The best fighter jet in the world (F-35), paired anew with eight older, small, assault carriers packs a potent punch to project American naval and air power wherever and whenever it’s needed. Behold a picture of American greatness in one badass power platform.
Bill Whittle, Stephen Green and Scott Ott create 2,600 new episodes of Right Angle each decade, thanks to our Members. Join us now when you click the big green button. You may also donate using the big blue button to encourage this work. Thank you.
18 replies on “The Lightning Carrier: American Greatness Captured in One Badass Power Platform”
I think Scott has it wrong. The US is like this not because we import great minds. Its because our culture allows great minds to work, and you can reap the benefits of that work, and also reap the consequences. We also believe that the individual will step up in a time of crisis. I remember Bill speaking, a while ago, about the differences between the crew on a US carrier vs a Chinese carrier. On a US carrier, if you kill everyone else, the cook will take up a gun and start shooting. In the Chinese fleet, if you can get rid of the officers the entire ship is crippled. Its this difference that makes the United States great. And its this the left is trying to crush.
Americans are INCREDIBLY innovative. Remember when Apollo 13 needed to rethink the stuff they had on board to save the ship?
This is a great discussion! But, taking out the Bonhomme Richard was such a terrible act of treachery, to try and destroy your country’s ability to defend herself. It always saddens me to know how morally bankrupt the Wokesters are. They clutch a counterfeit virtue as they commit all kinds of evil acts. No one ever taught them the real meaning of virtue, such as integrity, humility, compassion, patience and respect. If you don’t like the military, get out and take your message to the streets or to your Congressman. Don’t do something that hurts all of us by limiting our ability to fight against the enemies of this nation. Reprehensible behavior. He probably holds himself in the highest esteem, the poor deluded person.
I think this idea if implemented will have valuable deterrent effect but, in the end, men with guns (infantry) win wars. Using Marines to harass the Chinese with technology isn’t going to win wars. I like the idea of smaller carriers with VTOL aircraft but I don’t like transing the Marines to achieve that end. Remember Inchon?
Using Marines to sink ships by giving them the equivalent of a rifle that can destroy an enemy vessel, some containing weaponry and some containing troops, IS the “men with guns win wars” concept. It’s a force multiplier and it’s a good idea.
It’s the same concept we’re seeing applied right now in Ukraine where “men with guns” (that happen to be missile launchers) that can destroy tanks are changing the tide of war. Though Marines killing ships is on an even bigger scale. The Ukrainians are not “harassing Russians with technology” they’re engaging and destroying Russian armor — And neither does “harassing with technology” apply to Marines taking out ships.
I served in the Marines, I know a lot of both active and inactive Marines and I’ve been disturbed by the tendency to use Marines in roles that should be fulfilled by the Army. It’s a waste of capacity to split the same job like that. It’s a sure way to see the end of the Marines eventually as the Army will just subsume the entire land warfare theater and leave the Marines with little reason to exist other than as a shipboard security force.
Marines are America’s Gunslinger. We send Marines to do jobs no one else can do. Marines excel at that sort of thing. If you doubt that look up “Force Reconnaissance” and “Marine Raider”. The Recon and Raider missions are quite different. Here’s a little hint in preview, Raiders don’t do what you probably think they do if you’re going by the name only.
Sending Marines to do jobs that the Army can do, even when as is often the case Marines do it better, is a waste of capability regarding the Marine Corps.
Marines moving back to their maritime role as Naval Troops and SOC (Special Operations Capable) actuals and leaving the Army to the be the Army is long overdue. The “Armifying” of the Marine Corps was a grave mistake made in expediency and it is long past time that was rectified.
The Marines are a highly flexible, adaptable force. That doesn’t make them “transed”, it’ makes them dangerous to our enemies. This is a fact proven many times in the history of the Corps.
And yes, I not only remember Inchon but knew people that were there, including my Father. I don’t see what getting stuck in the mud due to an error in reading tide tables has to do with “transing” Marines to island hopping anti-ship roles. The M1 tank may be a mighty machine but it can’t take on a Chinese Destroyer or troop ship. If it ever comes, war in the Pacific has to be fought for what it is and what it is makes tanks pretty useless.
The navy sinks ships. That’s their job- destroy other navies, keep trade routes open, carrier airstrikes on the enemy.
Ukraine is going to lose (Raytheon will win), sorry. How many Javelins have the Russians captured?
The Marines started being sent to do jobs the Army should be doing because the Army stopped doing what they’re supposed to be doing (using their rifles) I agree, this has to be corrected.
Agree, the Marines are flexible and adaptable and don’t need heavy armor, I never said that they did and I’m not saying they can’t fly F-35s either. It’ll take a lot more than converted amphib ships to defeat the Chinese in a hot war. The US hasn’t won a war against a first world country since WWII, or a war against a second or third world country for that matter. There is no shortage of tech in the US but “will to fight” cannot be imported. In my mind that’s what the Marines always stood out for- their fighting spirit.
