 Editor in Chief Bill   | 23 Dec 2025 5:27 p.m. PST |
…Though the vessel will not be ready until 2038 at the earliest, Macron said it was necessary to boost France's maritime capabilities: The country currently has only one carrier — commissioned in 1986 — in operation. Meanwhile Germany recently announced that it would seek to recruit 80,000 more soldiers, DW reported, part of a wider campaign to modernize its armed forces… Semafor: link |
Red Jacket  | 24 Dec 2025 3:14 a.m. PST |
Does anyone know how long it would take the US to reactivate one or more of its carriers that have recently been retired? I know the nuke issue complicates matters, however, if the balloon goes up on a worldwide war, can the US augment the number of carriers? I seem to recall reading that the Navy will not retire a carrier until its replacement is at least on its shakedown cruise. If that is the case, would there not be a carrier sitting around waiting for decommissioning that could be called-back to the fleet? I fear that the enemy (whoever you want to identify) will have some degree of success in crippling the carrier fleet, if a general war breaks out. I have no basis for this belief, other than a bad gut feeling. Ukraine has done wonders in sinking Russian ships and it doesn't even have a navy. |
 ochoin | 24 Dec 2025 3:42 a.m. PST |
I would assume that if the US embarked on a war with, let's say China, it would sustain significant losses. There is always the unknown and the unexpected with warfare &, as you say, carriers might be more vulnerable than thought even a few years ago. But I would also be fairly confident that the US would inflict considerable losses on the enemy. Not only with conventional forces but with the latest weaponry. For instance, I'm sure the Americans have been watching the Ukraine War as well & are alive to the possibilities of both drone & anti-drone warfare. It would be hoped that America's allies might still be willing to provide support, too. For example, the French and UK carriers. At least for a while, I would expect the US & friends (?) to win any conceivable conflict with or without "reserve" carriers. |
| LostPict | 24 Dec 2025 6:06 a.m. PST |
Next carrier to the scrapyard should be the USS Nimitz. She should be much simpler to dispose of than the USS Enterprise since her class has 2 reactors to Enterprise's 8. They will strip her of useful gear and then start the disposal. Once the latter phase starts, it would be hard to restore her. In addition to the 11 CVN's, we also have 9 big deck amphibs which are considered carriers by the old SALT treaties. We developed a new heat resistant non-skid, Thermion, for the CVNs and these so we can operate the F35B STOVL birds from these plus Harriers and helos. Concept called "Lightning Carrier". Our allies also upgraded their non-skid to accommodate the F35B. Similar conversion work could be accomplished with other vessels with sufficiently large flight decks in a protracted war. |
| Tortorella | 24 Dec 2025 6:47 a.m. PST |
Thanks, LostPict. I don't think the USN has any combat ships in reserve< but LostPict will know. Expensive to maintain, and to update for a return, which would not be quick and easy. The Chinese will likely close the gap in carriers somewhat in the 2030s. Their first nuclear powered CV is building now. Of their three existing CVs, the first one is a conversion from a 1985 Soviet unit, the second retains the ski jump system. The third one is much improved. J-15 fighters currently, I think. I don't know how we would rate their air groups and pilots. But they are learning the ops and coming along. I suspect we are more into drones than we let on, as long as we don't tell any political leaders. And I believe laser weapons will be fitted to the Ford and other ships in the next few years.
