Panama passes third set of larger locks

[Sea Toby]

In an election, Panama recently approved building a third set of larger locks, some 180 feet by 1400 feet. They plan on finishing the new locks by 2014, the hundred anniversary of the Canal. Tolls will be increased over a period of time to pay for the construction.

I wonder whether the new locks will enable the US fleet to reduce its number of expensive aircraft carriers. The Nimitz class carriers can use the new locks. I'm thinking in terms of a reduction from 12 to 9 carriers. With the new shortcut, carriers can quickly be moved from the Pacific to the Atlantic without steaming around the world.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Shh, somebody might be reading, 12 well 10 really Aircraft Carriers, 1 the JFK 2 in Refuel are a minimum, in my mind. espescially with the much smaller air wings, and increased prevalence of Blue water navies, IMO the world navies are going through thier little brown water phase but in 15 or so years there will be at lest 10-12 blue water navies I reckon the US needs every Carrier possible, bringin down the expense is reducing the manning on the juggernaughts, or perhaps do you support a new design in addition to the CVN X, perhaps a new Sea Control Ship?

 

[contedicavour]

Shh, somebody might be reading, 12 well 10 really Aircraft Carriers, 1 the JFK 2 in Refuel are a minimum, in my mind. espescially with the much smaller air wings, and increased prevalence of Blue water navies, IMO the world navies are going through thier little brown water phase but in 15 or so years there will be at lest 10-12 blue water navies I reckon the US needs every Carrier possible, bringin down the expense is reducing the manning on the juggernaughts, or perhaps do you support a new design in addition to the CVN X, perhaps a new Sea Control Ship?

Ah the good old Sea Control Ship idea... I doubt the USN will ever convert to it though ! Technically you can use Tarawas and Wasps as sea control ships with AV8B+ (tomorrow F35B) but I guess the USMC has better ideas on how to use those huge LHAs.

cheers

 

[Ths]

I think Sea Toby is on to something: The original lock were designed to allow passage of the biggest BB - not on the drawing board, but a mere glimt in the Naval Secretary eye.

The biggest ship in the US navy of the future - there is probably where you have your dimentions.

 

[RubiconNZ]

Yeah, I believe the Wasps and probably the LHA(R)'s have a limit their size with the canal in mind, the folding elevators are part of that I believe...

 

[aaaditya]

hey guys ,can anyone tell ,approximately how many aircrafts does a us super carrier carry and can they be based on land when the carrer is in dock?

also how many days can a carrier go without any form of logistical support?

 

[RubiconNZ]

hey guys ,can anyone tell ,approximately how many aircrafts does a us super carrier carry and can they be based on land when the carrer is in dock?

The Nimitz can carry up to 90, but at the moment carries about 65ish, Carrier Airwings when not on deployment are based at various Naval Air Stations, Naval Air station Oceana being the big one on the East Coast, NAS North Island a large one on the west coast just wiki the rest for more info on the others.

 

[aaaditya]

The Nimitz can carry up to 90, but at the moment carries about 65ish, Carrier Airwings when not on deployment are based at various Naval Air Stations, Naval Air station Oceana being the big one on the East Coast, NAS North Island a large one on the west coast just wiki the rest for more info on the others.

thanks a lot for the info,does panama have the facilities to provide berthing space for a super carrier and parking space for it's large force of aircrafts?

 

[Sea Toby]

At one time there was a 20 mile slice about the canal that was an American territory, the Panama Canal Zone. And yes, millitary bases were built, but the entire Canal Zone was given back to Panama.

So, currently the answer for United States bases is no. They belong to Panama now.

Frankly, since the Panama Canal is open to all, there is no need to have bases. Just like Suez, aircraft carriers with their entire complement of aircraft will be able to transit the canal when the new locks are completed, target date is 2014.

The Germans during WWII never bothered to attack the canal. Doing so would have brought the entire wraft of Latin America upon Germany. Latin Americans are more dependent upon the canal than even the United States, especially the nations with Pacific Ocean shorelines. While a third of America's trade transits the canal, a very high percentage of Latin America's Pacific coast trade does, say 80 to 90 percent.

 

[G-Capo]

Panama is a country created for the Canal.They use to be apart of Colombia but we refused to have the canal built and then the US kind of screwed us pretty bad.It's like if Florida broke off from the US or some thing around those lines..Just my 2 cents

 

[Sea Toby]

Yes, Teddy Roosevelt took the canal zone, and created Panama with the local businessmen and politicians in Panama. The canal was that important to the WORLD, not just the United States, to let greedy Columbian politicians stand in the way.

