Slashdot Mirror
US Navy Sells 'Top Gun' Aircraft Carrier For One Penny
HughPickens.com writes Kitsap Sun reports at Military.com that the USS Ranger, a 1,050-foot-long, 56,000-ton Forrestal-class aircraft carrier, is being towed from the inactive ship maintenance facility at Puget Sound for a 3,400-mile, around-Cape Horn voyage to a Texas dismantler who acquired the Vietnam-era warship for a penny for scrap metal. "Under the contract, the company will be paid $0.01. The price reflects the net price proposed by International Shipbreaking, which considered the estimated proceeds from the sale of the scrap metal to be generated from dismantling," said officials for NAVSEA. "[One cent] is the lowest price the Navy could possibly have paid the contractor for towing and dismantling the ship."
The Ranger was commissioned Aug. 10, 1957, at Norfolk Naval Shipyard and decommissioned July 10, 1993, after more than 35 years of service. It was stricken from the Naval Vessel Register on March 8, 2004, and redesignated for donation. After eight years on donation hold, the USS Ranger Foundation was unable to raise the funds to convert the ship into a museum or to overcome the physical obstacles of transporting the ship up the Columbia River to Fairview, Oregon. As a result, the Ranger was removed from the list of ships available for donation and designated for dismantling. The Navy, which can't retain inactive ships indefinitely, can't donate a vessel unless the application fully meets the Navy's minimum requirements. The Ranger had been in pristine condition, but for a week in August volunteers from other naval museums were allowed to remove items to improve their ships. The Ranger was in a slew of movies and television shows, including "The Six Million Dollar Man," "Flight of the Intruder" and "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" where it stood in for the USS Enterprise carrier. But the Ranger's most famous role was in the 1980's Tom Cruise hit, "Top Gun." "We would have liked to have seen it become a museum, but it just wasn't in the cards," Navy spokesman Chris Johnson told Fox. "But unfortunately, it is a difficult proposition to raise funds. The group that was going to collect donations had a $35 million budget plan but was only able to raise $100,000."
The Ranger was commissioned Aug. 10, 1957, at Norfolk Naval Shipyard and decommissioned July 10, 1993, after more than 35 years of service. It was stricken from the Naval Vessel Register on March 8, 2004, and redesignated for donation. After eight years on donation hold, the USS Ranger Foundation was unable to raise the funds to convert the ship into a museum or to overcome the physical obstacles of transporting the ship up the Columbia River to Fairview, Oregon. As a result, the Ranger was removed from the list of ships available for donation and designated for dismantling. The Navy, which can't retain inactive ships indefinitely, can't donate a vessel unless the application fully meets the Navy's minimum requirements. The Ranger had been in pristine condition, but for a week in August volunteers from other naval museums were allowed to remove items to improve their ships. The Ranger was in a slew of movies and television shows, including "The Six Million Dollar Man," "Flight of the Intruder" and "Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home" where it stood in for the USS Enterprise carrier. But the Ranger's most famous role was in the 1980's Tom Cruise hit, "Top Gun." "We would have liked to have seen it become a museum, but it just wasn't in the cards," Navy spokesman Chris Johnson told Fox. "But unfortunately, it is a difficult proposition to raise funds. The group that was going to collect donations had a $35 million budget plan but was only able to raise $100,000."
Correction: Navy *pays* a company $0.01 to a company for the service of removing it and dismantling it.
It didn't sell anything.
Kid-proof tablet..
The ship wasn't sold for 1c; the Navy paid 1c to have the thing dismantled: usually they pay significantly more.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...
A historic ship both in the actual theater of war and in the movie memories of the general public, in pristine condition and one penny is the best they can do, for a gross weight of 56000 TONS??
First, the Navy tried for many years to interest groups with the idea of turning it into a museum, but no one could come up with tho money to fund such a project.
Second, there are considerable problems that have to be mitigated when breakining up such a ship. They can't just sell it to some third world country where it would be "beached" and dismantled by locals in an environmentally hazardous way. The ship almost certainly contains many tons of hazardous materials such as asbestos, and various noxious fluids, all of which must be safely removed and disposed of.
Third, where ever it is disposed of, it has to be towed there, not an insignificant expense.
The Navy got a deal spaying one cent to dispose of it.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
It isn't in pristine condition, its full of heavy metal contaminants, asbestos, oils and other problem materials, and requires maintenance just to remain afloat in decent condition - a huge amount of effort is required to do anything with the ship, and the Navy doesn't want it on its budget any more. If the museum project had raised its money, they would have got it.
