Page 1 of 1

Uss Truman

Posted: Wed May 01, 2019 4:00 pm
by Hippycrowe
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump- ... rry-truman

Why would the Navy want to get rid of her they can't even figure out how to scrap the USS Enterprise. I realize the Navy wants all new ships but these ships were made to last 50 years with proper up keep. The Navy says it is so short of ships and can't handle all things it is asked to do. It would make more sense to have 13 carriers one always in reserve to take the place of a carrier that is being over hauled.

Re: Uss Truman

Posted: Thu May 02, 2019 12:02 am
by SWIHARTMARK
The carrier air group lacks the range to defeat long range missile defenses and the navy needs long range stand off weapons. There is talk of the air force giving the navy its B-1 fleet and equipping them with long range missiles as a land based attack force. The Russians and Chinese now make missiles that are more accurate, faster and have longer range which can either hit the air group during its strike or the carrier battle group itself. If the Truman's nuclear reactor is not readied for another decade or so of ops, the savings could pay for improved range stand off weapons they currently lack. Read Real Clear Defense to keep up on this as it was last month's news. I first read about it there. The F-18 just never had much range and has to be refueled to be effective. That puts the tankers at risk as well. We could be seeing the age of the 100,000 ton carrier coming to an end. Its a big target for today's cheaper and smarter weapons welded by near peer adversaries.

Best Regards,

Mark

Re: Uss Truman

Posted: Thu May 02, 2019 10:36 am
by Hippycrowe
Ya it's like the battle ships too big and too expensive. But you don't have to send your 2nd rate ships in 1st if you destroy your enemies defenses you don't need all tye new weapons just a ship that carries a whole bunch of aircraft. It was rhe same with the geep carriers of WW2.

Re: Uss Truman

Posted: Thu May 02, 2019 5:55 pm
by SWIHARTMARK
I also heard from the deputy sec of defense on GZERO with Ian Bremmer about inadequate range of the carrier air groups combined with a lack of longer ranged/modern stand off weapons, so why keep the Truman commissioned and pay for a multi-billion dollar overhaul if it is no longer a threat to a conventional enemy? The use of B1s with 24 long range ship killers on board each would put a dent in any fleet. Not a horrible solution to contesting the South China Sea as well as areas around Taiwan, Korea and Japan. The Chinese are already considering arming container ships with missile batteries so they can launch a barrage wave attack on a carrier battle group. Quantity has a quality all unto itself. I think we are considering the same with a modular system you could deploy on such a ship quickly. Let an Arleigh Burke coordinate them all with its Aegis system.

Best Regards,

Mark

Re: Uss Truman

Posted: Thu May 02, 2019 11:39 pm
by Hippycrowe
New laser defense system will greatly enhance defense against missiles when they are finally ready. They are going to put laser defense systems on large aircraft too and fly at 7 miles so they can hit missiles from great range. I think before they Navy wpuld ever get close enough for the Chinese missiles to work subs would have targeted the launch sites with cruise missiles but mobile launchers are the problem. Torpedoes are biggest threat to Carriers all US large carrier losses in WW2 were due to torpedoes but the naval treaties had some to do with the lack of proper protection.

Re: Uss Truman

Posted: Fri May 03, 2019 7:19 am
by SWIHARTMARK
The latest plans are to overwhelm the defenses with numbers and speed. The airborne laser system hasn't been talked about much, but you cannot keep a 747 on station at sea too long. I think it is effective range is 300 miles, but it is designed to strike rockets in boost phase. 30 missiles tops is its limit for its laser.

A Swedish sub did penetrate an US carrier battle group in war games. Whether our adversaries have similar diesel subs remains to be seen. The US Navy is planning for a confrontation with China, which means they will have more than subs to worry about.

