assumption w/r/t my politics demonstrates you know little or nothing about me – but there’s one thing you’ll have to contend with: I’m a realist and suffer (unlike what passes for today’s conservatives, who can’t recall what they had for lunch) from having a good memory.

            What you don’t care about obviously is FACTS, because they simply don’t fit the nonsense you’ve been reading on Breitbart or InfoWars, or are otherwise told to spew by your Kremlin masters, and are posting here as if you have a clue.

            The GOP tolerated horrifying incompetence under GWB, as they’re doing now under Trump, who even the WSJ now says knows nothing about trade, negotiating, or foreign policy, and went so far as to take PM Trudeau’s side in the trade arguments between Trump and Canada. Your silly statement that Obama encouraged Russian aggression demonstrates you’re either profoundly ignorant or a Russian troll. Russia took over the Crimea and Ukraine in clear violation of the agreement they signed (the Budapest Memorandum) guaranteeing Ukraine’s security, and has been lying about it ever since.

            Kindly spread your nonsense where people appreciate it more: you’re only making a fool of yourself here.

            Have a nice day.

          • xman_11530

            I know you are wedded to the D vs R paradigm, but when did the Baltics join NATO?

          • PolicyWonk

            You’re not very smart: Albania and Croatia joined NATO in 2009, mostly in response to the Russian invasion of Georgia (in 2008). Only Albania and Croatia joined NATO during Obama’s term in office, which is hardly the whole she-bang you attempted to make it sound like.

            I see you’re wedded to the “poor little old Russia is totally innocent and was getting beaten up by Obama the bully” paradigm, when I’m merely pointing out the facts.

            Poorly played, Comrade, poorly played.

            Your handlers must be very disappointed with you.

          • xman_11530

            Clearly you don’t know how to read a map. Neither Albania or Croatia are adjacent to Russia. Why we feel the need to guarantee their security, I don’t know, but it’s not a threat to Russia.

            You also don’t know history. Neither Albania or Croatia were Warsaw Pact or part of Former USSR.

            Completely different than the Baltics, Ukraine, Georgia or Belarus.

            I am not wedded to ‘Obama is a bully’ theory. He was actually the opposite. Obama was a blundering nincompoop who kicked over hornets’ nests with not a thought to the ramifications.

          • PolicyWonk

            You blamed Obama for NATO expansion and I thoroughly disproved it: you made the big deal out of it, and got yourself BUSTED for posting BRAVO SIERRA.

            You made your points very clear, and they are above for your handy reference.

            W/r/t foreign policy, you’re functionally clueless.

            У вас хороший день, товарищ!

          • xman_11530

            I blamed Obama for expanding NATO to Russia’s borders, which is all they likely care about. Idiots at the State Department were dangling Ukraine membership until fairly recently.

            I would mention that Obama was POTUS when Croatia and Albania joined NATO (2009), but didn’t think it was relevant.

            I guess you really are a PolicyWanker.

          • Greene

            Apparently you live under mushrooms. Cheers back at you!

  • Patriot67

    Pride and arrogance comes first before a fall. Proven through out History.

  • Arne

    Here is where the decision of President Reagan to re-start the Lancer assembly line will be helpful.

    Launching hyper-sonics from the old bones will keep maintenance of hardstands up and quarters upgraded.

    We’ve got to be ready for the Raider as much as we had to transition from the Peacemaker thru the Stratojet to the Stratofort and the Spirit.

    (500 extra Raptors would be nice and just about satisfy Gen. Pritchard’s admonition to Gen. Savage about having 500 Forts in reality instead of the promised 50,000)

    Six turning and four burning

    • John Bibb

      ***
      HI A–A+ for the B-36 Aluminum Overcast reference!
      ***
      Rocketman
      ***

      • Arne

        Thanks, Ike. You owe me a buck.

        • John Bibb

          ***
          HI A–I’d rather owe you the buck forever–than to cheat you out of it!
          ***
          Some of the remains of a B-36 that took off from Biggs Air Base in the early 1950’s are still scattered on the side of the Franklin Mountains–about 8 miles West of my humble El Paso, TX casita.
          ***
          They ran out of altitude before they ran out of mountain!
          ***
          Rocketman
          ***

      • Arne

        Make that Magnesium for the Peacemakers, Jack.

        Aluminum for the Forts.

  • BoonieRat

    Bubble Heads Rock !

  • Jim

    We are taking a page out of history- Reagan beefed up the military and forced Russia to match our growth, the end result was the fall of communism. Trump is doing the same thing and is going to break the Russian economy which is already on a downward slope. That is the price they will pay for interfering in our elections and colluding with the dems. Watch and see if Russia is out of Syria in 6 months.

    • xman_11530

      We are doing a pretty good job on ourselves building obsolete aircraft carriers, $100 million jet fighters and $1 billion destroyers.

      • Jim

        well guess what it costs Russia almost as much to produce these high tech weapon platforms as it does the U.S and their economy is 1/8th the size.

        • xman_11530

          You missed my point. They aren’t wasting money building 4 new carrier strike groups when they already have 10-12. We are wasting money on a rathole that they aren’t bothering with.

          • Jim

            what rathole are you talking about? not sure what your point is

          • xman_11530

            Four more CVN’s plus all the accoutrements when we have 11 already is a rathole.

          • Jim

            Most U.S carriers are between 20 -30 years old -time for a few new ones

          • xman_11530

            How many do we need? Why is 11 optimal?

            We have land based aircraft all over the planet.

    • John Wells

      The legal Syrian government invited the Russians into their country, in compliance with international law. Anyone there without an invitation from the government is an aggressor.

      Anything that Russia did in our election doesn’t hold a candle to Obama trying to influence foreign elections/votes. And, when the vote doesn’t go the way we wanted it, we had Victoria Nuland/Hillary Clinton with the “Ef the EU” and “Yats is our man” after funding the downfall of the last legal democratically elected government of Ukraine.

  • Jim Eggerman

    Should not be hard to track russian subs, just follow the oil leaks.