Having watched a documentary on another scrapping a few years back, the metal in these ships do not command a premium on the scrap market, and any scrapping company takes it on with complete uncertainty as to whether they make a profit or loss as they also have to deal with the toxics and those cost a lot these days.
in pristine condition
And no, it was not in "pristine condition".
For (I'm so sorry) Fox News:
âoeWe would have liked to have seen it become a museum, but it just wasnâ(TM)t in the cards,â Navy spokesman Chris Johnson told FoxNews.com. âoeBut unfortunately, it is a difficult proposition to raise funds. The group that was going to collect donations had a $35 million budget plan but was only able to raise $100,000.â
...and...
The Ranger will have to be towed to International Shipbreakingâ(TM)s facility on the Gulf of Mexico from the pacific bit since it is too large for passage through the Panama Canal, it will have to be towed down and around South America. The voyage is anticipated to take up to five months.
Johnson said that the tow will come at no cost to the Navy and the International Shipbreakers is currently drafting a towing plan and will absorb the costs.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
is 3400 miles? Really??
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
They sold it to a Texan - let's not be too quick to say that it'll be disposed of an in environmentally friendly way. Perhaps it will but perhaps not.
Still, I get your point about not having it sent to some overseas backwater.
But why isn't the Navy doing this themselves? Surely they have the manpower & capability and there must be huge sections that can easily be re-used.
The US Military just has too much money; they've lost all sense of the value of anything.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
I got the "in pristine condition" from http://www.military.com/daily-..., which is one of the links in the summary. I would think that they should know.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
I'm not disagreeing with you but that's not what Military.com says: http://www.military.com/daily-...
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
After losing both catapults for 10 minutes during an attack (that was over in 2 minutes) that was only averted thanks to Pete "Maverick" Mitchell saving their asses, that ship had clearly seen its day.
I got the "in pristine condition" from http://www.military.com/daily-..., which is one of the links in the summary. I would think that they should know.
Military.com may not have the latest information. I work for the DoD in the Puget Sound area, and know a number of worker bees at Bremerton, and they have a different opinion.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
By "pristine condition" they simply mean that they haven't been stripping it of parts to use elsewhere. They don't mean they had been keeping it up or that it was not in need of a great deal of work to be used as a museum, or for any other purpose.
Florida enjoys using ships for reefs to attract fish. Pump all th oil and grease out of the vessel and sink it in 300 feet of water and it makes a great fish habitat. Why use it as scrap?
They did the same with the old Forest-Fire (USS Forrestal) when it came time to turn it into razor blades....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I'm struggling to see what Military.com says with regard to one of my points - I made a few, could you narrow it down for me? :)
Yeah, I don't know about Military.com, but this picture...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Ranger_%28CV-61%29#mediaviewer/File:Aerial_Bremerton_Shipyard_November_2012.jpg
I wouldn't say any of them are derelict, but not pristine either.
Still, it is pretty interesting to see such a large collection of former military power. And those are the ships that the US Navy no longer wants!
I suspect that a ~60 year old ship is probably a horrible mess in a number of respects, and might well not be the best starting point for the job; but given what we actually send aircraft carriers out to do at present(and to a substantial degree, have since WWII), it would be interesting to know if there's any room for a variant carrier design that emphasizes sheer capacity per unit cost, for all our aerial bombardment of stuff that can't really do much about it needs.
I understand the navy's enthusiasm for aircraft carriers that might not immediately become the involuntary flagships of the submarine navy upon contact with actual opposition; but they sure are expensive for situations where we are just beating on people with minimal retaliatory capabilities.
Not WW2. 1950s.
The Navy doesn't build the ships, so why would they dismantle them?
Hah! The Navy has no manpower any more; certainly not for construction and demolition. The Navy doesn't build aircraft carriers; why should they dismantle them? Everything that is done except direct warfighting and readiness for warfighting is farmed out.
On August 14 1945, the Navy had in active service 23 battleships, 28 fleet carriers, 71 escort carriers, 72 cruisers, 377 destroyers, 361 frigates, and 232 subs: a total of 6786 ships, including auxiliaries. The total personnel strength was 3.4 million. Uniformed personnel cooked the meals, drove the trucks, loaded ammunition and fueled the ships, etc.