LostPict would know much more than me.. |
| goibinu | 24 Dec 2025 7:05 a.m. PST |
It would be hoped that America's allies might still be willing to provide support, too. For example, the French and UK carriers. At least for a while, I would expect the US & friends (?) to win any conceivable conflict with or without "reserve" carriers. I wouldn't bet on Europe being to keen to enter another of America's wars given the vitriol spewing from the White House about our lack of investment in the American war machine. |
| 35thOVI | 24 Dec 2025 7:49 a.m. PST |
"I wouldn't bet on Europe being to keen to enter another of America's wars given the vitriol spewing from the White House about our lack of investment in the American war machine." Ahh that we be "investment in NATO" and "main" support for the Ukraine? A) since they belong to it B) the Ukraine is in Europe. Not like we haven't taken more than our share of abuse from Europe consistently and for decades. One need look no further than TMP. 😏 Ahhh… until they need our soldiers and weapons to save them from the next European country that decides to become dominant over the others. Then we are everyone's best friend… until we are not again. 😏 Gob you are consistent in your anti-US vitriol. One has to ask: what did we ever do to Ireland? We haven't even demanded you join NATO nor contribute troops or weapons. Even though you are in Europe and you benefit from that protection. But again: we are martyrs to our own generosity. A phrase not lost on Dickens this Christmas Eve. 😉 |
| goibinu | 24 Dec 2025 9:53 a.m. PST |
We Euros have to put up with your constant anti-European rhetoric. So quid pro quo Ova. |
| 35thOVI | 24 Dec 2025 10:36 a.m. PST |
And a "squid pro quo" to you. |
| ochoin | 24 Dec 2025 10:45 a.m. PST |
The US always fights with allies. It's part of America's strength.
I see your point, goibinu. Possibly if the war is caused by American aggression or deemed to be America's "fault", the allies may well drop away – especially given the hostility of the US to all its traditional allies over the past year.
I don't think we are there yet when Europe, Canada , Australia et al would sit back if a Chinese "pearl Harbour' occurred. |
| LostPict | 24 Dec 2025 12:24 p.m. PST |
As to other combatants, the NAVSEA Inactive Ships program office manages some ships that have been decommed, but aren't yet razor blades. These includes ships for foreign military sales, ships "mothballed" for future reactivation, ships pending loan to memorials, the Memorial ships (which remain US Navy property), and ones headed to the breakers. I visited most of these in 2014 for material condition inspections, excepting the Memorial Ships (plus the MARAD and MSC fleets). As I recall we had amphibs, frigates, sweeps, auxilaries, etc., in the inventory, but not any Destroyers or Cruisers. By that time we had scrapped all of the CVs except for USS Kennedy which is being disposed of at present. I have been told that battleships USS Wisconsin. USS New Jersey, & USS Missouri interior spaces were mothballed prior to their transfers as Memorial ships so the Navy could reactivate them at future need, but that is my memory as an Ensign from decades back. |
| SBminisguy | 24 Dec 2025 1:12 p.m. PST |
The US always fights with allies. It's part of America's strength. I can't see that in US history. Care to explain?? |
| ochoin | 24 Dec 2025 2:23 p.m. PST |
I'm assuming this comment is part of your self-vaunted "sense of humour"?Surely?? I believe the French and to a lesser degree Spanish help actually got you lot independence? You know, the AWI? But Heaven forfend (NB that's a word & correctly spelled – thank me later for helping you with your vocab.)that you have to do some research. Here's a starter… Examples of US Wars with Allies: World War I & II: Fought alongside major Allied powers against the Central Powers and Axis, respectively.
Korean War (1950-1953): A UN-led coalition, primarily driven by the US, fought North Korea and China.
Vietnam War: The US fought with SEATO allies (Australia, South Korea, etc.)
Gulf War (1991): A broad, UN-sanctioned coalition (Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm) expelled Iraq from Kuwait.
