Coronavirus II

[MarkC]

Poor judgement from one of the few guys in the Navy that have a carrier. Or any ship, for that matter.

The 'help' he was asking for was to be able to evacuate the lion's share of his crew ashore in Guam, leaving a front line military asset unusable for an indefinite period. I would expect any capt. or commander of any part of the strategic triad would get the same answer. If they suddenly needed to deploy to counter Iranian aggression, would we have to wait weeks for them to get underway?

At least as a Navy Captain (O-6), he likely is in a position where he can retire comfortably after he ran his career aground.

 

[BugI02]

Might want to consider that the Schiff guy quoted above has a vested interest in doom and gloom since he sells gold which, I’m sure he’ll tell you, will help you survive the coming crash. Just saying.

Yes. When I see Bill Gates calling for immediate total shutdown, I cannot help but remember that the company that underpins a great deal of his fortune would scarcely be hurt by such a shutdown and might have a healthy increase in sales

Most financial writing on sites like Marketwatch makes it difficult to discern whether the author is reporting what he thinks will happen or what he wants to happen

 

[nonobaddog]

The 'help' he was asking for was to be able to evacuate the lion's share of his crew ashore in Guam, leaving a front line military asset unusable for an indefinite period. I would expect any capt. or commander of any part of the strategic triad would get the same answer. If they suddenly needed to deploy to counter Iranian aggression, would we have to wait weeks for them to get underway?

Well it is a carrier. We fly in healthy, tested replacements, clean the boat and fly out the sick. That carrier needs to be responsive.

 

[Alpo]

At least as a Navy Captain (O-6), he likely is in a position where he can retire comfortably after he ran his career aground.

Yeah, somehow sitting in Florida with an occasional golf game just doesn't have the zing of watching a squadron launch. But, maybe that's just me.

 

[smokingman]

Dr. Birx about the percentage of tests that test positive for coronavirus:
NY, NJ: 35%
LA: 26%
MI, CT, IN, GA, IL: 15%
CO, DC, RI, MA: 13%
CA, WA: 8%

https://www.whitehouse.gov/live/

 

[MarkC]

Yeah, somehow sitting in Florida with an occasional golf game just doesn't have the zing of watching a squadron launch. But, maybe that's just me.

You're not wrong. Choices have consequences.

Using his logic, are we supposed to evacuate every warship down to a minimum, non-combat-effective crew? I hate it for the sailors who are affected, but we cannot allow our most potent weapons to become unavailable.

 

[smokingman]

You're not wrong. Choices have consequences.

Using his logic, are we supposed to evacuate every warship down to a minimum, non-combat-effective crew? I hate it for the sailors who are affected, but we cannot allow our most potent weapons to become unavailable.

You could send replacement crews,and use the same plane to evacuate the sick. Granted the captain was saying get the crew down to 10% and go back out to sea.
It could have still had crew sent to it. He was worried about his crew with over 280 already having tested positive.

 

[actaeon277]

The Captain did what he could for his crew.
For that he has my respect.

But, he embarrassed the Brass.
And that's a No-No for a career. Whether it was necessary or not.

 

[actaeon277]

The Navy could have evac'd about half the crew.
And brought in extra medics to deal with the crew on board and it could get to sea and fight.
Maybe not full tempo, but it's possible.

When in port, ships keep enough people to be able to go to sea.
Depending on the ship, 1/3rd to 1/5th of the crew.

If that's their minimum, then they could have done their minimum, or even doubled to to ease the workload.
Also, carriers carry enough medical personnel to deal with normal ops, with a bit extra built in.
Not enough for this.

 

[actaeon277]

You could send replacement crews,and use the same plane to evacuate the sick. Granted the captain was saying get the crew down to 10% and go back out to sea.
It could have still had crew sent to it. He was worried about his crew with over 280 already having tested positive.

A replacement crew?
Does the navy keep a spare carrier crew sitting around waiting for this?

 

[Dead Duck]

So did the air craft carrier's captain try to ram a train?

 

[foszoe]

One count of "train wrecking"

Never knew the criminal code was that specific. Wonder if that law is from the 19th century?

I'm positive the US Navy has been attacked via train before, but I'm willing to bet money this is the first time they've been attacked by a train.

 

[smokingman]

A replacement crew?
Does the navy keep a spare carrier crew sitting around waiting for this?

4 carriers are currently home. So in this case yes they could have sent an entire replacement crew.

Back in October it was 6 docked at Norfolk.
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/10...s-are-at-the-dock-hill-presses-for-oversight/

 

[Vigilant]

Or you could just save up and pay cash for a 2-3 year old used car and let some other schmuck eat the depreciation while you're left without a car payment.

That way your not stuck trying to make payments when the economy gets shut down and cash flow drops due to some virus. (The universal you, not necessarily you personally.)

But hey, what are the odds of something like that happening, right?

OR, buy a Jeep Wrangler, they appreciate. Depreciation means nothing to those that use 5heir vehicles for their useful life cycle? If you want the newest neatest every couple years, then yes, otherwise depreciation is a non starter?