At that time building the Panama Canal consumed up to a quarter of the United States government expenditures for over a decade. It was the largest and first boondoggle in history, in fact, the Panama Canal created the word boondoggle. Eacvh year Teddy Roosevelt had to threaten to veto the budget passed by Congress until the money to build the canal was reinserted into the budget.

The United States returned the canal zone and canal to the government and people of Panama after paying off its bonds. It is an engineering marvel, although dated today. Fortunately, the government and people of Panama have passed the new larger locks and will build them within the next ten years.

 

[G-Capo]

Colombia doesn't have a "U" in it
Also we weren't greedy the death toll to make the canal numbered in the thousands dead.Violating another nations sovreignty is ok to you then as long as it's good to the world nfloorl:

 

[Ths]

G-Capo. We might not like it; but it is a fact of life that small nations gets treated badly when big nations think it in their interest.
Hitler occupied Denmark because the Navy pointed out to him, that unless Norway was taken his precious navy would be spending the whole war in port.
Denmark just happened to be in the way.
Belgium was created by the British to keep trhose pesky europeans from ganging up on them.

There is little doubt the USA saw - and sees - the ability to shift their naval forces between the Atlantic and the Pacific as absolutely essential to their security.
In such a situation a small nation is well advised (if it is not capable of entering into a forcefull alliance) to make the best of it - instead of making a pathetic stand. Don't defend what cannot be defended.
Do you think Thule Air Base is for free?

 

[contedicavour]

Colombia doesn't have a "U" in it
Also we weren't greedy the death toll to make the canal numbered in the thousands dead.Violating another nations sovreignty is ok to you then as long as it's good to the world nfloorl:

Let's just say that the events leading to the building of the Panama canal took place a lot of time ago and that back then all major powers in the world didn't hesitate to send battleships and armed detachments to occupy whatever was useful, from the Chinese coastal cities to 90% of Africa to Mexico (I'm referring to the 1860s when the French imposed an Habsburg king to Mexico).
Luckily enough today's world limits that type of aggressive foreign affairs policy (I said "limit" not blocks )

cheers

 

[contedicavour]

G-Capo. We might not like it; but it is a fact of life that small nations gets treated badly when big nations think it in their interest.
Hitler occupied Denmark because the Navy pointed out to him, that unless Norway was taken his precious navy would be spending the whole war in port.
Denmark just happened to be in the way.
Belgium was created by the British to keep trhose pesky europeans from ganging up on them.

There is little doubt the USA saw - and sees - the ability to shift their naval forces between the Atlantic and the Pacific as absolutely essential to their security.
In such a situation a small nation is well advised (if it is not capable of entering into a forcefull alliance) to make the best of it - instead of making a pathetic stand. Don't defend what cannot be defended.
Do you think Thule Air Base is for free?

Agree. Small countries caught between larger ones have always had to to be extraordinary diplomats to survive, often playing off one neighbour against another, at least until the day broader alliances have allowed for better safety (as the EEC after WW2 secured the independence of Belgium).

Sometimes good things come out of this bigger countries' meddling in the affairs of smaller countries. Panama today is a democracy and soon to be a member of the UN security council. Its economy is flourishing thanks to the Canal they inherited from the US.

cheers

PS btw Belgium was created as a Spanish-Habsburg territory in the 16th century, and back then it was already a sort of bulkhead against French expansionism. During the wars of religion, Catholic Belgium was a bulkhead against Protestant Holland. Everybody knows what happened during WW1 & 2...

 

[Sea Toby]

As for the large death toll, more than half to yellow fever, I hope you will agree that an American doctor found the solution, and the canal's American chief engineers backed his policy of ridding the isthmus of the mosquitos that carried the disease. Not only was the canal an American engineering marvel, ridding the isthmus of yellow fever was a great American medical leap.

Also, keep in mind that before the canal very few bananas were exported to America. After the canal, bananas were exported to America in ever increasing numbers, a large export of many Latin American nations. Bananas are just one example why the canal has made significant economic improvements to Latin American nations.

As I noted, only a third of America's shipping goes through the canal, whereas up to 80-90 percent of Latin America's Pacific coast nations shipping goes through the canal.

In hindsight, the Columbian government failed to realize the seriousness of America's negotiations and its ability to build the canal. Unfortunately, this led America and President Teddy Roosevelt to use other means. In my mind, the Columbian politicans blew it big time.

 

[Ths]

Conte di Cavour:
And the building of the Panama Canal resultet by a most torteous route to the return of Northern Slesvig to Denmark.
But who could have predicted that at the time???