War in Afghanistan (2001-2021): Started with NATO (ISAF)
Iraq War (2003-2011): The "Coalition of the Willing" included a smaller, more controversial group of allies. Plus quite a few Interventions: Numerous smaller interventions, from the late 19th century to post-Cold War, have occurred with varying degrees of international support. You did take out Granada by yourself but I believe that was a close one. I'll admit you fought the ACW on your lonesome but that wasn't because the Rebels weren't actively seeking international help (which they might have gotten if they weren't morally repugnant slavers). Have you been reading American textbooks again? You need to stop reading /listening to propaganda & broaden your horizons. Travel OS even. |
| OSCS74 | 24 Dec 2025 2:28 p.m. PST |
TDS came early on this topic. It seems like yesterday when I was a young man reading'' Yankee go Home" spray painted on a wall in some of the NATO ports I visited. These feeling did not start under Trump they have been there since the 70's. Europe is only satisfied when America pays "far more" than its fair share of the bill. Why should Americans pay and risk their lives for Europe when Europeans refuse to do the same. I spent 4 years in NATO waters, wasted for some ungrateful European so he/she does not have to serve. I'm fed up with Europeans that talk and did not serve. I would like the US to get out of NATO. On the other hand the Europeans I met and served were really good guys and I want to wish all of them Merry Christmas. |
| 35thOVI | 24 Dec 2025 2:48 p.m. PST |
OS and SB + 1. OS that post before yours is an Aussie and not a European. |
| OSCS74 | 24 Dec 2025 6:23 p.m. PST |
Yes, most excellent. A replacement for the Charles de Gaulle (R91). Germany adding another 80,000 another great addition. |
| OSCS74 | 24 Dec 2025 6:41 p.m. PST |
Ochoin I would like to compare the travel you have done to mine. For example I have been to Spain between 20 to 25 times kinda lost count. That is just 1 of the many countries I've been too. I have been to Italy a lot more. Perhaps you should worry about your country. Mine is doing really well right now. The best in 4 years. Gas is 2.70 a gallon. Inflation under 3%. I bought a new car this year something I could not do between 2020 and 2024. Riding that high horse you are on, you not seeing the horizon just clouds. |
 Legion 4 | 24 Dec 2025 6:41 p.m. PST |
OSCS, OVI, SBm +1/ea. We Euros have to put up with your constant anti-European rhetoric. Yes and as we see vis versa … and generally not in a "collegiate" manner … And a "squid pro quo" to you. Indeed !!! I can't see that in US history. Care to explain?? Based on my experience … that will be waste of time … IMO any NATO member that builds up its military is a good thing. As the West's enemies are still many. |
| 35thOVI | 24 Dec 2025 7:18 p.m. PST |
Osc and Legion +1 Our gas is 2.29 a gallon. Speedway has tried to raise it to 2.99 four times since November, but BP and Casey's refuse to match and so they are forced to lower again. Thought I'd give Speedway some bad publicity and Casey's and BP some good.
👍 |
 John the OFM | 24 Dec 2025 7:46 p.m. PST |
Aircraft carriers are like bikes. All the cool kids have to have them. |
| Tortorella | 24 Dec 2025 8:32 p.m. PST |
The average price of gas is 2.84 right now, but varies widely . Not controlled by the POTUS. Oil is run by corporations seeking profits in a global market. Supply drives prices up and down. Only in a socialist country would a President be able to manage oil supply and demand to affect prices. Here private companies manage this. Supply and demand varies and is impacted various factors which we may not control. Inflation dropped below 3% last year also. Things were not great post pandemic unless you were already rich. We will find out if that still holds true going forward. Be glad you are not a soy bean farmer or a college student. There are always winners and losers in every economy. |
| OSCS74 | 25 Dec 2025 8:13 a.m. PST |
Tort The other side of the discussion: this is an article from 2023 One study estimates that the United States would have produced between 1.2 and 3.5 billion more barrels of oil since Biden came into office if he not reversed President Trump's pro-oil and gas drilling policies. The United States could have completely neutralized the OPEC and Russian voluntary oil output cuts of 1.3 million barrels a day now driving up oil prices. Instead, Biden policies are for net zero carbon or, in other words, net zero fossil fuels, which is an energy scheme that would impoverish America while pouring billions of dollars into the reserves of the Saudis and the Russians. Biden and the Democrats in Congress have provided at least 150 ways to hurt the productivity of the U.S. oil