I didn’t say anything about “Ukraine is going to lose…” or win. I don’t care a lot except as it pertains to advancing the Russian threat further west. It’s not a good thing for Ukraine to lose because that will put Russia’s logistical resources closer to areas I care a lot more about than Ukraine.
That said, this war in Ukraine is doing a dandy job of bleeding the Russian Bear. I hope we continue to do that until it’s exsanguinated. Russia is a serious problem to the West.
China is also a serious problem. Right now we have a prime opportunity to separate Chinese policy from things that help Russia. The Chinese don’t like the Russians anyway and we should do everything reasonable and prudent to accentuate that lack of amicability. Which means anything that does not also strengthen China while working towards that goal.
One way or another, if the West is to survive, both those enemies will have to be dealt with eventually. Either pruned back and kept within their own borders by vigilance or outright destroyed. Which doesn’t mean a nuclear holocaust BTW. Economic destruction is one of several sorts that don’t leave the world a radioactive cinder.
Russia was on its way out until Joe Biden allowed the Nord Stream II pipeline to be completed. The war in Ukraine wouldn’t even be happening if Biden hadn’t enabled it. More than anything else, more significant than any other factor, Biden owns this war and it doesn’t matter who he was listening to.
I don’t give a flying rat’s ass about “Raytheon winning”. Raytheon is an American company that employs a shit ton of Americans. I don’t want Raytheon dictating foreign policy but frankly I doubt that even if they did, they could come up with worse policies than the Biden Administration is applying.
Everyone always works in their own interests, defense contractors are no exception to that rule. The problem is not powerful defense contractors and their lobbies. That’s the other side of the same coin and goes with the territory of having the best technological and production facilities in the world. If defense contractors are exerting undue influence on the government that’s exactly what they’re trying to do and no surprise there at all. If they’re ALLOWED to succeed in those efforts to the point of detriment to our National wellbeing that’s a failure in leadership.
If you want to see the best example of a failure in leadership to occur in America in the last century all you need to do is watch the news.
Until our military grows some cajones and gets rid of the officers that want to wear make up and dresses and cry about whiteness and endemic racism; our weapons line up is not going to be affective.
Guessing this idea originated with some Chief and not high up the chain.
Reminds me of a scene from Tom Clancy’s “Debt of Honor’ (pretty sure that one) After a sneak attack that damages two out of four screws on a carrier, the skipper and XO are watching their ship being towed into dock and the skipper is bemoaning being completely out of the war based on repair time to fix both screws.
The XO turns to him and asks, how fast will she go on 2 screws? Fast enough to launch planes it turns out.
Out of the box thinking tends to solve problems in interesting and good ways. Space-X has this in spades.
The only cold comfort I take in news like this is keeping in mind who our military will probably be targeting in our next war
The one thing missing from this episode would be Steve opening with, “It’s time for your Lightning… CARRIER! ha – you all thought I was going to say lightning round”
In a just world and a sane country, that guy would be hanged from a yardarm.
As I understand it, the Bonhomme Richard (the LHD) was just coming outta a 2 yr overhaul, hadn’t really been turned back over to the Navy yet. Only had a skeleton crew aboard, mostly manned by contractors doing work. And the bulk of the firefighter came from SDFD.
And a bit of trivia. Ben Franklin is the only person to have two capital ships named after him and both of them were in commission at the same time. The Essexes USS Franklin and the USS Bonhomme Richard, Franklin’s pen name.
Coming out of overhaul. And during overhaul, there are temporary hoses/cables/air ducts everywhere, such that hatches can’t be closed. And fires can’t be fought as effectively as on an active ship.
NO! It doesn’t! CV stands for Cruiser/Aviation. Like CG stands for Cruiser/Guided Missile. In the early years, aircraft carriers were envisioned as the new scouts of the fleet taking over the job traditionally done by cruisers. And, also since the first two fleet carriers, Langley was a test vehicle, were built on battle cruiser hulls, in fact all aircraft carriers in the world were converted from cruiser hulls, the Navy gave this new type of ship a CC (cruiser) subvarient designation.
Now as far as the V in CV? There is an argument to be made that it comes from the French word for airplane that does start w/ a V. And French aviation was popular in the early 20s. However, I think the V comes from aViation. The Feds have a history of using dominate sounds for their acronyms. The postal codes for Arizona AZ and Texas TX for example. Also the prefix A was already taken for Auxillary ships. USNS tankers and the like. And in an early version of the prefix system, CA was used for Armored Cruisers.
“Carrier” is short hand for “aircraft carrier”.
Langley was converted from a fleet coal ship, not a cruiser.
Midways weren’t completed till after the war.
OK. A week after the war.
Ship porn and now carrier porn? What a great week!