On September 30 2006, the Navy had 0 battleships, 12 carriers, 27 cruisers, 54 destroyers, 35 frigates, and 74 subs: a total of 318 ships including auxiliaries. The total personnel strength was 0.35 million. Meals, truck driving, loading and fueling, etc, are all performed by hired service companies - just like for the Army and doubtless the Air Force (not entirely sure about the Marines, but probably them too).
The size has shrunk considerably since 2006. This despite having twice the national population to draw upon. The Navy can barely man its ships, let alone sparing "manpower" for non-essential tasks. And just like the merchant marine, knowledge, specialties, and capabilities have been cut way back. There are no more hundreds of sailors manning the engine rooms in large ships. The engines are automated.
What parts of "Top Gun" did RANGER appear in? Any shots that could be identified were of ENTERPRISE, with her distinctive cubic superstructure. See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Did they shot some interior footage on RANGER, or is this just wrong?
Amazingly, one of the pilots in the F-14 footage is still on active duty, nearly 30 years later. ADM James Winnefeld, now the Vice Chair of the JCS, was one of the instructors at Top Gun when the movie was shot and flew some of the dogfights.
I'd be fairly thrilled if I could get my aircraft carrier spayed for $0.01, too.
I'da payed substantially more to be towed out to the gulfstream and spent a few years trying to keep it from sinking.
The only thing stupider than the US government is the US citizen, notwithstanding stupid illegal aliens tha are too stupid to make it in their own fucked up countries and think it's actually better here.
What group of slimeball politicians got paid under the tablefor this latest episode of fuckme-imamerican?
Well nitwit, you could have bid on it. You generally need to be a telecommunications maganate before you go out buying aircraft carriers and parking them in the middle of the ocean.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
They used 'pristine' in an odd context. Possibly 'historically pristine', but certainly not mechanically pristine.
The Ranger had been in pristine condition, but for a week in August volunteers from other naval museums were allowed to remove items to improve their ships.
.
Flying over it makes it obvious it's not in great shape. Hell, the engines don't work.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
So, a large jeep carrier? That's not a bad idea actually. If I was in charge of the design I'd do a floating airstrip/refueling barge that can handle heavy aircraft and otherwise just mostly sits there. Just park an AEGIS cruiser next to it for command-and-control. You can even tow it in place in sections, and put it together on arrival.
Liberty - Security - Laziness - Pick any two.
On August 14 1945, the Navy had in active service 23 battleships, 28 fleet carriers, 71 escort carriers, 72 cruisers, 377 destroyers, 361 frigates, and 232 subs: a total of 6786 ships, including auxiliaries. The total personnel strength was 3.4 million.
Imagine that, we had a shitload of active warships and manpower in the US Navy fourteen days prior to the surrender of Japan during WWII. That was almost 4 years after Pearl Harbor. What was the US Navy looking like in 1939? Nowhere near what it was at the end of the Pacific campaign.
On September 30 2006, the Navy had 0 battleships, 12 carriers, 27 cruisers, 54 destroyers, 35 frigates, and 74 subs: a total of 318 ships including auxiliaries. The total personnel strength was 0.35 million.
And what was the destructive capacity of the Navy in 2006 compared to August 1945? Hell, one Ohio class submarine has more destructive capacity than the entire Navy from 1945. As cool as battleships are, they are a relic and have no real function in the current military. A single carrier group from the current Nimitz class could obliterate all 28 fleet carriers and support ships before they even knew what had happened. Technology has made the requirement for massive amounts of ships meaningless. The amount of manpower is also significantly reduced. You also can't compare the necessary number of ships during a massive multi-year war to post cold war times. Iraq, Afghanistan, etc are regional conflicts at best and not even against the country itself. Massive amounts of firepower are generally not wise when fighting insurgents. You don't carpet bomb an entire village when there are only 4 hostiles in it. .
The size has shrunk considerably since 2006. This despite having twice the national population to draw upon. The Navy can barely man its ships, let alone sparing "manpower" for non-essential tasks. And just like the merchant marine, knowledge, specialties, and capabilities have been cut way back. There are no more hundreds of sailors manning the engine rooms in large ships. The engines are automated.
The cold war is over and the US is not at war with any large governments any longer. Why would you want more men when the ships have become more efficient and have so much more firepower? Look at the number of men in the Iraqi military compared to the US. How did those superior numbers work out for them? In the case of carriers they are also nuclear. You don't need men to shovel coal into boilers any longer either.