    • Caldera

      Russian subs are now superior to American ones, and definitely far more advanced than anything else a NATO country can deploy. Your age is showing.

  • Caldera

    Aircraft carriers are so last century, sitting ducks in the missile age.

    • Bridgette

      Not true at all. A lot of anti-missile technology out there in all the ships, even the carriers.

      • Caleb Abell

        That’s true, but there is a limited number of those missiles. That means carriers are limited to raping defenseless countries like Libya who have resources we want to steal.

        A real foe, like China or Russia, has very effective anti-ship missiles, most likely nuclear tipped. Even assuming that anti-missile defenses of a carrier are perfect … they are not … they will run out of ABMs very quickly. And unlike missiles stored on a ship, China’s missiles are land-based. As such, there is no practical limit to the number they can launch. After the carrier runs out of ABMs, the crew can sit in front of their radar screens and watch the next wave of missiles coming to sink them.

        That’s why CBGs, the most powerful naval weapon of WW2, today only has two effective uses: 1) destroying weak countries so they can be looted, and 2) lining the pockets of defense contractors. In the first hour after a war starts with Russia or China, every carrier is the US fleet will be a radioactive reef.

        • Beriaite

          China has 20 MILLION SLAVE LABORERS….DO YOU REALLY THINK GOD WILL ALLOW THEIR VICTORY?
          OR DO YOU THINK THEY ARE COLLAPSING ON THEMSELVES NOW THAT TRUMP HAS BLUNTED THEIR ADVANTAGES?

          • Nelson Hernandez

            The people in Rome, 410, in Constantinople, 1453, in Magdeburg, 1631, and in countless other places throughout history thought the same way. They were massacred. It is a serious mistake to rely on Divine Providence to bail you out.

          • Centaurus

            BUT GOD IS ON OUR SIDE !!!!!

          • Beriaite

            Midway..
            Lete gulf
            Guadal canal
            Bastogne
            These are all examples of divine intervention in our time.
            Trump’s election as well.

        • s pin

          Interesting how your drug induced fantasy puts down the US while extolling our adversaries and while going through fits of SJW. Are you a Russian national, a Chinese national or just someone who hates the United States? You are a naive troll who doesn’t understand that the world does not behave according to your feelings. And it never will. The countries of the world would like nothing better than to topple the US and it’s people, like an angry child you would help them.

          You can thank Hilary and Obama for destroying Libya, a country that had renounced terrorism and nuclear development. I’m just not sure sure what resources the US “took” from them. But Merkel is thankful Obama destroyed Libya, it gave millions of Africans a jumping off point to the EU and millions of undocumented socialist voters for Merkel.

        • alpha1six

          You may be right. But what do you think step 2 would be if a foreign enemy was foolish enough to sink an America Carrier. Remember an American naval vessel ‘is the united States of America’ and undoubtedly the folks driving the Tridents might have a word or two to add.

        • Bridgette

          You’re a stupid fuck unworthy of debate. We could take down China and RUssia at the same time, you dumb fuck.

          • Caleb Abell

            Yes, we can defeat Russia and China at the same time, most likely in a single afternoon. Not only that, but the Russian and Chinese people will welcome us as liberators and greet us with flowers. Sound familiar?

            It would be a cakewalk(tm) because our mighty military is invincible.

            Care to offer an explanation as to why the US, with its trillion dollar invincible war machine, can’t defeat a handful of illiterate pajama wearing goat herders in Afghanistan after seventeen years?

            P.S.
            If the US is suicidal enough to start a war with China or Russia, they will very likely fight the US together, since they both understand that if one falls, the other is next on the imperial target list.

          • Bridgette

            You’re a brain-dead fool.

          • Caleb Abell

            And you are an impressive debater. Your articulate and well thought out arguments and facts would persuade anyone.

          • Bridgette

            Well ya, but you know what they say about arguing with idiots. You’re a idiot so it’s no fun.

          • Caleb Abell

            Thank you for proving my point.

    • Beriaite

      Communism breeds tyranny.
      Tyranny breeds revolt.
      Military groups are likely to turn on their own tyrants when they get a chance.

      China AND Russia know this….and can NOT defend against it.

  • ONTIME

    Anti sub methods are evolving at a tremendous pace, I am beginning to wonder just how a sub will be able to hide in the near future…the new spy sats are unreal with capability at penetrating the ocean and cross detection is a technique making subs a lot more vulnerable than in the past…….Soon there will be space arms to deal with anti sub warfare……can you cloak a sub?

    • xman_11530

      If it’s difficult to hide a sub, think about a 1000 foot long ship emitting tons of electro-magnetic energy.

  • Mostlynew

    Unmentioned is the reactivation of the 2nd Fleet.

  • Arne

    During 30 years as a simple transport pilot, I flew along the coast from KPXT to KOQU on ordinary passenger duties.

    As much as the beautiful sunrises and dead of night tranquility were initially transcendent, they became routine.

    However, there was always one observation that shook my soul to deadly reality every time, no matter what…

    …seeing the wakes and sails, before submerging, out of Electric Boat.

  • Sven Svensson

    The U.S. would be wise to form a military alliance with Russia that would counter the growing Chinese threat.

  • middleclasstaxpayer

    We need to bring all of our troops from Europe and put them on our southern border to stop the invaders from entering the US. Just do it and do it now.

  • ted dolan

    Carriers are toast in real conflict.Close all the bases come home and work on the mess here.Junk the floating nuclear bombs and save trillions! Take away Admirals fiefdoms.

    • Bridgette

      And give Taiwan back to China immediately? Then the Philippines?

      • John Wells

        They aren’t “ours” to give back. Taiwan isn’t even recognized by the US as a country.

        • Centaurus

          I think it is just recognized as an island with people on it, waiting to be attacked for leaving the Commie Chinese.

        • Bridgette

          Well, dumbshit, if we don’t help them China would take them. But that’s a good thing to an America-hater like you. Silly little spermburper.

    • Emiliani

      Tell that to Kim Jung Un.

