Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Seriously? Find a better reason (Score 1) 163

by TrentTheThief (#48367657) Attached to: The Military's Latest Enemy: Climate Change

Very true. But there have been many times the US has had two thirds of the carriers deployed, and that was when we had had that "600-ship" Navy. While there are ten carriers active, Heck, the JFK, Ranger, Kitty Hawk, and the Indy could all be back in the game in less than a year if necessary. As always, the primary issue is manning.

I think long-range strategic aircraft will hold the day until sub-orbitals come into play. After that, the aircraft carrier will quickly lose relevance. And once laser/particle weapons live in those sub-orbitals, carriers and long-range aircraft will both become irrelevant.

But don't sell carriers them short just yet. It's not often done, but carrier aircraft can strike targets over a thousand miles away. Not with the strength they have hitting a nearby target, but enough to let the target know they've been seriously kissed. Deeply frenched, in fact. By something with a _really_ sharp tongue.

UAV's will extend the carrier's usefulness and lifespan, but I have no idea how far.

Comment: I call, "Who gives a damn?" (Score 1) 245

by TrentTheThief (#48367239) Attached to: ISPs Removing Their Customers' Email Encryption

If I send clear text to the internet, it is because I don't give a damn who reads it.

However, when I wish my communications to remain private, I encrypt it myself before it ever leaves my local network.

If you don't care enough to encrypt things you wish to remain private, then you are the only one responsible for allowing _anyone_ to read your mail. Don't rely on some nebulous third party to provide _your_ protection against eavesdroppers. Take charge of your life dammit, and quite whining.

tl;dr: Encrypt it yourself and then it doesn't matter if the transport channel is encrypted or not. Stand up on your own and be responsible for yourself!

Comment: Re:Seriously? Find a better reason (Score 1) 163

by TrentTheThief (#48360497) Attached to: The Military's Latest Enemy: Climate Change

Can't spend time on station? Seriously?

There is a reason that aircraft carriers are the first choice for applying force when long-term force is required.

I've spent six months at a time tooling around in the Arabian Sea. I know of at least one year-long cruise by the Nimitz where they spent about 5 days in-port (crew relief was the only reason they went off station). American aircraft carriers are refueled, rearmed, and resupplied by a massive fleet of auxiliary stores vessels capable of delivering anything, including an entire fighter (granted, I only saw the fighter thing happen once), fuel, munitions, stores, spares, and personnel. The only reason that an undamaged (combat or in-service events: fire/accident, collision, storm) carrier needs to be rotated off station is for crew relief. A carrier is quite capable of sailing for years at a stretch without docking. It's not practical, though, since the crew would be batshit crazy by then. But that's why we have plenty of them.

The actual operating expenses attributed to a fleet at sea is a moot. Those ships, crews, and aircraft would be sailing/flying somewhere, in any event. The additional expenses attributed to combat operations are identical no matter where the aircraft are based. Fuel to fly, munitions to deliver. Those would be present no matter the situation.

Day-long inter-continental missions (for one-offs or small-scale ops) are fine and actually better creating a nearby land base since that obviates the necessity of creating the required maintenance facilities (including the specialized (by aircraft type) maintenance equipment and supporting systems) as well as secure, sheltered bunkers for aircraft and facilities for crew and support people. Those are major expenditures. Modern aircraft require sophisticated electronics that aren't repaired by simply tossing the box on an electronics bench and poking around with meters and scopes. Many systems require multi-million dollar automated testing systems that utilize computers to perform the actual testing and troubleshooting (not all of it, just the long dull portion). In some cases, flight data computers, for example, complete manual testing could take weeks, while the CAT systems can complete the same testing during a single shift (or so). In addition to the electronics, there is the matter of support equipment for the mechanical systems (electrical, engines, hydraulic), ground support equipment, specialized stands and racks to handle engines/fuselage sections/wings.

And that doesn't even touch on the personnel aspects. Housing for crews, maintenance teams, medical, support staff.

In essence, setting up an new land facility as opposed to using a existing carrier or mounting an inter-continental strike is too expensive.

As shown by your reply, you don't actually understand mechanics of airstrikes or the application of tactical/strategic air power from sea-based platforms. There are quite a few long-service vets on Slashdot who won't hesitate to pounce on uninformed comments.

tl;dr: It's no simple or inexpensive task to support aircraft in the field. Aircraft carriers can loiter and prosecute an action for longer than you'd be willing to stay at sea cooped up, seeing the same couple dozen people 24/7. Aircraft carriers or inter-continental strikes are usually the best way to proceed unless you're gearing up for a very long, very large forward action (think invading another country, not a NATO action like Kosovo).

Comment: Seriously? Find a better reason (Score 1) 163

by TrentTheThief (#48350277) Attached to: The Military's Latest Enemy: Climate Change

Come on, Lasrick, haven't you heard that aircraft carriers don't need "facilities" from which to launch bomb strikes? Or that the B2/B52/F117 aircraft are more than capable of flying from the US to any damned place in the world to drop a bomb? Mid-air refueling and all that....

If you want credibility, don't spout inanities.

Comment: Re:Coastal people live in their own universe (Score 2, Insightful) 264

by TrentTheThief (#48326889) Attached to: We Are Running Out of Sand

Natural Resources are things found in nature that are used and can be used up. Clean water, breathable air, plant life, animal life, arable land, those are natural resources. They are consumed through use and can be overused to the point of disappearing. A beach on the other hand, that is not a natural resource. It's a terrain feature, just like a mountain. You can no more "use up" a beach than you can use up the view of Mt. McKinley.

Unfortunately (as viewed by beach residents), beach erosion _IS_ natural. That's how it works. The beaches need protection from people like you since you don't understand what qualities define a natural resource and through your ignorance think you can "repair" a beach.

Attempting to "preserve" beaches does no more than screw up the beaches for people who live down-current (no matter which direction that current flows.) You don't understand how the ocean or the earth work.

Beaches are supposed to erode. That is MOTHERFUCKING NATURE. Deal with it.

Study some oceanography.

Comment: But what about the children??? (Score 1) 314

Hey, the Finn cop's missed child trafficking! They were supposed to add, "Help prevent child trafficking" to their laundry list of bullshit reasons for doing something entirely meaningless to prevent something that they are already powerless to prevent.

If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.

Working...