Aug 14 1945 was the V-J day. US Navy had just finished battling other nations that had navies that were comparable, and sometimes even bigger than US Navy. Now the highly shrunken US Navy dwarfs all other navies of all other countries by an order of magnitude, I am sure tonnage of the next five navies would not match US Navy's today.
All we need to do was to keep the oil price below 60$ a barrel for the next three years. All the terrorist sponsors including Saudi Arabia will go bankrupt. Russia will further disintegrate. Crimea will be to rejoin Ukraine. We can cut the navy down by another factor of two then.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Hell, one Ohio class submarine has more destructive capacity than the entire Navy from 1945.
Which means absolutely nothing because you can't actually use any of that firepower in any conflict short of "Civilization as we know it is coming to an end." That's not to dispute the rest of your points, which are mostly valid, but let us leave the SSBN out of the calculation of modern naval firepower. They have a specific mission: deterrence. The day they are called upon to loft their birds is the day that mission has failed.
Why would you want more men when the ships have become more efficient and have so much more firepower?
There is an argument to be made that we need more ships, particularly attack submarines and surface combatants. The former will prove decisive in any conflict with the PRC and the latter are needed for missile defense, amongst other missions. Unfortunately most of the shipbuilding budget is going to the Gerald Ford CVNs while the looming Ohio replacement is going to consume billions more. Both are needed at the end of the day, so unless we're going to throw more money at the Navy I'm not sure what the solution is. I'd opt for throwing more money at them, since it takes decades to build a modern Navy, and it can't be used (as easily) for interventionist adventures in the same manner as a standing army....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Right, because instability in the Middle East and Russia will result in peace and cooperation in those regions, no need for anything resembling our current levels of military build-up...
I don't know what barges think of 'blue water navy' work; but that's the sort of thing I had in mind: skip classy, skip seriously intimidating looking, stick a bunch of standardized modules together into a big floating airfield, with the aim of providing a lot of flight deck and very, very, deep stores of fuel and munitions for the 'yeah, we want another strike going out every half hour or so until further notice' style of air support/pounding that seems to crop up.
Now the highly shrunken US Navy dwarfs all other navies of all other countries by an order of magnitude, I am sure tonnage of the next five navies would not match US Navy's today.
Off by one. It's not five, but six by this list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_warships
And raw tonnage is a terrible metric, as bad as raw numbers of ships.
Mitt Romney could have tried to make a legitimate remark about the operational capacity of the US Navy. Instead, he chose to make a blithe analogy that discredited himself.
The day we don't need Arab oil, we can down size our military even more. Almost all the defense factory workers are basically on welfare. Their companies and factories have not produced anything efficiently to compete in real free market.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
These ships are not cheap to maintain, even in museum status. The battleship U.S.S. Massachusetts, berthed at Battleship Cove, costs over $1M per year to keep in presentable and safe condition for tourists, keep the lights and ventilation on, etc.., and that doesn't count the significant volunteer work that is done for free.The pier built for it was something over $10M IIRC. That's all for a ship that doesn't go anywhere anymore. It just sits and floats. I believe Battleship Cove was offered the U.S.S. JFK (Enterprise(?) class nuclear carrier), but they simply could not afford to build the proper pier structure for a ship of that size, never mind the annual upkeep.
Just sitting in the water takes a big toll on these vessels. They need hull maintenance and paint regularly. Their hulls wear thin over the years due to corrosion, and periodic corrosion removal and repainting. If you just left them to the weather and never maintained the hulls they'd probably rot through and sink in a few decades.
Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!
Vote for Bernie in 2016!
You don't need men to shovel coal into boilers any longer either.
Neither did we in WW2. Teddy Roosevelt converted the Navy to oil power.
He thinks the ships are made of Legos.
I guess youforgot to read the last sentence of the article;
"We would have liked to have seen it become a museum, but it just wasn't in the cards," Navy spokesman Chris Johnson told Fox. "But unfortunately, it is a difficult proposition to raise funds. The group that was going to collect donations had a $35 million budget plan but was only able to raise $100,000."
The $35M was the budget to convert it into a museum.
It's a said day for me. I served about the USS Ranger while part of VAQ-137, The Rooks. She was a old ship but purpose build. Unlike the newer ships you knew you were on a fighting ship as that's how she was designed. I've several fond and not so fond memories of my westpac cruses aboard her. I salute the fine ship USS Ranger and applaud here many years of service to the United States. Well done old friend you will be missed.