      Carriers suck, unless you have ’em … and have many of them!

      They are ONE tool in the arsenal of our Military. They can be taken out fairly easily … if you don’t have to go through their traveling complement, Air support, underwater drones, Space assets, and all the rest.

      The last thing I’d want to do is try to take out a Carrier Group…with other countries’ Navy!!

      • Centaurus

        Tell the Chinese with their DF-21’s.

        • Emiliani

          When I’m telling that to the Chinese, with their DF-21s, I’ll also ask them why they’re bothering to build their own carriers!!

          Hard to see why they’d spend so much money building things that suck so bad.

          • Centaurus

            Thats why I’m unpopular w / Chineek. They only know how to suck at copying. They are like a cartoon factory with a crappy robot PLAN.

    • Beriaite

      Hahaha…..maybe if you say it enough times it will come true.

    • SDW

      Yes! Since we can build a wall between the US and Mexico we can sure build a wall separating the US from all the rest of the world, Canada included (they actually speak French up there). We can pay for it from all the money we are going to receive from tariffs before all those foreigners get the hint that we don’t need to sell anything to anyone else and don’t need to buy anything from them. The Coast Guard is plenty to maintain a wall (mines?) offshore so we can take care of all the messes at home. Once we get all the walls built we can take care of the “messes” (wink, wink) by sending all of them back to where they came from.

      • Centaurus

        Now that’s a man with a plan (wink, wink)

  • Jim

    Must be budget time.

  • Don’t Tase Me Bro!

    A US carrier group is a beautiful site to see.

  • kettlecorn

    Actually what he says is pretty much true.

  • airmail56

    Russia has a negative birth rate. Their days are numbered.

    • John Wells

      Russia isn’t even in the top 50 insofar as negative birth rates are concerned. Japan #1, Germany #11.

      • airmail56

        It still is negative, and no one moves into Russia.

  • Ignorant N|gger

    How about we leave NATO which now only exists to provoke Russia. It’s time we start closing down our overseas bases and start talking with our “enemies”. Kennedy talked to krushcev, Trump just talked to Kim Jong Un, why can’t he talk with Putin?

    • JeffersonIII

      Russia invaded and annexed Crimea and is terrorizing eastern Ukraine.Its partisan militia shot down a commercial aircraft over Ukraine. It invaded and annexed territory in the North East sector of the Republic of Georgia. It is building up its military on the border with Lithuania, Lativia and Estonia. Vlad wants to reestablish the Soviet Empire, either directly through annexation, or through intimidation. Putin orders the assassination of men he disagrees with. While I agree it does not have the military reach and capacity of the United States and NATO, Russian troops could occupy all 3 Baltic nations and Finland within 24 hours.

      • xman_11530

        “Russian troops could occupy all 3 Baltic nations and Finland within 24 hours.“

        The US security guarantee the Baltics is eerily similar to France and Britain’s to Poland in 1939. That didn’t end well for Poland.

  • Libssuck

    Why does anyone join these days? Open borders but cross the ocean to protect ya family..

  • Libssuck

    So many wounded vets with serious skills! Politicians that screwed them aren’t confronted!! Amazing!

  • Emiliani

    I’ve got to make a run to the store now!!

    • Beriaite

      Buy a brain while your there

      • Electric Dynamic Boogaloo

        Come on…just have a beer with us. It’s Sunday. 🙂

  • John Wells

    No – they’ll still be on welfare in Texas.

  • Braveheart8850

    Get the U.S. out of NATO and all other military alliances. NATO is a wing of the godless UN that has never represented people, but governments, most of who are tyrannical. We are the largest debtor nation in the world. Beyond broke. We protect others America hating nations borders and leave our own wide open to continuous invasion, not just from the turd world cesspools to our south, but from every where in the world but those who share our western values. Bring our troops home. Put them on the border. Let the rest of the America hating world take care of itself.

    • Arne

      Wish we could Braveheart.
      No argument with any of your points.
      After Guadalcanal though, the sting of not having advanced bases remains, and will remain—
      Maybe we learned something; “A pint of sweat, saves a gallon of blood.”

    • Goodtoo

      It’s always a better idea to kill people in thier country before they get to us….hence forward projection of force.

  • rekcir

    Pukein is a weasel

  • Sanity22

    True. But knowing military strategy is not the exclusive domain of those who serve and have served. I think civilians think it’s a game, hence why I am so glad Mattis is there. He saw action and knows history, and sees the gathering storm.

  • Feldwebel Schultz

    I miss the Cold War. At least you knew who your enemies were.

  • kettlecorn

    Probably the only way they will survive.

  • ahamiltonfederalist

    don’t need a carrier – America knows exactly where the filthy Russian subs are – the entire Atlantic shelf is microphoned, sonared and buoyed, and has been for decades

    • VESENG

      Naw, gotta have assets in theater to deploy the ordnance..

  • Virdun

    Wow – some of the commentary – stunningly stupid. Carriers project American air superiority across the globe. Good luck getting to a carrier group when their main asset (aircraft) can be sent out in advance, hundreds or even thousands of miles to attack and undermine enemy defenses. It isn’t just what you see on the surface either, there are hunter killers just waiting for some hapless navy with inferior tech to send a sub into the theater… good luck with that too. We cannot be beholden to nations in order that they “allow” us to press our air efforts from their bases – we have to have assets that allow us to do it from basically anywhere… hence carriers still being a useful tool in our arsenal.

  • JeffersonIII

    Mad Dog Maddis knows what the Russkie intentions and capacities are. Donald defers to him. You can sleep at night.

  • Beriaite

    Hahaha…..
    Can I get a dime of that?

  • JeffersonIII

    Russia invaded and annexed Crimea and is terrorizing eastern Ukraine.Its partisan militia shot down a commercial aircraft over Ukraine. It invaded and annexed territory in the North East sector of the Republic of Georgia. It is building up its military on the border with Lithuania, Lativia and Estonia. Vlad wants to reestablish the Soviet Empire, either directly through annexation, or through intimidation. Putin orders the assassination of men he disagrees with. While I agree it does not have the military reach and capacity of the United States and NATO, Russian troops could occupy all 3 Baltic nations and Finland within 24 hours.