Best Regards,

Mark

Re: Uss Truman

Posted: Fri May 03, 2019 8:19 pm
by Hippycrowe
The Swedish sub uses an engine that is very quiet it can't stay under as long a US sub but is almost undetectable using sonar that is safe for marine life. The real only 100 percent defense against a sub is another one following it the US would make the Soviets so mad by following there missile subs right from port lol

Re: Uss Truman

Posted: Tue May 28, 2019 10:50 am
by tired bear
I've always been a Harry Truman fan, and I respect President Trump and I was glad to see the President do that, but I got to thinking about one underlying aspect of that action. Truman was a Democrat and with elections coming up next year could this be a way of gathering undecided votes? :think: [ Mods,if this is considered political I'll understand if you delete it.]

Re: Uss Truman

Posted: Tue May 28, 2019 6:55 pm
by SWIHARTMARK
Doubt more than a handful of civilians really know the issues involved with the Truman being decommissioned. Its more than politics, it the way the Navy intends to fight wars or what wars it intends to fight. The Truman merely was next up to have her reactor refitted/refueled, a very expensive process for a weapons system that is now in doubt due to a lack of viable weapons for long range missile combat. Our anti-missile laser defense systems won't even be available to a few more years tops and only in selected "destroyers" (that have the tonnage of a cruiser). Even then, they will not be battle tested by any means, nor fully up to date to handle increased power. This is still an on going process being developed as it is being deployed at the same time. A navy admiral described it as similar to Cortes burning his ships before he conquered Mexico as it will instill a need for victory. Not exactly a fall back position should it fail as do many weapon systems do.

Well, they (the Navy) finally admitted the Littoral combat ship was a total failure. I hope the laser won't be next. The navy is now going for cheap frigates instead. Perhaps they will have the same tonnage as a light cruiser? Also, it noticed that it lacks money to maintain its submarines, so much intact, it is scrapping plans for some new ones to fund the repair of older ones still quite serviceable. What happened to the Navy these days?

Best Regards,

Mark

Re: Uss Truman

Posted: Wed May 29, 2019 4:07 pm
by Hippycrowe
The Navy has waisted so much money on ships that have no use Trump is a businessman he knows you do not get rid of something because it isn't the newest. You do not tear a house down because the windows need replaced war ships are rhe same way.

Re: Uss Truman

Posted: Wed May 29, 2019 5:54 pm
by Tommy Atkins
Lets not forget, or ignore, that any ship of that age probably has "H&S" Issues with things like (gasp here) asbestos, which killed all its former crew!

Re: Uss Truman

Posted: Wed May 29, 2019 6:34 pm
by Hippycrowe
Can you imagine the cost of scrapping a ship of that size with all the toxic stuff and reactors. I know rhe Enterprise scrapping is on hold until they figure out how to do it. I do not remember the exact cost but it was in the billions.

Re: Uss Truman

Posted: Wed May 29, 2019 6:58 pm
by SWIHARTMARK
The Navy lacks the missiles to equip its air groups so that they will be effective in the future. No doubt the littoral warship project wiped out billions for those weapons with little if any results. Trump presently thinks steam catapults on a Ford carrier would be a good idea. The cost to convert her to use those would be prohibitive since steam lines don't exist in her now and her internals would be gotted to accommodate that idea. The Navy wants to use energy weapons down the road like lasers and rail guns, so electro-magnetic catapults seem forward thinking.

Right now maintenance on the Truman's reactor will run at least a billion. Any carrier is a relative sitting duck in the foreseeable future without adequate stand off weapons. Present anti-missile defenses cannot defend against multiple wave attacks since you can fire more missiles at the battle group than it has anti-missile missiles and those anti-ship missiles are getting cheaper and cheaper to produce, not to mention more accurate due to enhanced computer processing power. Until capable anti-missile laser systems come online, the Navy has a vulnerability problem from anti-ship missiles. The math is that simple to do. BTW, it is only a matter of time before our adversaries develop anti-missile defenses to rival ours.

Best Regards,

Mark

Re: Uss Truman

Posted: Wed May 29, 2019 8:04 pm
by Hippycrowe
Yes until laser weapons can be put on ships missiles pose a great threat modern war has gotten so lethal a naval force coyld be destroyed very quickly.