and gas industry with the most recent being the revoking of leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and proposing to place more prime oil and gas lands off-limits for drilling in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. The value of the oil production lost due to this war on American energy and the reduced drilling ranges from $104 USD billion to $396 USD billion — so far. Biden/Saudi relations were sour and SA would not assist Biden. Trump and Saudi relations are totally different resulting in Saudi assistance in lowering oil prices. Influence that Venezuela and Iran have on oil prices are overridden by Trump/Saudi Arabia. The POTUS does have some influence over oil prices. One thing is for sure when oil prices are high Russia gets plenty of money for its war machine. Stopping Russian oil sales is key to peace. |
| 35thOVI | 25 Dec 2025 9:34 a.m. PST |
OC +1 Add also the difficulty forced on companies by environmental rules and regulations that hinder drilling, even if more drilling sites are available. That is something the current potus did curtail. |
| Tortorella | 25 Dec 2025 10:16 a.m. PST |
I am not defending Biden as a POTUS. this is about BIG OIL. They sell American oil mostly overseas, NOT here. They are not drilling for you, other countries buy the sweet oil, Chevron etc. make record profits. It's not about the drilling. There have been plenty of leases, many not used. Whether they drill or not also depends on global supply and demand…bottom line profits. I don't know how many decades we have to get fleeced by this gang before we see the light. How many times have the oil companies taken us to the cleaners going back to 1974? Remember, Trump handed out exemptions to some countries for his Iranian oil sanctions. As he has done for Orban in Hungary on Russian oil. Biden was not my favorite president, but IMO the constant blaming is not always accurate …just as it is not for Trump. I don't agree with either of them on many things. I don't like monetizing American wilderness and losing it when we don't have to. Or revoking wind farm licenses to drive oil companies profits. Is oil the wave of the future? Other factors are at work here. My opinion. Multiple energy resources reduces our strategic vulnerability more than selling more oil overseas. My opinion. |
| 35thOVI | 25 Dec 2025 10:29 a.m. PST |
"Do you think oil is the wave of the future? Many do not. Other factors are at work here. My opinion." Don't think wind or solar are either, especially after talking and listening to ranchers out west who have to depend on it for the power. As far as electric, I believe going back to nuke may be a requirement. Have heard more and more "experts" advocate for it again. |
| Tortorella | 25 Dec 2025 10:35 a.m. PST |
Yes, I agree the new tech for nuclear makes it a vital part of diversified energy plans now. Plans we need to keep energy safe from outside disruptions and aggressors. |
| Legion 4 | 25 Dec 2025 6:02 p.m. PST |
Multiple energy resources reduces our strategic vulnerability That's a given … But with current tech, fossil fuels seem to be the most useful. Other energy sources can be useful in some situations. But right now they are still few in numbers. As again, the tech is still evolving … Aircraft carriers are like bikes. All the cool kids have to have them. John you didn't have a bike or a carrier did you ? 😉😏🤩 |
| Royston Papworth | 26 Dec 2025 10:19 a.m. PST |
OSC, I would say this echos the sentiment in the Kipling poem Tommy. The public never likes it's servicemen – it's certainly nothing personal or anti-American |
| OSCS74 | 26 Dec 2025 12:10 p.m. PST |
Royston, I agree, I did take it little personal because I lived it, but then I say my piece then and move on. We can always agree about other subjects. |
| Dragon Gunner | 26 Dec 2025 5:50 p.m. PST |
Considering the fiscal budget problems France is facing currently I will believe it when I see it. |
| Legion 4 | 26 Dec 2025 8:23 p.m. PST |
OSC, I would say this echos the sentiment in the Kipling poem Tommy. The public never likes it's servicemen – it's certainly nothing personal or anti-American Agreed … e.g. we still remember how the returning Vets from Vietnam were treated. Even as an ROTC cadet in '75 when wearing a uniform, we got some very negative reactions. OSCS +1 Considering the fiscal budget problems France is facing currently I will believe it when I see it. Let's hope this comes about as I don't see the Chicoms and islamists threats going away anytime soon. FWIW – the Russian threat is really only from nukes. Their performance in Ukraine was marginal at best. And they know they could never take on NATO in a conventional war. |
| Royston Papworth | 27 Dec 2025 8:00 a.m. PST |
Dragon Gunner – agree.