    • JeffersonIII

      Crimea was invaded and annexed. Enough said.

      • xman_11530

        Crimea has been part of Russia for centuries. A million Russian died in WW2 taking it away from the Germans. (‘Where the Iron Crosses Grow’ is an excellent book on this.)

        Many Russians retire there and the Russian Navy has huge bases.

        Crimea was gifted to Ukraine in 1954 and would have remained part of Ukraine, except that our State Department had the brilliant idea of overthrowing the Ukrainian government and installing a pro-NATO regime. Whoops.

        • JeffersonIII

          Yes. Wherever there are Russian ethnic minorities within sovereign states, Russia should feel free to justify invasion and annexation of those regions. Hitler and the Sudetenland, 1938.

          • xman_11530

            Repeat: Crimea has been part of Russia for centuries. They have fought numerous wars to defend it.

            US isn’t giving Texas back to Mexico any time soon either.

        • PolicyWonk

          Thanks you Comrade!!!

          President Putin sends you his happiness greeting!

          • xman_11530

            Suggest you read some history.

            Otherwise, you need to change your name from ‘PolicyWonk’ to ‘PolicyWank’.

  • realityanvil

    Aren’t CVNs generally the TARGETS of Soviet submarines? Wouldn’t this be more appropriate for the Virginia Class subs?

    • Leone

      On the contrary…The anti-submarine capability of a carrier strike force is awesome! The USS Truman has 6 destroyer escorts loaded for the Bear…

      And it also includes attack submarines blazing the trail upfront…And bringing up the rear.

      The silent service is always on the job, pal….

      • realityanvil

        I understand and appreciate the “on the job” thing and all that awesomeness but isn’t that virtue due mostly to the capabilities of the carrier group’s attack subs? Wouldn’t our attack subs be distracted a bit by having to protect such a high-value target as a CVN in the operational area, rather than mixing it up down there with the perps, simply filling-in the black hole left by an Improved Kilo? Without some sort of exclusive whiz-bang SONAR or MAD gear unavailable to Arlheigh Burkes, the only thing a CVN would seem to bring to the table would be its jets and a lot of screw noise. And wouldn’t all other ASW assets (i.e. helos, sleds, etc.) be derived from the screening force? Don’t get me wrong, I love the big decks but with fewer of them in our inventory than could fill out a carton of eggs (and less than half of those available for sea duty in the best of times), shouldn’t they be put to their most productive use, i.e. Power Projection?

        Aren’t submarines put at greater risk through detection by other subs than by anything else except wartime operational needs, i.e. movement to attack, engaging a torpedo target, or actively launching missiles?

        • Leone

          Power projection is what carriers are all about…But you seem to think we’re already in a shooting war….When all we’re practicing is deterrence…Off our own coastline, no less.

          Naval aircraft like P-3 Orions….And Seahawk helicopters are all welcome patrol aircraft to guard a strike force and also to project power…And subs themselves detect each other all the time…So far, it hasn’t resulted in any shooting wars.

          They just move on when detected…The jig is up…No point in provoking an incident…They’re just running training drills…Same as us….Also trying to intimidate us…The notoriously nervous Nells on the Left, especially.

          • realityanvil

            What gives you that impression? Our guys should always be ready to be in (or about to be) a shooting war. Two of my sons are Navy and USMC officers, I know how they train.
            You should read up on power projection. We’re not projecting power if its off our own coastline, the OTHER guys are projecting power.

            P3s don’t land on carriers, and Seahawks are also carried by DDGs and other surface ships, so the CVN brings nothing exclusive to ASW. I’d prefer 4 additional DDGs to one CVN sitting on top of the Kilo(s) or better yet, a couple extra SSNs than having the whole CVN battle group overhead.

            And I don’t consider the left “nervous nellies”, as they’re generally too stupid to give National Defense a thought in the first place. Defense is just something they consider a bank vault from which they can steal or extort money for people who don’t plan or who don’t work.

          • Leone

            The USS Truman strike group is being diverted from the Med.

            That is power projection…Although it’s anyone’s guess where exactly they’ll patrol…The mission is to keep watch on Russian subs…Wherever they prowl in the North Atlantic.

            We have other assets stateside as well.

          • realityanvil

            “In the Med” is power projection. Off our coasts, even out in the North Atlantic, is maybe a training opportunity.

  • Sane Person

    “”and U.S. national security interests,” Cmdr. John Perkins, a spokesman with U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Africa, told USNI News.”

    They’re headed for the real problem, Mexico. Finally! (fingers crossed)

  • Len LaBrecque

    wait, how can this be? Trump works for Russians I thought? OHHHH so that was just a media and left wing (same thing) made up ruse?

  • Ivpaf Global

    We are just SOOO hard up for an enemy that we have to go back to the Russians? Really. I mean, I am more hawkish than the average Joe, but this is pathetic. Why don’t you find a REAL enemy and not one we were working on friending. We need to be working WITH the Russians, not against them. This world in this time does not need two countries of this magnitude going head to toe anymore.

    • Leone

      Tell it to Putin…It’s his attack subs prowling off our coasts in Cold War fashion.

      Prudence demands we patrol the region as well….It is our front yard, after all.

      • xman_11530

        We probably won’t be too happy if AMLO Obrador invites Russians in after he’s elected.

        • Leone

          Blocked for being a Leghumper.

          • xman_11530

            Ok, snowflake.

      • John Wells

        So now you’re worried about spheres of influence while ignoring everyone else’s? Pathetic hypocrisy.

        • Leone

          Spheres of influence? No…We do recognize Cold War intimidation tactics when we see them…And we intend to counter them…Unlike you gutless, cheese eating, surrender monkey Lefties.

          Whereas, Obama’s reset strategy with Putin was to shamelessly let himself get bent over a couch…And then try to pretend he didn’t enjoy it.

