In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
Marines to Catch Rides on Foreign Warships????
Wrangler
Member Posts: 5,788 ✭
Man, I am slipping deeper and deeper into the Twilight Zone! I can't believe this is even being contemplated. Cut the damn handouts and build up the military!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/29/navy-weighs-having-marines-hitch-ride-on-foreign-warships/
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/29/navy-weighs-having-marines-hitch-ride-on-foreign-warships/
Comments
So we are allowing for eight more of those tubs to be built over the next 13 years? Roughly one every six months. Our South Korean stooges just about destroyed this nation's steel and shipbuilding industries, so even with full funding, would we have the shipyards available in this country to build the ships at a faster pace?
The Navy currently has 30 amphibious transport ships to carry Marines, but estimates it would need 38 to cope with rising crises across North Africa. It won't reach that number until 2028 under current budget constraints.
So we are allowing for eight more of those tubs to be built over the next 13 years? Roughly one every six months. Our South Korean stooges just about destroyed this nation's steel and shipbuilding industries, so even with full funding, would we have the shipyards available in this country to build the ships at a faster pace?
Check your math.
A little over a year to build each one.
But we don't need new construction. We have plenty of ships mothballed that could easily be refitted and do transport duty. It' not enriching shipyards much though, but it would bring some 0-5 command billets open pretty quick.
The Navy currently has 30 amphibious transport ships to carry Marines, but estimates it would need 38 to cope with rising crises across North Africa. It won't reach that number until 2028 under current budget constraints.
So we are allowing for eight more of those tubs to be built over the next 13 years? Roughly one every six months. Our South Korean stooges just about destroyed this nation's steel and shipbuilding industries, so even with full funding, would we have the shipyards available in this country to build the ships at a faster pace?
And of that current number of amphib's in commission only about 10 are actually deployed with the rest either in overhaul, in some manner of training prepping to deploy, or in transit.
If it wasn't for naval contracts there would probably be very few, if any, large commercial shipyards in operations. Less than 5% of all US international export/import trade is carried on US flagged merchant ships, so there's little need for merchant ship construction. If it wasn't for the Jones Act, protecting inter-coastal commerce to US flagged vessels only, we probably wouldn't have a merchant marine fleet.
quote:Originally posted by mark christian
The Navy currently has 30 amphibious transport ships to carry Marines, but estimates it would need 38 to cope with rising crises across North Africa. It won't reach that number until 2028 under current budget constraints.
So we are allowing for eight more of those tubs to be built over the next 13 years? Roughly one every six months. Our South Korean stooges just about destroyed this nation's steel and shipbuilding industries, so even with full funding, would we have the shipyards available in this country to build the ships at a faster pace?
And of that current number of amphib's in commission only about 10 are actually deployed with the rest either in overhaul, in some manner of training prepping to deploy, or in transit.
If it wasn't for naval contracts there would probably be very few, if any, large commercial shipyards in operations. Less than 5% of all US international export/import trade is carried on US flagged merchant ships, so there's little need for merchant ship construction. If it wasn't for the Jones Act, protecting inter-coastal commerce to US flagged vessels only, we probably wouldn't have a merchant marine fleet.
I have to admit that I'd never even heard of the Jones Act, which dates back to 1920, and among of things, requires that....all goods transported by water between U.S. ports be carried on U.S.-flag ships, constructed in the United States, owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed by U.S. citizens and U.S. permanent residents.
I'll bet legislation like that could not be passed today.
Before that I worked aboard USA built and flagged research ship's. I was "Science Support", not a sailor. The ship's had American Merchant Marine officers but foreign seaman.
While the science passengers appreciated the improved technology over earlier ships leased and operated from Norway, they had some valid complaints.
Food quality was awful. So bad the more experienced research staffers bought what they could at port calls and stashed it in lab storage spaces.
American shipyards had gotten away with using iron pipe for potable water lines. This tap water became rusty and undrinkable. Forcing cargo space to be set aside for pallet stacks of bottled water.
Shipyard workers had left noise making gags inside welded closed spaces. One was found during drydock repairs. A length of pipe had ball bearings inside it and caps welded on. The rougher the seas the greater the racket it mmade.
Obviously, the problem is that we aren't giving the most lavishly funded military in the history of the world enough money
Also, we may not end up going to places we are not wanted or needed.
Brad Steele