 

[bobzilla]

OR, buy a Jeep Wrangler, they appreciate. Depreciation means nothing to those that use 5heir vehicles for their useful life cycle? If you want the newest neatest every couple years, then yes, otherwise depreciation is a non starter?

No vehicle appreciates. At least none that I’m are under 6figures.

buying new vehicles is NOT the smart move financially. If you’re using a vehicle through it’s life cycle, buying a 2-3 year old car with low miles for half price is the smarter move. Drive it until it is no longer reliable and repairs cost too much then sell and start over.

Low resale is why I love the Korean cars. Well and they are good. But you could get a 2 year old $24k car for $12k. All the bells and whistles for literally half price with 20k miles. Not anymore because people have realized they aren’t **** cars anymore and are on par or better than most of the Japanese offerings.

 

[ditcherman]

I am, mostly, just going to play devil's advocate here since there is only a marginal argument to be made that cash is not king. But, I'm gonna make it.

The depreciation on a $13,000 car with 3 year bumper-to-bumper warranty and a 5 year powertrain warranty is actually a pretty acceptable loss, IMO. At a glance, a 5 year old Spark is $7k. So for $100/mo you have a written guarantee that the thing is going to start and likely drive for 5 years and get you were you need to go with good fuel economy on top of that. People legitimately pay more than that for an extended warranty on a used car (which is a different topic).

Then the issue arises of opportunity cost. Let's say I go out tomorrow and buy a used car with cash. I own the car outright, so good for me. However, I no longer have access to that cash and it's now tied up in a different depreciating asset that I'm still required to own (because if you need a car, you need a car) so I can't just sell it and get my money back. What happens if I need to buy food? Or pay for housing? My cash is sitting in the driveway. However, if I only obligate myself to a small monthly payment, I can stretch my cash far, far, further into the future. Since it costs me $0 in interest to do that, it would be silly not to hang on to my cash as long as possible. Over a 7 year time span, there's every reason in the world to believe that the cash I have on hand could actually double itself if invested wisely (especially in this garbage market... we're approaching the point where up or total failure will be the only two options). If this all went perfectly, you could have a free car out of the deal.

Then there's the issue of inflation. Even in good times, inflation is about 2% annually. So, if I drive the car all 7 years of the loan (which would personally be my plan, and beyond) I make the compound rate of 2% APY on the loan, which comes out to about 2 grand. If you're a believer that inflation is going to go through the roof, Carter style, then you could actually make good money by holding that loan to fruition and have an asset that you needed anyhow at the end of it.

A 7 year old Spark is probably still worth $2500 (call it $2k in today's money for the inflation). So... Just looking at without the crazy times inflation that might come, you have a vehicle to drive for 5 years with very little concern about, and another 2 just winging it, for a cost of about $9k in today's money, and you got to keep your cash on hand that entire time for "what if". Seems like a decent deal to me.

Sooo... That's where my mind is at and where my logic is coming from. Personally, the scale of risk would swing radically away from my comfort zone for anything much more expensive than a Spark. I wouldn't even consider applying this to an $80k truck unless I had a similar scale of cash behind me that I do for a Spark and I actually needed an asset that expensive to generate income. The only income I generate with a car is hauling my butt to work, so, a Spark would do.

Using other people’s money, when it’s free, is always smart, as long as you can justify the cash flow, whether it’s a spark or a 70k diesel truck. This is coming from a guy who’s never bought a new car, just because of the sudden depreciation.

 

[actaeon277]

4 carriers are currently home. So in this case yes they could have sent an entire replacement crew.

Back in October it was 6 docked at Norfolk.
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/10...s-are-at-the-dock-hill-presses-for-oversight/

Except, you can't take someone off one complex piece of machinery, and rotate them onto another.
They have to "qualify" on that equipment.
Boomer subs do that, only because they have 2 entire crews assigned to that sub.
Even then, it takes a month and a half to repair the sub, and break in the oncoming crew.
Do you want a Reactor Operator to flip a wrong switch because, "That's the way it was done on the other ship".

Also, do you think because a ship is in port, it doesn't need a crew?
It doesn't work like that.

 

[nonobaddog]

You're not wrong. Choices have consequences.

Using his logic, are we supposed to evacuate every warship down to a minimum, non-combat-effective crew? I hate it for the sailors who are affected, but we cannot allow our most potent weapons to become unavailable.

I feel sorry for the crew too but maybe with this stuff going on they should not have been humping hookers in guam.

 

[actaeon277]

A shutdown Reactor STILL requires a crew.
24/365.

So, even if you change the entire rest of the crew, you won't have a crew for the Reactor.
And the Reactor on that ship STILL requires a crew.

 

[nonobaddog]

A shutdown Reactor STILL requires a crew.
24/365.

So, even if you change the entire rest of the crew, you won't have a crew for the Reactor.
And the Reactor on that ship STILL requires a crew.

So the Navy has the absolute bare minimum of qualified people for that job? Like only one qualified person for each ship for each job? That would be pretty poor planning, or actually downright s****y planning.