          Trump has the better approach…Peace thru strength…It won the first Cold War…It’ll win this one, too.

          BTW, John Wells…You’re blocked…You Lefty trolls only get so many lame posts to show off your stupidity…And you’ve just exceeded your limit…Bye bye.

      • Ivpaf Global

        Yes, but that’s nothing different than what WE’VE been doing since the close of the cold war either.

        • Leone

          No…This is relatively new…Under Yeltsin…The Cold War was declared over and the Russion military stood down…Under Putin…Their forces have gradually become more active…They’re taking a Cold War footing, once again.

          It’s probably just a bargaining chip…But they still buzz our ships and seek to provoke us in countless ways…This comes from the top.

    • xman_11530

      Fighting tribesmen doesn’t require billions of dollars of modern naval technology.

      Russia is a better enemy for the DC lobbyists.

  • Borris Kutzyanutzoff

    How many SSNs are planned 72? and the production rate will grow from 2 to 3 this years and it will be done parallel to the Columbia Class? Busy busy! As well as 4 Ford Class CVNs \
    really busy. Russians called this arms race down on themselves and their world is going to get skinny and small.

    • xman_11530

      This is some great arms race. The 4 CVN are a complete waste of money and the Russians aren’t dumb enough to build their own billion dollar sitting ducks.

      • Borris Kutzyanutzoff

        How are the CVN’s sitting ducks? Putins CGI hypersonics or “Made in China”? The fact is that Russia has a tugboat shortage so any more capital ships are out of the question.

  • Michael Broughton

    “We will pass thru the American patrols, past their sonar nets. We will lay off their largest city and listen to their rock and roll while we conduct missile drills. Then we will sail to Havana where the sun is warm and so is the comradeship”. Capt. Marko Ramius

  • Taint Boil

    So, Russia is “prowling” the seas and USA is “saving the
    world” too funny …. the carrier can be in the Atlantic, but the sub can’t?

    USA only uses aircraft carrier groups against goat
    roping, sandal wearing cave dwellers. They’re huge 10 billion-dollar targets
    that can be easily taken out by a million-dollar missiles. You will never see a
    carrier in an area of denial because of anti-ship missile technology. Don’t
    forget about the supercavitating torpedo …… over 200 mph. Who do you think
    NASA uses to put things in space …… RUSSIA!

    Empires all have fallen throughout history usually from
    their arrogance and being spread too thin. Judging by the comment section here
    we already have the arrogance part and we are for sure we’re spread too thin.

    • Leone

      So? We have anti-sub missiles that can travel 500 miles an hour.

      Space X’s Falcon 9 is now the low cost orbital launcher on the planet…Russia’s Proton rocket platform is being retired as too costly to compete…Supercarriers will always have their uses as standoff weapons for global power projection and show the flag exercises.

      And I’m afraid the empire most likely to fall is the Russian Empire….They have an economy barely the size of Italy’s.

      • xman_11530

        Russian empire collapsed in 1989.

        You are fighting a ghost.

        $100+ billion plus support vessels and air wings is far too much to pay for ‘show the flag exercises’.

    • Goodtoo

      The Russians cool little misslemissles torp is an aim and shoot weapon used against ports. Little harder to hit a moving target.
      By the way there is not a Russian sub operating anywhere in the world that we don’t know about.

  • Goodtoo

    Thanks to liberal policies by Obama that has imploded our military forces and closed bases all over the us and overseas….we are now left some what vulnerable.
    But rest assured the Navy has got this…..
    The US Navy is still the greasiest Naval force the world has ever seen, despite Obama’s foolish policies……. still has the capability to counter any Russian submarine threat.
    Unfortunately due to base closures they will just have to travel further to get the job done…….
    Hunting subs in the Atlantic is routine, even though the Ruskis have a little better capabilities since the Cold War……..guess what, so do we.

    • John mor

      So Obama created BRAC? Learn a new poem. In 2008 we had an economic meltdown, the navy, as well as the rest of the country, had to tighten its belt. If your going to present a concise intelligent narrative, leave the name calling and personal animus for your redneck beer swilling cow tipping parties.

    • PolicyWonk

      Did you ever READ this rubbish before you posted it?

      Thanks to the GOP’s idea of acceptable performance by a chief executive, Obama inherited: a nation undergoing the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression; 6M+ jobs lost; 800k jobs/month being lost; two incompetently managed wars, and one lovely nation building exercise we’re still paying for; a military at its lowest state of readiness since Vietnam (Spring 2009 Report to the POTUS on Force Readiness, by the US JCS); and the worst string of national security and foreign policy disasters in history.

      Guess what: Obama didn’t have to screw up the US military, because George W Bush did it FOR HIM, and made it all but impossible to do anything about with after destroying the economy.

      These are the facts – and you are merely spewing BRAVO SIERRA.

      This is why the so-called conservative of today has ZERO credibility.

  • John mor

    What’s obvious is there are a lot of Russian trolls here spreading disinformation as part of Putin’s now we’ll known active measures campaign. The United States Navy stands ready to offer robust measures to any foe attempting interruption of freedom of the seas. NATO is needed now more then ever, with Russia being run by a mafia of rich crooks bent on amassing wealth anyway they possibly can. Even if Mattis were to leave there are enough career officers and enlisted to keep the navy on point.

    • John Wells

      That was red-nosed Yeltsin, the alcoholic and his oligarcy. What’s obvious is that there is at least one McCainiac here who craves war with one and all even if it means nuclear obliteration and reducing the nation to radioactice cinders.

    • xman_11530

      Russian trolls on this board? Please. Grow up.
      “Russia being run by a mafia of rich crooks bent on amassing wealth anyway they possibly can.“
      How is this different than the D / R establishments in DC? Read ‘Clinton Cash’ and ‘Secret Empires.’ The differences are only the lapel pins

  • Boris Badenov

    Gee, I wonder why the Russians would do such a thing? Maybe, just maybe it is because we have not changed our inherited, worn out, and tactless foreign policy. It is time for a more realistic vision. Bring most of the troops home; trust and verify; keep your friends close …. and keep our distance from entangling alliances.

    http://themillenniumreport . com/2016/10/vladimir-putin-publish-a-world-map-and-mark-all-the-u-s-military-bases-on-it-you-will-see-the-difference-between-russia-and-the-us/

  • SWDC

    Russia is not the USA’s enemy.