What's interesting to me that most of the 6000 ships were small vessels: patrol boats, amphibious, mine warfare, etc.
http://www.history.navy.mil/br...
In 1939 the total active warships list is 394, so not too far in terms of total numbers to what we have in 2006 (285 is shown for 2011).
Says the person who wasn't insightful enough to notice I asked a QUESTION. I'll take my ignorance over yours but thanks for playing.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
I was referring only to the "in pristine condition" remark
From the last paragraph of the link:
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
The US still has plenty of pieces of military death crap for you to get your war hard-ons.
Here's a real answer for you - Naval ships are generally designed and built as a unit. The base hull, the systems involved, propulsion, electrical, power generation, etc all are tailored for one another. Once you have all this together, making wholesale changes to it can be tricky without basically redesigning the whole thing anyway. New technology, new efficiency-improving designs, better designs based on things learned can really only be done with new designs. It's like a car chassis - at some point, you have to redesign the underpinnings to make a more efficient and better car. You can't take a 1957 Chevy and tear it down to the chassis and rebuild it with modern technology and have it be as safe, efficient, or whatnot as a car designed and built from the ground up with the new technology, and certainly not at a price point close to a new car. To say nothing of issues like metal fatigue, corrosion, brittleness from age, etc. Likewise, even though it's somewhat counter-intuitive, it's often more economical to build a modern ship from the keel up than to, say, gut a carrier and retrofit new tech in.
Yes you asked a question, then you answered it. As soon as you answered your own question you went from being curious to simply asking a rhetorical question just so you could answer it.
I took exception to your answer, not your question. Your assumption that 'huge sections' could be reused and that the navy has the spare manpower to break the ship into 'huge sections' for reuse were simply ignorant.
Ken
The U.S. Navy is less than half the size of China's and a bit smaller than the Russian navy - there are at least a dozen countries with navies at least half as big as the U.S. Navy.
Source: http://www.globalfirepower.com...
Ken
It's amusing that your offense at my question & assumption led you to an even more useless response.
In the 5+ hours since my OP and your reply, at least 1/2 a dozen informative or truly insightful comments have been made including a couple by ACs and one with a large photo of a harbor with several decomm'ed ships were made.
Your response achieved nothing except to puff yourself up solely by putting me down, for which you've already been congratulated.
Here's a bonus "rhetorical question" with an implied response: "Is a response by kenh (9056) of any value compared to that by any other Slashdotter incl Anonymous Cowards?"
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
And what was the destructive capacity of the Navy in 2006 compared to August 1945? Hell, one Ohio class submarine has more destructive capacity than the entire Navy from 1945
A statistic that floated around earlier in the year when Argentina was grumbling about the Falklands again: one of the battleships that the British were sending to the area could fire, in one minute, more munitions than were fired in the entire 1982 conflict. I'd imagine that the differences between 1945 and now are even more pronounced.
One constant trend has been that soldiers are less expendable. In the first world war, sending men to walk slowly towards machine guns and throw a grenade if they survived to get close enough was their patriotic duty. By Vietnam, having large numbers of soldiers come back in body bags was politically unacceptable.
In the 1940s, Japan was flying aircraft loaded with bombs into American warships. A few years later, people realised that you could design aircraft for this purpose and make them a lot lighter and able to accelerate more if you removed the human pilot. They called them anti-ship missiles.
The fighter screen that fleets needed to protect themselves from aircraft in the '40s is now replaced by anti-aircraft and interceptor missiles (and dumb projectiles). In the next generation of ships a lot of this will be replaced by lasers, which reduces some of the resupply need (you can't run out of laser ammunition on a nuclear carrier unless your ship is so badly damaged that it's not a good idea to be anywhere near it).
Gradually, a lot of the roles for aircraft are being replaced by drones, which means that you need smaller carriers. They don't need to house as many pilots, they don't need as many support staff.
Another part of this trend is to replace reusable vehicles with single-use munitions. Fighters are more expensive than missiles, so you spend a lot on maintaining them. Drones are a lot cheaper, so you can afford to fly them for a couple of missions and then scrap them (explosively, near someone you don't like).
Comparing numbers, as the grandparent did, is completely meaningless. You may as well compare the size of the air force to the number of soldiers Napoleon had.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
What is that measuring? The fact that it doesn't say means that it's meaningless, but it looks like they're comparing number of ships, so a coastal patrol boat counts the same as an aircraft carrier...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Lol. Iran has more military strength than Russia on those charts.