Although I think more importantly, can European countries provide the crews for ships like this? Legion – even over this side of the pond we heard how bad returning Vets were treated. As for the Russians not being able to take on NATO, is that with or without the US? Just wondering as the US focus seems to be moving to the Far East… |
| Incavart77 | 27 Dec 2025 8:19 a.m. PST |
I think a lot of the anxiety in this thread is understandable, especially from people who actually served and know how fragile real capability can be once the shooting starts. On the carrier question specifically: the US doesn't really have "reserve" carriers sitting around waiting to be recalled. Once a carrier is decommissioned and systems start coming out, reactivation stops being a military option and turns into a long, expensive industrial project. That's been true for decades, and the nuclear piece makes it even less reversible. That said, the Navy has never planned to fight by pulling museum ships off the pier. The real wartime elasticity comes from how flight decks are used; big-deck amphibs, Lightning Carrier concepts, distributed air wings, and a lot of things that don't make headlines but matter to people who've worked deck plates or ops rooms. I also wouldn't underestimate how much the US and its allies have learned from watching Ukraine. Not in the sense of "drones magically make carriers obsolete," but in the quieter lessons about survivability, dispersion, deception, and not assuming yesterday's playbook survives first contact. As for allies: America has always fought with them when it mattered, but allies don't show up because of bombast. They show up when the cause is clear and the planning looks serious. That cuts both ways, and it always has. Bottom line for me: carriers are neither invulnerable symbols nor useless relics. They're expensive, manpower-heavy tools that only make sense when embedded in a wider system that's thought through honestly without triumphalism and without panic. The people who've actually worn the uniform usually understand that distinction instinctively. |
| Tortorella | 27 Dec 2025 9:14 a.m. PST |
|
| Legion 4 | 27 Dec 2025 10:32 a.m. PST |
Legion – even over this side of the pond we heard how bad returning Vets were treated. Many of my instructors served in Vietnam/SE Asia. As well as when I was assigned to my first unit the 101 as a 2LT. I've heard the stories directly from those who experienced the insults, abuse, etc. Very shameful … As I said even as an ROTC Cadet, we were treated by some of that. And that was in '75-'79. The war was over along with the draft. A sad legacy of some US citizens … As for the Russians not being able to take on NATO, is that with or without the US? With NATO being awakened with Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Many in NATO are upgrading their militaries. As it appears the Russians are now a threat to West again. Plus Russia's poor performance in Ukraine. Demonstrates they don't understand the way to fight modern combined arms warfare. As they lack the ability to support these tech heavy units. From Assault Rifles to MBTs/AFVs, aircraft, warships, etc. the logistics tail is long and very important. As I have said as an Infantry Officer for over a decade, I was both a Tactician and a Logistician. So I'd think with all the NATO forces many being former WP. With more training, increase in force levels, and keeping up with high-tech, etc. IMO NATO could defend from a Russian invasion of one or more NATO states. Especially now … the Russian Forces have been significantly, with little ground gain. It would be maybe 8-10 years of more before the Russian have rebuild, refit, rearmed, etc. their depleted forces. Frankly if Russia invaded the Baltic States and/or Poland. I think NATO without US boots on the ground could repulse the attacks. E.g. look at Ukraine's performance vs. Russia. I'd think NATO would react similarly. With the Russian invading a NATO nation. Unless Russia really learns how to fight and support a modern military force. They wouldn't do any better than in Ukraine. Also, NATO basically is bigger than Russia even without the US.
Just wondering as the US focus seems to be moving to the Far East… Well the US has had a decent size force in the PTO since WWII and afterwards. Albeit after the Cold War much of the US Forces were downsized greatly. The US still has a considerable amount of assets in the PTO. Even in the ROK we had a much -reinforced Infantry Div, the 2ID. I served there for 22 months, '84-'85. With a forwarded deployed Mech Bn with 2 tours on the DMZ. The 2ID has a lot of Corps/Army support units. Along with other branches the in country or near-by. E.g. Japan, the PI, etc. Plus our ANZAC allies … The US has shifted to the PTO basically for a few of reasons. * The Russian military has proven to be marginal at best. So they are not the threat to NATO they once were. Or thought to be. That being said, we see we can't turn our backs or ignore them. * The Chicoms are on a war footing expanding the size of their military. Increasing training, equipment etc. They still are on a quest to push the US out from its position in the World. As always, the Chicoms play the long game … *The North Koreans have expanded and upgraded their forces. But won't do anything if not sanctioned, supported, etc., by the Chicoms as in the Korean War, '50-'53.
Incavart +1 On your entire post … The people who've actually worn the uniform usually understand that distinction instinctively. Yes that gives many Vets a POV that only serving can clarify, etc. |