  • heyheymama51

    Looks like the Russians are looking for a beat down. We can do that.

  • Oracle

    FactorIES. Factories…not “factory’s”

    • SimpleFacts

      Another hidden history troll with nothing to contribute but spelling corrections to make ‘zeself’ look intelligent.

    • carl6352

      some people have big fingers as they type the 2 finger method like mysekf lol

      • Rocco

        I use my thumb!👍

    • Electric Dynamic Boogaloo

      He’s trying to possess them…

    • Hemisphere Samba

      There were no factories, and there was not chemical attack, at least by the Syrian government.

  • John Wells

    ”Were the Soviet Union, to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military industrial complex would have to remain substantially unchanged until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy.” Until his death Kennan continued to deplore NATO’s hostile encirclement of Russia.

    Writing in the New York Times on Feb. 5, 1997, George Kennan, former Ambassador to the Soviet Union asserted: “Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.”

    • Marion Mitchell Morrison

      IMO, Kennan was wrong. The KGB needed a mission following the end of the USSR, and it eventually found one. Not that the USA did not fumble the ball in its hubris. The US could have better managed the transformation of Russia, but did not.

      • John Wells

        After the Soviet Union disintegrated, it sure didn’t take us long to find other enemies did it, until we could run the old propaganda about the Soviet Union and apply it to the shell of its former power.

      • John Wells

        They found a new reason to find a new mission – appeasement leads to disaster. They thought they could trust our promises to not expand NATO.

    • xman_11530

      The French+Great Britain security guarantee for Poland turned out disastrously for Poland, France and Great Britain.

      If push comes to shove, it’s hard to see how US security guarantees for the Baltics turn out any better for us.

      In such a conflict, China would play the kingmaker role that US played in WW2 Europe.

  • wenusberg

    Send one ping. Just one ping.

  • Bill

    Don’t tell me they’re using F/A 18s in place of S-3s?
    So why the AC?

  • Archie1954

    Considering that the US considers the whole World to be its territory, attempting to explain the repositioning of an aircraft carrier to the Atlantic as a response to Russian deployments is tantamount to spreading false news! The US will do whatever and wherever it wishes to do with its military assets. Don’t try to blame this move on the Russians. We are wise to your blatant prevarications.

  • caesar

    Sure glad the war monger US doesnt ever run war ships and planes close to Russia.

  • Tony B.

    Total bullshit.

  • Bob Blow

    B.S. There is always a Russian submarine lurking near the US coast. And right behind it is a US fast attack sub just following listening and waiting.

  • profwatson

    This indicates mission accomplished in Syria. Another win for our Commander in Chief in making America great again.

  • Ryan Workman

    I suppose this is what the looney Left calls “carrying Putin’s water.”

  • alpha1six

    I think you mean Crimea. As for the naval facilities in the black sea Ukraine was honoring the agreement they had with Russia so annexing the whole region was overkill.

    Of course there are a lot of ethnic Russians and Russian speakers in all of the countries that were enslaved by the Soviets. They were occupied and controlled by the red army and the KGB does that mean that colonel Putin has a say regarding their status in the host country? NO. If they consider themselves to be more Russian than Georgian and prefer to be ruled by Moscow they can move to Moscow. Putin may not want a lot of Georgian refugees coming to Russia.

  • alpha1six

    Ah another conspiracy nut or a paid KGB troll.

    • Rocco

      Agreed he has no idea what he’s talking about!!

  • Electric Dynamic Boogaloo

    So we can invade Cuba now. We have your rationale and permission. Thank you. Now screw off.

    • Vince A.

      Oh no, wouldn’t want to disturb that communist paradise that you libs love so much but would never live there.

      • Electric Dynamic Boogaloo

        You don’t get sarcasm, I see. And you’ll see from my previous posts, I am an ardent anti-communist much less not a “lib”.

  • Electric Dynamic Boogaloo

    Don’t tease.

  • C. Adkins

    – wonder if this is real or just more propaganda.

  • Mary George

    Beware of the Military Industrial Complex ole Ike said.

  • Mary George

    We have millions of terrorists in the United States in the form of Muslims and Mexicans, South Americans, Central Americans and M.S.-13 gang trash who think our country is theirs.

  • Hood Ratt

    Enough, let Euro pay in USD!

  • Vermontist

    Hey just like the 80’s gives me a warm fuzzy feeling

  • Vince A.

    Oops. Another hole in the Trump-Russia collusion fantasy.

  • proudrino

    “Our Atlantic coast guys need a chance to train against good submariners,

    They are called SAILORS Mr. Clark. Not guys.

    • John Wells

      They are guys and gals.

  • proudrino

    “We must prioritize lethality, deterrence capability, training and readiness of the defined fighting unit, and will ensure the mission is met with the right capability and platform.”

    Refreshing talk after eight years of deliberately bad stewardship under Obama and Mabus.

  • Rudolfo Rojas

    I just heard in the news today that the Russian economy continues to falter and certainly the standard of living of the ordinary Russian person, not the entitled Oligarchs, continues to fall. What a sad state of affairs for the youth of a proud country that their paranoid and murderous Tsar Putin spends so liberally their tax dollars on wasteful military forays and militiary spending instead of building up their economy. If past is prologue, this behaviour will do much to bring down the Putin regime, i.e. liberal and wasteful spending on military instead of the economy.

    • xman_11530

      Our debt to GDP ratio ain’t exactly stellar either.

      Russia missed the Trillion $ party in Iraq.

      Russia isn’t the only country with oligarchs that overspends on defense.