Maybe you could one-up that guy turning nuclear silos into prepper havens? :)
Doing the right thing only cost a penny. It also employs a lot of people. Why not?
Towing it to the middle of the Atlantic and sinking it is not necessarily a wrong thing, but they would have to remove all the contaminants first, which would probably cost a lot. If they are looking to use it as a reef or scuba attraction, then the middle of the Atlantic is the wrong place. It would need to be just offshore for use as a reef or for scuba.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Why not sell it to Libertarians or Pirates (The party kind, not the "Yar" kind) so they can create their perfect society in international waters?
XDInd
It was either take $!00,000, and then still not be able to do anything wth the ship because it wasn't enough money, or GIVE a salvage crew $.01 for them to take the ship for scrap.
XDInd
Hell, one Ohio class submarine has more destructive capacity than the entire Navy from 1945.
Which means absolutely nothing because you can't actually use any of that firepower in any conflict short of "Civilization as we know it is coming to an end." That's not to dispute the rest of your points, which are mostly valid, but let us leave the SSBN out of the calculation of modern naval firepower. They have a specific mission: deterrence. The day they are called upon to loft their birds is the day that mission has failed.
Yes, by today's standards. But you made a comparison to a time when the US actually was willing to, and did use atomic bombs in anger. Do you think the US would have shown the same restraint in January of 1945 if they had an Ohio class sub? My guess is that all 24 Trident II SLBMs would have been MIRVed and every one would have had 8 physics packages. They would have been willing to launch every single one at that point in time. Just as they nuked Nagasaki three days after Hiroshima because the Japanese asked for four conditions to surrender rather than unconditionally.
I know. I was being facetious.
With the propulsion system ripped out or replaced with a simpler, cheaper system (giant outboard motor?), a carrier would be an awesome platform for responding to disaster. It could provide shelter, feeding facilities, power generation, emergency hospital facilities with isolation usits, transportation (trucks, helos,etc), potable water, and more. This would be an incredible tool for the UN or maybe an organization like Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières.
Could you translate this into english for the rest of us?
One constant trend has been that soldiers are less expendable. In the first world war, sending men to walk slowly towards machine guns and throw a grenade if they survived to get close enough was their patriotic duty. By Vietnam, having large numbers of soldiers come back in body bags was politically unacceptable.
The Great War was a major reason that soldiers became less expendable. That war saw millions of casualties in a single day, multiple times, with none of it able to break the stalemate. In World War II, not one of the powers was interested in making the same kind of sacrifices, with technology making up the difference. Bombers and tanks prove more effective than meat anyway. But most importantly, ever since the end of World War II there has not been a single conflict that directly threatened the West. Sure, the Cold War propaganda had most of the country convinced that Communism as an idea was spreading and threatened the American way of life. But nobody seriously believed that the Veit Cong were even capable of (let alone interested in) mounting an assault on our shores. Neither were they likely to have any impact on any of our European friends by the 60s. Body bags are politically acceptable when the propaganda makes clear that they died to protect our lives and sovereignty. Not even propaganda could sell that message about Vietnam.
In the 1940s, Japan was flying aircraft loaded with bombs into American warships. A few years later, people realised [sic] that you could design aircraft for this purpose and make them a lot lighter and able to accelerate more if you removed the human pilot. They called them anti-ship missiles.
The first missiles were designed and deployed by Nazis before the Japanese got desperate enough to launch suicide attacks. I highly doubt that kamikazes had anything to do with their development.
In the next generation of ships a lot of this will be replaced by lasers, which reduces some of the resupply need
Megawatt lasers are a really cool idea but I doubt they will be ready for the "next generation". The power costs are enormous even for the working models we have now which don't have enough destructive force to blow up an attacker like a well-aimed missile. Energy weapons ultimately aren't practical without free energy.
I sometimes ask revealing, often ignorant-seeming questions. Maybe they're harder to answer than you think.
Given the age and time out of service, 'pristine' probably means not on fire and not in immediate danger of sinking.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
"The listing below includes battleforce ships made up of aircraft carriers, frigates, destroyers, corvettes, torpedo boats, patrol boats, amphibious support craft, landing craft. Auxiliary vessels are also included."
So yes, it sounds like a tally of a number of ships, regardless of what they actually are. So in terms of power, it tells us little as they're counting an unarmed support ship the same as a Nimitz-class carrier. Also, I'm pretty sure they missed the Coast Guard's ships on their list, which given their definition, ought to be included.