      • Rudolfo Rojas

        Hardly any equivalence to speak of to compare economies, we have a growing one. Furthermore, when the economy of the state of California surpasses the economy of Russia. The point here is that again the Russians are making the same old mistakes that brought them low in the 90s. You neglect your youth and your economy you will lose your job. Here in the US we have representative govt. that can vote the bums out.

        • John Wells

          The old common mistake was the drunkard Boris Yeltsin, our man, leading that nation.

        • John Wells

          As far as California is concerned:

          “The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
          -M. Thatcher

        • xman_11530

          Nobody could argue Russian economy is comparable.

          However, in business terms, we have much higher overhead. We are in far more unnecessary conflicts and have much higher fixed costs to run our nation and military. How much did our little Syrian bombing campaign cost?

          • Rudolfo Rojas

            You make a good case, not sure what really there is to gain in the Syrian campaign honestly, it is costing a lot in rubles and human resources as they have lost quite a few servicemen and citizens. That money in addition to the money spent in Donbas would be better spent on creating technology corridors and education as Russia has some of the best and brightest engineers and tech minds in the world. Also diversifying the economy which Putin seems totally unwilling to do, the oil flowed freely and was easy money, but those days are over.

          • xman_11530

            Syria+Donbas are likely drains on Russian economy, but both are far more strategically important to Russian national security than are Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and countless other obligations US have committed ourselves to. They have to spend this money. We are choosing to.

            Meanwhile, a socialist -likely quite hostile- President was just elected to a country that shares thousands of miles of open border with us. This guy could cause tremendous mayhem by opening the floodgates into the US Southwest and fomenting civil disobedience.

            Our priorities are completely wrong.

      • John Wells

        The old Soviet Union had the common sense to get out of the “Graveyard of Empires” in Afghanistan when the senseless drain on their economy became apparent. Remember, we put a grain embargo on them and protested the Olympics. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we’re still mired there, without the common sense to get out.

    • chris chuba

      What news did you hear? Russian GDP growth at 1.3% GDP, an economist claims that that the actual growth was 5.8% (value of goods produced minus inflation).

      Russia is also able to fund their military modernization program while cutting Defense budget and have increased spending on infrastructure. They are not in a 1980’s death spiral. They just completed Kerch Strait Bridge which is certainly going to help the economy of the residents living in Crimea.

      • Rudolfo Rojas

        All pie in the sky, the fact is that with sanctions weighing heavily on the investment and banking sector and with the draconian human rights record, western and even some other legitimate entities are less willing to invest in Russia. That coupled with Magnitsky act imposed on Russia and the new sanctions on Oligarchs, any entities doing business with Russian entities risk punishment. For all intents and purposes, Russia is an economy based on 19th century extractive economics, oil and gas, oh and maybe arms and materiel. Today, growing and strong and diversified economy must be based on knowledge workers and technology and Tsar Putin will not allow Alexsei Kudrin to impose changes to the detriment of the Russian economy and ultimately its people. He is living a lie that Russia is a first world nation whilst his people are falling ever more into property. Furthermore, they have had to tap into their sovereign retirement wealth fund because their large surplus has been reduced to next to nothing, Just read any reputable paper like FT, BBC, WAPO, etc. Tell me again how strong the Russian economy is.

        • John Wells

          That’s good, must be a good housing market for the people all falling into that property.

    • Skyking239

      I was working at NUWC in Newport when the “Wall” came down back in 1989-90. We won the “Cold War” lets disarm and spend the peace dividend. It was said that It will be a hundred years before the Russians or Chinese are a viable naval threat to the US (Same was said of the Germans in 1919). What a difference 20 or thirty years make. Shut down SOSUS and stop major ASW R&D. Why train against a non-existent threat? First rule of warfare “Never assume away an enemy’s capability”.

  • Ser Arthur Dayne

    It’s a damn shame we retired *ALL* the frigates… There was a time when a “Carrier Battle Group” meant a CVN was surrounded and protected by two cruisers (an AEGIS Ticonderoga-class AND a CGN) at least two destroyers (an AEGIS Arleigh Burke plus an ASW-focused but still multirole and Tomahawk-capable Spruance-class) and at least two frigates (at least one FFG-7 class guided missile , multirole frigate and one FF-1052 class ASW frigate) and often had more than that, let alone the SSNs attached. —– Now I believe a Carrier Strike Group is basically a CVN, a Ticonderoga-class as the Air Warfare platform, and two Arleigh Burkes, one Flight I or II DDG-51 class {which has a TACTASS towed array for ASW work} and one Flight IIA DDG-51 {which has “the primary ASW sensor of the strike group, the MH-60R’s dipping sonar} … and while I fully agree that an AEGIS CG and 2 AEGIS DDGs are very capable… we still badly need the FFGs! As I have said before, imagine if we had done this right from the beginning, and the LCS program was actually a full-fledged frigate. Right now there are 12? commissioned LCSs and more soon to be added… we could equip each CSG, ARG, and ESG with a FFG, eventually each with 2, and still have almost 30 for stand-alone sailing and independent deployments…. Really the FFG cannot get here fast enough.

    • John Wells

      We already have enough to defend the United States, including Hawaii and Alaska.

      • Ser Arthur Dayne

        Please allow me to quote Alex Trebek from Jeopardy: ” No, sorry, that is wrong.”

        • xman_11530

          Not enough? Who is possibly going to invade the US by sea?

          • Ser Arthur Dayne

            Who is talking about invasion of the US? There are a million and one differences between protecting a carrier strike group and conducting worldwide missions on the oceans, and protecting from an invasion of the US by sea.

          • xman_11530

            You just quoted Alex Trebek to claim that 10-12 CSGs was not enough to defend the United States.

            How many do we need to protect the US? How many threats to national security do we need to bomb simultaneously?

            Hint- There are only 4 named oceans.

          • Ser Arthur Dayne

            The trolls are very hungry recently… probably should find a different bridge to live at and beg for food. Run along little done-done.

          • xman_11530

            So basically non-response to valid point. Got it.

  • Rumplestiltskin

    Ooo Wow a whole Aircraft Carrier? That must just scare the pants off the Russians. If this is truly the “Hunt for the Red October”, they should be using our own advanced submarines, not surface ships. Unless, unless, they plan on using the large ship as a decoy as target practice for the Russians. Any aircraft carrier is no more than a sitting duck.

    • BroccoliRob

      Do you seriously think that a US carrier operates alone, without attack sub support? Do you think the US Navy would publicize what they are doing with our subs in response?

      • Rumplestiltskin

        I didn’t see where the article said anything about a “Carrier Group”, as you have implied Rob. And no I don’t believe all carriers go about with a whole entourage of attack subs and missile destroyers.

        • BroccoliRob

          “This week the carrier, the embarked Carrier Air Wing 1 and some of its escorts passed through the Strait of Gibraltar into the Atlantic after spending several days in port in Marseille, France.”
          Do you really think the Navy would list every ship…especially submarines, in a press release? (A least 2 fast attack boats.)

  • Skyking239

    LOL so just what good is a CVN against a Russian SSGN? HST has no organic ASW capability except for MH-60Rs that are only used as a reactive search tool. By the time an SQS-53 active sonar detection is made by a DDG or CG the HST would have been within the Russian OSCAR’s SS-N-19 range for days. USS The Sullivans (DDG 68) is the only ship in the HST strike group that is equipped with an SQR-19 towed array capable of limited long range ASW detection. (Even with a TA Sonar USS John S. McCain (DDG-56) could only find a Chinese sub by towing the array over it and snapping it off). The one possible use of HST is target bait for the OSCAR. Lord knows that’s the only way HST strike group’s SSN or support P-8A assets will be able to find it. (On a good day!)

  • Bloodaxe

    Aircraft carriers are WW2 weapons. The loss of even one would be an absolute disaster. They are high-value targets for our enemies. With all the spy satellites in orbit they can’t hide like 1943. They do look pretty impressive, just like the battleships of days gone by.

    • Rocco

      You’re point is we shouldn’t have them?

      • xman_11530

        Maybe we shouldn’t build 4 more?

        • profwatson

          First, speed is the carrier’s friend. Even if the submarine has the absolute speed advantage, its capability to detect and maintain contact during a high speed transit is severely limited. Therefore, even if the submarine has contact, when the carrier alters course and/or speed, the submarine will be forced to maneuver to regain the firing solution. And this poses another tactical problem for the submarine – whenever it is forced to increase speed to maneuver, it becomes more vulnerable to detection.
          Complicating the submarine’s problem is a whole array of assets protecting the carrier (including escort ships, helicopters, patrol aircraft, and possibly other submarines).A lot of activity will occur before a carrier battlegroup (CVBG) enters an area where enemy submarines are suspected. You can anticipate a large anti-submarine campaign to clear such an area. This would most likely involve friendly submarines and air assets (if local air superiority exists). You can imagine a campaign to mine enemy submarine transit and patrol areas, and possibly efforts to attack submarines prior to leaving port. The CVBG may opt to avoid these areas completely, until considered viable.

          A nuclear submarine can overcome some of these obstacles through the use of speed, but this places him at a disadvantage. He is basically blind when sprinting while, at the same time, he is most vulnerable to detection. (And don’t forget, he can’t outrun anti-submarine aircraft or helicopters).

          • xman_11530

            In the event of a war, the submarines would likely attack first strike with no warning.

            We cannot sink Russian or Chinese subs until they shoot. Then it’s too late.

            With satellites, it’s not hard to position submarines where we are going to be. Pretty easy actually.

            It would be a one-way mission, but we’d lose our carriers.

          • profwatson

            Are you implying that the Russian or Chinese would do a sneaky Pearl Harbor type of attack, without first giving a warning , like a gentleman? What has this world come too.

          • xman_11530

            In a fair fight, our USN wipes theirs off the map.

            Yes, I suspect the Chinese and Russians are bright enough to recognize this.

          • profwatson

            They are not gentlemen.

      • Bloodaxe

        I dunno. What do you think?

  • xman_11530

    Coincidence that any post not screaming to build more CVN’s gets removed?

  • b2

    If the CVN airwing today had the actual S-3 or its equivalent embarked, it would make a big difference in the quality and fidelity of the CSG operating in such conditions against this type adversary. Do you agree?Imagine if there were 6 or more S-3Cs aboard with the same ASW acoustic capabilities and ASW weapons loadout as the P-8A itself… (yes Virginia the S-3 can carry as many torps as a P-8..) Plus, the Viking could also be a buddy store tanker and inherently a 1200nm (or more) War-at-Sea ASUW attacker w/HARPOON, whatever… They could of still been out there, today 2018, and could have been re-fitted with ASW capability agai, if we hadnt been so short sighted back early last decade. And S-3’s would have gone another 8-10 years AFTER 2018 given their fatigue life remaining FSFT documented in 2003….

    Just ask any of us AIrwingers who were operators back in the 1980’s against the same Bear… There is value in what worked 30 years ago against a more capable foe than Russia of today, the USSR…. Or just go on stupidly and trying to find whiz bang tech solutions/breakthroughs that only mitigate… That is all the leaders of our Navy are capable of after so much dumbing down and lowered expectations…. They are products of acquisition choice failures- one after another.

  • skeets11

    Time to put more S3s on the deck.

  • Kenneth Millstein

    Why doesn’t President Trump just call and ask Putin if he has Subs in the North Atlantic and when Putin says no Mr. President he can then tell the Navy that there is no need to deploy it forces to make sure that the Russian’s are not actually there. LOL.

    • BroccoliRob

      Good idea. Did Obama even know what an attack sub is?

  • RDF

    I never understood why they couldn’t just record passive sonar readings and frequencies of any boat, and then play those on a sort of super-nixie sled on a tow from a small boy, while HVT sneaks away. I know overhead is more difficult but the nixie thing always puzzled me. Black shoes? Anyone?

  • Chesapeakeguy

    It might not be a bad idea to bring back the ASWOCs

    • blink

      Their name changed to TSC. I think they still have them.